Conquer Club

A Computer Virus is parasitic.
A Computer Virus replicates itself to spread.
A Computer Virus needs a host for survival.

Should mankind consider a Computer Virus as a new life form?

I think computer viruses should count as life. Maybe it says something about human nature, that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. Talk about creating life in our own image.

Stephen Hawking
http://www.hawking.org.uk/life-in-the-universe.html

So no one supports the leading Astrophysicist in the world? 0-7 every one so far has gone against Stephen Hawking, interesting.

not all scientists agree a regular virus to be living. i read that somewhere by clicking a link on this site.

From Wikipedia:

Life is a characteristic distinguishing objects having signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.

So your question should be "Considered Alive or not".

In any case, it's a very broad definition.

I'd say not because for some reason I feel that when we refer to life, we mean our carbon based form of life. The posibilities of different type of lives are endless, and very likely we're living around some other types of life that we just can't perceive.

lol....as stirring as your religious rants! Let's see...a parasite is a "living organism" as is a host, thus, no. Thanks for asking!

ps...I like inductive logic: Robert is a teacher. All teachers are nice. Therefore, it can be assumed that Robert is nice.

KoolBak wrote:lol....as stirring as your religious rants! Let's see...a parasite is a "living organism" as is a host, thus, no. Thanks for asking!

ps...I like inductive logic: Robert is a teacher. All teachers are nice. Therefore, it can be assumed that Robert is nice.

It's what all the arguments are based on. If they threw out inductive reasoning, his arguments for the End Times would cease.

universalchiro wrote:So no one supports the leading molecular biologist in the world? 0-7 every one so far has gone against Stephen Hawking, interesting.

If Stephen Hawking were actually a molecular biologist, that argument might be more credible.

we can't even be sure if that's really Stephen talking or not. for all we know it could just be a computer virus trying to validate itself through Stephen's talking thingamajiggy.

Stephen Hawking: Considered Life or not

"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."

Metsfanmax wrote:

universalchiro wrote:So no one supports the leading molecular biologist in the world? 0-7 every one so far has gone against Stephen Hawking, interesting.

If Stephen Hawking were actually a molecular biologist, that argument might be more credible.

LMAO

How did I miss that?????

Army of GOD wrote:Stephen Hawking: Considered Life or not

#missedop?

macbone wrote:"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"

Dukasaur wrote:

macbone wrote:"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"

And that second quote is in contrast with the rest of the SciAm article, which argues that we need to understand viruses to understand evolution.

universalchiro: computer viruses don't appear in Genesis when God creates all living species. Are you allowed to think they are life?

When man had one common language, man built a tower to be like God. God confused their language and something really interesting, let's confuse their language for since man has one voice there will be nothing they can't accomplish. Fast forward 4,200 years after the tower of Babel and man has one common voice again. Even in Strasburg France there is a building to mimic the Tower of Babel, posters commemorating production said, many tongues, one voice.
What man didn't accomplish 4,200 years ago is occurring today.

Why must life be thought of on our terms, why does it have to have Carbon base or breath or have blood? If we are more lax with our definition about what constitutes life, then indeed man has created a new life form and has become like God. So now the ball is in God's court, what say you God?

<queue the Jeopardy music>

How long Lord must we wait?
I hate waiting
But I like the notion of man acting like God by creating a new life form, maybe this is the last straw.

universalchiro wrote:How long Lord must we wait?
I hate waiting

Well, being as a day to God is a 1,000 years to us, you just might be waiting a while.......

What didn't go like about the Tower of babel? Was it too tall, was it actually going to reach heaven? How high up is heaven?

I don't think it's important if it's considered life or not. 'Answering' that question wouldn't change anything about the viruses or the way we manage them. Not to say that we shouldn't learn about things that aren't considered important - after all, that's where a lot of great and influential discoveries come from - but I believe we're asking the wrong question about computer viruses here.

jonesthecurl wrote:What didn't go like about the Tower of babel? Was it too tall, was it actually going to reach heaven? How high up is heaven?

I'm thinking Heaven is not far in distance, but far in dimension. For many scriptures say immediately in heaven upon death. So its not that the Tower actually came close to reaching heaven, its that man was trying to make a name for themselves, to be God like and glory in self achievement.

Patches, finish the quote: a 1,000 yrs is LIKE a day , as a day is LIKE 1,000 yrs. Meaning God is not bound by time as we are. Not that a day is 1,000 yrs.

So it's wrong to have pride n your achievements?

Its a virtue to be pleased with the results of diligence and hard labor & thank God for the ability and favor to do so. Its a vice to glorify oneself for the results giving no thanks to God.

So if one uses pride as in self glory from achievements, then yes its wrong.
If one takes pride in themselves for self hygiene and cleanliness, then no its not wrong.
So its the context of "pride". Self glory is wrong. Self hygiene, cleanliness and respectful attire is right.

Its a condition of motive, heart, thoughts and desire.

(edited: wow many cell phone auto corrects and errors)

Whew! I'll sleep better tonite! Thanks quacko!

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

I think it would have been better if the poll had been "Computer Virus: Considered Harmful."

jonesthecurl wrote:What didn't go like about the Tower of babel? Was it too tall, was it actually going to reach heaven? How high up is heaven?

It was so tall it was tickling gods ribs. So god threw down the tower and reprimanded man for having the gall thinking he could tickle god.

We are 3D beings living in a 3D universe. Or is our world just a projection of a reality in 2D? Crystalinks.com/holographicuniverse.html has a lot of info on it. I cant post direct links sorry.