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
. I asked you about whether viruses are alive or not, not whether we should redefine what we mean by "life". — Kenosha Kid
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
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
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
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. — T Clark
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 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
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
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
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 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
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
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
DNA is set up the way it is. It's set up in such a way that it allows evolution to proceed — T Clark
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
I don't even know what that means. — T Clark
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
Considering that comprehension of what I've written occurs, where is the intellectual laziness or dishonesty in this, um, perspective lets call it? — javra
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
I have to prove that it's wrong? — T Clark
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
And I answered you already. — 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??? — dimosthenis9
Please back this up.
— Kenosha Kid
Sorry but I m not backing up on it. — 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. — Kenosha Kid
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
He states that he finds them alive indeed even if the definition doesn't "cover" them. — dimosthenis9
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
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? — Agent Smith
What you don't understand is that it isn't just "one guy" but many many more. — dimosthenis9
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.