Stephen Hawking

Started by Da Pittman5 pages

Stephen Hawking

"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?

Re: Stephen Hawking

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?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Religion?
I wasn’t to sure if it should be in the RF or GDF, since it is talking about creating life and then the creating in the image of the creator. So it seemed to have a bit more of a religious feel for me.

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.

Re: Stephen Hawking

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 muttered by Albert Einstein
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

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.