Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

"I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image." --Stephen Hawking

So it is true?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
"I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image." --Stephen Hawking

So it is true?

I believe it is true, but I don't see s clear line between life and non-life.

Religion?

My interpretation....

If humans didn't exist...there wouldn't be computer viruses...but then of course there have to be computers first before computer viruse could exist...

...it's the chicken and the egg mix with the clock maker and the clock.



Best can I do...

Depends on how you define life. I'm not sure that basis is clearly set yet.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
"I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image." --Stephen Hawking

So it is true?

I'd contend more about the nature of man than of the "life" of computer viruses...

does this mean fire and radiation finally get labeled as life too?

lol, anyways, its too easy intellectually sloppy to just chagrin the terrible nature of man. I'm very surprised to hear this attributed to him, especially as he benefits directly from the non-destructive nature of human invention...

any source? not that I doubt it, I'd just like to see some context

(also, *created life form* is difficult to pin down, as there are many GMOs which are technically created new life forms, although it seems to be counter to what he is saying)

Originally posted by inimalist
I'd contend more about the nature of man than of the "life" of computer viruses...

does this mean fire and radiation finally get labeled as life too?

lol, anyways, its too easy intellectually sloppy to just chagrin the terrible nature of man. I'm very surprised to hear this attributed to him, especially as he benefits directly from the non-destructive nature of human invention...

any source? not that I doubt it, I'd just like to see some context

(also, *created life form* is difficult to pin down, as there are many GMOs which are technically created new life forms, although it seems to be counter to what he is saying) No source, it was in the quotes on my Google home page and found it interesting.

I could have sworn it was Carl Sagan that said that...

BTW, I think this should be in the philosophy forum.

Stephen Hawking said...
"I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image."
I think geniuses often have a subtly sardonic sense of humor.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
My interpretation....

If humans didn't exist...there wouldn't be computer viruses...but then of course there have to be computers first before computer viruse could exist...

...it's the chicken and the egg mix with the clock maker and the clock.



Best can I do... i say the chicken came first, because the egg would freeze with out the chickens warmth

Obviously the egg came first. It came from something that wasn't a chicken.

i do not think computer viruses are self aware.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i do not think computer viruses are self aware.

They self-replicate though, which is the one constant among what we consider to be "life." No one said they are self-aware...that isn't even being discussed.

You'd have to qualify the definition of "alive" that's being used, but cpu viruses are every bit as alive as, say, airborne viruses that infect other life forms. Neither are aware of anything, so like I said it becomes a question of where you draw the line for "life"

Originally posted by DigiMark007
They self-replicate though, which is the one constant among what we consider to be "life." No one said they are self-aware...that isn't even being discussed.


careful...

are memes life?

...which is why I clarified that one's definition of life becomes paramount to the discussion. But thanks for keeping me in check. I was mainly just playing devil's advocate to his statement...I'm not really terribly opinionated on the matter.

Though to attempt to answer your question, I'd say that replication is probably something that must be present to ensure life, but it alone does not constitute life. So no, memes aren't alive, imo.

http://www.charter.net/news/news_reader.php?storyid=14570889&feedid=271

Viruses aren't considered life, so why would computer viruses be?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Viruses aren't considered life, so why would computer viruses be? Why not when there are so many different definitions of life?

Originally posted by chickenlover98
i say the chicken came first, because the egg would freeze with out the chickens warmth


A chicken laid the 1st "chicken egg," so the chicken came 1st. ...1 way to look at it anyway.

Originally posted by Mark Question
A chicken laid the 1st "chicken egg," so the chicken came 1st. ...1 way to look at it anyway.

I was going to explain that, but it would just become circular.

X laid an egg that had a chicken inside, but X was came from Y and so on...

or is a chicken egg defined by its content or by whom it was laid?

Heh, that's exactly why I wasn't willing to go there. The question of "what is life?" is so broad.

It's like that discussion about when can a child make decisions for themselves. Some say 16 years of age, but even at 30 most people are just a mirror of their habitat so it doesn't say a whole lot to me.

what is life is such a lame way to phrase this anyways

Is norton anti-virus then a threat to biodiversity? call GREENPEACE!

but ya, I agree with the "lets not go there"

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Why not when there are so many different definitions of life?
Because viruses meet very few of the criteria for life.

Here is the definition of life. Let's see how viruses rank?

1. Homeostasis: Yes I suppose. It's very vague as to how it would apply to computer Viruses.

2. Organization: No, Computer Viruses have no cells.

3. Metabolism: Not at all...

4. Growth: I suppose this could be true.

5. Adaptation: True only for metamorphic viruses.

6. Response to stimuli: Yes, assuming they are programmed that way.

7. Reproduction: Yes.

So from what I can tell, that's one "yes", two "Yes, but only for certain viruses", two "Unknowns" and two "No's"

I'd say it's pretty safe to classify them as non-living.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Here is the definition of life. Let's see how viruses rank?

1. Homeostasis: Yes I suppose. It's very vague as to how it would apply to computer Viruses.

2. Organization: No, Computer Viruses have no cells.

3. Metabolism: Not at all...

4. Growth: I suppose this could be true.

5. Adaptation: True only for metamorphic viruses.

6. Response to stimuli: Yes, assuming they are programmed that way.

7. Reproduction: Yes.

So from what I can tell, that's one "yes", two "Yes, but only for certain viruses", two "Unknowns" and two "No's"

I'd say it's pretty safe to classify them as non-living.

And how does a real virus stack up to this list?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Here is the definition of life. Let's see how viruses rank?

1. Homeostasis: Yes I suppose. It's very vague as to how it would apply to computer Viruses.

2. Organization: No, Computer Viruses have no cells.

3. Metabolism: Not at all...

4. Growth: I suppose this could be true.

5. Adaptation: True only for metamorphic viruses.

6. Response to stimuli: Yes, assuming they are programmed that way.

7. Reproduction: Yes.

So from what I can tell, that's one "yes", two "Yes, but only for certain viruses", two "Unknowns" and two "No's"

I'd say it's pretty safe to classify them as non-living.

there are many things that would be obviously considered life that do not follow these guidelines

mules, some plant cells never grow, even though they divide etc.

There is no "standard" for what is or is not life.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Here is the definition of life. Let's see how viruses rank?

1. Homeostasis: Yes I suppose. It's very vague as to how it would apply to computer Viruses.

2. Organization: No, Computer Viruses have no cells.

3. Metabolism: Not at all...

4. Growth: I suppose this could be true.

5. Adaptation: True only for metamorphic viruses.

6. Response to stimuli: Yes, assuming they are programmed that way.

7. Reproduction: Yes.

So from what I can tell, that's one "yes", two "Yes, but only for certain viruses", two "Unknowns" and two "No's"

I'd say it's pretty safe to classify them as non-living. A nice little quote

"Scientists have several qualifications they use to define life, including the ability to reproduce and a reaction to outside stimuli, such as light or heat. But certain computer viruses can use electronics to replicate themselves, and some inorganic materials can be engineered to respond to outside stimuli- plastics which shrink from exposure to heat, for example. Obviously computer viruses and engineered plastics are not living organisms, but they each satisfy at least one of the criteria scientists use to define life. Scientific methods and principles alone cannot adequately describe all of the elements of life." http://www.wisegeek.com/why-is-it-difficult-to-define-life.htm

Well I already pointed out that they meet SOME of the criteria. Just not enough to be living. And i'd like to see these alleged plants that never grow.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And how does a real virus stack up to this list?
Better in some areas, worse in others.

Originally posted by King Kandy
And i'd like to see these alleged plants that never grow.

and you have pointed out yet another difficulty in defining life

are the single cellular organisms which comprise a multi-cellular organism alive? or is the multi-cellular organism alive?

Cells buried within a plant may never grow, because they are forced into their space by surrounding cells that are growing, causing the plant to grow.

lol, ya, dude, can't define life. There is no scientific criteria for life.

the SOME criteria that viruses might meet are not objectively measures of life, thus, it doesn't matter how many they meet. Life is not definable in the way you want it to be.

EDIT: LOL, or just read what Pittman posted

Originally posted by King Kandy
Better in some areas, worse in others.

So, are viruses alive?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, are viruses alive?
No, by nearly every definition they are non-living. Not just the one I used, either, but all proposed ones.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well in order to answer "is a computer virus alive?" we would need a definition. This definition is BY FAR the most commonly accepted one, so it's the one i'm using.

I think what people are trying to tell you is that the whole process of saying whether something is alive or not is a exercise in futility.

I think Digi used the phrase before, so I'll steal it here, it is akin to rearranging the furniture in a burning house, sort of misses the point.

Originally posted by inimalist
and you have pointed out yet another difficulty in defining life

are the single cellular organisms which comprise a multi-cellular organism alive? or is the multi-cellular organism alive?
If you're talking about Multi-celluar organisms, the organism as a whole is alive. If you're talking about the sort of "cluster organisms" found among Protists, I have no idea. But I think both would apply.

Originally posted by inimalist
Cells buried within a plant may never grow, because they are forced into their space by surrounding cells that are growing, causing the plant to grow.
But the plant as a whole (the organism) is growing, so it meets the criteria.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, ya, dude, can't define life. There is no scientific criteria for life.
I just provided one that is accepted by most biologists.

Originally posted by inimalist
the SOME criteria that viruses might meet are not objectively measures of life, thus, it doesn't matter how many they meet. Life is not definable in the way you want it to be.
Viruses are not considered alive because they don't meet the criteria... i'm not sure what you want. Obviously the way to tell if something is alive is to see if it meets the biological definition, that's how EVERYTHING is defined.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think what people are trying to tell you is that the whole process of saying whether something is alive or not is a exercise in futility.

I think Digi used the phrase before, so I'll steal it here, it is akin to rearranging the furniture in a burning house, sort of misses the point.
So you don't think there is a difference between life and non-life? I'm not really getting your point.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, by nearly every definition they are non-living. Not just the one I used, either, but all proposed ones.

I'm not talking about computer viruses. I'm talking about like the common cold.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well in order to answer "is a computer virus alive?" we would need a definition. This definition is BY FAR the most commonly accepted one, so it's the one i'm using. So by this definition of life how many does it need to meet to be considered life? If a woman can't reproduce is she not considered alive? Here cells still reproduce so that would make them alive but she can't? What about people that can't regulate their body temperature?

The definition applies to the species as a whole. Not the individual organisms. And you'd still be alive if you met the majority of the criteria.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm not talking about computer viruses. I'm talking about like the common cold.
So was I. Real viruses score just as badly as digital ones.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The definition applies to the species as a whole. Not the individual organisms. And you'd still be alive if you met the majority of the criteria.

then computer viruses should also be alive.

I'd marry him..

I just love brains......


It's really difficult to talk to you all, but I try.

Originally posted by King Kandy
If you're talking about Multi-celluar organisms, the organism as a whole is alive. If you're talking about the sort of "cluster organisms" found among Protists, I have no idea. But I think both would apply.

I don't think you are adequately addressing the question asked. Are you saying that the neurons in my brain or my skin cells are not living organisms?

Originally posted by King Kandy
But the plant as a whole (the organism) is growing, so it meets the criteria.

ok, I never asked if the plant was alive. I am questioning the application of the term life to single cellular organisms within a multi-cellular organism.

Originally posted by King Kandy

I just provided one that is accepted by most biologists.

all of whom would mention to you the precariousness of what you are trying to do.

Originally posted by King Kandy

Viruses are not considered alive because they don't meet the criteria... i'm not sure what you want. Obviously the way to tell if something is alive is to see if it meets the biological definition, that's how EVERYTHING is defined.

yes, scientifically objective criteria. Read "the ancestor's tale" by Dawkins, it will explain these very fuzzy lines in biological definitions to you.

my point is that it is a useless exercise to say whether X is alive or not

So let us take a look at the list to a computer virus.

Homeostasis: No
Organization: No
Metabolism: No
Growth: Yes
Adaptation: Yes
Response to stimuli: Yes
Reproduction: Yes

That is 4 out of 7 and would be considered a majority.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So you don't think there is a difference between life and non-life? I'm not really getting your point.

at what level and what objective criteria would one use to differentiate between these things?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
then computer viruses should also be alive.
Why is that?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why is that?

Originally posted by King Kandy
The definition applies to the species as a whole. Not the individual organisms. And you'd still be alive if you met the majority of the criteria.

I feel a round about coming on.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think you are adequately addressing the question asked. Are you saying that the neurons in my brain or my skin cells are not living organisms?
They are organic but they are not organisms.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, I never asked if the plant was alive. I am questioning the application of the term life to single cellular organisms within a multi-cellular organism.
The individual cells are not "organisms" they may have living qualities but they are not alive in and of themselves.


Originally posted by inimalist
all of whom would mention to you the precariousness of what you are trying to do.
It's the best definition around.


Originally posted by inimalist
yes, scientifically objective criteria. Read "the ancestor's tale" by Dawkins, it will explain these very fuzzy lines in biological definitions to you.

my point is that it is a useless exercise to say whether X is alive or not
Not useless at all. There are very sharp divides. A rock is not alive. A cow is. Viruses? Nope.

Originally posted by inimalist
at what level and what objective criteria would one use to differentiate between these things?
The ones I pointed out.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
So let us take a look at the list to a computer virus.

Homeostasis: No
Organization: No
Metabolism: No
Growth: Yes
Adaptation: Yes
Response to stimuli: Yes
Reproduction: Yes

That is 4 out of 7 and would be considered a majority.
I'm not sure about the growth and adaption ones.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm not sure about the growth and adaption ones. Many do grow in file size as it adds in the information from your system and will update it self as new information is introduce into your computer. All most all computer virus adapt to the system that they infect some will move themselves thought out systems in response to anti-virus programs and many are cross system compatible.

Yes but those are all things that it was programmed to do from the beginning. In it's evasion efforts, it does not actually modify it's own code, merely executes pre-programed operations.

Cool song....YESSSSSSS

Originally posted by Da Pittman
"I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image." --Stephen Hawking

So it is true?

How is the virus any more alive than the computer?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yes Metamorphic viruses will rewrite their own code but it is only the insertion of junk data and rearrangement, the new data is not an adaption to a specific threat. That is only one type there is many self learning programs that will alter their own code such as creating new rules and code in response to a changing environment without any interaction from a user. You have computer viruses that have built in anti-virus programming that will attack other virus that infect your computer. You have some that when attempting to delete the will duplicate and write their code to try and prevent further deletion, this is in direct response to a threat.

Originally posted by Devil King
How is the virus any more alive than the computer? Interesting thought. Interesting thought. Possibly a computer has intelligent encompasses and a biological virus has primitive requirements.

does anyone else feel like explaining that one person is made up of many living oragnisms?

i'm too lazy to go through all that

It's not a factual learning place of what we've been tought. Cycles and cycles within cycles and times within times...Waves and shore life...i.e. reaping and sowing..Projecting and materializing self to what is put out. It's simple actually, psychologist's teach the same thing but in different terms. Churches teach it as repenting to god...and but WITH stong faith. Wiccans teach it with intentions. Birthday children are taugh it with Birthday Wishes.

Originally posted by chithappens
does anyone else feel like explaining that one person is made up of many living oragnisms?

i'm too lazy to go through all that

Well yeah, I get that. But how is a computer virus any more or less alive than it's host organism?

Originally posted by chithappens
does anyone else feel like explaining that one person is made up of many living oragnisms?

i'm too lazy to go through all that And the point is?

Batman disapproves of this thread!

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/4861/stephenhawkinsqo0.jpg

Originally posted by chithappens
does anyone else feel like explaining that one person is made up of many living oragnisms?

i'm too lazy to go through all that

You're too lazy to says "cells"? You must be black.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Batman disapproves of this thread!

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/4861/stephenhawkinsqo0.jpg How the hell did you think of that

Originally posted by Da Pittman
How the hell did you think of that

313

Originally posted by Da Pittman
That is only one type there is many self learning programs that will alter their own code such as creating new rules and code in response to a changing environment without any interaction from a user. You have computer viruses that have built in anti-virus programming that will attack other virus that infect your computer. You have some that when attempting to delete the will duplicate and write their code to try and prevent further deletion, this is in direct response to a threat.
That's response to stimuli. It was all coded from the start, they are not improving or changing their operation in any way.

Originally posted by chithappens
does anyone else feel like explaining that one person is made up of many living oragnisms?

i'm too lazy to go through all that
They are living but they are not organisms. Cells are not organisms unless it is a single celled organism. Organism refers to the being as a whole.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's response to stimuli. It was all coded from the start, they are not improving or changing their operation in any way. How is this any different then a cell?

Originally posted by King Kandy
They are living but they are not organisms. Cells are not organisms unless it is a single celled organism. Organism refers to the being as a whole.

So were you previously arguing that a virus is more "alive" than a cell?

As of yet not a synthetic electronically one.

Originally posted by chithappens
So were you previously arguing that a virus is more "alive" than a cell?

Originally posted by chithappens
So were you previously arguing that a virus is more "alive" than a cell?
I never said anything of the sort. Cells are alive but they are not organisms. My heart may be part of me but it is not a human.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I never said anything of the sort. Cells are alive but they are not organisms. My heart may be part of me but it is not a human. So how is a computer virus different from a cell?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
So how is a computer virus different from a cell? its virtual for one

Originally posted by Da Pittman
So how is a computer virus different from a cell?
A computer virus doesn't fit the definition of life. A cell is living but it is not an organism.

Here's an analogy. My heart is a human heart. It is not a human. Even if there were floating sentient heart beings, my heat would still not be human.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
its virtual for one By the definition that he wants to use it fits 4 (one in debate) of the 7 criteria of life.

Lets look at a cell in the same list.

Homeostasis: No
Organization: No
Metabolism: Yes
Growth: Not really
Adaptation: No
Response to stimuli: Yes and No
Reproduction: Yes
Originally posted by King Kandy
A computer virus doesn't fit the definition of life. A cell is living but it is not an organism.

Here's an analogy. My heart is a human heart. It is not a human. Even if there were floating sentient heart beings, my heat would still not be human. I have no idea where you are going with that analogy and it doesn't fit into the topic.

Well I'm off to bed, if you respond I will read it in the morning.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
By the definition that he wants to use it fits 4 (one in debate) of the 7 criteria of life.

Lets look at a cell in the same list.

Homeostasis: No
Organization: No
Metabolism: Yes
Growth: Not really
Adaptation: No
Response to stimuli: Yes and No
Reproduction: Yes

Actually this is the true list:

Homeostasis: Yes
Organization: Yes
Metabolism: Yes
Growth: Yes
Adaptation: Sort of
Response to stimuli: Yes and No
Reproduction: Yes

Originally posted by Da Pittman
I have no idea where you are going with that analogy and it doesn't fit into the topic.

Well I'm off to bed, if you respond I will read it in the morning.
Here, i'll give you a guide.


My heart (cell) is a human (organism) heart (Cell). It is not a human (Organism). Even if there were floating sentient heart beings (Single Celled Organisms), my heart (Cell) would still not be human (an Organism.)

Homeostasis: It absorbs and releases salts and water as well as proteins to remain in a constant state.

Growth: It gains more organelles and replicates it's DNA, as well as creates and brings in new proteins. If it divided without growing it would just keep getting smaller and smaller.

Adaptation: I'm not sure actually, you could be right.

My analogy explains how cells can be alive without actually being living organisms.

Originally posted by King Kandy



Here, i'll give you a guide.


My heart (cell) is a human (organism) heart (Cell). It is not a human (Organism). Even if there were floating sentient heart beings (Single Celled Organisms), my heart (Cell) would still not be human (an Organism.)

I'm still not sure what being sentient has to do with anything. That seems like a different subject altogether.

You are not explaining what a virus does not have life. The cell explanation is cute but focus on the virus.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Homeostasis: It absorbs and releases salts and water as well as proteins to remain in a constant state.

Growth: It gains more organelles and replicates it's DNA, as well as creates and brings in new proteins. If it divided without growing it would just keep getting smaller and smaller.

Adaptation: I'm not sure actually, you could be right.

My analogy explains how cells can be alive without actually being living organisms. Homeostasis: A cell itself does not perform Homeostasis but the host body does.

Growth: That is part of the division and replication process and not part of the growth cycle of a cell. This would be like saying that a baby grows up to an adult, splits in two and now there are two babies again. Now I could be wrong but this is the way that I read and understand the definition of growth that you are using.

Originally posted by King Kandy
My analogy explains how cells can be alive without actually being living organisms.

so the cells within plants that don't grow, alive or not?

Since it applies to the species and not the individuals, they are alive.

so, as an individual I am not alive, but as a species we are?

No... whether you are considered a "living organism" is determined by the species, i.e. if you are sterile you are still a living organism since humans as a whole can reproduce.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No... whether you are considered a "living organism" is determined by the species, i.e. if you are sterile you are still a living organism since humans as a whole can reproduce. So what inimalist said is correct, he is not considered alive it is the species that is considered alive.