Non-biological "life"? Here on Earth?

[Hee_Zen]

I would still recommend to start from the chair instead of dog…

Fine by me.

Yet let’s assume that it is completely impossible to explain what a dog is beyond “a being that has the essence of a dog”. Then what? It could indicate that dogs are complex beings. It could indicate that our language is not accurate enough. It cannot show that essences or dogs do not exist (or that it is not right to have a classification system that has a class “dogs”). Our knowledge or abilities to describe something do not affect existence or non-existence of that something.

Well, if you cannot even describe what you are advocating, then we are not getting anywhere, do we?

I’ll return to the example about chairs. It is not unimaginable that it is too hard to explain what is a chair of a specific model other that “an artifact made according to those specifications”. Yet it wouldn’t mean that specifications, chairs or models of chairs do not exist.

That is fine, too. But those blueprints and specification only describe that one particular chair, not what the “essence” of an abstract chair would be.

 

[magnet]

discovermagazine.com/2006/mar/unintelligent-design

"Viruses, long thought to be biology’s hitchhikers, turn out to have been biology’s formative force.

This is striking news, especially at a moment when the basic facts of origins and evolution seem to have fallen under a shroud. In the discussions of intelligent design, one hears a yearning for an old-fashioned creation story, in which some singular, inchoate entity stepped in to give rise to complex life-forms—humans in particular. Now the viruses appear to present a creation story of their own: a stirring, topsy-turvy, and decidedly unintelligent design wherein life arose more by reckless accident than original intent, through an accumulation of genetic accounting errors committed by hordes of mindless, microscopic replication machines. Our descent from apes is the least of it. With the discovery of Mimi, scientists are close to ascribing to viruses the last role that anyone would have conceived for them: that of life’s prime mover."

 

[CHRISTINE77]

That was not the point. You asked me about the “classification” system and I explained that there is no “unique classification system”.

(Emphasis mine) That is the question: what is it what makes a “dog” a “dog”? No matter how long you dance around the question: can you tell someone who has never seen a dog how to determine if a brand new “something” he encounters is a “dog” or not? Because it is not obvious. Pretend that I am a space alien, and try to tell me what a “dog” is.

You would have to explain precisely to an alien what makes up a dog or a cat (provided he could understand your language). Here is an article explaining what details make up the characteristics of a cat:

merckmanuals.com/pethealth/cat_basics/description_and_physical_characteristics_of_cats/description_and_physical_characteristics_of_cats.html

However, once you have seen several cats, you immediately know when you see one that it is a cat, not a dog and vice versa, unless you are mentally deficient. I don’t understand why you have such a problem figuring out what a dog or a cat is.

 

[MPat]

Well, if you cannot even describe what you are advocating, then we are not getting anywhere, do we?

Oh, I’m sure we’ll get somewhere.

That is fine, too. But those blueprints and specification only describe that one particular chair, not what the “essence” of an abstract chair would be.

Er, not “that one particular chair”, but one particular model of a chair. That is still something.

Next, let’s say that the chair of that specific model is burning. At the start of the process it is still a chair of that specific model, just slightly damaged. After the process it is no longer a chair, but a pile of ash. Thus, at some point chair has ceased to exist and turned into ash. Does the fact that we cannot point out a specific moment when that happened a significant problem for us? Does that disprove existence of specifications for the model of chair? Does it have much practical importance? I would say that it doesn’t. Would you agree?

And if you agree, we can move on from chairs to, let’s say, atoms or elementary particles. Let’s look at the story of discovery of Triple-alpha process (en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triple-alpha_process&oldid=637522392#Discovery). Shortly, an astrophysicist had a guess about some properties of nucleus of carbon-12, he has persuaded a nuclear physicist to check for those properties using a particle accelerator, those properties were confirmed to be as guessed, and therefore a conclusion about process that happens in the stars has been made.

Now, is there anything wrong with that? I doubt you will say that there is.

And under assumptions of Thomism, everything is truly fine. Nuclei of carbon-12 (or elementary particles of which they consist) have a specific essence (somewhat analogous to specification of specific model of chairs) that includes the property in question. The essence is the same for all such nuclei, thus confirmation of presence of the property for some nuclei on Earth can confirm the presence of that property for all such nuclei everywhere. Nice.

You might note that that is similar to the case with chairs. If a chair of specific model has been found to have a specific property (let’s say, it burns to a pile of ash when set on fire), we can make conclusions about all other chairs of the same model.

Yet you reject the essences and say that all classification is arbitrary. So, how will you justify making a conclusion about some objects in distant stars, based on investigation of some other objects here on Earth?

For you cannot afford to say that justification does not exist. That would undo all science.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Many people will wonder: “what on Earth does this guy talk about”? Non-carbon based “life”? Well, it depends on how life is “defined”. Biologists define life with some important attributes, namely maintaining their homeostasis in a changing environment, and responding to complex stimuli with complex responses. Sometimes they mention “growth”, “metabolism” and “reproduction”, too. But they are quick to point out that not all of these attributes are necessary to classify an organism as “living”.

Almost all so-called living organisms are DNA based - but not all. There are simple organisms which are RNA based, and they exhibit the necessary attributes for calling them “alive”. Viruses have almost no DNA, yet they are “alive”. They reproduce, they react to outside stimuli, they evolve, they change their internal structure according the needs dictated by the environment. So they are alive.

Well, maybe you just suppressed a big yawn and say, sure, but this is ancient news. What is the big deal? The “big deal” is this: not for nothing are the computer viruses called “viruses”. They exhibit the same behavior as their biological counterparts do: "they stay alive in a hostile environment, they evolve (change) when necessary, they replicate themselves and “infest” new hosts. Sometimes they even “kill” their hosts. So they qualify as “living entities” just like the biological viruses do.

Some people will try to argue, but what if the infested computer is “turned off”? To that the answer is easy: “what if the infested living body is “turned off”?” We all live in a very specific environment, and if the environment changes we all die.

So the conclusion is simple; non-biological life is HERE and it is here to stay. It is able to evolve, to change, to replicate itself it is able to do everything that “life” is supposed to do. So all you naysayers, who assert the impossibility of non-biological life, take notice: “you are wrong”! And this life has no “soul”, needs no “soul”. The concept of “soul” as animating principle is gone, dead and buried.

You are the typical fool, who can not understand, that computers do not do anything that they are not told to do. Go back to your game please…

 

[Hee_Zen]

Yet you reject the essences and say that all classification is arbitrary.

Arbitrary does not equal useless. Different classifications have different uses to shed light on different aspects of reality.

For you cannot afford to say that justification does not exist. That would undo all science.

You probably wanted to say, if I am not mistaken: “For you cannot afford to say that classification does not exist.” or maybe that “For you cannot afford to say that justification for the classification does not exist.” Of course they exist, and there is a very good use for them. What I assert is that there is just ONE classification, which will separate the “essential” properties from the “accidental” ones.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Sorry for the typo in the previous post. The sentence should read:

What I deny is that there is just ONE classification, which will separate the “essential” properties from the “accidental” ones.

 

[MPat]

Arbitrary does not equal useless. Different classifications have different uses to shed light on different aspects of reality.

But “arbitrary” means that we cannot assume that objects grouped in respect of some properties will also be similar with respect of other properties.

You probably wanted to say, if I am not mistaken: “For you cannot afford to say that classification does not exist.” or maybe that “For you cannot afford to say that justification for the classification does not exist.” Of course they exist, and there is a very good use for them. What I assert is that there is just ONE classification, which will separate the “essential” properties from the “accidental” ones.

No, I meant “justification”. Justification for “making a conclusion about some objects in distant stars, based on investigation of some other objects here on Earth” (as in the example I have mentioned - which you didn’t comment upon):

So, how will you justify making a conclusion about some objects in distant stars, based on investigation of some other objects here on Earth?

For you cannot afford to say that justification does not exist. That would undo all science.

And you haven’t answered that.

 

[Hee_Zen]

But “arbitrary” means that we cannot assume that objects grouped in respect of some properties will also be similar with respect of other properties.

Of course not. You can classify human beings based upon the color of their hair, and make another classification based upon their weight - and the two classification systems have nothing in common. Yet, both can be useful, the first one for beauticians, the second one for dieticians.

But enough of this. Time to get back to the topic of the thread.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Of course not. You can classify human beings based upon the color of their hair, and make another classification based upon their weight - and the two classification systems have nothing in common. Yet, both can be useful, the first one for beauticians, the second one for dieticians.

But enough of this. Time to get back to the topic of the thread.

Yes, and with that thought, what exactly is non biological life on Earth, other that some deluded fool who watched the Terminator too many times, and believes that his computer is self aware.

 

[magnet]

Does life have to be carbon-based in order to be alive? There are microbes called lithotrophs (rock eaters) that get energy from non-carbon minerals.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Does life have to be carbon-based in order to be alive? There are microbes called lithotrophs (rock eaters) that get energy from non-carbon minerals.

Where you get your energy is of no matter, as photosynthetic organisms get their energy from sunlight. All known forms of life on Earth contain carbon in some form, is this required, yes by all we know, but there is no rule set, just as there is no answer as to what life is.

 

[Kurisu35712]

A virus isn’t alive, though. Viruses are not living organisms. They aren’t organisms at all. It isn’t even necessarily accurate to say that they’re parasites, because they do not gain anything from their own replication. They simply exist. They contain a certain DNA or RNA sequence that, when replicated by a living cell’s DNA/RNA replication enzymes, has detrimental effects on the cell in question. The sheer amount of viruses however makes it kind of useless to try to claim that they’re living, seeing as they spread in many different ways. Some react with receptors on a host cell that causes the viral DNA/RNA to be injected into the cell, others are small enough to pass through the membrane entirely.

They don’t have any purpose to themselves though. For a virus, replication does not do anything aside from copy and proliferate their DNA/RNA sequence. A cell interacts with it’s environment. Some bacteria are responsive to light and actively seek it out. Most form colonies, exchange DNA sequences that function essentially as genes. They may exchange immunities or genetic material that codes for better heat resistance for example. But a virus does not form a colony. It does not exchange genetic codes. It does not even produce organelles or replicate its own DNA. It simply exists, and when it comes into contact in some way with a cell that is capable of replicating it, it reacts with that cell to do so. Since it cannot live, it also cannot die, technically.

If you want to argue that in order to be alive, all something needs is some kind of genetic material, then I suppose a virus would be alive, but that isn’t how science defines “life.” If you want an answer as to why viruses exist, that’s a question better posed to virologists. Speaking of which, I’ll have to ask my girlfriend for more information later and possibly come back to this thread with more to say.

Computer viruses, on the other hand, are virtual. They cannot be alive regardless of whether they appear to have behavior, because all computer viruses were created through programming. To compare something as simple as computer code, relatively speaking, to something as complex as genetic code is a false comparison. There are further levels to genetic code and genetic expression that we are still completely unaware of and only just discovering. Computer code does exactly as it is programmed to do, no more no less. It is not adaptive and does not change in the same way as genetic information can.

 

[MPat]

But enough of this. Time to get back to the topic of the thread.

Ah, but it is already close to the topic of the thread (why didn’t you object earlier?). All that is left to do is this:

1. 
   *]To show that use of essences is not as irrational, as you think (that is mostly done).
   *]To show that the definition of life offered by Feser (which, presumably, has been objected to because it uses essences - for it hasn’t been stated clearly) is not “irrational” (whatever that means when applied to definitions).
   *]To move on to discussion about applicability of this definition to computer viruses etc. (that, obviously, is not “offtopic”).
   
   So, I’d say you should get back to explaining how you justify science without essences…

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

A virus isn’t alive, though. Viruses are not living organisms. They aren’t organisms at all. It isn’t even necessarily accurate to say that they’re parasites, because they do not gain anything from their own replication. They simply exist. They contain a certain DNA or RNA sequence that, when replicated by a living cell’s DNA/RNA replication enzymes, has detrimental effects on the cell in question. The sheer amount of viruses however makes it kind of useless to try to claim that they’re living, seeing as they spread in many different ways. Some react with receptors on a host cell that causes the viral DNA/RNA to be injected into the cell, others are small enough to pass through the membrane entirely.

They don’t have any purpose to themselves though. For a virus, replication does not do anything aside from copy and proliferate their DNA/RNA sequence. A cell interacts with it’s environment. Some bacteria are responsive to light and actively seek it out. Most form colonies, exchange DNA sequences that function essentially as genes. They may exchange immunities or genetic material that codes for better heat resistance for example. But a virus does not form a colony. It does not exchange genetic codes. It does not even produce organelles or replicate its own DNA. It simply exists, and when it comes into contact in some way with a cell that is capable of replicating it, it reacts with that cell to do so. Since it cannot live, it also cannot die, technically.

If you want to argue that in order to be alive, all something needs is some kind of genetic material, then I suppose a virus would be alive, but that isn’t how science defines “life.” If you want an answer as to why viruses exist, that’s a question better posed to virologists. Speaking of which, I’ll have to ask my girlfriend for more information later and possibly come back to this thread with more to say.

Computer viruses, on the other hand, are virtual. They cannot be alive regardless of whether they appear to have behavior, because all computer viruses were created through programming. To compare something as simple as computer code, relatively speaking, to something as complex as genetic code is a false comparison. There are further levels to genetic code and genetic expression that we are still completely unaware of and only just discovering. Computer code does exactly as it is programmed to do, no more no less. It is not adaptive and does not change in the same way as genetic information can.

A virus is just as alive as say, red or brown algae. The virus is just very simple, and yes different than even other simple things, this is the virus that you are told to wash off your hands of course. As for computer viruses, being alive. You are never going to convince someone, who believes that computer viruses are alive, that they are not, nor should you try…

 

[Kurisu35712]

A virus is just as alive as say, red or brown algae. The virus is just very simple, and yes different than even other simple things, this is the virus that you are told to wash off your hands of course. As for computer viruses, being alive. You are never going to convince someone, who believes that computer viruses are alive, that they are not, nor should you try…

As to your last sentence, fair enough, but a computer virus is no more alive than any other computer program. To analogize, we are made in the image and likeness of God. We are like God, but not quite as complex, not as powerful, not as deep, not as complete. We created computer programs. In many ways, computer programming is similar to genetic code and information related by our neurons i.e. sequences and patterns. But those virtual sequences and patterns are less complex with less variations and less external contributing factors. How you treat a laptop does not affect the way in which the computer chips relate electrical signals, and how many times you click on an .exe file does not affect how quickly that program runs. By comparison, the environment a cell is placed in has a definitive effect on which genes are expressed, which scientists have only just begun to scratch the surface of as to why this is so. It is much more of a complex process, but at it’s core, computer programming is very much like a simpler expression of life, just as we are in many ways a simpler (and also more flawed) expression of God.

And no. A virus is not as alive as brown or red or green or any kind of algae. Algae interacts with it’s environment, and is affected by its environment, in a way that a virus is not. It produces components that a virus cannot do on its own. It forms colonies that a virus will not do without external influence, i.e. a human replicating viral units in a petri dish. It is incomparable except in the fact that both instances are things that contain genetic material. In a virus, that material is not expressed. It is only given potency if it is taken in by a living cell. It cannot replicate itself on its own. If a virus were able to do so, it would not be a virus, it would be considered a bacterium. A virus, by definition, is unable to replicate itself. A bacterium is.

 

[Kurisu35712]

I would like to assert that a computer virus is not comparable to an actual virus. A computer virus is a computer program that has detrimental results on the other programs that run on a computer, but it is otherwise no different from any other computer program. I could run a virus on my computer in exactly the same way as I run the program for an internet browser. The only difference is that running an internet browser allows me to take further actions using my laptop, whereas running a virus would render my own (name removed by moderator)ut ineffective and prevent me from running other programs effectively.

A virus does not replicate in the same manner as an organism that is considered alive. Even the most simple of things considered organisms replicate themselves, and in a different manner than any given virus. A virus is incapable of replicating itself and requires a host cell in order to replicate. By comparison, a cell, which is by definition a living organism, is capable of reproduction without a host. To keep things at their most basic level, every thing considered an organism, even the simplest algae, is capable of reproducing its genetic material on its own. If it was once able to replicate itself and is somehow damaged an unable to further reproduce, it is a dead cell that was once living. A virus is never capable of replicating itself. A virus, by definition, requires a host cell that is capable of genetic replication, to replicate. If it was able to replicate without the need of a host cell, it isn’t a virus. A virus cannot die, because a virus cannot live. A virus simply exists until it either encounters a host cell which replicates its genetic material, or it is annihilated by some factor which causes it to disintegrate/break apart into the component elements that form its genetic material and any protein envelope that surrounds it. At that point, it is no longer a virus, it is simply free-floating phosphates, glycoproteins, etc.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

As to your last sentence, fair enough, but a computer virus is no more alive than any other computer program. To analogize, we are made in the image and likeness of God. We are like God, but not quite as complex, not as powerful, not as deep, not as complete. We created computer programs. In many ways, computer programming is similar to genetic code and information related by our neurons i.e. sequences and patterns. But those virtual sequences and patterns are less complex with less variations and less external contributing factors. How you treat a laptop does not affect the way in which the computer chips relate electrical signals, and how many times you click on an .exe file does not affect how quickly that program runs. By comparison, the environment a cell is placed in has a definitive effect on which genes are expressed, which scientists have only just begun to scratch the surface of as to why this is so. It is much more of a complex process, but at it’s core, computer programming is very much like a simpler expression of life, just as we are in many ways a simpler (and also more flawed) expression of God.

And no. A virus is not as alive as brown or red or green or any kind of algae. Algae interacts with it’s environment, and is affected by its environment, in a way that a virus is not. It produces components that a virus cannot do on its own. It forms colonies that a virus will not do without external influence, i.e. a human replicating viral units in a petri dish. It is incomparable except in the fact that both instances are things that contain genetic material. In a virus, that material is not expressed. It is only given potency if it is taken in by a living cell. It cannot replicate itself on its own. If a virus were able to do so, it would not be a virus, it would be considered a bacterium. A virus, by definition, is unable to replicate itself. A bacterium is.

Computer programming of binary code has no similarities to genetic code, other than they are both codes. Windows has about 50,000,000 lines of code, every cell in your body has over 3 billion lines of quad chemical code, that can evolve into a better organism, without a new write of the code. Nothing without DNA achieves this.

As for whether viruses are alive, I differ, as I see no reason for all life to be like us, nor do I believe that there is a definitive definition of what life is in the first place.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Computer programming of binary code has no similarities to genetic code, other than they are both codes. Windows has about 50,000,000 lines of code, every cell in your body has over 3 billion lines of quad chemical code, that can evolve into a better organism, without a new write of the code. Nothing without DNA achieves this.

As for whether viruses are alive, I differ, as I see no reason for all life to be like us, nor do I believe that there is a definitive definition of what life is in the first place.

In some sense, this is why your position borders on being pernicious. You are unwilling to seriously address the question of what human beings are or whether any legitimate constraints exist on human beings and yet are perfectly willing, apparently, to take full rein regarding what human beings will become.

You see no problem here?

Still have not read The Abolition of Man by CS Lewis, I gather?

 

[Kurisu35712]

As for whether viruses are alive, I differ, as I see no reason for all life to be like us,** nor do I believe that there is a definitive definition of what life is in the first place.**

Then any point you will try to make here is moot. Words without definitions mean nothing at all. If life isn’t a word that has a meaning that describes certain things, there is not use in it being used in the first place. Something with the quality “living” needs to possess the set of qualities that living things are defined to have. If it does not have those qualities, it does not have “life.” Since a virus does not possess all the characteristics of things considered “alive,” it is not alive. A dead organism is not considered living because it does not have all of the qualities required for the word “alive” to describe it. A virus is not considered “alive” because it doesn’t meet the criteria for the word “alive” to apply. If you think the characteristics for the quality “alive” should be changed, that’s your opinion, but until that definition is changed, viruses are not alive. All life is not like us, but because of the definition of the word “life” which we in fact came up with, we are also considered to have “life.”