diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'txt/aliveness.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | txt/aliveness.txt | 177 |
1 files changed, 177 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/txt/aliveness.txt b/txt/aliveness.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..66d6f4e --- /dev/null +++ b/txt/aliveness.txt @@ -0,0 +1,177 @@ + It all looks so alive. While the large-scale orchestrations + and biological systems within and around us are near-perfect, + working like clockwork in a manner that has been unchanged + for millions of years, the tiny little bits themselves aren't + as perfect, which is not only beautiful in a sense, but is also + a testimony to why the systems are "perfect". In other words, + they work. They work and that's what matters. Such things as + the ones I'm about to describe are insignificant on their own, + yet those are traits of the most important units that make you. + + Here I focus on structure in looks and ordering, not structure + in it function. The latter is beautifully perfect already, or, + well, near-perfect. Again, if it didn't work so well, it + wouldn't have lasted, and that's an important point, and why + I want to connect "aliveness" with "imperfection." + + Now you're probably confused by the jumble of all the "perfects" + and "imperfects" in the above text, but I will clarify what + I was thinking about a while ago. The systems inside us— + think of small ones like cellular functions, and big ones like + entire organ systems. (I will later touch into a bigger one: + organisms themselves and ecosystems.*) I want you to think of + a microscope image of cells together. You're thinking of it? + Good. It doesn't matter what type of cells they are yet. + I want you to focus on the structure. Due to the nature of how + things grow, those aren't geometrically perfect. They're lumpy + and variant in size, even if subtly. They're in fluid and + contain fluid, so their insides move too. When cells split, + I doubt that they split wholly "perfectly". + + (I digress, but maybe they do, since due to how forces work, + the mother cell, when squeezing to split, has a tension form in + the middle, and as it splits, the two resulting parts should be + similar in size or volume to maintain enough tension to + successfully split into two, I believe.) + + That aside, my point still stands: the forming cells aren't + perfectly circular, or perfectly any shape, for that matter. + + To me, their floating, jiggling, and nature are among what makes + them look so alive, which they are, of course, but what is + "aliveness" to us? How do we look at a cow and identify that + it is a living creature? Isn't it its little movements, like + its ears', the warmth of its blood, its heartbeat, its little + sounds here and there? That's a living being. Now back to the + microscopic. Cells that share a function—say, skin cells— + are going to work identically. Every cell destined to do + something is ideally capable and does it, like being able to + recieve neurotransmitters, or have the miniscule bits of + chemicals have an effect on it, such that reactions within it + can alter its behaviour. In a cell, there are exchanges going + on across membranes. There is DNA being copied and packages + being transported. If it weren't for the existence of disorders + that the body cannot deal with, or errors of varying degrees + occuring at a cellular level, then this system is perfectly + and flawlessy functional. And I am going to state that regardless + of errors that can and do frequently happen inside, because such + things are what I percieve as the aliveness of it all. In other + words, you are alive because your body is working. Your parts + are playing their role, and your body is equipped with the + ability to deal with things, expected and unexpected. + + The final line is crucial, because those who are disabled + aren't less (less perfect, less "functional" or less anything). + They are still alive and their bodies still work enough for + them to be alive, not just people but any living thing + that doesn't match the image of a fully perfect, unrealistically + ideal member of its species. + + Let's go back to my main topic, which is imperfection in + apperance of things that are alive. + + What prompted this entire thought process was me thinking + about palisade mesophyll, a part of leaf tissue that, when + viewed in cross-section, has a regular formation of rectangular + palisade cells. I was thinking; we call them rectangular + because that is what they look like, and it's perfectly + logical to call them that, but they aren't perfect rectangles. + They are bumpy and uneven and I doubt they sit together + in perfect, even, brick-like alignment. + + Because of the way those cells form and grow, they won't + look like perfect geometrical shapes, yet the function is there, + and they can form that orderly structure that they are + supposed to form, and work as intended, and I think that's + beautiful. The same idea applies to the spongy mesophyll, + which are like the opposite of the palisade in a way, + consisting of rounder cells that aren't evenly placed. + In fact, there's no rule to the pattern besides the idea + that the cells should have gaps between them. This doesn't + prevent some cells from lumping together, though, as long + as the necessary vaccuum exists for the structure to + perform its duty normally. + + This naturally brings us to the next topic: stem cells. + Now let's focus on animals again. Stem cells are incredible. + You start as a little ball of cells, an embryo, yet your + "code" "knows" that cells are supposed to be different in + order to perform different functions, and those cells do + "latch" onto their designated functions and grow accordingly. + Isn't it amazing how cells just "know" that they're supposed + to form an ear, and can indeed follow with creating an ear? + And I mean, an actual ear, one whose outer structure they don't + start with and work around, yet create from essentially and + structurally nothing but the genetic definition of an ear! + It works the same for everyone. The ears are similar for all + humans. They're meant to be, and are programmed to be. How + did it come to that, the ability to have an ear that looks like + that across a species? Yes, evolution, but *how*? I can think + of the details of how, from the parts of an ear, since those + parts each have a reason they're there, and we can trace each + to what made them a need, but that's a different topic, and + you can probably find a decent text on evolution that isn't + this ramble. + + This is also applied to the fact that we have skeletons. + It amazes me how an embryo can grow into a baby with organs + and a skeleton. Let's take it even further. At some point, + life was merely boneless aquatic creatures, yet they eventually + became creatures of flesh, blood, and bones. + + Ears, faces themselves livers, and skeletons, too—none of + those are meant to look perfectly even. Your and my liver + aren't identical. They're the same organ and they work the + same, but they wouldn't look exactly the same, and I don't + think they should. Again, it's the result of how tissue forms: + imperfectly! The cells aren't all the exact same shape and size, + and that combined with them growing over time, forming the + organ as they go, relying on a genetic blueprint and not + some physical outline to build on, will create a liver, which + is liver-like in shape and can do the function of a liver. + That's simply what a liver is, and that's what my cells and + your cells have successfully gathered into. Our livers do the + same thing; we are the same species, and we are both alive. + Unless you're reading this in the future, in which case, + I was alive at some point, and this is proof that I was. + Anyway, moving on. + + Before I conclude with the biggest point of this passage + ("what is aliveness in appearance"), I will explore one + last example: offspring of asexual reproduction in plants. + The mental image I had was that of succulents or small + plants with many small thick leaves lined up. While each + of those leaves are identical to each other, and the plant + itself being genetically identical to its parent plant, + neither are 100% perfectly identical. The genes are identical, + but, yet again, it is how those cells form tissues that have + these little imperfections which create the life that we see. + + Perhaps inanimate things can look alive as well. What to you, + would make a robot look alive? I am thinking of a robot with + many appendages or arms: a spider-like giant robot (something + similar to "can't help myself" by Sun Yuan & Peng Yu. I + imagine its base to be stationary but it has many arms + sticking out, whose movement is anchored to that base). To me, + a pure mechanical motion that is identical in each movement, + predictable and repetitive isn't alive, but it can move in ways + that make it seem alive. After thinking, I noticed what I'm + looking for: what makes a motion look alive? I found it to be + how it interacts with and is influenced by its surroundings. + A robot arm that moves purely based on how it's programmed + to move is, well, functioning, but it doesn't feel alive in + any way. It's a machine. Yet a machine, say the spider-thing, + moves imperfectly, such as a motion that isn't even or + predictable (it stumbles around, hesitates, doesn't move its + arm for the same distance each time, and so on), can perhaps + make me sympathise with a lifeless machine, and even make + me see it as a very large metal animal. + + You were never meant to look perfect. You were meant to be alive. + Biologically, your body is perfect enough to keep you alive. + + *I ended up not mentioning ecosystems here, but briefly, + it was about the sheer diversity of life on Earth, and the + food chains that dominate the flow of the living part of + nature. I don't have anything to say that you can't reach + yourself, but the key idea is the systems that simply work. |