(OT)Transformers

[Whodat]

But that isn’t the point I was trying to make. I’m not debating the sentience (or spirit) of Data or the Transformers. For all intents and purposes they were self-aware.

I’m making the point that they couldn’t be classified as life-forms because their bodies are not composed of cells; they are not born, grow old and die; and they do not reproduce. I believe these are the requirements for any organism to be classified as “life”.

As far as I’m concerned, Data didn’t reproduce. He simply created another synthetic humanoid like himself. In my book, that is more “production” than “reproduction”.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I don't intend this in a nasty way, but that's a simplistic definition of life. It leaves a lot to be covered. But this isn't a graduate level seminar, so I'll shut my mouth.

 

[Tonguez]

Actually the standard definition of life means that Fire is alive

It Consumes fuel, requires oxygen, can grow, can reproduce and eventually dies.

WHo says the sparks are alive by this standard?

anyway something to think about

 

[King_Stannis]

I don't really have any comments to add here, but I just wanted to say that I was the first 13 year old in my crew to figure out that Starscream had the exact same voice as Cobra Commander.

Thank you, thank you...you are too kind ...*takes a bow*

think of this as a bump I guess.

my one friend loves starscream - i always thought his continued sparring with megs was one of the great things about the show. starscream had probably THE best death scene of any transformer when galvatron incinerated him in the movie.

and yes, that cobra commander voice - how could we forget!

for the record i loved the quintessons. some think the show went downhill pretty far by the time they were front and center, but i disagree. while galvatron was never the leader megs was, and certainly rodimus couldn't hold a flame to optimus, the history of the transformers really got fleshed out. i was bummed they never really made a quintesson toy.....did they?

i

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

my one friend loves starscream - i always thought his continued sparring with megs was one of the great things about the show. starscream had probably THE best death scene of any transformer when galvatron incinerated him in the movie.

Blasphemy!

While the actual death was a bit cheesy, the fight with Megatron puts Prime's death in the movie above and beyond that of Starscream.

Not to mention Dinobot in "Code of Hero" again.

Well, I guess I just did. But it was worth it.

 

[WizarDru]

Actually the standard definition of life means that Fire is alive

It Consumes fuel, requires oxygen, can grow, can reproduce and eventually dies.

Actually, it doesn't. You're mixing and matching similar reactions. It does reproduce, but it doesn't grow. You get more flames...but the actual flame doesn't grow. It doesn't consume fuel to grow, it merely produces more of itself to consume the fuel...the actual original flame doesn't change, and it never increases in complexity, even over millenia. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Actually, it doesn't. You're mixing and matching similar reactions. It does reproduce, but it doesn't grow. You get more flames...but the actual flame doesn't grow. It doesn't consume fuel to grow, it merely produces more of itself to consume the fuel...the actual original flame doesn't change, and it never increases in complexity, even over millenia. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

Amphioxus has not increased appreciably in complexity in millenia. Neither has the coelocanth. Or aligators. Or especially bacteria.

And, if you define a single continuous flame as one functional unit, it does indeed both grow and reproduce.

The fact is, by the definition of "life" given in high school biology texts and even most introductory texts in college, fire IS alive. It's usually used as the classic example of the inadequacy of standard definitions.

There are graduate seminars and active research going on all the time trying to define words like "life" and "species."

I suspect we'll have a definitive answer right about the time the universe implodes.

 

[Umbran]

The fact is, by the definition of "life" given in high school biology texts and even most introductory texts in college, fire IS alive. It's usually used as the classic example of the inadequacy of standard definitions.

Actually, Tonguez's definition ("It Consumes fuel, requires oxygen, can grow, can reproduce and eventually dies") does not constitute an accurate representation of the "standard definition" of life.

For one thing, the usual definition does not include "eventually dies". While it does seem that all multicellular life on Earth does eventually die, things get a little sticky for singe-celled organisms. You may claim that an amoeba "dies" when it reproduces. I challenge you to show me the corpse, and prove that it is dead

For another, the "consumes fuel, requires oxygen" is inaccurate. This is usually phrased as "has a metabolism". While this includes burning fuel, it is not limited to that. Nor do the standard definitions really rquire oxygen. There's usually an assumption that life requires the chemical process of oxidation, but other elements may be used. Technically, you can even postulate a metabolism based upon nuclear energy, rather than chemical.

Most importantly, you leave something major out . A living thing responds to the environment to maintain homeostasis and it's own existance. Fire most assuredly does not do this, and so is not alive.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Actually, Tonguez's definition ("It Consumes fuel, requires oxygen, can grow, can reproduce and eventually dies") does not constitute an accurate representation of the "standard definition" of life.

For one thing, the usual definition does not include "eventually dies". While it does seem that all multicellular life on Earth does eventually die, things get a little sticky for singe-celled organisms. You may claim that an amoeba "dies" when it reproduces. I challenge you to show me the corpse, and prove that it is dead

For another, the "consumes fuel, requires oxygen" is inaccurate. This is usually phrased as "has a metabolism". While this includes burning fuel, it is not limited to that. Nor do the standard definitions really rquire oxygen. There's usually an assumption that life requires the chemical process of oxidation, but other elements may be used. Technically, you can even postulate a metabolism based upon nuclear energy, rather than chemical.

Most importantly, you leave something major out . A living thing responds to the environment to maintain homeostasis and it's own existance. Fire most assuredly does not do this, and so is not alive.

Well, for one thing, I wasn't defending Tonquez' definition specifically. I was pointing out that WizarDru was attacking Tonquez' position based on two debatable points. Fire DOES grow and reproduce, using the dictionary definitions of those terms, and defining your units. And increasing complexity is NOT a required benchmark of life. Furthermore, I am well aware that not everything has a definitive death and of the nature of single-celled organisms. And, until very recently, oxygen was a metabolic poison to all life on earth. It started off as a waste chemical.

Furthermore, not all living things actively maintain homeostasis. Some are entirely passive about it. Some don't need to because of the nature of their environment. This includes some of the critters that use a non-oxygen metabolism.

And that's without bringing in sticky questions like viruses. And don't give me the "viruses aren't alive because they don't reproduce themselves" argument. They reproduce themselves just fine given the proper environment. But then, the same could be said for us, couldn't it?

But wait... "viruses aren't alive because they don't have a metabolism."

Neither do many spores, yet they are alive. And a great many bacteria can go to a completely quiescent state for obscenely long periods of time (again, including some of your non-oxygen metabolisms)

"But that's only for a brief part of their life cycle. Viruses NEVER have a metabolism."

Untrue. There's a case to be made that a virus has a VERY active metabolism when inside a host cell. They've simply got a life cycle that keeps them quiescent for more of the time. Very efficient solution, actually. Too bad we didn't think of it.

You give me the standard 7-point defintion of life (or is it 8-point nowadays?) that they provide to high school kids and most college freshmen, and I'll be happy to knock it down all day.

 

[King_Stannis]

Blasphemy!

While the actual death was a bit cheesy, the fight with Megatron puts Prime's death in the movie above and beyond that of Starscream....

i guess it was the bit of cheesiness that put prime's "death" behind starscream's. that, and the fact that AT THE END OF THE MOVIE THEY ANNOUNCED OPTIMUS WOULD RETURN!!!! it kind of takes the steam out of someone's death when, well, they're not really dead.

starscream, however, has remained dead (other than the abortion that is "armada", which bears no connection to G1). sorry, but for my money, starscream's incineration and galvatron stepping on the crown was easily the best scene (for me) of the whole movie. by the way, did anyone else catch - in the movie - where starscream shoots his own foot off and then is fine in the next scenes?

haven't seen the dinobot death you're talking about, but it sounds good too. i'll have to try and catch it.