Are viruses and fire considered living things? page 2

loludumb

Originally posted by tenco1:

*insert wall of text explaining what theories actually are here *

/vika

:P

I’m not that bad. Its readable, and I do at least try to use images to explain the more complex subjects.

Viruses are not considered living things by scientists because they cannot preform the 11 functions of life

The Earth IS ALIVE.

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

so infertile people are not alive? red blood cells are not alive?

and what about proverbial use, like how ideas are alive?

also what if i make a computer virus, and code it with a “universal genetic code”?

An infertile person’s cells can still reproduce, therefor they meet the criteria for life.

You stupid or something.Fire is not because it is nit made from cells and a virus is kinda both because it needs another cell to replicate but it does do stuff a living thing would do but I say no because in order to be alive you need to produce waste products which viruses dont do.

Originally posted by DrOctaganapus2:

Inb4loludumb.

Anyway, both a virus and fire are inactive, but once given a host/something to burn, they spark to life. So can fire/a virus be defined as living things. Both, or at least fire, need oxygen to survive like us c:

Originally posted by acedragon64:

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

so infertile people are not alive? red blood cells are not alive?

and what about proverbial use, like how ideas are alive?

also what if i make a computer virus, and code it with a “universal genetic code”?

An infertile person’s cells can still reproduce, therefor they meet the criteria for life.

ah, cellular reproduction eh? but only very few human cells can reproduce.

And we can also add computer viruses to the list of things that might be alive. Up to what degree can a program living in a 1D world be alive?

Up to no degree. One dimension does not give enough flexibility for something as complex as life, in the first place. Unless you are of course suggesting that the dimension is itself sentient, to outsiders?

I dont consider both as living things.

Well a computer virus is capable of using resources (processor cycles, internet access and memory space). And most defend these resources and try to maintain a stable internal situation (preventing themselves from being overwritten). They can reproduce and mutate as well (some more then others).

Yes, but they’re not one-dimensional entities then, are they? They’re existing within a 2d or 3d environment. The biggest problem I have with a 1d environment, is a single dimension removes the ability for choice to have any real meaning. There is only ever one choice, and the results are always the same. This is not an environment conductive to life.

A computer virus is potentially a form of life, yes, or proto-life in its current forms.

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block to recognising it as such would be the realisation that if you included them, you would have to consider artificial life forms (Alife) as being truly alive in some measure of the word.

It’s an area I honestly don’t know if we are ready to yet explore.

well fire reproduces, moves, breathes etc.

so i think it also has 4/5 basic conditions i rmeber from grammar school.

just like viruses, so i gues botha re almost alive

It’s really meaningless to say whether something is alive unless you rigorously define what it means to be alive. Otherwise all you’ll do is argue about definitions.

Originally posted by Captain_Catface:

But whatever the case, you can’t burn a fire elemental.

You can in my setting.

If it’s alive, it usually dies after being set on fire for some period of time. You can’t light fire on fire. Fire is not alive. But I still love it with all my heart. PYRO LOGIC FTW

Fire isn’t a living thing. And Virus’s aren’t living things either. Something is considered living if it’s made of cells or is a cell. Virus’s are smaller than cells.

actually, the biggest virusses are bigger than the smallest cells. but yes, they are subcellular. but to say that that means it’s not alive is kinda averting the issue.

if paper is made out of a tree, does that mean it’s not paper if it’s not made out of a tree, but made out of something that really has similar properties but technically doesn’t count as a tree, and the paper-like product is in every other way just like any ordinary paper?

if cell structure is part of the definition of life, there should be a reason for cell structure to be a part of life, and perhaps it’s not so easy to say that only those proper cells have those properties.

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

actually, the biggest virusses are bigger than the smallest cells. but yes, they are subcellular. but to say that that means it’s not alive is kinda averting the issue.

if paper is made out of a tree, does that mean it’s not paper if it’s not made out of a tree, but made out of something that really has similar properties but technically doesn’t count as a tree, and the paper-like product is in every other way just like any ordinary paper?

if cell structure is part of the definition of life, there should be a reason for cell structure to be a part of life, and perhaps it’s not so easy to say that only those proper cells have those properties.

Did you know you can use Pot leaves to make paper?

what? i guess not.

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

what? i guess not.

Rope too. I think some clothing might be possible too, but I can’t remember where I hear- Wait, this isn’t relevant in the slightest!

Here’s a thought process: who cares if fire is alive or not? I don’t think anyone has created a scientific article in which they argue that is capable of feeling emotions or pain, so whether or not our arbitrary definition of life includes fire doesn’t change the way we use it. “Common sense” would suggest that fire is not a lifeform, not alive, or however you want to call it. When we talk about preserving life on the planet, we are not trying to protect fire.

A virus can be considered as a lifeform by some, and others do not see it as such. It doesn’t fully fit the current definition of life, but that shouldn’t necessarily stop us from considering it as life in the (near) future. It is important to realise what a virus does to us, and other lifeforms. There are many types that harm the host, while others don’t do much at all. Since they are not necessarily and purely a threat, we should not try to argue that we don’t care if they go “extinct” (as a lifeform). We might treat a virus differently between knowing whether or not they are lifeforms.

As a sidenote, I believe a planet full of fire will be considered “devoid of life” while a planet on which we would find viruses should/would be considered “to host basic forms of life”. If we purely look at the definitions, we might look at an entire alien civilisation and say their planet is uninhabited.

I don’t think anyone has created a scientific article in which they argue that is capable of feeling emotions or pain

well, that’s an interesting notion. clearly life is an attribute we do use for many life forms (by far the most) that we don’t think feel either emotion or pain. and yet you went there. why did you go there?

you just made the significant suggestion that “life” is relevant to sentience only. as if all we can discuss when we discuss life is sentience. but is it?

i think a distinction here needs to be made and is easy to make. the question of sentience is at least an equally difficult question as the question of life, and more relevant to our situation on earth, and most likely at least equally relevant in the hypothetics of like, space exploration or other future significance of definitions of life (like artificial life; autonamous robots)

but obviousy the questions about fire and virusses don’t deal with sentience, but definition of life. basically your question is “is there any significance to the concept of ‘life’ outside of sentience?”

i think there is. we are spending millions or even billions of dollars looking for extraterrestrial life, even dispite our current economic fallout. we need to understand what we’re doing here, and i don’t think we could just go looking straight for signs of sentience.

I’m going to go back to Primary School Education for my answer.
A living thing has 7 main features.
Movement, Respiration, Nutrition, Growth, Reproduction, Excretion, [Something beginning with S

A virus does not respire, it doesn’t excrete, and it doesn’t require nutrition. Hence, not alive.

Fire moves, and can technically grow and reproduce, but it doesn’t do anything else. Hence, not alive.

Also, I don’t think sentience counts for anything. Last time I checked, plants are not sentient.

This is like argueing over if mechanical or eoectronic robots are alive.It is simple.Both have properties living things have but dont meet the requirements to be alve.The requirements are Must be a or made from cells Must be able to reproduce on its own Must have RNA or DNA Must produce waste.Those are the official requirements.It must follow all this to be alive.Fire and Viruses meet some of these needs but not all.That is it.That is the deadline.It must follow these requirements to be considered alive.Sorry if I killed this thread but I answered correctly.

Fire is not alive nor are viruses.WHY YOU REMOVE MY POST?