Here’s How I Define an Organism
It’s nothing like what you imagined, so I’d appreciate your feedback
Defining an organism can be tough.
In my previous article, I discussed the difficulties encountered when taking something simple and taking it seriously.
Face-value analysis is simple. Getting into the details makes what’s simple look…simplistic.
The conclusion was that something as simple as defining what an organism is can be tough.
I further talked about the various shortcomings of the present definitions. Not at length, because nobody has time for that here. But I wanted you to figure out some of the challenges of defining an organism by yourself.
This is an extension of what I started. Here, I’ll take you through how I define an organism.
You can’t stand ’em then you drop ’em — if you can’t stand an idea, you can just drop it.
Newton developed a new idea by dropping Kepler’s.
Einstein developed a new idea by dropping Newton’s.
Darwin developed a new idea by dropping Lamarck’s.
It seems you can drop an idea without hurting the previous endorsers. Kepler, Newton, and Lamarck are still important historical figures. The same case applies to Einstein and Darwin.
I do not claim to be as great as them. My point is that ideas can be replaced.
I’d want you to consider the possibility of replacing your idea of an organism with mine.
First, an organism has to exist
Has to. Without question.
Existence is necessary before you can even define any organism. There must then be ways of detecting if an organism exists.
To my knowledge, there is no single definition of an organism that considers this idea. It is assumed that existence is a given.
My definition relies on the ability of an organism to be considered existent.
I use an existence spectrum for better understanding.
The spectrum stretches between 0 and 1. At 0, the extreme left, lies non-existence. At the extreme right, at 1, also lies non-existence. The difference is, at 0, you have never ever existed. At 1, you cease to exist after traversing the journey between 0 and 1.
In simple terms, 1 spells death.
Now, I want us to consider death in this way.
If death lies at 1, anything that is not death lies before 1.
But if death exists, it lies after 0, because 0 applies to the absence of existence.
What this means is the existence spectrum can be seen as a death spectrum.
Here’s an example.
Let’s say you are halfway in the death spectrum.
It would mean you are half dead. Automatically, it also means you are half-existent. Or, without getting into the philosophical side of it, you are half alive.
Halfway dead means you are halfway alive.
Basically, the existence spectrum can also be considered to be the death spectrum.
I bet you never thought about an organism in the form of an existent entity within a death spectrum.
Understanding an organism through death gave me a perspective of death I did not quite consider.
Death can define how alive or existent an organism is. And as long as there was a death spectrum, all known organisms could fit in this spectrum. All organisms fit between 0 and 1.
ALL.
OF.
THEM.
What lies between 0 and 1 is an infinite number of fractions.
In this spectrum, I was able to fit ALL organisms. I could then identify an organism in this spectrum using fractions.
Simply stated, to define an organism, I would need a fraction.
The best way to do this is through probability.
The probability of being alive is the opposite probability of being dead
I have to remind the keen readers that I substitute alive with existence.
I can never know what is alive and what is not. But I can use whichever definition you prefer, and my argument will still hold.
So, an organism, in whichever form it is described in Biology, exists in the 0–1 death spectrum.
If you exist in midway in the death spectrum, your probability of dying is ½. It means your probability of not dying is ½.
Here’s the crucial step
If there is one feature we have to consider about organisms, it is they do not want to die. They want to avoid death.
Your probability of not dying becomes an active role in avoiding death.
Let’s take the same example.
Your probability of dying is ½. It would automatically mean that your probability of not dying is 1–½. It is ½.
If your probability of not dying is ½, you are only an organism if you actively find a way to delay getting to the 1 end of the death or existence spectrum.
It is your actions that delay your progression towards 1 — towards death.
Your probability of not dying then automatically becomes your tendency to avoid death.
We now have the two components needed to define an organism.
These are:
1. Existence
2. The tendency to avoid death
Therefore, my definition of an organism, as I define it in my theory, Organismal Selection, is:
An entity that exists and tends to avoid death.
Here’s how it contrasts with previous definitions
I shall only use the two examples I cited from my previous article.
1. Simplicity
My definition is simpler than the previous definitions. I use a criteria with two components. The one offered by Biology Online uses five.
Wikipedia’s definition uses three.
I use two
The need for existence is a critical criterion.
The definitions offered by Wikipedia and Biology Online dismiss this essential need. If it does not exist, how can it be defined?
I have yet to encounter a definition that stresses this quality.
2. My definition uses probability
This one here is a given.
No other definition of an organism uses probability.
I do what I do and you do what you can do about it — So, what do you have to say about my definition?
I created a new definition of an organism.
According to Biology Online, an organism has to react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, adapt, and maintain homeostasis. These are all mechanisms of avoiding death. If an organism has to do all these, then it has a tendency to avoid death.
My definition states that an organism is an entity that tends to avoid death. In it, it has captured the definition of Biology Online.
The tendency to avoid death is the active role of an organism.
For a deeper understanding, you’d need to understand the map of an organism and its universe. Fret not, because I’ll take you through that.
But for now, what do you have to say about it?
Subscribe to the lightest newsletter on the Internet for a one-four-all & all-four-one weekly feed, because all you need is one alternative view, only one, to edge you closer to extreme value creation, but I give you four.
