TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

I discovered that immortals are not alive by biological standards

Go To

myrdschaem Since: Dec, 2010
#26: Jan 31st 2011 at 8:38:44 AM

[up]Yeah, that was probably misinformation on my side.

Mh, that kind of immortal is probably alive. But did you check that definition with your teacher?

BobbyInTheLibrary Defending the Library from the library, like I said Since: Dec, 2010
Defending the Library
#27: Jan 31st 2011 at 8:43:03 AM

I don't know if you saw my reply, since it was at the foot of the previous page.

It just seems weird to me to say that viruses aren't alive. I mean, they're germs, right?

I mean, I get that they might not be considered alive, I just mean that it seems intuitive to me that they would be.

Scary Librarian | Hot Librarian | Spooky Silent Library | The Library Of Babel
Elfive (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#28: Jan 31st 2011 at 8:44:58 AM

They certainly evolve and reproduce.

melloncollie Since: Feb, 2012
#29: Jan 31st 2011 at 8:46:50 AM

I consider viruses like little malevolent robots that aren't under anybody's control. I suppose you'd have to consider robots to be alive when they stop acting under human control?

I guess if you consider both to be alive, then that's consistent. It'd just be inconsistent to consider one to be alive and not the other, to me.

IIRC, isn't the mechanism by which virus reproduce pretty unique? Other parasites don't hijack their host DNA... right? Or maybe I'm just making stuff up.

edited 31st Jan '11 8:47:52 AM by melloncollie

Diamonnes In Riastrad from Ulster Since: Nov, 2009
In Riastrad
#30: Jan 31st 2011 at 8:47:08 AM

I mean nothing of the sort, Bobby. I am speaking of a being very much like a human. In fact, exactly like a human, except that it doesn't age or decay. The destiny of the species, in other words.

My name is Cu Chulainn. Beside the raging sea I am left to moan. Sorrow I am, for I brought down my only son.
BobbyInTheLibrary Defending the Library from the library, like I said Since: Dec, 2010
Defending the Library
#31: Jan 31st 2011 at 8:50:22 AM

I'd consider robots that could evolve and reproduce to be functionally alive, yes.

And I think that's right, mellon.

Diamonnes, such a human being would still be composed of cells and still capable of reproducing (and therefore evolving).

Scary Librarian | Hot Librarian | Spooky Silent Library | The Library Of Babel
Elfive (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
myrdschaem Since: Dec, 2010
#33: Jan 31st 2011 at 8:58:18 AM

[up][up]*Is reminded of some Utopian novel*

BobbyInTheLibrary Defending the Library from the library, like I said Since: Dec, 2010
Defending the Library
#34: Jan 31st 2011 at 8:59:13 AM

Wikipedia clearly don't class viruses as alive, although they do say "most often considered". Hm.

Scary Librarian | Hot Librarian | Spooky Silent Library | The Library Of Babel
Elfive (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#35: Jan 31st 2011 at 9:01:11 AM

I think the general consensus on viruses is that they are as close to living as you can get without actually being alive.

Tzetze DUMB from a converted church in Venice, Italy Since: Jan, 2001
BobbyInTheLibrary Defending the Library from the library, like I said Since: Dec, 2010
Defending the Library
#37: Jan 31st 2011 at 9:03:30 AM

Well, I for one am just irked that the technical definition of "life" seems to be narrower than the one I've been using, though I suppose I have only myself to blame for that.

This post seems to get stupider and stupider the more times I read it.

edited 31st Jan '11 9:06:35 AM by BobbyInTheLibrary

Scary Librarian | Hot Librarian | Spooky Silent Library | The Library Of Babel
Tzetze DUMB from a converted church in Venice, Italy Since: Jan, 2001
DUMB
#38: Jan 31st 2011 at 9:16:58 AM

Biologists use a narrow definition of life so that they don't have to examine crystals all day.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.
myrdschaem Since: Dec, 2010
#39: Jan 31st 2011 at 9:18:36 AM

[up]Personally it sounds more like the difference between scientific usage and using it metaphorical. When I say: "The wash machine is alive, it ate my socks." it's still dead but you know what I mean, right?

Wulf Gotta trope, dood! from Louisiana Since: Jan, 2001
Gotta trope, dood!
#40: Jan 31st 2011 at 9:35:18 AM

First off, there's a difference between "alive" and "sapient." An immortal being could easily be capable of reasoning, feeling pain, etc without necessarily being considered "alive". It doesn't seem all that odd to me not to file something incapable of dying as "not alive." If you think of "alive" and "not" as two separate rooms, zombies, virii, and immortals are standing halfway between the two in the doorway.

They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?
BobbyG vigilantly taxonomish from England Since: Jan, 2001
vigilantly taxonomish
#41: Jan 31st 2011 at 10:52:36 AM

To my mind, there's a pretty substantial difference between a washing machine and a virus in terms of lifelike characteristics, but OK.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
Tzetze DUMB from a converted church in Venice, Italy Since: Jan, 2001
DUMB
#42: Jan 31st 2011 at 10:57:03 AM

Viruses act to get cells to produce more viruses, rather than reproducing themselves. The problem with admitting this abstract sense of self-reproduction is that you could admit anything even remotely self-perpetuating, like those signature lines that say «90% of teenagers have used drugs. Copy this into your sig if you're in the 10% that haven't». The problem with not admitting it is that plenty of forms of life, while capable of producing larval forms of them selves in-this-sense-independently, can't survive in larval form without other life-forms to leech resources from.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.
myrdschaem Since: Dec, 2010
#43: Jan 31st 2011 at 11:01:21 AM

But if they were given food and warth they would still grow. They just have a rather squicky way to ensuring they have a permanent food source. Also, I don't think internet meme fit into most of the other categories. itting one or two categories does not make life yet.

Tzetze DUMB from a converted church in Venice, Italy Since: Jan, 2001
DUMB
#44: Jan 31st 2011 at 11:02:33 AM

No, some species just die if they can't parasitize.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.
mmysqueeant I'm A Dirty Cowboy from Essairrrrcks Since: Oct, 2010
I'm A Dirty Cowboy
#45: Jan 31st 2011 at 11:03:31 AM

First off, there's a difference between "alive" and "sapient." An immortal being could easily be capable of reasoning, feeling pain, etc without necessarily being considered "alive". It doesn't seem all that odd to me not to file something incapable of dying as "not alive." If you think of "alive" and "not" as two separate rooms, zombies, virii, and immortals are standing halfway between the two in the doorway.

Not only have you completely won this thread with this post, you have bridged the gap between the Infected and the 'true' undead, thus solving several burgeoning flame wars on the internet forever. Huzzah!

This thread now makes sense to me. I thank you.

FrodoGoofballCoTV from Colorado, USA Since: Jan, 2001
#46: Jan 31st 2011 at 11:09:15 AM

Also, no, U.S. schools teaches that viruses are not alive.
In fact, they haven't taught virtues in years.

First off, there's a difference between "alive" and "sapient." An immortal being could easily be capable of reasoning, feeling pain, etc without necessarily being considered "alive". It doesn't seem all that odd to me not to file something incapable of dying as "not alive." If you think of "alive" and "not" as two separate rooms, zombies, virii, and immortals are standing halfway between the two in the doorway.
Xykon would agree with you!

an immortal being would cease to be alive
I suppose you would have to define both alive and immortal. Your teacher seems to have a rather narrower definition than I do.
  • Is it possible for a being without cells to be alive? Are prions single cells, or something else? Are they alive? What about God, assuming God exists?
  • If a being can do anything another living thing can do (eat, grow, etc.), but not reproduce or evolve, is it by definition not alive? What about a hybrid that is sterile?
  • Many creatures of legend do reproduce. For example, in Greek Mythology, even gods reproduce. In Tolkein's backstory for The Lord Of The Rings, elves reproduce, even though they also live (in at least some cases) for many thousands of years.
  • In Drowtales magic actually causes evolution to occur at an accelerated rate. In the lifetime of the oldest elves they have seen the evolution of new subspecies of elf.
  • But what is immortality? I suppose you could call the Emortals from The Third Millenium Immortal. But their life expectancy is estimated as "only" around 500 or so. Tolkein's elves can only be killed by being slain in battle, supernatural illness, or "having tired of life after 10,000 centuries."

zoulza WHARRGARBL Since: Dec, 2010
WHARRGARBL
#47: Jan 31st 2011 at 1:06:37 PM

My, most favourite definition of life ever, given to me by my freshman biology professor, loosely quoted from Schrodinger:

Life is any system that resists an increase in entropy.

But yes, I think your teacher is mistaken in claiming things that don't evolve are not alive, seeing as individuals do not evolve. Evolution is a change in a popolation's frequency of alleles; it's not something an individual organism does.

mmysqueeant I'm A Dirty Cowboy from Essairrrrcks Since: Oct, 2010
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Ettina Since: Apr, 2009
#50: Feb 1st 2011 at 8:38:00 AM

"But yes, I think your teacher is mistaken in claiming things that don't evolve are not alive, seeing as individuals do not evolve."

There's a difference between definitions applying to individuals or to species.

For example, the definition of two separate species is that members of the one species can't produce fertile offspring with the other species. Either they can't reproduce at all, or create an infertile creature like a mule.

Does that mean infertile people aren't human? No, of course not. Because that definition doesn't apply to individuals, it applies to species. We use a different process to decide which species a given individual belongs to - what species your parents are, whether you have most of the major features typical of that species, etc.

If I'm asking for advice on a story idea, don't tell me it can't be done.

Total posts: 57
Top