The virus is a ball with spikes like the pictures, and the spikes stick to living cells that it contacts, but only some kinds of, in this case, human cells. This produces an infected cell which copies the virus multiple times until it bursts, releasing the many copies into the nose, lungs, bloodstream or whatever. some of the copies are imperfect copies, most of which simply will not work, but one of which by accident might work better than the original. It attaches better or survives better in the air, or something. so as the copies copy copies of copies, one variant comes to dominate, and as vaccines or immune systems make progress in suppressing the original, variants that accidentally resist the body's defences spread more. This is more like water flowing downhill than any kind of fight, but from a human pov, the human can fight the current of water even though the water is not fighting at all.

But the idea of humans fighting nature is always problematic, and often misleading, if not dangerous. At the same time, if you fall in the river, maybe don't just 'go with the flow'.

some of the copies are imperfect copies, most of which simply will not work, but one of which by accident might work better than the original. It attaches better or survives better in the air, or something. so as the copies copy copies of copies, one variant comes to dominate, and as vaccines or immune systems make progress in suppressing the original, variants that accidentally resist the body's defences spread more. This is more like water flowing downhill than any kind of fight, but from a human pov, the human can fight the current of water even though the water is not fighting at all. — unenlightened

Ok got your point.

Well no it is not will. But still I could never accept these comparisons with computers. — dimosthenis9

And I can argue all day against comparison to the evolution of virus DNA, or any other competence without comprehension.

Computers are children of the human mind. An alive creature and its mind manufactured them. — dimosthenis9

So are you saying that a virus genetically designed in a lab has no will but an identical virus naturally evolved does?

But computers aren't alive.
I got what you mean and the analogy you use here. But though there are many similarities sometimes I can't accept them working exactly the same. — dimosthenis9

I also don't accept that computers have a will: I introduced them as an example of something with no will that can optimise. Saying "but they're designed" or "they're not alive" isn't a response. No one is willing the particular transmission of a particular message at a particular time. The underlying mechanics are opaque to most. No will involved, and yet it optimises.

Viruses are subject to natural selection. Our own multi-faceted will to live could be, at least in part, a product of the same thing.

So are you saying that a virus genetically designed in a lab has no will but an identical virus naturally evolved does? — Kenosha Kid

Viruses designed naturally or in a lab are both something alive (well it's an open issue if they are but let's assume yes). Computers aren't the same for sure and for sure nothing to do with life itself.

Saying "but they're designed" or "they're not alive" isn't a response. — Kenosha Kid

Well as I told you I understood the analogy you used but still for me is a response indeed. They do are designed by humans and they aren't alive indeed. So this can never be a convincing argument for me. Not of course that this makes the opposite (that virus has will) true.

Our own multi-faceted will to live could be, at least in part, a product of the same thing. — frank

Could you elaborate it a little more? Not sure I realized where you stand on that.

But for example with vaccinations when you "fight" the virus. It responds right? Some variations have much more resistance to vaccines. Trying to "fight back" and keep existing. Doesn't it change as to keep existing?
If it did nothing at all why not just fall apart from the first place? Doesn't that response indicates something? Maybe it doesn't but I don't know I find it weird. — dimosthenis9

So apparently you didn't buy my explanation of evolution by natural selection. If you want to buy into some sort of story about the struggling virus fighting against our attempts to kill it, there's not much more I can say.

Viruses designed naturally or in a lab are both something alive (well it's an open issue if they are but let's assume yes). — dimosthenis9

So:

Computers are children of the human mind. — dimosthenis9

is irrelevant? I'm inclined to agree.

So earlier we established that it isn't the living (or life-modifying) individual that demonstrates will, but the RNA over many generations. Is RNA more alive than a computer? Is a the source code of a computer program more alive than a computer?

They do are designed by humans and they aren't alive indeed. So this can never be a convincing argument for me. — dimosthenis9

Well this is a bit of a dodgy argument, isn't it? In the case of a man-made virus which you want to argue has a will, you held the fact that it's man-made irrelevant to the question of it having a will, only that it's alive (even though it isn't). Yet in the case of a computer which you wish to argue has no will, the fact that it's man-made is relevant. I feel the problem here is that taste rather than logic dictates your arguments, leading to contradictions.

So earlier we established that it isn't the living (or life-modifying) individual that demonstrates will, but the RNA over many generations — Kenosha Kid

This is essentially the central dogma of biology. But it's a dogma. Who says it's true? Information can flow in two directions. From DNA to the organism, or from the organism to DNA. It's a pretty weird image of us hanging on the imperative lines of selfish genes willing to procreate only. You can just as well say that DNA is the altruistic follower of us. Giving us a means for existence. The organism needs proteins, the DNA provides. DNA stays alive through the generations, but does this show a will to survive? It are rather the the organisms that show a will, and pass this will on to a next generation, and this can only be done by means of DNA. Why should DNA wanna survive? To prolongate itself? That sounds circulary. The reason to live is to propagate life? The reason to live is spawning new life, or propagate genes or memes? Dunno, that robs them of value somehow. I want my memes to occupy as many as minds as possible. It can be a consequence, just as redirecting half of you genes to your children is a consequence, but to say this is the ground for what happens is circular. It is making the consequences the cause, the will, as you want. Genes are passed to the new generation, so it must be their will to replicate. If proteins came on the scene first, in the primordial soup of amino acids, and if these protein structures, this first life, had the "will" to pass life on, for the sake of life (so not to pass on genes or memes but to live, in which case the reason or meaning of life is life itself), then DNA can be seen as an aid. Altruistic, selfish, or better, neutral, You can label it anyway you want. Labeling it selfish is stupid, as this implicates the effect being the cause. Calling it altruistic is just as stupid, but it seems closer to reality. DNA offers its means to store information about proteins and the organism uses this property. DNA doesn't truly offer though, nor does it truly order a body which it has constructed blindly to ensure its continuation. That's why I don't understand why modern sticks to this language, which gives a false sense of reality.

The dogma hasn't been proven. Organisms might be able to influence DNA as well as the other way round.

Is RNA more alive than a computer? — Kenosha Kid

Well yeah it is.

In the case of a man-made virus which you want to argue has a will, you held the fact that it's man-made irrelevant to the question of it having a will, only that it's alive (even though it isn't). Yet in the case of a computer which you wish to argue has no will, the fact that it's man-made is relevant. — Kenosha Kid

Even if the virus is man made it is a living thing. For example when scientists cloned the sheep Dolly or if they ever achieve to clone a human wouldn't these be living creatures also? Would they be the same with computers only because they were human made? For me not at all.

All these don't make my thesis of a "will to exist" true or prove anything. Of course not. I just explain you why I can never fully accept arguments that involve computer comparisons with living organisms and how they behave.

So apparently you didn't buy my explanation of evolution by natural selection. If you want to buy into some sort of story about the struggling virus fighting against our attempts to kill it, there's not much more I can say. — T Clark

Your explanation seem to be the dominate one. And sounds truly the most possible one. I started that thread not cause I m sure that every living creature (even tiniest ones like viruses) have a will to exist.I could never be sure of such thing or have any "evidence" in favor of it.

But i was always fascinated how everything which comes to life (even trees) struggle to survive as if they had a will to go on existing. At least that's how it seemed to my eyes.
I wanted to see if anyone else found that possible or had the same thoughts. Or even had an scientific paradox that could be used as an argument in favor of that.
From the responses I see, no one does (at least here).

So yes, something inside me wishes a force of life in everything to exist.And not everything to be a random thing.
But I m logical enough to realize that this might not be the case at all. The fact that I would want such Will to exist, doesn't make it true also. And your arguments, as others too, for sure sound more convincing than mine.

Well yeah it is. — dimosthenis9

Well now we're in a realm where words don't really mean anything. Is it your belief that all organic molecules are themselves alive?

Even if the virus is man made it is a living thing. — dimosthenis9

Therefore being man-made is irrelevant to being alive. And yet:

Computers are children of the human mind. — dimosthenis9

is somehow relevant. This is incoherent thinking.

is somehow relevant. This is incoherent thinking. — Kenosha Kid

No it isn't. Not everything man made is the same. Again, a clone is the same with computers? I can't understand why you find that so weird.

Is it your belief that all organic molecules are themselves alive? — Kenosha Kid

Not all. But RNA is. As DNA.

If we ever discovered in another planet a virus. Wouldn't that be considered as indication of life existence? Some form of life? Or at least the possibility of it? I think it would be considered a great discovery.

No it isn't. Not everything man made is the same. Again, a clone is the same with computers? I can't understand why you find that so weird. — dimosthenis9

I don't find it weird, I find it incoherent. If being man-made precludes will, it should do so whether alive or not. If it does not, it never should. Changing one's values to fit different desired conclusions is just weak argumentation.

Not all. But RNA is. — dimosthenis9

RNA is alive. Yeah okay. :yikes: We're a long way from science, Toto.

. If being man-made precludes will, it should do so whether alive or not. I — Kenosha Kid

No it doesn't precludes will. Where did I mention that? Each case is different. I just pointed out that computers as, let's say, cars are human made things. Does that mean that could never be human made creatures instead of things?What exactly is incoherent here?

Changing one's values to fit different desired conclusions is just weak argumentation. — Kenosha Kid

Same with changing other's words too.

RNA is alive. Yeah okay. :yikes: We're a long way from science, Toto. — Kenosha Kid

RNA is a part of a cell which plays crucial role as DNA also. You find that it isn't alive?That it doesn't carry a form of life inside it?
Every part of me isn't alive also? My liver isn't alive also? Science says that DNA and RNA aren't alive?

No it doesn't precludes will. Where did I mention that? — dimosthenis9

You certainly stated its artificiality as a counterargument. If you're backtracking on that, good.

You find that it isn't alive? — dimosthenis9

Oh, not just me. In fact you're the only person I've ever met who thinks viruses are alive.

No will involved, just evolution by natural selection. — T Clark

Natural selection is like a filter, but is a filter responsible for generating what goes through it? Why should there be anything for natural selection to select?

Viruses are subject to natural selection. Our own multi-faceted will to live could be, at least in part, a product of the same thing. — frank

And what thing might that be?

I don't think viruses are alive, but I do wonder if they could exist outside a biological ecosystem. In any case, I think the OP makes a fair point - there's nothing analogous to the way living organisms can maintain themselves while continuing to replicate in the non-organic domain. I don't however see anything about 'desparation' or effort or trying against all odds on behalf of a virus. The virus is just doing what all living things do, which is surviving and replicating. I think that exemplifies something very near in meaning to what Schopenhauer means by 'will'.

Natural selection is like a filter, but is a filter responsible for generating what goes through it? Why should there be anything for natural selection to select? — Wayfarer

Random mutations lead to a change the genetic makeup of some organisms. Most of these changes lead either to no significant change in the organism itself or changes that do not increase or decrease the ability of the organism to survive in a particular environment. Some do increase or decrease that ability. Mutations that lead to improvements in survivability can be passed on to offspring.

Evolution 101 - but it doesn't address the question.

You certainly stated its artificiality as a counterargument. If you're backtracking on that, good. — Kenosha Kid

I stated that computers are human made no living things and can't be compared to living organizations. Simple as that. You insist on something that I never mentioned. Anyway.

In fact you're the only person I've ever met who thinks viruses are alive. — Kenosha Kid

Check Hanover's article then to see that it is an open issue(that surprised me cause I thought that it was not even debatable, but seems it is).
And for sure there are many scientists who think viruses alive.In fact from the search that I did seems that the majority of scientists believe that. I ensure you I m not the only one.

https://microbiologysociety.org/publication/past-issues/what-is-life/article/are-viruses-alive-what-is-life.html

Evolution 101 - but it doesn't address the question. — Wayfarer

Are you asking where the mutations come from? As I noted, they are random. I think some are spontaneous and some are caused by radiation and other factors. I'm stepping a bit beyond my level of knowledge here.

I decided to look it up on the web. The source I looked at says that most mutations are thought to be caused by spontaneous errors when DNA is copied.

If that's not what you're asking, I don't see how I didn't address the question.

Natural selection is like a filter, but is a filter responsible for generating what goes through it? Why should there be anything for natural selection to select? — Wayfarer

These questions are into the core of that thread in fact. Why should there be anything for natural selection to select from the first place?
Some might say :"It's just the way it is. Simple ". But I don't know. Though it might be true indeed my mind could never fully " digest" it.
Well not that these questions mean that there is a "will to exist" indeed, but I don't know also if these questions are so easily answered from randomness.

Are you asking where the mutations come from? — T Clark

No. The question was 'Why should there be anything for natural selection to select?'

The issue is, the natural sciences assume that nature already exists.

Every living creature despite how simple or complex is (from bacteria to humans) does exactly the same thing. Wants to keep existing. Survive. Evolution is absolutely connected to survival also. The main purpose of evolution is survival. — dimosthenis9

This doesn’t answer the questions posed in the OP, but instead addresses these premises to the questions posed: I know that self-preservation as narrative is in many a way nearly integral to the subject of evolution, but evolution is far more complex than this. As unpleasant a topic as it is for most of us, death (namely, the death of self) is a requisite aspect of evolution. No death, no evolution of life. Period. As far as the will to survive or exist on behalf of all living things, this is directly contradicted by things such as apoptosis (programed cell death or “cellular suicide” as it's called by some) – which is requisite for the health of any multicellular organism. One could then view the death of multicellular organisms within their own species as serving the same function as the apoptosis of individual cells within a multicellular organism, and so forth.

I grant that there is a will to [something] in respect to the process of evolution, but, given the aforementioned, it can’t be a will to survive/exist [for clarity: as a selfhood-endowed being/entity]

------

Though I doubt this will be much of a contender, I’ll add to the mix of ideas as regards possible answers: my own presumption is that evolution in some way works with the will to “be/become conformant to objective reality - both metaphysical and physical”. Those changes (mutations, etc.) or properties that deviate the being/entity (e.g., species) from objective reality to a sufficient extent tend to cause the being/entity to cease to be. Those changes or properties that conform the being/entity to objective reality to a sufficient extent tend to cause the being/entity to continue remaining - albeit, often in changed form. Mere poetics as is, but I like it: shares certain attributes with "truth being a conformity with that which is real". Again, I acknowledge the mystical-ish poeticism to much of this. But in the absence of something more logically cogent given what I previously mentioned about evolution, I’m biased toward maintaining this point of view. This for whatever it might be worth.

I’ll add to the mix of ideas as regards possible answers: my own presumption is that evolution in some way works with the will to “be/become conformant to objective reality - both metaphysical and physical”. Those changes (mutations, etc.) or properties that deviate the being/entity (e.g., species) from objective reality to a sufficient extent tend to cause the being/entity to cease to be. Those changes or properties that conform the being/entity to objective reality to a sufficient extent tend to cause the being/entity to continue remaining - albeit, often in changed form. Mere poetics as is, but I like it: shares certain attributes with "truth being a conformity with that which is real". Again, I acknowledge the mystical-ish poeticism to much of this. But in the absence of something more logically cogent given what I previously mentioned about evolution, I’m biased toward maintaining this point of view. This for whatever it might be worth. — javra

Your thoughts, as Wayfarer's doubts too, seem like an oasis for me at this thread.

I thought "wtf not even one finds it weird that evolution's work and its way with the (let's name them random) genetic combinations seems to have a "purpose" for existence? Or even a will to conform in the objective reality as you mention?!".

Of course our opinion can't be supported by any scientific arguments but come on I don't accept to be so easily rejected by randomness!
At the end why are there so many possible combinations in genes as natural selection to occur??
Could it be possible that all these "DNA errors" that cause mutations, as T Clark described them, to serve a purpose of survival? A purpose for the organism to go on living through that "error procedure"? Even death as you say seems necessary for life.

Why to be possible so many combinations in genes from the first place and not just one or two let's say?!
Anyway your post was uplifting for me I have to admit.

The issue is, the natural sciences assume that nature already exists. — Wayfarer

Exactly! And assume also that it works in a certain way.
But "Why?" is the big question for me. Why evolution to work in that way from the very beginning??We take that procedure for granted(and that's right indeed) but that procedure, maybe, it serves a purpose and it's not only randomness.

I’m glad you found my take to be of interest, though I am a bit surprised. :smile: As far as support by scientific arguments, it does to my mind speak well enough for what evolutionary adaptation is: in short, a conformity to objectivity. But I get you, it’s not a scientific explanation. Agreed.

Since you’re attracted to such ideas of purpose in evolution, here’s two thinkers I’ve come across who hold similar enough views:

Teilhard made sense of the universe by assuming it had a vitalist evolutionary process.[19][20] He interprets complexity as the axis of evolution of matter into a geosphere, a biosphere, into consciousness (in man), and then to supreme consciousness (the Omega Point). — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin#Teachings

If one take’s Teilhard’s “Omega Point” to be one and the same with ultimate reality, and ultimate reality to be synonymous with “metaphysically objective reality”, one can then find parallels between evolution’s will to “be/become conformant to (both metaphysical and physical) objective reality” with what Teilhard writes about evolution as process toward the Omega Point as ultimate reality. He spoke to a Christian audience; in so doing he expressed this as a teleological process toward union with the Godhead.

As a compliment to this, there’s C.S. Peirce, who upheld the notion of agapism or “evolutionary love”:

What he called Agapism or Evolutionary Love he saw as the nature of reality. This love is the fundamental energy that drives all of creation and it has two seemingly opposing aspects that work together. One aspect of this impulse projects new creations into independent existence and the other draws these creations into harmonious union. — https://philosophyisnotaluxury.com/2011/12/evolutionary-love/

Putting some interpretive spin on this: One can interpret what Peirce expresses as agapism being the purpose of evolution. If agape/love is evolution's telos/goal, then with a little stretch of the imagination: where one entertains what some religious folk affirm that G-d = Love and understands this absolute love to be ultimate reality … then one again can begin to accommodate the perspective wherein absolute love, which might also be interpreted as absolute good, is the ultimate reality which serves as "goal" for evolution's processes.

Lots of questions to be addressed in such perspectives (with or without my interpretations of them), and clearly they will fall under the category of mysticism for most. But if you are interested in further exploring such notions regarding evolution’s purpose, these two thinkers’ perspectives might be of help. (Sorry, didn't have the time to find better references for them.)

The question was 'Why should there be anything for natural selection to select?' — Wayfarer

Sorry. I don't get it.

Lots of questions to be addressed in such perspectives (with or without my interpretations of them), and clearly they will fall under the category of mysticism for most. But if you are interested in further exploring such notions regarding evolution’s purpose, these two thinkers’ perspectives might be of help. (Sorry, didn't have the time to find better references for them.) — javra

Thanks for introducing me to these thinkers. Never heard of them before as to be honest.
From a quick read that I did in both of them I found more interesting the Omega point view of Teilhard. Not that I got convinced really, as to be honest, since he attempts somehow to connect evolution's purpose with God as I understood. But he expresses some interesting ideas and issues that I was troubled about.

At least both of them consider that evolution has a purpose indeed. It doesn't say much of course from scientific point of view or providing any real evidence. But in a personal level is good to see that my thoughts and questions about evolution are bothering other thinkers too. Your contribution to the OP is much appreciated.

In fact from the search that I did seems that the majority of scientists believe that. — dimosthenis9

Bold claim alert. Please back this up. The article you cite is a debate between a person saying that viruses don't adhere to the definition of the word "life" and another person who agrees but thinks the word should be redefined to include viruses. From the latter:

The question of whether viruses can be considered to be alive, of course, hinges on one’s definition of life. Where we draw the line between chemistry and life can seem a philosophical, or even theological argument.

Nonetheless we have a definition of life which includes the independent ability to replicate, which viruses do not have. I asked you about whether viruses are alive or not, not whether we should redefine what we mean by "life".

Then we can move onto you backing up your claim that RNA, an acid, itself is alive.

I stated that computers are human made no living things and can't be compared to living organizations. — dimosthenis9

In response counter to an argument that computers can optimise like evolution does. I.e. it was a counterargument. If you're abandoning it, fine (and good).