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: — Kenosha Kid

There are many more that believe viruses are form of life.
If not then what are they?Dead? Again if we ever find a virus in Mars or another planet wouldn't that be indication of life??
Sorry but I m not backing up on it. I surely consider viruses alive indeed.Even though Hannover's article is a counterargument, I still consider the arguments from the "alive part of view" much stronger.

. I asked you about whether viruses are alive or not, not whether we should redefine what we mean by "life". — Kenosha Kid

And I answered you already.

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) — Kenosha Kid

As to finish with that. My initial post was that :

Yeah but a computer is manufactured by a living creature. Humans. Virus is already alive. Though from the Hanover's article I see that many doubt that is alive from the very beginning. — dimosthenis9

and after that :
.

Well no it is not will. But still I could never accept these comparisons with computers. Computers are children of the human mind. An alive creature and its mind manufactured them. 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

Where exactly i stated that the only reason that I find possible viruses to have some kind of will is not to be humanly manufactured???
I just mention "an alive creature and its mind manufactured them. But computers aren't alive.".
Does that mean to you that I support that everything that humanity created or will create in the future can't be alive or have will?!
If you get that meaning from that then I can't do anything about that.

Sorry but I will never admit something that I never meant or posted just cause you want it. Believe me I would have no problem at all to admit it if I did.
Better let's drop it. We will never agree on that as it seems.

Your thoughts, as Wayfarer's doubts too, seem like an oasis for me at this thread. — dimosthenis9

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. — dimosthenis9

If you, @Wayfarer, @javra, and Teilhard want to turn evolution into a hugs and kisses spiritual love fest where rocks are conscious and everyone will eventually join with God, knock yourselves out. You guys just want to pick and choose those aspects of science that jibe with your magic-realistic world view and reject those that don't. That's intellectually lazy at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.

If you, Wayfarer, @javra, and Teilhard want to turn evolution into a hugs and kisses spiritual love fest where rocks are conscious and everyone will eventually join with God, knock yourselves out. You guys just want to pick and choose those aspects of science that jibe with your magic-realistic world view and reject those that don't. That's intellectually lazy at best, intellectually dishonest at worst. — T Clark

Chill we don't want to turn evolution into anything. We just share common questions, doubts and ideas about matters that still haven't definite answers.
None of us are dogmatic about it (as you seem to be) and we all mention that our views can't be supported scientifically. We just share common curiosity. That's all.
Who even mentioned that we agree with Teilhard?? Javra just introduced me to him as something interesting and somehow relevant with my OP, not that he agreed with him. So what exactly are you talking about here??

I don't see any problem at all on that, as to use such heavy characterizations as lazy and dishonest.

By the way you repost my response but I don't see any answers to my questions.And you know why? Cause you don't even know. And no one does. Yet at least.
You just say "cause that's how it is". Well excuse us but we are a little more curious about it. We ask why? That's all. Don't crucify us for that "Sin".

You guys just want to pick and choose those aspects of science that jibe with your magic-realistic world view and reject those that don't. That's intellectually lazy at best, intellectually dishonest at worst. — T Clark

You picked on me, so I'll ask of you: how is "the process of evolution selects for that which is most conformant to objectivity via variations" intellectually lazy or dishonest. You mean to say evolution doesn't do that?

Chill we won't want to turn evolution into anything. We just share common questions, doubts and ideas about matters that still haven't definite answers. — dimosthenis9

I don't see any problem at all on that, as to use such heavy characterizations as lazy and dishonest. — dimosthenis9

I used those words because I think it is intellectually lazy at least to accept science when it reinforces your fantasies and reject it when it doesn't.

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. — dimosthenis9

T Clark didn't describe them as just DNA errors, he described them as random DNA errors. Random, in this case, means they don't have any particular direction or goal. Again, you use what supports your vague vision and ignore what doesn't.

By the way you repost my response but I don't see any answers to my questions.And you know why? Cause you don't even know. And no one does. Yet at least. — dimosthenis9

What questions do you mean? Do you mean "At the end why are there so many possible combinations in genes as natural selection to occur?" If you're asking me how DNA based life developed from from non-living material, there are theories about how that happened, although they are not as well established as the theory of evolution by natural selection. That's irrelevant to the present discussion. How life began is a different question than how evolution works. Darwin was explicit about that in "Origin of Species."

Fact is, DNA is set up the way it is. It's set up in such a way that it allows evolution to proceed. Darwin's theory had nothing to say about DNA. DNA wasn't even discovered until almost 100 years after he first wrote about evolution. Darwin didn't even know anything specific about genetics. Mendel's work wasn't published until about forty years after Origin of Species.

how is "the process of evolution selects for that which is most conformant to objectivity via variations" intellectually lazy or dishonest. You mean to say evolution doesn't do that? — javra

I don't even know what that means. The quote below is the type I am finding fault with.

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. — javra

Even the holier than thou-vegan persons entities that have been alive.

Ooh, the horror, the horror.

So in the end, it's all just part of life.

I think it is intellectually lazy at least to accept science when it reinforces your fantasies and reject it when it doesn't — T Clark

Where exactly did it happen? At our post exchange I mentioned many times that your arguments are the scientific one and I have no scientific counterarguments. Where did I project with the way that evolution works as you described? We just wonder why to work that way?? And why is there something as natural selection to choose from the first place (that was Wayfarer's question). And if evolution serves a purpose indeed. That's all.

T Clark didn't describe them as just DNA errors, he described them as random DNA errors. Random, in this case, means they don't have any particular direction or goal. Again, you use what supports your vague vision and ignore what doesn't. — T Clark

That random word that you so proudly declare that I forgot in purpose changes NOTHING at all to my meaning. I just wonder if that random errors as you mention have a purpose .Better now? You are so sure that they don't have. How are you so sure?? Science reached there as you to sound so absolutely sure about it?

DNA is set up the way it is. It's set up in such a way that it allows evolution to proceed — T Clark

And evolution is set up as to allow life to proceed.

That's irrelevant to the present discussion. How life began is a different question than how evolution works. Darwin was explicit about that in "Origin of Species." — T Clark

No it isn't irrelevant at all. That's the core of it in fact. And that's what you miss. Evolution's purpose is life. Either you like it or not.
What I wonder from the very beginning of this thread is, if there is a force of life that makes evolution work that way as to serve it or if that happens totally randomly indeed.

Well I can smell a metaphor here but I'm not sure that I understood the underlying meaning. And what's your thoughts on that (I guess it addressed to "if virus are alive" question right?). If you could clarify it.

I don't even know what that means. — T Clark

Ah, well that then explains things well enough for me. The sentence you're addressing is, after all, the summation of the longer passage you just quoted. I'll simplify my questions:

Q: Is evolution randomness devoid of any selective forces?

If you answer "yes" I'll not so humbly disagree with such an ignorant stance. If you answer "no" then:

Q: Do these selective forces select for that which is most accordant to what is objectively real?

If you have no idea of what "accordance (in the sense of "agreement; harmony; conformity; compliance")" is or else of what "objective reality" is, do let me know. But I might not be of great help in explaining.

But to however illustrate, just as a human who presumes he can fly and thereby jumps off a tall building dies and is thus selected against by evolution for not being accordant with objective reality, so too will a species whose manners of life are discordant to the ever changing, objectively real ecosystem(s) it inhabits be selected against by evolution - be it the dodo bird, or any other of innumerable species that have become extinct.

Considering that comprehension of what I've written occurs, where is the intellectual laziness or dishonesty in this, um, perspective lets call it?

BTW, if you queasiness has to do with "metaphysical objectivity", I can of course understand the relativist's pov. Still, I did mention both physical and metaphysical objectivity as the telos/purpose of evolution. Moreover I blatantly disagree with the relativist - which would embark us on a different course of enquiry. For instance, if no metaphysical objectivity, then are all metaphysical laws/principles of thought fully relative and thereby subjective - such that the law of identity differs from individual to individual?

Is evolution randomness devoid of any selective forces? — javra

Do these selective forces select for that which is most accordant to what is objectively real? — javra

Mutations are the random factor in evolution. These sometimes lead to changes in the organism which have a differential impact on it's survivability in a particular environment. If by "most accordant to what is objectively real" you mean "survivable in a particular environment," then we are probably on the same page, although your way of saying it is vague and likely to lead to misunderstanding.

Considering that comprehension of what I've written occurs, where is the intellectual laziness or dishonesty in this, um, perspective lets call it? — javra

As I noted, your explanation, as expressed in the post I am responding to, is close to agreement with existing science. But you've said more in previous posts:

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. — javra

my own presumption is that evolution in some way works with the will to “be/become conformant to objective reality - both metaphysical and physical”. — javra

This is where my accusation comes in - you use science when it fits with your worldview and ignore it when it doesn't.

This is where my accusation comes in - you use science when it fits with your worldview and ignore it when it doesn't. — T Clark

And pray tell, where does scientism and/or physicalism any empirical science contradict my propositions?

Or maybe objectivity is not a good?

where does scientism and/or physicalism any empirical science contradict my propositions? — javra

Is that how it works? You don't have to show how you're contention might be true, I have to prove that it's wrong?

I have to prove that it's wrong? — T Clark

Yeah you do. Since you accused us of dishonesty and laziness. We didn't say anything at all about your view.

"Do viruses have will?" is analogous to "are viruses alive?". In both cases the virus meets some of the criteria of the word in question, but not all. It is missing metabolism in the one case, awareness in the other.

Do we grant the virus will and life? In both cases, the question is ultimately definitional.

Again, you have affirmed that my perspective is intellectually lazy or dishonest. The affirmation was yours. Its up to you to cogently justify it.

:up:

Yeah you do. — dimosthenis9

Not interested. We can leave it at that.

And what's your opinion? Is it alive or not according to you?

Speaking on behalf of myself, apology accepted.

Ok

Again, you have affirmed that my perspective is intellectually lazy or dishonest. The affirmation was yours. Its up to you to cogently justify it. — javra

I've stated my case several times. I don't feel like doing it again.

Again, you have affirmed that my perspective is intellectually lazy or dishonest. The affirmation was yours. Its up to you to cogently justify it. — javra

I've stated my case several times. I don't feel like doing it again. — T Clark

You stated your statement (repeatedly at that) and provide no cogent justification for it. In a world of relativism I don't know, but in the world I inhabit, that is intellectually lazy or dishonest.

And I answered you already. — dimosthenis9

With an article that I think you didn't read. The pro argument isn't saying viruses are alive according to current definition of life.

Where exactly i stated that the only reason that I find possible viruses to have some kind of will is not to be humanly manufactured??? — dimosthenis9

Okay, this is a bit like:

ME: What time is it?
YOU: Eight o'clock.
ME: Shit, I'm late! Hang on, the clock says 3!
YOU: I never said it was eight o'clock in this country.

I.e. there's no obvious distinction between being wrong and being tricky. I kinda have a feel for the answer though.

Please back this up.
— Kenosha Kid

Sorry but I m not backing up on it. — dimosthenis9

"Please back this up" means, in this context, "please provide evidence". Stupid English and it's ambiguities. If someone with a truck handed you some keys and said "Please back this up," it would mean what you thought I meant. :rofl:

With an article that I think you didn't read. The pro argument isn't saying viruses are alive according to current definition of life. — Kenosha Kid

He states that he finds them alive indeed even if the definition doesn't "cover" them. Simply as that.
You were so "shocked" by the argument that viruses are alive and answered you with the article that there are others who consider them alive also. Period. And now you play the definition card?
So now you have met at least two people that consider viruses alive. And if you see at the thread there are others too.

As to close it, since you found it so outrageous and so easily pronounced it non scientific.
AT BEST, if viruses are alive is still an open issue. And I was surprised of that I have to admit, since I was sure that everyone considered them alive before Hanover's article.
As I searched it more still I find the arguments in favor of viruses as alive much stronger than the opposite one. So yes I go on believing it.

Okay, this is a bit like:

ME: What time is it?
YOU: Eight o'clock.
ME: Shit, I'm late! Hang on, the clock says 3!
YOU: I never said it was eight o'clock in this country.

I.e. there's no obvious distinction between being wrong and being tricky. I kinda have a feel for the answer though. — Kenosha Kid

No it isn't. I made it as obvious as I could for you, providing you the initial posts also and now you accuse me of just being tricky.Only as not to admit that you misinterpreted it. I could call your tactic tricky then,since seems you do the same with the article that I provided you and the definition of life. Anyway as you wish.

He states that he finds them alive indeed even if the definition doesn't "cover" them. — dimosthenis9

That's also incoherent. "alive" is a word with a definition. What you're admitting here is that the definition of "alive" excludes viruses, but viruses are nonetheless "alive".

I've asked you twice to back up the false claim of a scientific consensus that viruses are alive, not according to what one guy thinks the definition should be, but what the definition is. I can see that you can't even cite one person without spiralling into incoherence so I won't ask again.

I've asked you twice to back up the false claim of a scientific consensus that viruses are alive, not according to what one guy thinks the definition should be, — Kenosha Kid

What you don't understand is that it isn't just "one guy" but many many more. You could easily figure it out if you do a little search over the internet. But you insist on thinking that it was just me and now that it is just me and "that guy".

If you want to play with definitions and "by the book", then with the typical existing definition of life, viruses meet some criteria of that definition but yes fail in others. That's why it's still an open issue.

By the way I answer all of your questions but you conveniently forget all mine. So for 3rd time. If you think viruses aren't alive then what are they? Dead??And if we ever discover a virus in another planet would that be considered an indication of life? Yes or no?

The source I looked at says that most mutations are thought to be caused by spontaneous errors when DNA is copied. — T Clark

Gives a whole new meaning to the word "errors" doesn't it? I wish philosophy and other stuff humans do were like that - built not on correctness, but "mistakes"! By that token, Siddhartha, Moses, Mahavira, Jesus, Mohammad, Einstein, Marie Curie, every single human being that ever lived, lives, and will live - all were/are/will be boo-boos!

Life is One Big Mistake! :grin:

Gives a whole new meaning to the word "errors" doesn't it? — Agent Smith

Surely does.

What you don't understand is that it isn't just "one guy" but many many more. — dimosthenis9

It's not even one guy atm. The above is what you've been asked to evidence. You're not doing that. From a scientist's standpoint, the claim of a scientific consensus that viruses are alive is pretty big news and needs basing in evidence. Your refusal or inability to do this speaks volumes.

People are viruses in disguise. That's why viruses have a will, a conscious (not a consciousness), a longing, a drift, and they even bring new life into existence. Nobody knows how it is to be a virus, but they certainly have features in common with us. Features that are dressed up in people and other organisms. We can tug our forelog, viruses can't.

So, viruses are alive! Naked. Without a naked body. In between the naked nudidity of the virus and the free naked human beauty, live dressed organisms like bacteria, unicellulars, insects, trees, plants, birds, amphibians, reptiles, or mammals, fish, and crabs.