Real viruses are alive, they are belonging to the microbiological family of beings.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was under the impression that viruses were right on the border of life (wrong side) according to currently accepted theories but then again you do have doc in your name. Hold on and I'll ask google.
There is a tremendous debate about this question - scientists do not agree on the answer. Some people consider them to be just a bunch of chemicals. Other people consider them to be living parasites, because they require the metabolic machinery of host cells to survive. But they do reproduce, and they do have genetic
material, so many people consider them to be the simplest living organisms. Probably the safest answer is that viruses have both living and nonliving characteristics.
[ edited to add more google results, correct minor grammer mistakes]
I think most people would agree that the following are alive.
Severely disabled people (i.e. would die without someone to care for them),
Brain-dead people,
People unable to have children,
Bacteria,
Plants,
and the following are not
cities,
fire,
planet earth,
computer (or real) viruses
jokes,
ant colonies (not the individual ants)
but if you can come up with a definition of life that separates the two neatly then you will have impressed me. Good luck.</strong><hr></blockquote>
if you had bothered to read my last post, you'd know that i already did.
[quote] life=something w/ a type of consiousness, ability to adapt to survive, able to reproduce on it's own. <hr></blockquote>
cities have no ability to do any of these things on its own--the people inhabiting the cities do.
fires have no consiousness
earth has no consiousness and cannot reproduce (although, in the terms of astronomy, earth actually is alive simply because it can support life, but thats a different conversation entirely).
computer viruses have no consiousness.
real viruses are classified as both alive and not alive, as they have nucleic acid with genetic material, but can lay dormant in a dead-state until proper conditions arise to become alive again. very cool organisms...
jokes have none of these traits.
ant colonies have no consiousness outside the queen, although the drones still make decisions for the good of the colony sometimes.
now, let's go to yer first list. this is more difficult to discern...
all those you have listed which are human are alive simply because they at one point exhibited all these characterstics and could display them again potentially, although still unlikely. people who are brain-dead are very difficult to consider, seeing as they have no consiousness and thus have no hope for a "life." they are simply there. all functions continue, although they are no longer the same as when they were consious. so basically, it can be argued that they are not really alive in the sense of being human, as they have just about as much "life" as a computer does. people unable to have children are alive because they are sterile based on some bad string of luck. they are still members of the human race, and the race will continue, therefore they are part of the whole. even though they cannot contribute, they still have the organs to reproduce, even if they dont happen to work.
bacteria have a sense of their surroundings, which counts as consiousness and they exhibit the other characteristics. plants have a nervous system, although very different from animals, but adapt and reproduce and thrive in this environment quite remarkably.
i'd also like to add "growth and development" to my initial definition. all those which we have discussed as being alive, continue to grow, age, and develope on their own (if given access to the necessary materials).
bah, this has gotten quite long and confusing, and i appologize if it's that way. good conversation though. good thoughts thrown around.
cities have no ability to do any of these things on its own--the people inhabiting the cities do.
</strong>
I could say that you are not alive, it is merely your cells that grow and 'live', The weird part being that after every 7 seven years (on average) your body has completely regenerated itself and shares no atoms with your current self. Just like the constituents (people, buildings, institutions) of a city come and go.
<strong>
fires have no consciousness
earth has no consciousness and cannot reproduce
computer viruses have no consiousness.
</strong>
If you are going to rule out all my 'living things' by saying that the have no 'consciousness' then I'll have to ask you to define that term.
Also, note that both fires and computer viruses can reproduce themselves. Both consume resources from the environment in order to grow and reproduce. Just looking at flames reveals something almost organic about them.
<strong>
real viruses are classified as both alive and not alive, as they have nucleic acid with genetic material, but can lay dormant in a dead-state until proper conditions arise to become alive again. very cool organisms...
</strong>
Few definitions of life I have seen subscribe to more than things being dead then alive then dead. Viruses by your definition can come back from the dead, but is it the same life, does the virus' 'consciousness' switch on and off or does it get a new one each time?
<strong>
jokes have none of these traits.
</strong>
Jokes are informational parasites that take up vital space in your memory. They force you to repeat them to other people, infecting them in turn. Some strains die out but you constantly hear mutations of old strains you thought were eradicated. Ask yourself: why do I tell jokes? It is as out of your control as sneezing and the joke/virus takes advantage of your body's natural mechanisms to spread itself onwards. If you can have zombie viruses then I want to have parasitical jokes.
<strong>
ant colonies have no consiousness outside the queen, although the drones still make decisions for the good of the colony sometimes.
</strong>
I'm no entomologist but I think this is wrong. Any ant fans want to back me up on this?
<strong>bacteria have a sense of their surroundings, which counts as consiousness and they exhibit the other characteristics.
</strong>
the may have a 'sense' but it's not taste, touch or smell is it? In fact it is probably closer to a chemical reaction than any of those.
<strong>
i'd also like to add "growth and development" to my initial definition. all those which we have discussed as being alive, continue to grow, age, and develope on their own (if given access to the necessary materials).</strong>
This backs up my case for fire, cities, jokes and ant colonies but undermines yours for most micro sized 'living things'. Do single-celled organisms grow? or do they merely reproduce (like computer viruses)?
<strong>
bah, this has gotten quite long and confusing, and i appologize if it's that way. good conversation though. good thoughts thrown around.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I almost feel like a troll because I know that my position sounds perverse. Everyone 'knows' what's alive and what isn't. Except, when asked to explain they can't. As the links above (are viruses alive?) show even scientists don't have the answers to this one.
I was under the impression that viruses were right on the border of life (wrong side) according to currently accepted theories but then again you do have doc in your name. Hold on and I'll ask google.
There is a tremendous debate about this question - scientists do not agree on the answer. Some people consider them to be just a bunch of chemicals. Other people consider them to be living parasites, because they require the metabolic machinery of host cells to survive. But they do reproduce, and they do have genetic
material, so many people consider them to be the simplest living organisms. Probably the safest answer is that viruses have both living and nonliving characteristics.
[ edited to add more google results, correct minor grammer mistakes]
Comments
<strong>
Real viruses are alive, they are belonging to the microbiological family of beings.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was under the impression that viruses were right on the border of life (wrong side) according to currently accepted theories but then again you do have doc in your name. Hold on and I'll ask google.
<a href="http://www.virology.net/garryfavwebfaq.html"; target="_blank">result number one</a> says they aren't.
<a href="http://www.beyondbooks.com/lif72/2c.asp"; target="_blank">result number two</a> says it's an open ended question but leans towards no
<a href="http://www.uq.edu.au/vdu/KidsVirusesAlive.htm"; target="_blank">result number three</a> says the 'simplest answer' is no
...some computer virus stuff...
<a href="http://newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99333.htm"; target="_blank">result number six</a> cops out with:
There is a tremendous debate about this question - scientists do not agree on the answer. Some people consider them to be just a bunch of chemicals. Other people consider them to be living parasites, because they require the metabolic machinery of host cells to survive. But they do reproduce, and they do have genetic
material, so many people consider them to be the simplest living organisms. Probably the safest answer is that viruses have both living and nonliving characteristics.
[ edited to add more google results, correct minor grammer mistakes]
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
<strong>
The challenge:
I think most people would agree that the following are alive.
Severely disabled people (i.e. would die without someone to care for them),
Brain-dead people,
People unable to have children,
Bacteria,
Plants,
and the following are not
cities,
fire,
planet earth,
computer (or real) viruses
jokes,
ant colonies (not the individual ants)
but if you can come up with a definition of life that separates the two neatly then you will have impressed me. Good luck.</strong><hr></blockquote>
if you had bothered to read my last post, you'd know that i already did.
[quote] life=something w/ a type of consiousness, ability to adapt to survive, able to reproduce on it's own. <hr></blockquote>
cities have no ability to do any of these things on its own--the people inhabiting the cities do.
fires have no consiousness
earth has no consiousness and cannot reproduce (although, in the terms of astronomy, earth actually is alive simply because it can support life, but thats a different conversation entirely).
computer viruses have no consiousness.
real viruses are classified as both alive and not alive, as they have nucleic acid with genetic material, but can lay dormant in a dead-state until proper conditions arise to become alive again. very cool organisms...
jokes have none of these traits.
ant colonies have no consiousness outside the queen, although the drones still make decisions for the good of the colony sometimes.
now, let's go to yer first list. this is more difficult to discern...
all those you have listed which are human are alive simply because they at one point exhibited all these characterstics and could display them again potentially, although still unlikely. people who are brain-dead are very difficult to consider, seeing as they have no consiousness and thus have no hope for a "life." they are simply there. all functions continue, although they are no longer the same as when they were consious. so basically, it can be argued that they are not really alive in the sense of being human, as they have just about as much "life" as a computer does. people unable to have children are alive because they are sterile based on some bad string of luck. they are still members of the human race, and the race will continue, therefore they are part of the whole. even though they cannot contribute, they still have the organs to reproduce, even if they dont happen to work.
bacteria have a sense of their surroundings, which counts as consiousness and they exhibit the other characteristics. plants have a nervous system, although very different from animals, but adapt and reproduce and thrive in this environment quite remarkably.
i'd also like to add "growth and development" to my initial definition. all those which we have discussed as being alive, continue to grow, age, and develope on their own (if given access to the necessary materials).
bah, this has gotten quite long and confusing, and i appologize if it's that way. good conversation though. good thoughts thrown around.
<strong>
cities have no ability to do any of these things on its own--the people inhabiting the cities do.
</strong>
I could say that you are not alive, it is merely your cells that grow and 'live', The weird part being that after every 7 seven years (on average) your body has completely regenerated itself and shares no atoms with your current self. Just like the constituents (people, buildings, institutions) of a city come and go.
<strong>
fires have no consciousness
earth has no consciousness and cannot reproduce
computer viruses have no consiousness.
</strong>
If you are going to rule out all my 'living things' by saying that the have no 'consciousness' then I'll have to ask you to define that term.
Also, note that both fires and computer viruses can reproduce themselves. Both consume resources from the environment in order to grow and reproduce. Just looking at flames reveals something almost organic about them.
<strong>
real viruses are classified as both alive and not alive, as they have nucleic acid with genetic material, but can lay dormant in a dead-state until proper conditions arise to become alive again. very cool organisms...
</strong>
Few definitions of life I have seen subscribe to more than things being dead then alive then dead. Viruses by your definition can come back from the dead, but is it the same life, does the virus' 'consciousness' switch on and off or does it get a new one each time?
<strong>
jokes have none of these traits.
</strong>
Jokes are informational parasites that take up vital space in your memory. They force you to repeat them to other people, infecting them in turn. Some strains die out but you constantly hear mutations of old strains you thought were eradicated. Ask yourself: why do I tell jokes? It is as out of your control as sneezing and the joke/virus takes advantage of your body's natural mechanisms to spread itself onwards. If you can have zombie viruses then I want to have parasitical jokes.
<strong>
ant colonies have no consiousness outside the queen, although the drones still make decisions for the good of the colony sometimes.
</strong>
I'm no entomologist but I think this is wrong. Any ant fans want to back me up on this?
<strong>bacteria have a sense of their surroundings, which counts as consiousness and they exhibit the other characteristics.
</strong>
the may have a 'sense' but it's not taste, touch or smell is it? In fact it is probably closer to a chemical reaction than any of those.
<strong>
i'd also like to add "growth and development" to my initial definition. all those which we have discussed as being alive, continue to grow, age, and develope on their own (if given access to the necessary materials).</strong>
This backs up my case for fire, cities, jokes and ant colonies but undermines yours for most micro sized 'living things'. Do single-celled organisms grow? or do they merely reproduce (like computer viruses)?
<strong>
bah, this has gotten quite long and confusing, and i appologize if it's that way. good conversation though. good thoughts thrown around.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I almost feel like a troll because I know that my position sounds perverse. Everyone 'knows' what's alive and what isn't. Except, when asked to explain they can't. As the links above (are viruses alive?) show even scientists don't have the answers to this one.
but if you're asking if female zygote predated complete organism i think you're being sexist
nobody asks if the chicken came before the sperm <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>
I was under the impression that viruses were right on the border of life (wrong side) according to currently accepted theories but then again you do have doc in your name. Hold on and I'll ask google.
<a href="http://www.virology.net/garryfavwebfaq.html"; target="_blank">result number one</a> says they aren't.
<a href="http://www.beyondbooks.com/lif72/2c.asp"; target="_blank">result number two</a> says it's an open ended question but leans towards no
<a href="http://www.uq.edu.au/vdu/KidsVirusesAlive.htm"; target="_blank">result number three</a> says the 'simplest answer' is no
...some computer virus stuff...
<a href="http://newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99333.htm"; target="_blank">result number six</a> cops out with:
There is a tremendous debate about this question - scientists do not agree on the answer. Some people consider them to be just a bunch of chemicals. Other people consider them to be living parasites, because they require the metabolic machinery of host cells to survive. But they do reproduce, and they do have genetic
material, so many people consider them to be the simplest living organisms. Probably the safest answer is that viruses have both living and nonliving characteristics.
[ edited to add more google results, correct minor grammer mistakes]
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting search, don't use to think that this subject leads to a such great debate.
PS : it's not because there is a doc, in my name and that i can wrote Powerdoc MD, that everything i said concerning biologie is true