Umbran said:
Oh, really? Well, if "definition" is a meaningless concept, then so is language, as our understanding of language is based upon definitions. If language is a meaningless thing, then why on Earth are you discussing this with me? 
Somewhere along the line, it became plain to humankind that definitions are very useful things. Witout them, we cannot converse. The fault in your logic seems to me to be the idea that a definition must cover every case that any person might begin to think should be covered by the definition. This is not the case.
Words are not definitions. They are ideas. IMO, locking ideas into definitions limits what ideas you can accept. THAT's why I'm discussing this with you.
Definitions are useful to a point. They do help establish a standard from which to start communicating. But how often do you argue with someone about something only to ultimately discover that you were defining ONE term differently, but that you agreed about everything else? Happens to me all the time.
A close to home (for these boards) example would be paladins. A lot of people on these boards have widely divergent views of what a paladin IS. You can toss out Webster's definition, or Oxford's, or your Uncle Bob's, and none of them are going to fit my idea of a paladin. Because my idea of a paladin goes far beyond the dictionary definition.
How about the word "forest"? Is all that matters about the word "forest" contained within its definition? No. Is its definition really significant in trying to explain a forest to someone who's never been in one? Not at all. It's like trying to describe "red" to a blind person. Can't be done. When you use the word "forest" you have a different view in your mind's eye than I do. No matter how eloquent your description, words do not have the capacity to put that same picture in my mind. We have different referential experiences.
Now, this is all very touchy-feely stuff. "Forests" and "Paladins." You would think that this would work better in concrete, scientific examples. But no. Every time we come up with a fact or law about the nature of biology or physics, someone comes along and breaks that law or challenges that fact. They usually give the bastard a Nobel Prize, too.
Because he questioned definitions.
Definitions are fine for simplistic things. You're not going to hear me arguing with someone over the definition of a table. Expanding one's idea of a table does not bring much benefit that I can see. Definitions break down as soon as the idea of something becomes too large to be contained in a simple formula.
"Life" is, IMO, one of those things. A simple definition is too limiting. It makes you stop questioning the assumptions.
Perhaps not explicitly, but I believe you'll find it is implicitly there. In order to be self-sustaining, a living thing does have to maintain homeostasis. The laws of thermodynamics are quite clear on this point - if you don't put energy into it (making it "active"), you won't maintain homeostasis.
Alright. It's on my to-do list for Fall Break-
1) Find passive homeostasis in the literature
2) Post for Umbran
3) Adopt smug smile briefly until it makes me feel like a jerk
IIRC, the host cell does continue metabolizing on your behalf. The virus doesn't stop all normal cellular actions and replace them with it's own. It simply adds it's own to the cell's "to do list".
OK, so it adds, as one of its things to do, "Make copies of critter that are going to kill me, so that they can kill the others like me to make more of themselves." Ultimately, the cell is directed to my detriment, and the reproduction of the virus. It's using the cell exactly the same way my DNA does. One definition of life makes DNA/RNA the functional unit. That's actually a very supportable position, possibly more so than the standard one, especially when you start dealing with colonial organisms. If that definition has any validity, the viral DNA (or RNA) has all the capabilities mine does. Can live in more environments, and is much more reproductively successful. I'm willing to bet that if viruses made definitions, they'd be all over that one.
Look, as is clear from above, the specifics aren't really the issue here for me. I just don't like the idea of limiting a concept with a "definition" when I'd rather play around with the boundaries and see where they can be moved around. And where they can't.
