Cryptobiosis research?

Don Cates cates at cc.umanitoba.ca
Fri Dec 8 13:26:29 EST 2000

On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 16:32:59 GMT, George Hammond <ghammond at mediaone.net>

>Naw... I think you're clearly wrong about
>a 3rd category.  The proof is simply this.
>Obviously the definition of "dead" we can
>easily take to be "non life capable".

This is assuming your conclusion. *If* "life capable" is a third
catagory then 'dead' is 'not life capable' AND 'not alive'.

>then implies that it's opposite, "life capable",
>means "alive".

The word "opposite" implies only two choices. The proposed alternatives
to 'dead' are 'alive' OR 'life capable'.

The rest of your analysis falls apart because of this.

  Occams razor would tell us that
>"life capable" then is merely a special case
>of "alive".  Therefore, animals in the
>Cryptobiotic state are in fact "alive".  Your
>terminology "life capable" is seen to be
>merely a subcatagory of "alive", same as
>"unconscious" or "comatose" etc. etc.
>Thus, there are really only two states;
>either "dead or alive".

Don Cates
cates at cc.umanitoba.ca

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net