Computer Virus: Considered Life or not

[universalchiro]

koolbak, since you add no quality dialogue and are insulting, you have been foed. Even when people strongly disagree with views, there is a respectable way to communicate, and you have not learned it. In life and in every relationship there will be disagreements, a wise person heals with their words and a fool cuts and sets fire with their tongue. Even a fool, if kept quiet appears introspective and discerning. Use Jonescurl and Crispybits as models for you, they strongly disagree with most things I say, yet look how they are respectful and come strong with dialogue and thought. To them you look and should follow.

[jonesthecurl]

I voted no in this poll, but that may have been just to keep the poll similar to: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=205573

But also, a definition of life in general can be a bit confounding.


--Andy

It's life, Andy, but not as we know it.

[jonesthecurl]

koolbak, since you add no quality dialogue and are insulting, you have been foed. Even when people strongly disagree with views, there is a respectable way to communicate, and you have not learned it. In life and in every relationship there will be disagreements, a wise person heals with their words and a fool cuts and sets fire with their tongue. Even a fool, if kept quiet appears introspective and discerning. Use Jonescurl and Crispybits as models for you, they strongly disagree with most things I say, yet look how they are respectful and come strong with dialogue and thought. To them you look and should follow.

It's worse than that, you're foed, Koolbak.

[jonesthecurl]

(just to clarify, not by me...)

[macbone]

"Some people have questioned whether viruses should count as life"? Stephen Hawking needs to take a microbiology class.

http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/ye ... slive.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... live-2004/

"Nevertheless, most evolutionary biologists hold that because viruses are not alive, they are unworthy of serious consideration when trying to understand evolution."

Not sure what part you are disagreeing with, but the very first line in the first link you give is:

"Viruses straddle the definition of life. They lie somewhere between supra molecular complexes and very simple biological entities. Viruses contain some of the structures and exhibit some of the activities that are common to organic life, but they are missing many of the others.

This seems entirely consistent with the statement, "Some people have questioned whether viruses should count as life"

Duk, like Chiro said, viruses display some of the characteristics of life. They replicate, and they consume. They are structurally similar to unicellular organisms. They have RNA or DNA. However, the key word in the first quote is some. None of my professors in university argued that viruses should be classified as living organisms, and they're not part of the taxonomy of living organisms. A more accurate statement would be, "Some people today argue that viruses should count as life," but most authorities that I've read in the field do not think they are living organisms. However, as others have pointed out in this thread, the idea of life can be rather fluid.

However, it's generally accepted that to qualify as living, an organism must grow, consume energy, and replicate. On the surface, viruses seem to meet these criteria.

Click image to enlarge.

However, viruses don't actually need to eat to be alive. The cell is killed by replication, much like humans after Xenomorphs burst from their chests, but the virus doesn't actually ingest the cell. They replicate by taking over the machinery of a living cell and turning it into a factory to assemble new viruses. They can't actually replicate on their own without another cell. They can't even do it using another virus's structure. They don't need to take in energy, or light, or water. They don't undergo meiosis or mitosis. It's because of this reliance on another cell that most biologists would say that viruses are not living organisms.

From the other quote, this is the relevant bit, and I should have bolded/underlined it:

"most evolutionary biologists hold that because viruses are not alive . . ."

However, I agree with the author that viruses are important in understanding evolution, since viruses provide a means of reorganizing an organism's DNA, leading to variance.

From the same article:

A rock is not alive. A metabolically active sack, devoid of genetic material and the potential for propagation, is also not alive. A bacterium, though, is alive. Although it is a single cell, it can generate energy and the molecules needed to sustain itself, and it can reproduce. But what about a seed? A seed might not be considered alive. Yet it has a potential for life, and it may be destroyed. In this regard, viruses resemble seeds more than they do live cells. They have a certain potential, which can be snuffed out, but they do not attain the more autonomous state of life.

Thinking of viruses as halfway between life and non-life is a good way to conceptualize them. In fact, this idea is probably one reason why zombies are linked to viruses in modern storytelling, as zombies are clearly not alive, yet have the appearance of living, right up until they eat all our brains and civilization as we know it is wiped from the Earth. =)

[KoolBak]

Foed??



lol...it's cool Quacko....I foed you after that first thread Just too tempting sometimes however...

Back to topic!

[warmonger1981]

Would artificial intelligence count as life. It can rebuild itself and think critically by itself?

[universalchiro]

Self replication is a critical element to be considered a rudimentarly life form. We are approaching a point in the history of mankind that whatever we set our minds to, will be accomplished. Soon the argument won't be has humanity created life, it will be humanity has created another life form. We are quickly approaching the ability to find mutations in the DNA code that produces diseases and removing or repairing those codes. Then it may be a race to purchase those superior DNA codes and institute a new race war of those with enhanced DNA versus those without the funds to purchase enhanced DNA.

The ability to create life and beneficially modify DNA on such a Sci-fi level belongs only to God. So usher in this new era and let humanity be god and let's see what God does. Very exciting time to live in.

[Metsfanmax]

If only God has that ability, then how is it that we're about to accomplish it?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

If only God has that ability, then how is it that we're about to accomplish it?

The implication is that God will come down and kick down our little anthill, a la Babylon.

-TG

[Metsfanmax]

If only God has that ability, then how is it that we're about to accomplish it?

The implication is that God will come down and kick down our little anthill, a la Babylon.

-TG

Yeah well at least he promised never to pull that flood shit again

[Dukasaur]

If only God has that ability, then how is it that we're about to accomplish it?

No, in fairness, read carefully. He didn't say only God has that ability, he said it "belongs only to God." In other words, God is the rightful owner and we are thieves.

It's the legend of Prometheus rising up again. Stealing from the gods. Dabbling in forbidden magicks. Or the forbidden fruit of the Gadda-da-vida. Take your pick. We're evil assholes because we don't want to live like neanderthals forever.

Yawn.

[Metsfanmax]

If only God has that ability, then how is it that we're about to accomplish it?

No, in fairness, read carefully. He didn't say only God has that ability, he said it "belongs only to God." In other words, God is the rightful owner and we are thieves.

I did read carefully. This reminds me of the internet piracy debate:



If we start creating life, God can still do it too. We haven't "stolen" anything.

[Dukasaur]

If only God has that ability, then how is it that we're about to accomplish it?

No, in fairness, read carefully. He didn't say only God has that ability, he said it "belongs only to God." In other words, God is the rightful owner and we are thieves.

I did read carefully. This reminds me of the internet piracy debate:



If we start creating life, God can still do it too. We haven't "stolen" anything.

God is no more tolerant than Tipper Gore. Your argument will be rejected without consideration.

[ManBungalow]

Wow, the poll in this thread puts the Phallic Poll Thread to shame.