From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!bronze!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!sun-barr!rutgers!netnews.upe Wed Feb  5 11:56:42 EST 1992
Article 3447 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!bronze!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!sun-barr!rutgers!netnews.upe
nn.edu!libra.wistar.upenn.edu
>From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Viruses Alive?
Message-ID: <64759@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 4 Feb 92 00:10:10 GMT
References: <TODD.92Feb3121205@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Distribution: comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Lines: 22
Nntp-Posting-Host: libra.wistar.upenn.edu
In-reply-to: todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (Todd Law)

In article <TODD.92Feb3121205@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>, todd@juno (Todd Law) writes:
>I basically stated that humans find it difficult to accept entities
>of radically different architectures (non-blood and guts type) as
>being members of the 'life' club. [...]

>Whether viruses are alive or not is a moot point, and it could be
>argued well either way.  The fact that we can argue logically on both
>sides means we need to refine the fundamental idea of what is alive.

That very mootness makes me think such a refinement is ultimately
irrelevant.  Even more rooted in ourselves than "cellularism" is the
desire to categorize/taxonomize.  In order to think, we need words,
and when struck with something that doesn't fit in, we'll shoehorn it
into existing language anyway.  This is a process that I don't trust.

I'd say there are things that are definitely alive, things that are
definitely not alive, and things that are different from both which
are in states that we have no words for.

One purpose of philosophy is to explore this non-verbal territory.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)


