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.
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 KandyA nice little quote
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.
"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
Originally posted by King KandyThe problem is there is no defined number of criteria that determines life, they haven’t come up with one in over 400 years, you could keep adding on to the list and most things wouldn’t meet the criteria.
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.
Even with your list your forgot to include this part "There is no universal definition of life; there are a variety of definitions proposed by different scientists. To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists"
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 Da Pittman
The problem is there is no defined number of criteria that determines life, they haven’t come up with one in over 400 years, you could keep adding on to the list and most things wouldn’t meet the criteria.Even with your list your forgot to include this part "There is no universal definition of life; there are a variety of definitions proposed by different scientists. To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists"
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 lifeare the single cellular organisms which comprise a multi-cellular organism alive? or is the multi-cellular organism alive?
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.
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, ya, dude, can't define life. There is no scientific criteria for life.
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.
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.