Are viruses living things?

[h_k_s]

Galactic objects are not living in the human or animal sense of the word. They are simply collections of matter which follow the rules of astrophysics.

You have missed my point completely. Please re-read and try again.

Astro-physics is not life. That's my point about your point.

[Pattern-chaser]

Viruses are alive in the same sense as a cancer lives.

Cancer feeds, grows and reproduces. That might seem alive to some?

Or as a beating heart that has been removed from a body.

A "beating heart that has been removed from a body" is a changing thing. Changing from being (part of) a living creature to being a dead piece of meat. It takes a little time to go from being alive to being dead, and in between, it is...? A poor example, perhaps?

[Terrapin Station]

It's just a matter of how particular individuals are formulating their concepts. It's a matter of what that individual requires for a particular concept-term application. There's not a right or wrong way to do that, not a true or false way to do it. There are just conventional and unconventional ways to do it. It's not right or true to be conventional or wrong or false to be unconventional.

Here again, conventional and unconventional are merely applications of the fallacy of argumentum populum.

Google "argumentum populum."

I explicitly said that convention doesn't imply that something is correct or true.

But it's a fact that something is a convention when it is.

[Sy Borg]

You have missed my point completely. Please re-read and try again.

Astro-physics is not life. That's my point about your point.

That was not my point, which makes your "point" pointless as well as simplistic, misguided, gratuitous and patronising. I thought you had more ability than that, but seemingly not.

[sp3ely1]

Viruses carry DNA and are, therefore Life in some sense of the word.
We just don't know what we are talking of, oftentimes, when we speak of Life in the broadest sense!

Admins who insult? Maybe I came to the wrong place . . .

[h_k_s]

Astro-physics is not life. That's my point about your point.

That was not my point, which makes your "point" pointless as well as simplistic, misguided, gratuitous and patronising. I thought you had more ability than that, but seemingly not.

I love it when you torture me.

[h_k_s]

Here again, conventional and unconventional are merely applications of the fallacy of argumentum populum.

Google "argumentum populum."

I explicitly said that convention doesn't imply that something is correct or true.

But it's a fact that something is a convention when it is.

Ok, noted. Thanks.

[h_k_s]

Viruses are alive in the same sense as a cancer lives.

Cancer feeds, grows and reproduces. That might seem alive to some? 🤔

Or as a beating heart that has been removed from a body.

A "beating heart that has been removed from a body" is a changing thing. Changing from being (part of) a living creature to being a dead piece of meat. It takes a little time to go from being alive to being dead, and in between, it is...? A poor example, perhaps? 😉

A beating heart removed from a body continues to beat and live until it dies from the absence of an oxygen rich blood supply, as do all organs which may be transplanted. So it's a great example.

[h_k_s]

You @Terrapin Station are coming at this from a strictly definitional perspective.

Your question is an allusion to argument from ignorance, which is, of course, a fallacy. Google "argument from ignorance."

Here again, conventional and unconventional are merely applications of the fallacy of argumentum populum. Google "argumentum populum."

...and you seem to be taking the path of Truth Via Logical Fallacies. A strange course to choose, it seems to me.

In order for your own thinking to be logically valid, you must avoid fallacies.

To avoid them you must know about them.

Aristotle was the first teacher of identifying and correcting fallacies. This aspect of logic has been around for a long, long time (centuries, millennia).

You can google "logic fallacies" and take it from there.

[fionaimmodest]

It is alive and transmissible, let us continue to do handwash and eat healthy foods to boost immune system.

[Pattern-chaser]

In order for your own thinking to be logically valid, you must avoid fallacies.

True. But for your own thinking to be useful it must be cogent, consistent, and many other things too. Avoiding fallacies is important, but it's only one of (very) many criteria that the results of our thinking must meet. I don't think fallacies alone are a useful constraint to focus on here, in this topic.

[h_k_s]

In order for your own thinking to be logically valid, you must avoid fallacies.

True. But for your own thinking to be useful it must be cogent, consistent, and many other things too. Avoiding fallacies is important, but it's only one of (very) many criteria that the results of our thinking must meet. I don't think fallacies alone are a useful constraint to focus on here, in this topic.

According to Aristotle, who invented "logic", and who composed the first list of fallacies, avoiding fallacies is critical. It is the foundational first step. Everything else you mentioned Pattern-chaser is secondary.

[Pattern-chaser]

True. But for your own thinking to be useful it must be cogent, consistent, and many other things too. Avoiding fallacies is important, but it's only one of (very) many criteria that the results of our thinking must meet. I don't think fallacies alone are a useful constraint to focus on here, in this topic.

According to Aristotle, who invented "logic", and who composed the first list of fallacies, avoiding fallacies is critical. It is the foundational first step. Everything else you mentioned @Pattern-chaser is secondary.

You write as though I defend the use of logical fallacies, which I do not. I merely observe that there are an infinite number of pitfalls our pronouncements must avoid, and logical fallacy is only one of them. Perhaps it might be more useful to concentrate on making our pronouncements useful and worthwhile instead?

[detail]

Well viruses itself are not able to replicate by themselves or that they have an own metabolism for oxigen or glucosis. But they can sometimes be represented via chemical treatment as a crystal and even treated on solid state physics that way. Like for example the hepathitis virus.

See for that :
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 6501800095


So they seem to be more a self replicating toxine which is sometimes in interaction with bacterias and other viral strains.

[NukeBan]

Perhaps the covid-19 outbreak is another opportunity to talk about whether there is an objectively existing dividing line between a piece of complex chemistry and a living thing.

Personally, I don't believe that dividing lines exist objectively in nature, but are instead convenient human inventions. As example, all living things are made up entirely of dead stuff like carbon, nitrogen, water etc.

At what level of complexity do we declare "here is life"?

Where ever we find it convenient and useful for some particular conversation.

The following is pretty cliche, but it hit me with new clarity today. We think of viruses as pathological agents which our body attempts to repel with our antibodies etc. From the human perspective, we good, virus bad.

If we change the perspective to that of the biosphere as a whole, we are the pathological agents, and viruses are the antibody.

Perhaps this example helps illustrate how quickly definitions which seem rock solid can dissolve in to chaos?