jdhunter at nitace.bsd.uchicago.edu
Fri Dec 8 10:20:27 EST 2000
>>>>> "Vytautas" == Vytautas <Slotkusl at yahoo.com> writes:
Vytautas> What is "life capable"? What we with our current
Vytautas> technology level can make alive (in this case add "some"
A thing that does not meet the definition of alive, but with proper
external input from its environment, would meet that definition.
Vytautas> In the future with better techniques we may be
Vytautas> able to make a corpse "30 years in the grave"
And I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Vytautas> So your deffinition of "life capable" is only a
Vytautas> deffinition of what we can do now (or what we know that
Vytautas> can happen in nature the natural way).
Right, it can change with the environment. What is life capable now
might not have been life capable 100 years ago (an MI on the operating
table before the advent of electricity). You rightly clarify that it
is property of the thing and its environment. I think this is where
the need for the 3rd category arises: dead or alive are both
environment independent notions.
Vytautas> So the "deffinition" of "life capable" crushes on its
Vytautas> own weight.
Perhaps it will soon, I don't think it has yet.
More information about the Neur-sci