Are Viruses Alive? 23-10-24 23:56:31 No. 22849 [Reply]
well anons do you think Viruses are living organisms or just complex biochemicals? Which viral origin hypothesis do you like the best?
Points against
>Viruses are not capable of independent replication and have to use the cell machinery of there host to do so, even bacteria that have never been grown outside of a cell culture still retain cell machinery of their own. >Viruses are dormant until they come into contact with a host and do not have a full range of metabolic processes >If viruses are alive then wouldn't DNA, Plasmids, Prions and even some minerals be alive as well? Points for
>if recent research indicating that viruses and hosts evolved from a common ancestor than how exactly would viruses evolve back into non-life? >giant viruses have large genomes and cell machinery >the metabolism first argument that excludes viruses from life would make plastids a form of life <the sauce: https://microbiologysociety.org/publication/past-issues/what-is-life/article/are-viruses-alive-what-is-life.html tbh I find the viral origin debate more interesting but lean towards viruses being alive, that being said I would look at the origin theories before making a decision on if they are alive or not. The Theories(copy and pasted from here:
https://microbiologysociety.org/publication/past-issues/what-is-life/article/are-viruses-alive-what-is-life.html )
Post too long. Click here to view the full text. 56 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Anonymous 20-03-25 23:28:47 No. 24006
>>24003 Typo corrections since this site has no editing feature:
>less concerned with *ecology >an effect *doesn't cease to count (oh, and on that note, the contradiction, in case it wasn't obvious, concerns your original statement against the premise that 'all is life', as by your own standards any activity in existence would now constitute the threshold of categorical life)
>if the basic level *was merely a non-thing, it would remain inert >as *purely being the reflection of cognitive interfacing >*born out of cognitive *consequence >of the *thing's innate intelligibility >would mean *that they are phenomenally symbolic and contingent upon interpretation, i.e. the very *premise you're now attempting to discredit >all attempts at defining life will bode symbolic registration, to *hope otherwise would be to exist outside of language and cognition >by anything other than where your own standards would leave *you >In *an *a-posteriori manner >the presence of particulars does not mean *reducibility to their essentialization >operating *according to causal interrelations Post too long. Click here to view the full text. Anonymous 22-03-25 00:47:40 No. 24024
>>24003 Oh sweet Jesus, I do not care about your bullshit.
Everything you say is a giant sand castle erected to defend the central conceit of "the gene" as an unknowable-yet-imminent foundation of life, and by extension all that exists. It is you who needs to uphold the almighty "gene" for petty and stupid reasons. If genetic material does not conform to an insane and contradictory outcome to possess a "master key" to justify this ruinous social order, then the theory must be thrown out until "history is corrected".
I'm trying to break out of the ruin of stupid thinking like yours. It is probably impossible, because anything contrary to the eugenic creed is automatically inadmissible in this Satanic world-system. But, we can speak among each other, for what little good that does.
I don't need to know much about this new theory you present because I've heard the hectoring and the excuses a million times before. It always exists to uphold the imperious claims made about "life", which are immediately used to justify invasion and pressing the nerve. A Satanic race cannot change.
Anonymous 22-03-25 00:59:46 No. 24025
To bring this back to the original topic, the point I'm making is that "life" does not entail the loaded definitions of such that are presented ad nauseum in the academy, always with a pseudo-religious fanaticism. I say "pseudo" because we know the only religion these people believe in is Eugenics, and every false theory that is erected is a lie for public consumption rather than anything anyone uses. Eugenics itself makes predictions about reality that must become true. If "genes aren't real", then there is no Christ as far as they care. It would be the end of everything for them. My point is that life simply doesn't mean what the ideology requires it to mean, and speaking of living things is a very limited proposition. I would say based on that that viruses aren't living, because by definition the virus is inert material until "activated". At most it would be a highly abstracted "life-form", and at some point you have to ask if it is the virus that lives or some disease or outcome of the virus's activation that is granted its own force in our theories of knowledge. The root of the question comes back to the original genetic myth and beliefs in essentialism, rather than anything life does or any way we can speak of life-forms. The human being isn't just "genes" or a carrier for genes. The development of its body, its bones, and the history of a human, has its own existence apart from "genetic purpose". The same is true of any life-form, even if the life-form exists primarily as an abstract notion of such, like speaking of a particular disease as a "life-form" perpetuating itself. Most diseases, though, aren't life-forms at all or entities with their own existence. Diseases inhabit hosts, and what a body does in response to a disease is primarily that body's response to a condition, usually to "process" the disease. Something like smallpox never leaves the body, and that's why it confers life-long immunity, but the ailment passes after some time. Perhaps the disease leaves a permanent mark on functioning, but the immunity arises because you're still carrying it. Not every disease does this, but the smallpox family does. When you look at the "holy genome" of a human body, you're going to find a lot of alien material that isn't "supposed" to be there.