So… the meaning of life is: because.
Thanks. I didn’t know I could argue this way. This sounds like the mother of a small infant.
Why mommy?
'cuz.
Cue the music. Now the chorus – “That’s entertaaaaainment!” 
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
- For what purpose?*
QUOTE]
<sigh> OK than… for what purpose are we here? To eat, screw and have fun? If you are satisfied with that bleak purpose than kudos. I’m bowing out here, no one seems to be concerned with a debate as much as they wish to argue semantics.
I don’t know the meaning of life, I just know it isn’t THAT.
Kalhoun and I were trying to be polite.
But: THERE AIN’T NO “WHY.” Deal with it.
I’m not sure I understand the distinction you’re making here. What is the differene between a replica of a document (to continue the photocopier analogy) and a copy of a document?
My understanding of viral replication is that it does the former (although the virus instructs the host cell, not the other way around). The virus caries the instructions necessary to make a new virus, but it cannot do so on it’s own. The host cells executes the instructions given to it by the virus. Wikipedia:
Though I suppose you could charitably say it is the last definition, assuming that the “proper environment” is a set of machinery that can execute the instructions carried by a virus.
But then again, cars get made spontaniously given the proper environment.
Perhaps you could clarify. What exactly does the virus do on it’s own?
Sure it has a within. The code that make up the computer virus exists somewhere on a hard drive (or in memory). The area where that code is placed is “within” the virus.
What role does the cell satisfy if it does not make the virus (which essentially boils down to making the various parts of the virus)?
A chain of nucleic acids doesn’t have any inherent meaning either. The only difference I can see is that the nucleic acids replicate in the natural world, while the magnetic signals replicate in an “artificial” world.
Just blocking one potential exit.
No, which is why anthropomorphic is probably a bad word for this case. But stating that a virus has intentionality akin to us (or your dog) is absurd.
I never said that resisting entropy implies life. That was your argument.
[QUOTE=What Is Schwa]
Just ain’t entertaining enough for you?
The difference lies in what made the copy. Did the photocopier make the copy, or did the document copy itself?
Then the virus is “alive” while the computer virus would not be. It depends on who made the copy.
Huh?
Copies itself. As opposed to the computer virus that does not copy itself.
That “within” is really only a logical idea. In physical terms, it is just a bunch of disconnected pieces.
Same role that the ocean supplies for fish breeding.
That’s enough, isn’t it? The magnetic signals are not even one part of an identifiable whole until someone or some thing says they are.
I still don’t get it.
Certainly not as complex an intentionality, but certainly an intention to continue its own kind.
Yeah, I know. That was part of my definition. But according to your argument, is a chain letter “alive”? If I tell you “Repeat this sentence” and you do it – does that mean that “repeat this sentence” is alive?
I don’t think so. I was just trying to clarify the terms of the discussion.
Then what would you like the purpose of life to be? That’s the basic problem of existentialist philosophy: Man is a “hostage to his own freedom.” That is, there is no God (that’s assumed; I never heard of a theistic existentialist), therefore there’s no higher power to assign us a purpose. Therefore we have no purpose (other than eating, screwing, etc.), unless we invent our own, which is a great and mighty responsibility. OTOH, it’s a responsibility which you, as an individual, owe to nobody but yourself. So – what purpose do you want your life to serve?
Any ideas?
In the Wiki article, they do cover a clear definition of life:
“Life may refer to the ongoing process of which living things are a part”
And a “living thing” is something that is used by DNA to perpetuate itself. This is essentially Verelas definition.
There are other definitions of *life * and living things, however these are ambiguous and vague. The old schoolbook definition of growth, motion, metabolism, reproduction and response to stimuli could also cover robots in a few years.
By bringing up means I was not saying memes are life, I was pointing out that they have corresponding properties. Life is to DNA. Human brains, recording and storage devices is to memes.
Neither DNA or memes seek/try/strive/struggle/aim etc to survive and replicate, it is just because they **do ** they are. They just happen to replicate and therefore they exist as replicators. Life is an outcome of the replication of DNA. Living things are a tool for life.
hehe I am a tool for life.
We appear to be talking past each other a bit here, so let me make my case simply:
A virus is something that makes copies of itself by invading a host. Once inside the host, the virus gives the host a set of commands for making more viruses. The host then executes these commands. The difference between a computer virus and a biological virus is that the host is a computer or a cell, respectively. However, in both cases the host, not the virus, makes the copies. In both cases, entropy is averted by reproducing. I am unaware of anything that could be called metabolism in either case–or growth, after the copying process is finished.
Given this, the only differences between a computer virus and a biological virus are the substances they are made of, and their ancestral history. Neither of these differences are sufficient for classifying one as life and one as nonlife under your definition–both are equally capable (at least in theory, if there is no actual computer virus that satisfies this yet) of seeking to continue their own existence, “doing something”, or resisting entropy.
Cars could get made spontaneously (i.e. without any help from the outside world) in the proper environment. Of course, that environment would have to consist of a factory with incredibly sophisticated machinery, a power supply, and a supply of raw materials, but it could be done. This was meant to bolster my previous point about how generous the definition of “proper environment” would need to be in order to maintain that the virus “makes itself”.
I (more correctly, SentientMeat) was not arguing that the chain letter is alive, but stating that that is a consequence of your definition of life. The chain letter has as much intentionality as the virus or bacteria (arguably more), and resists entropy, though it does it by way of using other machinery, somewhat like a virus.
To answer your original question: If resisting entropy is considered to be the only condition for life, the there could be a very good case made saying that a chain letter is alive. Personally, I think the definition of life needs to be quite a bit more strict than that one. I also don’t believe that it is possible to find anything that is the definition of life. Like everything else in evolution, life is fuzzy around the edges, and they will always be cases on the boundary that cannot be easily classified. We must simply learn that nature does not always present us with sharp dividing lines.
While you’re explaining politely, could you explain why your declaration must be categorical? Isn’t it possible that there is no reason for you to be here, while there is indeed a reason for someone else to be here?
I can see that the “why” we are here( or anything else for that matter) is because life and existance is a continuation of the beginning of existance. It has always been so and probaly will alaways be.
Monavis
Okay, but what about my question?
I can see that the “why” we are here( or anything else for that matter) is because, life and existence is a continuation of the beginning of existence. It has always been so, and probably will always be. No sweat as far as I am concerned.
Monavis
Okay, but what about my question?
Life is a game.
Sometimes a computer game.
Life is a cereal.
Life is a magazine.
Life is a cabaret, my chum.
Come to the cabaret.
…
Thanks CalMeacham - it looks like we were slipping into a time loop there.
Dr Love - dont get caught up with entropy. Many systems decrease entropy on a local scale, yet increase entropy more broadly. Life is one such system. Crystalisation is another.
You may want to ask yourself, “why not?” Why not simply a fluke of the universe? Why not an accident? Why do you have to turn it into something big and dramatic? What’s wrong with labeling it a cosmic “oops”? It makes it pretty difficult to pass judgement on others, that way…I’ll grant ya. But it also allows people to forget about the hereafter and get down with the business of living in the here and now.
Count me as a biologist who does not find your definition superior. A computer virus “seeks to reproduce” just as much as a biological virus does. If you seek to include biological viruses but reject computer viruses, you have failed.
Biological viruses do not have any “drive” to reproduce. They are, at their simplest, a DNA molecule enclosed in proteins that help that DNA molecule find a host (by providing for attachment to a cell) and protect the DNA from degradation. They do not do ANY of the reproduction themselves; they carry the information to make more viruses, but it is the host cell’s machinery that performs the reproduction. At most, the virus contains the protein for reverse transcription of RNA to DNA, and then the cell takes over from there. Please explain how your definition differentiates those from computer viruses.
BTW, I wasn’t familiar with the Valera/Maturana definition, which appears to be superior to the traditional “laundry list” of things living things do. Thanks for circuitously leading me to that, if nothing else 
Life is what you do while you’re waiting to die.