Is a computer virus a form of life?

[IndigoSensor]

I'm sorry to misslead the conversation Indigo I didn't mean to. *with hopes to cheer you up*

Haha, you didn't misdirect it, it just happens that way. I was just simply expressing my disdain and total distaste of semantics, it just succeeds in making me agervated, because it is largely POINTLESS GAH!!!

I *bleep* semantics!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Pristinegirl]

Haha I couldn't agree with you more. I prefer Science! which actually leads somewhere..

 

[IndigoSensor]

Haha I couldn't agree with you more. I prefer Science! which actually leads somewhere..

Sadly, science involves alot of semantics... which I try to avoid like the plauge. whenever someone tried to argue with me over something trivial like that, I simply ignore them and walk away.

>>> Is a chemistry major! <3 <<<

 

[Pristinegirl]

Sounds sweet, lol you should take a look at my chemistry lab report which I did today haha on how much C6H8O6 an orange contained xD I'm still in high school though, senior

 

[FC3S]

Haha I couldn't agree with you more. I prefer Science! which actually leads somewhere..

Science is awesome. Explosions, nukes, bombs, stars going nova, crushing gravity ina blackhole!

W00T!

 

[Pristinegirl]

Definitely, will science be able to dissprove a deity you think? Black holes are so interesting!

 

[FC3S]

Definitely, will science be able to dissprove a deity you think? Black holes are so interesting!

Science can't prove or disprove a deity if said deity isn't rooted in science. Science is about proving consistency.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Sounds sweet, lol you should take a look at my chemistry lab report which I did today haha on how much C6H8O6 an orange contained xD I'm still in high school though, senior

C6H8O6 could be alot of things, but I assume it is a sugar of some kind, or a scent ester?

I had 3 years of chem in highschool (honors, AP, and IS), and I am currentlly in honors organic in college (second year.

 

[Duty]

I'm sorry to dissapoint you but a blind man will never be able to understand what the term red refers to no matter how good adjectives are used. The same way will he not know light or dark if he has always been blind.
It's not about made up or fake when it comes to words, it is that they set limitations on what we percieve and even feel.

You misunderstood, and honestly did not respond to what I was saying.

 

[Pristinegirl]

That is interesting You must love chemistry?
So what is your career plan for the future?
I didn't know that, it's actually Vitamin C.

Well said FC3S

 

[Pristinegirl]

You misunderstood, and honestly did not respond to what I was saying.

Oh I'm sorry I didn't mean to misunderstand and I'm not sure I did, I was merely stating it, sorry if it sounded mean because that is not how I meant it! ^^

 

[Duty]

Oh I'm sorry I didn't mean to misunderstand and I'm not sure I did, I was merely stating it, sorry if it sounded mean because that is not how I meant it! ^^

I'm not upset, I'm trying to be objective and just don't think you understood my response to you, as you only repeated your point you made against Shai, which is a point that was irrelevant to a response about what I was trying to explain.

 

[Pristinegirl]

I see, although I would merely say that my repeted statement disagrees with. Maybe give it another go, with more respect to my statement? ^^

 

[Duty]

I see, although I would merely say that my repeted statement disagrees with. Maybe give it another go, with more respect to my statement? ^^

I think I explained it well. Although words themselves are made up sounds and writings, they represent some idea that (seemingly) is not dependent on man to give it meaning. The actual word "red" is just a combination of letters on paper, or a sound when vocalized. However, red does represent a seemingly tangible property of an object.

No, a blind man probably can not understand what red is if you only explain it to him. That doesn't mean that red is a nonexistent and completely subjective thing. It seems equally as possible that it is an objective thing that is really there, but the blind man lacks the capabilities to sense it. This does not make the reality of ketchup being red or not, only the actual sensing of it is subjective.

Basically, what I'm saying is that objects may have a certain reality and objectiveness to them, yet still be perceived in different, subjective ways. When I look at a table from this angle, and you look at it from another, we may see different colors such as glares, from your point of view the table may appear exactly square (looking directly above or below), while from my point of view the table may look like a number of different quadrangles depending on my perspective.

This, however, does not mean the table is absolutely subjective. There may be an actual, real table. It's possible that only OUR EXPERIENCES are subjective...but not necessarily reality itself.

 

[IndigoSensor]

That is interesting You must love chemistry?
So what is your career plan for the future?
I didn't know that, it's actually Vitamin C.

Well said FC3S

Ooh, I am obsessed with chemistry! My ideal plan is to eventually get my PhD in organic chemistry, and become a research professer at a university.

Hmm, vitamin C extraction, exciting! I have done extractions of various medications in my class lab.

Actually, on my final exam for h ochem 1 our last question was explaining why vitamin C is good for you. By showing resonance stabilazation from radical uptake.

 

[Pristinegirl]

Ahh glad to see that you are so ambitious, I have fate that you will be a great professor. Actually the experiment itself was really fun, the calculations however were a burden, which is actually surprising as I have no problems what so ever with math. Not familiar with the term resonance stabilization haha but I'd love to hear what it is, if you feel the urge to bring a what sounds like being a complex concept xD

 

[Pristinegirl]

I think I explained it well. Although words themselves are made up sounds and writings, they represent some idea that (seemingly) is not dependent on man to give it meaning. The actual word "red" is just a combination of letters on paper, or a sound when vocalized. However, red does represent a seemingly tangible property of an object.

Basically, what I'm saying is that objects may have a certain reality and objectiveness to them, yet still be perceived in different, subjective ways. When I look at a table from this angle, and you look at it from another, we may see different colors such as glares, from your point of view the table may appear exactly square (looking directly above or below), while from my point of view the table may look like a number of different quadrangles depending on my perspective.

This, however, does not mean the table is absolutely subjective. There may be an actual, real table. It's possible that only OUR EXPERIENCES are subjective...but not necessarily reality itself.

First of all I would like to say that I am very proud of your brilliant reexplanation! It is more clarified and we have reached a point where we agree. I definetly understand now, I fully agree with you, red may be existant in reality even though the man cannot see it. He may even see it in his 'blind' world although unable to explain it because he has not experienced the colour red visually. Furthermore a colour blind may see the colour red as green, and synesthetics see letters assosiated with the colour. e.g. H is red. The truth is that being able to see a colour is not the same as the ability to understand it.

"The actual word "red" is just a combination of letters on paper, or a sound when vocalized. However, red does represent a seemingly tangible property of an object."

You see this is the complex of problems when it comes to language: that a whole concept + feeling + meaning is squeezed into a word. Which is why it is so difficult for us to put reality back into pieces while using the puzzle language, because there are so many words, yet so many missing.

 

[Zero Angel]

Computer Virii have limits to their evolution, and even so their evolution is not true evolution.

Real evolution is a function of adapting to stimuli. Finding stimuli which are harmful to the organism and then creating adaptations to that specific stimuli which are passed on to the next generation.

A virus most often does not evolve in this way. Computer virii can be programmed to randomize certain parts of themselves so that they can only be found via a heuristic or checksum type of scan -- and they can even be programmed to regrow parts of themselves. In fact a lot of viruses do this, they will have themselves set up so that several different components of the virus/trojan/rootkit run at once, and if you delete one of the components the other ones will pick up on it and then restore the other deleted files. -- But that's beside the point.

Compare the evolution of the influenza virus to a computer virus. If one applies antibiotics to influenza and the influenza is able to resist the antibiotics -- the influenza will remember the defenses it developed against the specific antibiotic and then pass these defenses on to the next generation (the virus will mutate).

If you were to encounter a computer virus and delete one of its parts, the other parts of the virus might restore it -- but thats because thats what it was originally programmed to do. A computer virus will not increase in complexity and even if it does the increase will be meaningless.

Hence a computer virus does not evolve without human intervention. It is as it was programmed.

Now as to the argument that a computer virus can 'think' -- this is equivalent to saying that a television can 'think'. Free thought often has to do with taking in stimuli, storing it in memory, and then using 'thought' to combine stimuli and perform various logical functions on it -- including prediction, extrapolation and combining experiences. We use thought to anticipate reactions to situations as well as to predict outcomes. Thought adapts.

Think about a lower life form -- for me dogs come to mind. Pitbulls are a species of dog which were specifically bred for fighting. Over the course of several generations pitbulls have developed a certain temperament. As a result, they have become docile towards humans (because pit fighting dogs which attacked humans instead of other dogs most certainly didn't live long enough to pass their genes on!) but highly competitive towards other dogs. If you look at most animals, they too have also developed certain dispositions which are helpful towards their continued survival -- and will continue to adapt as the conditions of their environments change. -- I might be able to program a virus, but I would not be able to write anything so sophisticated that it can remember stimuli and adapt itself to that.

As far as the argument that a virus replicates. Many things replicate. I can write a simple program that can create a file, run it, and then have it create another file and run it until the entire memory of the computer is used up. In fact in many programs, a lot of things can replicate. There are even errors called "infinite recursions" or "infinite loops" which cause a function to replicate infinitely until it ultimately crashes the computer.

If a man is born sterile (unable to have children) would he not be considered a life?

 

[Architectonic]

Now as to the argument that a computer virus can 'think' -- this is equivalent to saying that a television can 'think'.

"think" was used in reference to sensing and processing information, rather than sentience.

If a man is born sterile (unable to have children) would he not be considered a life?

But he was born though a process which allowed replication.

It comes back to the question, where does biological life begin - self replicating amino acid chains? Cellular lifeforms? In the latter, a biological virus would not be an independent life form, but simply a part of life.

Try to explain the colour red to a blind man.

Bad example, since it uses the same explanation as a gamma ray or radio wave, none of which are observable with the eye. Deaf people can still feel vibrations etc.

More to the point, scientists use many instruments that only provide abstract results. How do we give them meaning? How do we know this meaning is valid or useful? This is when we start getting towards the philosophy of science and ideas such as critical rationalism.

 

[Shai Gar]

is fire?