I differentiated the terms. I would have said the virus is life, but it is not alive since it has no functioning parts most of the time. — noAxioms

Life is the property of a living thing which distinguishes it as alive rather than not alive; if it has life it is alive. Would could you possibly mean by "the virus has life, but it is not alive"? That seems completely contradictory.

From this information, I see only two logically possibilities for the original cause:
1. random event from nature, despite the improbability
2. not-random event, that is, intelligent design — Samuel Lacrampe

Second one is disqualified, because if a particular instance is designed, it is not original cause.
I personally suspect Earth life originated elsewhere and fell from the cosmos, but that doesn't solve the problem, it just gives you a lot more diverse places and conditions where the original improbable dice roll came up lucky, and was perhaps more probable.

Would could you possibly mean by "the virus has life, but it is not alive"? That seems completely contradictory. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps, as Cavacava points out, it is the difference between potentiality and actuality? This would differentiate a virus from a cell, and still differentiate a virus from a rock, as the former has potentiality and the latter has no potentiality.

Life is the property of a living thing which distinguishes it as alive rather than not alive; if it has life it is alive. Would could you possibly mean by "the virus has life, but it is not alive"? That seems completely contradictory. — Metaphysician Undercover

Posted the difference earlier.

A dead cow in a field is an example of life, but is not alive. A live cow might still be created from one, but not the same cow. My clock is alive, but is not life. Alive just means the parts are currently operating (not broken, and not completely dormant). It is a fuzzy definition of 'alive', sure. You might choose to apply the term only to a life form (cow) that might be dead or alive, but the term seems to work for non-living things.

Second one is disqualified, because if a particular instance is designed, it is not original cause. — noAxioms

Not if the designer is God, the uncaused causer. But I agree that we should apply occam's razor and postpone this hypothesis until all the simpler hypotheses have been refuted first.

As for having more probability outside of the cosmos hypothesis: Is that realistic? My understanding is that the laws of chemistry are called laws because they apply in all environments, not just in an earthly environment.

A dead cow in a field is an example of life, but is not alive. A live cow might still be created from one, but not the same cow. My clock is alive, but is not life. Alive just means the parts are currently operating (not broken, and not completely dormant). It is a fuzzy definition of 'alive', sure. You might choose to apply the term only to a life form (cow) that might be dead or alive, but the term seems to work for non-living things. — noAxioms

None of this makes any sense to me. How is a dead cow an example of life? It was alive, but no longer is, so there is no life there. It is not an example of life. How is your clock alive? Alive means to have life, to be living, it does not mean to have working parts. That's a nonsense definition of alive.

What do you mean by "the term seems to work for non-living things"? Do you mean that it works for the purpose of assigning "alive" to non-living things. But that's nonsense. What's the point in having a definition which works for creating nonsense?

But I am just as dependent on the external machinery (or at least the byproducts of it) as the virus. — noAxioms

I don't think so. A virus couldn't replicate outside a host, in that sense is dependent on there being host organisms in order to replicate.

To answer the actual question about viruses, this is the official take - https://rybicki.wordpress.com/2015/09/29/so-viruses-living-or-dead/

Just define virus as the infected cell - the whole thing of the living highjacked organism turned into a viral factory. Then the inert DNA particle we traditionally identify as an individual virus is the virion - the transmitted genetic package much like a bacterial plasmid or eukaryote sperm.

is a virus alive then? — apokrisis

What's the issue with viruses? Why would one not consider a virus to be a form of life?

I would have said the virus is life, but it is not alive since it has no functioning parts most of the time. — noAxioms

I agree that there is an issue with functioning parts, but a living thing does not have to have its parts functioning in order to be actually alive. Parts can go into a mode where they have the potential to be active, but are not active at the present time. So a seed is generally considered to be alive, though it is not active, it is in a state of suspended activity.

But since a seed is spawned from another living being, the question would be at what time does the seed become a separate living being, and cease being a part of the other living being which spawned it. And if this question cannot be answered, the assumption that there are separate, individual living beings is thrown into doubt. It may not be that we are really separate beings from our parents and our children.

Perhaps, as Cavacava points out, it is the difference between potentiality and actuality? This would differentiate a virus from a cell, and still differentiate a virus from a rock, as the former has potentiality and the latter has no potentiality. — Samuel Lacrampe

Living things have different potentials, and the potentials need not be active all the time, yet these things are still considered to be alive.

What's the issue with viruses? Why would one not consider a virus to be a form of life? — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, the issue that I raised was Banno's claim we can determine such questions without a definition which captures the essence of what makes the actual difference.

Clearly common usage finds viruses a confusing border-line case. And a tighter definition in terms of infected cell vs inert particle then focuses the debate in useful fashion. It offers the sharper ontic boundary we seek when we can contrast virus and virion.

What difference does it make?

...a synthesis of essential features — Metaphysician Undercover

...again, there need be no essential features.

That's only if the claim that there is such a thing as "common usage" is a justified claim. But as I explained, to create such a generalization, to support this notion of "common usage", requires determining the essential features of all the many different instances of usage. If there is no such essential features, there is no such thing as "common usage".

How do you deter min that you have collected all the "essential features of all the many different instances of usage" in order to show that you have correctly identified the essence?

By looking to usage.

Essences beg the question. It's use all the way down.

How do you deter min that you have collected all the "essential features of all the many different instances of usage" in order to show that you have correctly identified the essence? — Banno

You don't, and can't, identify such an essence. That's why I claim that "common usage" is a fiction. You can look at all the different instances of usage all you want, and identify similarities, but this still will not provide you with the basis for a generalized "common usage".

You don't, and can't, identify such an essence. — Metaphysician Undercover

And yet you previously claimed:

I would say that learning to us a word correctly is the same thing as learning the essence of what is referred to by that word. — Metaphysician Undercover

So from where do you derive whatever you call the "essence"?

What difference does it make? — Banno

The same old pragmatic one. We can measure the truth of what we claim to believe.

What difference is there between claiming that a virus is alive, and claiming otherwise? What will we measure?

Never mind the viruses.

Meanwhile on Mars we are looking for "signs of life". IF we can not decide what life is here, THEN how will we know that we have, or have not found life on Mars -- or on one of the moons of Saturn, or anywhere else?

All, or most all life on earth does, but MUST all life on earth utilize RNA and/or DNA? Suppose we found "something" that didn't seem to be a machine (it's soft and squishy) moving around and, after taking it apart, we discover it doesn't have RNA and/or DNA? Could it be life? How would we recognize "life" without DNA or RNA?

Or, back on Mars let's say it's not moving, is hard and kind of dry, does seem to have a lot of organic compounds (like proteins), and seems to have a particular shape (like, there are a dozen of them and they all look alike). The objects seem to be annoyingly and persistently indifferent to us.

How would NASA go about deciding that they were or were not "life"?

Or, let's say that on one of the wet moons of Saturn a nano-probe finds some stringy fibrous stuff in the liquid (whatever the liquid is) that seems to be slightly reactive (it twitches when a light passes through it). There's no DNA or RNA in it. Does that mean it's just some sort of mineralized fiber floating around?

It seems like NASA is looking for what we have here (don't know how they could do otherwise).

Indeed; any given attempt at a definition must be left extensible, for just this sort of reason.

But if an essence is understood to be the necessary and sufficient characteristics, then it is not extensible in this way.

What difference is there between claiming that a virus is alive, and claiming otherwise? What will we measure? — Banno

The scope of what is considered to constitute an organism.

How do you measure "the scope of what is considered to constitute an organism"?

It sounds like you are asking what is the use of finding the essence of words? It is very useful when it comes to validating or refuting an argument. For an argument can be refuted in three ways:
1. Finding ambiguity in the terms used
2. Finding a false premise
3. Finding a logical fallacy from the premises to the conclusion
Knowing the essence of words is needed for 1 and helps for 2.

What difference is there between claiming that a virus is alive, and claiming otherwise? What will we measure? — Banno

With a tighter biophysical definition of life, we would measure for evidence of an entropic flux being regulated by replicating information, and not merely the presence of information produced by replication.

So rightfully, the virion is not alive by this definition. And this definition captures the metaphysical essence of what it takes to be "alive" - metabolism+replication.

I'm baffled by what you seem to find so baffling about this. You seem to have embarked on some anti-essentialist rant without thinking the issues through.

Is there some reason a sharper definition of living doesn't make a difference when it comes to viruses? You are implying that is your position. So in what way do you mean?

The common folk may indeed think a viral infection is an evil humour or malignant spirit as a conventionalised alternative. But would you still want to insist it is linguistic usage all the way down or would you instead want to suggest there might be some actual fact of the matter?

It sounds like you are asking what is the use of finding the essence of words? — Samuel Lacrampe

Let's take care not to confuse meaning and essence. Sure, looking to the meaning of the words used in an argument is important, as you say.

What I am objecting to is the notion of an essence, as it is usually construed.

And this definition captures the metaphysical essence of what it takes to be "alive" - metabolism+replication. — apokrisis

Where do you look, in order to determine that metabolism and replication are necessary and sufficient for life?

Presumably, at things that are alive.

It follows that you already know which things are alive before you set out this posited essence.

And indeed, most competent speakers of English will be able to tell what is alive from what is dead without reference to metabolism and replication.

That is the entirety of my objection to the framing of the question "What is life?" in terms of essences.

Essence means 'what something is'. Hard to get to a definition without it.

Where do you look, in order to determine that metabolism and replication are necessary and sufficient for life?

Presumably, at things that are alive.

It follows that you already know which things are alive before you set out this posited essence. — Banno

Uh, yeah. Just like folk once knew the mountains and rivers and stars were alive.

That is the entirety of my objection to the framing of the question "What is life?" in terms of essences. — Banno

Yup. And even merely as an epistemological point, that is trite.

So as humans we always find ourselves in the middle of some pragmatically-justified linguistic usage. Words work to structure our ontological expectations. Whatever follows is merely a more telling refinement of our language. That's obvious.

But the issue at stake is the goal of inquiry - and whether it has some direction that ultimately targets ontological reality in an essentialist fashion.

If you believe knowledge is merely socially constructed belief, then whatever stories we make up are whatever stories we make up. Refining our terms is not going to lead to any ultimate truths about existence.

But science does ask after the abstract essence of things because historically it does appear to get us closer to the facts of the matter. This may be indirect realism - as science also understands it is modelling. But at least its a realism that can hold its head up by neither being naive, nor collapsing into solipsism.

As usual, your approach appears to leave you being simultaneously naive realist and transcendent solipsist. Not a good look.

And even merely as an epistemological point, that is trite. — apokrisis

Yep, it's a simple point. So why all the fuss?

As usual, your approach appears to leave you being simultaneously naive realist and transcendent solipsist. Not a good look. — apokrisis

So you say. Naive realist I'm fine with; but what is a transcendent solipsist?

Just like folk once knew the mountains and rivers and stars were alive. — apokrisis

New Zealand River granted Legal Rights as Person