Viruses are considered non-living despite no clear consensus as what it means to be living and what it is to die as well as the question of consciousness.
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
>what it is to die
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay
>the question of consciousness.
I don't understand how this is still a debate. Look at neuroscience and cases of brain injury, etc. Physicalism is the answer.
that doesn't answer anything about the nature of consciousness except how the brain works to support it you philosophical zombie brainlet
>that doesn't answer anything about the nature of consciousness except how the brain works to support it
Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, wholly tied to and dependent on the functioning of brain matter. The alternative is that there's some source of consciousness outside the brain and the brain acts like an antenna of sorts. But there's no evidence for said field existing.
what are the requirements for this property to emerge and why does it happen? there's no evidence for consciousness either it's just an illusion that's ultimately not needed and wastes a bunch of energy
One of my favorite memes
Midwit highschool dropout meme tbh.
>t. Dog
>t. dropout who couldn't pass his exams
back to school, zoom zoom
https://theconversation.com/science-as-we-know-it-cant-explain-consciousness-but-a-revolution-is-coming-126143
Materialism is gay
Viruses aren’t considered living because they can’t independently reproduce, but need to hijack cells in order to use their reproductive machinery.
true but heterotrophs cannot independently reproduce without consuming resources available in other living things, it isn't really that different
That's completely different; you have no idea what you are saying
I don't see how needing a vitamin you can't produce is any different to that except the level of independence.
Then put on some glasses; one is the fuel for a system the other doesn't have it at all; viruses have no need of nutrients and have no methabolism or repeated chemical reactions
>one is the fuel for a system the other doesn't have it at all
Yeah again level of dependence, some viruses depend on the presence of another virus before it can actually reproduce. So are they even less alive?
>viruses have no need of nutrients and have no methabolism or repeated chemical reactions
No metabolism is more convincing but it isn't so different from bacterial spores. I find viral nonstructural proteins especially interesting here because it's as if they build some of the machinery required that the host lacks blurring the line between life and nonlife even more
Why does reproduction matter?? Trannies are not alive by this definition
>Trannies are not alive
eventually, no.
rent free
When talking about organisms unable to reproduce they are intuitive to reference
correct
Trannies' cells can divide. Viruses are static pieces of DNA/RNA that when absorbed by a living cell cause it to produce more copies of said DNA/RNA.
A lot of viruses have quite complex bodies and locomote with legs. Cell division does not register as intuitive to define "life" as a concept.
They're not considered alive because they don't really do anything aside from intereacting with cells. In particular they can only reproduce by entering cells, whereas living cells reproduce on their own through mitosis. You can see it as single-celled organisms having a "life of their own," albeit a very simple one, and viruses being simply a self-replicating poison. Still, the fact that they do reproduce and have genes makes them similar to organisms. Ultimately where you draw the line between life and non-life is a bit arbitrary. "The question of consciousness" has nothing to do with microscopic entities.
Viruses like come from a comet . They are not earthlike .
>They are not earthlike .
If they did, and been here for billions of years, then they are commons to the universe, and so are we, and are Earth like, even if unlike what was previously on Earth, because the environment it came from came along with it.
I have taken into account all angles.
ROBOT THREAD.
Which live life one pulse, one post, at a time. A heartbeat of atomic timing.
I heard viruses don't have DNA.
some have RNA others DNA single or double strands
Viruses are considered non-living because they cannot sustain their metabolitic processes biochemically. At any rate, the division is somewhat arbitrary.
They are stasis entities that meta-effect humanity. Being the easiest for horizontal gene transfer, bringing the Tree of Life to 3.5-dimensions.
The question of consciousness isn't real and is irrelevant; viruses are considered not living because they have no methabolism and only activate inside other cells; the concept of dying is well understood
Moons of Jupiter could reveal a great suprise, the whole notion of polluting it with radiation is the same as not cutting down a road in a forest so as to not disturb it.
Its acceptable because if life is there, then clearly its common in the entire universe, at some level.
Aren't they the only reason complex life formed on earth at all because they gave vertebrates the building blocks to sustain their bodies by editing their genes? Thanks virus bros.
they are incredibly useful to our planet in general https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_shunt
No you're thinking of Mitochondria (the powerhouse of the cell).
This is a reference joke right? But seriously, retroviruses facilitated myelin protein production which enhanced vertebrate evolution.
Viruses need cells to survive so they couldn’t have predated cells.
Viruses tend to target a specific type of cell or tissue to invade so they clearly have some way of sensing when they've reached that location.