The "souls" of bacteria and other creatures?

[ateista]

If bacteria have a “soul”… what happens to it when they split and two new ones come into existence? Will one carry on the “old soul”, and the other one get a fresh one? Or will the “old soul” die and two fresh ones need to be created?

What about viruses? If they alive (which is a matter of opinion), then they must have “souls”, right?

Computer viruses were very aptly named, since their activity strongly resembles their biological counterparts. Are they alive? Again it is just a matter of opinion. If one considers them alive, do they have souls?

 

[jrabs]

Where is it written that all living things have souls?

 

[davidv]

If bacteria have a “soul”… what happens to it when they split and two new ones come into existence? Will one carry on the “old soul”, and the other one get a fresh one? Or will the “old soul” die and two fresh ones need to be created?

What about viruses? If they alive (which is a matter of opinion), then they must have “souls”, right?

Computer viruses were very aptly named, since their activity strongly resembles their biological counterparts. Are they alive? Again it is just a matter of opinion. If one considers them alive, do they have souls?

Since I have never seen a soul, I have no emperical knowledge of how this happens. Based on my limited understanding of the various philosophies on the soul, I would say that a second soul comes into being coincident with the presence of a disctintly separate bacteria. If a virus is truely alive in what I consider the usual sense, then the previously describe senerio would also apply.

A computer virus is no more alive than this post. It is just a collection of symbols that are used by a logic processor to direct the activities of some or all of the attached peripherals, all in a very deterministic manner.

 

[buffalo]

Catholic teaching is that the soul is what animates all living things.

Only humans have immortal souls.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

If bacteria have a “soul”… what happens to it when they split and two new ones come into existence? Will one carry on the “old soul”, and the other one get a fresh one? Or will the “old soul” die and two fresh ones need to be created?

What about viruses? If they alive (which is a matter of opinion), then they must have “souls”, right?

Computer viruses were very aptly named, since their activity strongly resembles their biological counterparts. Are they alive? Again it is just a matter of opinion. If one considers them alive, do they have souls?

Hypothetically, I would explain it like this: soul=consciousness

all life is part of one great mass consciousness. Therefore, there would be no destruction of old and no new, no beginning and no end - one stream of consciousness constantly changing into different forms.

Peace…

MW

 

[JimG]

Catholic teaching is that the soul is what animates all living things.

Only humans have immortal souls.

And further, only human beings have souls which are spiritual in nature (i.e. not material.) Other living creatures can have material souls. Material principles of life. We commonly take the term “soul” to mean something inherently spiritual, but in Thomistic language, it simply means the animating principle of a living being, and may be material or spiritual.

 

[ateista]

A computer virus is no more alive than this post. It is just a collection of symbols that are used by a logic processor to direct the activities of some or all of the attached peripherals, all in a very deterministic manner.

The code, written on paper is not alive, just like the genetic material written on paper is not alive. But that is not the same as the genetic material operating in its biological environment. The same applies to the code of a virus executing in its environment - which is electronic, rather than biological.

The computer virus propagates itself, just like the biological virus does. They both use the material of the host to create replicas of themselves. If one is alive, so is the other. One of the basic principles of life is self-propagation.

We may even say that the computer virus is superior, because it creates perfect replicas, while the biological virus may create faulty ones (mutations).

 

[ateista]

And further, only human beings have souls which are spiritual in nature (i.e. not material.) Other living creatures can have material souls. Material principles of life. We commonly take the term “soul” to mean something inherently spiritual, but in Thomistic language, it simply means the animating principle of a living being, and may be material or spiritual.

Excellent. Since the souls of non-humans is purely material, can you point to the finite amount of molecules in a virus or bacterium and show us, which ones constitute the soul?

 

[davidv]

The code, written on paper is not alive, just like the genetic material written on paper is not alive. But that is not the same as the genetic material operating in its biological environment. The same applies to the code of a virus executing in its environment - which is electronic, rather than biological.

The computer virus propagates itself, just like the biological virus does. They both use the material of the host to create replicas of themselves. If one is alive, so is the other. One of the basic principles of life is self-propagation.

We may even say that the computer virus is superior, because it creates perfect replicas, while the biological virus may create faulty ones (mutations).

What does any of this have to do with your OP?

 

[buffalo]

Excellent. Since the souls of non-humans is purely material, can you point to the finite amount of molecules in a virus or bacterium and show us, which ones constitute the soul?

Sure - the ones that animate the organism.

 

[ateista]

Sure - the ones that animate the organism.

Specifically? Which ones? All of them?

 

[ateista]

What does any of this have to do with your OP?

It has everything to do with it. What is “life”? If the most important part of life is propagating itself, then the computer virus is alive.

 

[Ghosty]

Excellent. Since the souls of non-humans is purely material, can you point to the finite amount of molecules in a virus or bacterium and show us, which ones constitute the soul?

The soul being material doesn’t mean that there is a set of molecules that are “the soul”, but rather that the soul does not constitute something apart from the matter. The entire organism is “ensouled”, or else part of it is dead. Being material simply means that the soul has no operations apart from the matter, unlike our soul which has operations (such as intellect) which incorporate both matter and spirit.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ateista]

The soul being material doesn’t mean that there is a set of molecules that are “the soul”, but rather that the soul does not constitute something apart from the matter. The entire organism is “ensouled”, or else part of it is dead. Being material simply means that the soul has no operations apart from the matter, unlike our soul which has operations (such as intellect) which incorporate both matter and spirit.

Peace and God bless!

In that case it is unnecessary to use two words: the “body” (or matter) and the “soul”. What is the point? Either the soul can be separated as a specific part of the body and in that case it could be “pinned down”, or not, and in that case the concept is unnecessary…

 

[davidv]

It has everything to do with it. What is “life”? If the most important part of life is propagating itself, then the computer virus is alive.

So, it appears we better back up and define what it means to be alive? What is your definition?

I would submit that a computer virus does not “propogate itself”. It was “propogated” by its host in the same manner that a copy machine reproduces a memo.

 

[ateista]

So, it appears we better back up and define what it means to be alive?

Yes, indeed, that is the way to do it.

What is your definition?

It is simple: life is complex responses to comlex stimuli, adaptation to its environment or changing the environment to suit its needs.

Usually we consider energy consumption (eating, drinking or some other form) as an important feature, propagating itself, growing, etc… as good indicators whether something is alive or not. Not all of these features have to be present, however.

The truth is that the differentiation between “alive” and “inanimate” is mostly a matter of personal decision. Some biologists consider viruses alive, others do not. The question of the building material should also be considered. The biological viruses are different from the bacteria, they have no DNA, only RNA. That accounts for their relative simplicity. But this feature shows that the building material is not relevant.

I would submit that a computer virus does not “propogate itself”. It was “propogated” by its host in the same manner that a copy machine reproduces a memo.

I disagree. Usually the “host” system is not aware of the presence of the virus, and would prevent the infection if it were. Special “disinfectant” programs are needed to eradicate the harmful specimens.

Now, not all viruses are harmful. The web-crawling info-bots, which extract information from the websites and keep the search engines up-to-date are beneficial, and they do not hide their activity from the hosts as the harmful ones do.

But, all the varieties are similar in one respect. They scan the host environment, decide if a copy is already present, and if the host is not “infected” yet, they will install themselves into the operating system - thus displaying a certain level of intelligence. So to call them “alive” is not as farfecthed as it sounds.

 

[davidv]

Yes, indeed, that is the way to do it.

It is simple: life is complex responses to comlex stimuli, adaptation to its environment or changing the environment to suit its needs.

Usually we consider energy consumption (eating, drinking or some other form) as an important feature, propagating itself, growing, etc… as good indicators whether something is alive or not. Not all of these features have to be present, however.

It seems to me this definition is much too imprecise to be of any use in discussing the topic. How are we to decide how many and which of the “features” must be present? You certainty have not provided an exhausive list to those features that distingish my life from those defining a chunk of central Minnesota granite (which I will presume for the moment that you would classify as not alive). Are there any necessary catagorizations that distinguishes one kind of life from another. Or does it matter? Is your life as a human equivalent to that of a computer virus? If not, why not?

 

[davidv]

I disagree. Usually the “host” system is not aware of the presence of the virus, and would prevent the infection if it were. Special “disinfectant” programs are needed to eradicate the harmful specimens.

I would submit one of the distingishing charactics of life is awareness. I consider a computer to be inanimate, so it cannot possibly be aware of anything. So how does this say anything about the virus itself?

 

[ateista]

It seems to me this definition is much too imprecise to be of any use in discussing the topic. How are we to decide how many and which of the “features” must be present?

Yes, it is imprecise, because there is no better one. It is a personal preference. I would say that interacting with the environment and propagating itself are the most pertinent ones.

You certainty have not provided an exhausive list to those features that distingish my life from those defining a chunk of central Minnesota granite (which I will presume for the moment that you would classify as not alive).

Ahh, but I will disagree - just for the fun of it. That piece of granite is alive, it moves, it eats, it conducts serious philosophical discussions with its peers. The trouble that its time-scale is totally different from ours. While our life-span is about 70 years, its life-span is about 70 million years. What is one second for that rock is many millions of seconds for us.

It is impossible for us to realize that the rock is alive. Likewise, the rock is unaware of our existence. It cannot even detect us, much less realize that we are conscious beings. Now, I do not seriously advocate that the rock is alive. I just wanted to point out the difficulty of finding out if something is alive or not.

Are there any necessary catagorizations that distinguishes one kind of life from another. Or does it matter? Is your life as a human equivalent to that of a computer virus? If not, why not?

These are much easier questions. We can return to them once we can agree what life is.

 

[davidv]

Yes, it is imprecise, because there is no better one. It is a personal preference. I would say that interacting with the environment and propagating itself are the most pertinent ones.

Ahh, but I will disagree - just for the fun of it. That piece of granite is alive, it moves, it eats, it conducts serious philosophical discussions with its peers. The trouble that its time-scale is totally different from ours. While our life-span is about 70 years, its life-span is about 70 million years. What is one second for that rock is many millions of seconds for us.

It is impossible for us to realize that the rock is alive. Likewise, the rock is unaware of our existence. It cannot even detect us, much less realize that we are conscious beings. Now, I do not seriously advocate that the rock is alive. I just wanted to point out the difficulty of finding out if something is alive or not.

These are much easier questions. We can return to them once we can agree what life is.

Given your discussion of the rock above, I don’t think an agreement is possible.