Dead Matter to Live Aware Matter

[Subduction Zone]

But lots of non-living things can reproduce themselves, there are even self-reproducing molecules.
Name one feature of living things that viruses have.

No, they can't reproduce themselves. Evidently you don't know much about viruses.

Viruses are software. They're no different from a computer code instructing the computer to print the code sequence. Is the code "reproducing itself," or are the computer and printer reproducing it?

Viruses, as I said before, are just snippets of code. If the sequence gets into an actual, living cell, the cell will read it just as it does its own code, but the viral code is an instruction to copy itself, in effect, it hijacks the cell's machinery and causes it to print endless copies of the viral code -- and the viral code is the virus.
A living cell is making the viruses, not the viruses themselves.

A printer can spew out endless sheets of paper with "print this code" on them, but the text: "print this code," is not a living thing.
It doesn't "find a need to reproduce itself" or crave anything. You're adducing intentionality where none is necessary. It's an automatic, physical or chemical reaction, like crystal growth or gravitational accretion.

We see examples of things reproducing themselves because only things that could replicate left any specimens of themselves for us to find. This is not evidence of intent.

On whether or not viruses are life there is still some debate. If one demands that the ability to metabolize is needed to be life they are not a form of life. But they have several other traits of life..

Of course there are many borders in evolution that are "fuzzy". When a population is one species and when it is another clearly has no sharp line. When a complex molecule and associated structures is life and when it is not is all very fuzzy. The theory essentially predicts this. Creationism, not so much.

 

[Valjean]

On whether or not viruses are life there is still some debate. If one demands that the ability to metabolize is needed to be life they are not a form of life. But they have several other traits of life..

My question still stands. Name a 'trait of life' possessed by viruses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My question still stands. Name a 'trait of life' possessed by viruses.

At the very least 3 and 7 from this list:

The 7 Characteristics of Life

There are others that could be argued too. I am not claiming that they are alive, I am saying that there is no clear line drawn in the sand. That is the sort of error that creationists usually make.


LOL, almost posted without the list!

 

[Valjean]

At the very least 3 and 7 from this list:

The 7 Characteristics of Life

There are others that could be argued too. I am not claiming that they are alive, I am saying that there is no clear line drawn in the sand. That is the sort of error that creationists usually make.


LOL, almost posted without the list!

Name one of those seven characteristics that apply to viruses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Name one of those seven characteristics that apply to viruses.

I did. Did you not read my post?

 

[Valjean]

The 7 Characteristics of Life:

1. Living Things are Composed of Cells:
Single-cell organisms have everything they need to be self-sufficient.

• In multicellular organisms, specialization increases until some cells do only certain things.

• Viruses aren't cells.
• They aren't organisms, and certainly aren't self-sufficient.

• 
  

2. Living things have different levels of cellular organization:

• • Both molecular and cellular organization.
  • Living things must be able to organize simple substances into complex ones.
  • Living things organize cells at several levels:
  • • Tissue - a group of cells that perform a common function.
    • Organ - a group of tissues that perform a common function.
    • Organ system - a group of organs that perform a common function.
    • Organism - any complete living thing

Viruses aren't cells. There is no 'cellular organization'
They have no metabolism, so can't 'organize' simple substances into anything.
Viruses have no tissues, or organs, or organ systems.
They are not "complete living things."

3. Living Things Use Energy:

Living things take in energy and use it for maintenance and growth.

Viruses use no energy. They just sit there until a cell gets hold of them.
Viruses don't grow or 'maintain themselves'.

4. Living Things Respond To Their Environment:

Living things will make changes in response to a stimulus in their environment.
A behavior is a complex set of responses.

The only 'change' in response to environment a virus is capable of is degradation or destruction, ie: it can be destroyed, like any other particle.
Viruses have no "behaviors." They just sit there like a molecule of plastic or lipid.

5. Living Things Grow:

Cell division - the orderly formation of new cells.
Cell enlargement - the increase in size of a cell. Cells grow to a certain size and then divide.
An organism gets larger as the number of its cells increases.

Virus don't grow. How could they?

6. Living Things Reproduce:

Reproduction is not essential for the survival of individual organisms, but must occur for a species to survive.
All living things reproduce in one of the following ways:
Asexual repoduction - Producing offspring without the use of gametes.
Sexual reproduction - Producing offspring by the joining of sex cells.

Viruses do not reproduce either asexually or sexually.

7. Living Things Adapt To Their Environment:

Adaptations are traits giving an organism an advantage in a certain environment.
Variation of individuals is important for a healthy species.

Viral code is often imprecise, and copy's vary. While this produces variation, it's not in response to environmental pressures. It's random.[/quote]

 

[Profound Realization]

Name one feature of living things that viruses have.

Source of energy.

Genes made from either DNA or RNA, in which molecules carry that genetic information.

Reproduction.

Ability to evolve/adapt/learn/acquire knowledge.

Genetic information for proteins that are required for translation. (Mimivirus.)

A good read as well. Virus Intelligence: Are Viruses Alive & Sentient? | Jon Lieff M.D.

 

[Valjean]

Source of energy.

I don't follow.

Genes made from either DNA or RNA, in which molecules carry that genetic information.

Well yeah -- that's what viruses are, snippets of code. That doesn't make them alive.
The instruction manual for an IKEA bookcase contains assembly information, but that doesn't make it alive.

Reproduction.

Viruses don't reproduce, they are reproduced by a third party -- a cell.
With an instruction manual I can assemble endless IKEA bookcases, but the only living agent is myself -- not the manual, not the bookcases.

Ability to evolve/adapt/learn/acquire knowledge.

Seriously?

Genetic information for proteins that are required for translation. (Mimivirus.)

Well, yeah, that's what a virus is, a snippet of code, coding for it's own replication (see #2). How does that make it alive?

A good read as well. Virus Intelligence: Are Viruses Alive & Sentient? | Jon Lieff M.D.

Yes, an interesting read. Viruses can, indeed, alter cell metabolism in remarkably complex ways, but the article doesn't support the hypothesis that viruses are, themselves, alive.

 

[blü 2]

Do you think that consciousness isn't really anything special in that it is merely a benifical trait that easily propagated.

It depends on what definition of 'consciousness' you're using; but regardless, it remains the case that the nonconscious mind does nearly all the work.

 

[Profound Realization]

Seriously

What do you find not-serious regarding that?

I don't follow.

They hijack a host’s energy for their own energy source. They obtain, and use energy.

Viruses don't reproduce, they are reproduced by a third party -- a cell.
With an instruction manual I can assemble endless IKEA bookcases, but the only living agent is myself -- not the manual, not the bookcases.

Virus’s do reproduce, through a cell. Through reductive evolution, many contend that they were once cells, live peculiar and independent lives in which the features of what constitutes life need broadened.
Depending on what you consider as “you,” “you” can’t reproduce either, or do what constitutes as living... cells and such within “you,” which are their own alive entities do the work for “you.” By your own logic, you’re not an alive agent, but all of the 3rd party cells within you are alive.

Well, yeah, that's what a virus is, a snippet of code, coding for it's own replication (see #2). How does that make it alive?

This article speaks well on how so.
Are viruses alive? New evidence says yes

Yes, an interesting read. Viruses can, indeed, alter cell metabolism in remarkably complex ways, but the article doesn't support the hypothesis that viruses are, themselves, alive.

Sure it does. Many not only believe, but insist virus’s are alive. It also depends on what constitutes “being alive.” Where there are still gray areas. Perhaps they were once cells as believed to be, reductively-evolved, are still alive, or go in and out of phases between non-living with no host and living with a host.
Viruses ARE Alive, And They’re Older Than Modern Cells, New Study Suggests

I understand where you’re coming from, and respect the belief and/or insistence they are not alive within your own criteria as to what constitutes “being alive.” Mine just differs a little.

 

[Subduction Zone]

• Viruses aren't cells.
• They aren't organisms, and certainly aren't self-sufficient.

Viruses aren't cells. There is no 'cellular organization'
They have no metabolism, so can't 'organize' simple substances into anything.
Viruses have no tissues, or organs, or organ systems.
They are not "complete living things."

Viruses use no energy. They just sit there until a cell gets hold of them.
Viruses don't grow or 'maintain themselves'.
The only 'change' in response to environment a virus is capable of is degradation or destruction, ie: it can be destroyed, like any other particle.
Viruses have no "behaviors." They just sit there like a molecule of plastic or lipid. Virus don't grow. How could they?
Viruses do not reproduce either asexually or sexually.
Viral code is often imprecise, and copy's vary. While this produces variation, it's not in response to environmental pressures. It's random.

Sorry, but they do use energy. They use the energy of the cell to make more viruses. If they didn't there would be no chemical reactions that make new viruses.

And seven is a slam dunk for viruses. They do respond to their environment, that is how they evolve. You just made a creationist's error in disputing number seven. There are two main "driving forces" to evolution. Variation, which you already admitted exists, and selection. Selection occurs when some viruses succeed better than others. There is no real difference between how viruses evolve and other life evolves. As a result they react to their environment.

Thanks for playing.

 

[idav]

• Viruses aren't cells.
• They aren't organisms, and certainly aren't self-sufficient.

Viruses aren't cells. There is no 'cellular organization'
They have no metabolism, so can't 'organize' simple substances into anything.
Viruses have no tissues, or organs, or organ systems.
They are not "complete living things."

Viruses use no energy. They just sit there until a cell gets hold of them.
Viruses don't grow or 'maintain themselves'.
The only 'change' in response to environment a virus is capable of is degradation or destruction, ie: it can be destroyed, like any other particle.
Viruses have no "behaviors." They just sit there like a molecule of plastic or lipid. Virus don't grow. How could they?
Viruses do not reproduce either asexually or sexually.
Viral code is often imprecise, and copy's vary. While this produces variation, it's not in response to environmental pressures. It's random.

[/QUOTE]
These viruses are non-living? How is that possible, because we figure it may as well be dead for all the functionality it has? The whole fact it is doing stuff and propagating is enough for it to be a living thing if some sort, it's structure is similar to that of cellular functionality. It's funny like science sees viruses equivalent to zombies, walking dead.

 

[idav]

It depends on what definition of 'consciousness' you're using; but regardless, it remains the case that the nonconscious mind does nearly all the work.

I don't think determinism somehow negates the uniqueness that is awareness.

 

[Thief]

No, they can't reproduce themselves. Evidently you don't know much about viruses.

Viruses are software. They're no different from a computer code instructing the computer to print the code sequence. Is the code "reproducing itself," or are the computer and printer reproducing it?

Viruses, as I said before, are just snippets of code. If the sequence gets into an actual, living cell, the cell will read it just as it does its own code, but the viral code is an instruction to copy itself, in effect, it hijacks the cell's machinery and causes it to print endless copies of the viral code -- and the viral code is the virus.
A living cell is making the viruses, not the viruses themselves.

A printer can spew out endless sheets of paper with "print this code" on them, but the text: "print this code," is not a living thing.
It doesn't "find a need to reproduce itself" or crave anything. You're adducing intentionality where none is necessary. It's an automatic, physical or chemical reaction, like crystal growth or gravitational accretion.

We see examples of things reproducing themselves because only things that could replicate left any specimens of themselves for us to find. This is not evidence of intent.

and where (or Whom) do you plug them into?

you do say so.....they reproduce
they do so because they want to.....
OR......Someone is doing it as if a pot of chemistry

 

[Nakosis]

But lots of non-living things can reproduce themselves, there are even self-reproducing molecules.

That's a good point the definition for "life" is a bit nebulous. The definition is there but many of the processes can be said of inorganic material.

The difference life and non-life really isn't that definitive.

 

[Nakosis]

I could be wrong but I kinda figure nihilistic universes don't have stars looking at themselves in awe.

Nihilism is really the idea that one should free themselves from the "self" we project ourselves to be. Once free, then we are capable of being anything of our choosing and of course changing the self at will.

 

[Nakosis]

My question still stands. Name a 'trait of life' possessed by viruses.

They're carbon based. What makes them non-life?

They don't initiate action. They do nothing on their own. They are missing some element that they need to borrow from "living" organism.

 

[idav]

Nihilism is really the idea that one should free themselves from the "self" we project ourselves to be. Once free, then we are capable of being anything of our choosing and of course changing the self at will.

Um you just described existentialism.

 

[Nakosis]

Um you just described existentialism.

Existential nihilism - Wikipedia

 

[blü 2]

I don't think determinism somehow negates the uniqueness that is awareness.

I don't suggest it does. We very usually don't allow our intellectual conclusions to alter (much) our emotional responses, otherwise, for example, the better informed would never fall in love.

(I remember wondering the nature and extent, if any, of the consciousness of our splendid dog when she was alive.)