Convicted OneAs overmod has pointed out a few times, much of the lethality has come as a result of people's immune system over reacting to the infection. A "good" parasite does not want to kill it's host.
Really? That's a new one. I sure would like to see a source for that. I have been told for absolute certainty that the virus is non-living and has no consciousness or intent.
If the virus has a perpetual self-interest in not killing its host, that means it will use the host forever. If it does that, it will inevitably kill its host.
Euclid Convicted One As overmod has pointed out a few times, much of the lethality has come as a result of people's immune system over reacting to the infection. A "good" parasite does not want to kill it's host. Really? That's a new one. I sure would like to see a source for that. I have been told for absolute certainty that the virus is non-living and has no consciousness or intent. If the virus has a perpetual self-interest in not killing its host, that means it will use the host forever. If it does that, it will inevitably kill its host.
Convicted One As overmod has pointed out a few times, much of the lethality has come as a result of people's immune system over reacting to the infection. A "good" parasite does not want to kill it's host.
It's a figure of speech. A virus is considered an organism consisting of genetic material (DNA and RNA). There is no consciousness or intentionality. But it has evolutionary characteristics, so survivability and reproduction are keys.
EuclidReally? That's a new one. I sure would like to see a source for that. I have been told for absolute certainty that the virus is non-living and has no consciousness or intent.
Do the following words look at all familiar to you?
-I think it is quite possible that the virus is alive and does have a sense of purpose and intent. But I don't think it can be proven whether or not virus is alive. For one thing, you must have a defintion of life, and not everyone will agree on that definition.-
Convicted One Euclid Really? That's a new one. I sure would like to see a source for that. I have been told for absolute certainty that the virus is non-living and has no consciousness or intent. Do the following words look at all familiar to you? -I think it is quite possible that the virus is alive and does have a sense of purpose and intent. But I don't think it can be proven whether or not virus is alive. For one thing, you must have a defintion of life, and not everyone will agree on that definition.-
Euclid Really? That's a new one. I sure would like to see a source for that. I have been told for absolute certainty that the virus is non-living and has no consciousness or intent.
Others however assert that it is without consciousness. Do they prove that claim? No they do not.
Regarding my surprise that you quoted above, that was my reaction to the claim that you had quoted from Overmod saying that the virus does not want to kill its host. My point is that that claim comes from a person who insists that the virus is not alive. Yet it supposedly does not want to kill its host. So now the virus is not alive. It is just poison dust with compassion and good will toward men.
Given this context, I do not uderstand what your point is when you ask, "Do the following words look at all familiar to you?"
I'm really curious on that one. Is it from Michael Crichton's "The Andromeda Strain?" I saw the movie years ago but never read the book.
EuclidWell sure, that is the way I see it. I speculate that it is most certainly alive, whether we understand its terms of life or not. I speculate that it has consciousness, and intent; and that its consciousness is mobil and can become collective among a group of individuals. All of that is my opinion based on circumstantial evidence. I see no way to prove it.
Since you are going to make this personal, I could as easily speculate that you are most certainly not alive, regardless of whether I understand your terminologies of life or not. I speculate that you have no real consciousness or intent, and that nothing of your thinking could be meaningful to individuals. All of that is my opinion based on more direct evidence than you provided.
Of course, I see no more way to prove it than you had ... and that's the real point. Anyone can speculate, more or less as suits their fancies or prejudices. Actually justifying speculation requires something more. Actually applying scientific principles ... even in the absence of objective proof ... requires still more.
I can prove witlessness, but not absolute lack of consciousness ... or, really, any other negative. Didn't anyone teach you actual rules of logic growing up?
The 'reason' we don't attribute consciousness to viruses is, absent metaphysical buffoonery that really could prove anything, there are no 'systems' within them that could lead to sequential actions required for temporal awareness, let alone consciousness with intent, as humans understand it. It is not up to me to 'prove' this; it's up to you to demonstrate it first. Not circumstantially, either; there's a reason the pathetic fallacy is a fallacy, as well as pathetic.
One of the recognized great triumphs of science is that its explanations hold up across a wide range of disciplines, in contexts that are widely disparate (and hence relatively immune, 'communally', from a great deal of anthropomorphic misconstrual). This is notable, for example, in Renfrew's archaogenetics, where it becomes at least plausible to trace probable lines of evolution over time, not as realized telos of some kind but as sequential mutation with selection. A point that is significant to many of us is that nothing about viral 'behavior' in the standard model requires consciousness, let alone conscious intent, let alone 'morality'. That leaves you free to speculate what you want -- this is, after all, still America -- but it doesn't give you any privilege to claim your opinion has any objective value to others, or any particular meaning.
Euclid I do not uderstand what your point is when you ask, "Do the following words look at all familiar to you?"
Is that really the truth? Or is this just another of those instances where you exhaust others patience over matters of semantics?
Hebdo was right, I was just speaking figuratively, but at the same time I believe there is relevance.
Afterall, my can of Lysol states "Kills 99.9% of all viruses" And Lysol wouldn't lie would it?
How can you kill something unless it's alive to start with? There are fanatics out there who espouse very liberal views as to when they believe life starts, despite being 100% dependant upon their "host" for survival.
Flintlock76I'm really curious on that one. Is it from Michael Crichton's "The Andromeda Strain?" I saw the movie years ago but never read the book.
It was a cut and paste from one of Euclid's own posts in another thread
I found both the following to be interesting. The Washington Post article is paywlled, but deleting cookies can fix that
Are viruses alive? Scientific American
Viruses hard to kill, Washington Post
Well it has mitochondria so if you go back 3.5 billion years to some volcanic vent we have a common ancestor.
However we are much closer in DNA to a daffodil.
I really struggled to not use global warming deniers as a metaphor for a virus bent upon self destruction.
Convicted One I found both the following to be interesting. The Washington Post article is paywlled, but deleting cookies can fix that Are viruses alive? Scientific American Viruses hard to kill, Washington Post
I too had read both of those, and found them quite interesting. I posted the first one a week ago on the General Forum. With the Washington Post article, it is interesting in that it aserts that the virus is not alive and that is the reason it is so hard to kill, but does not go on to explain that. Next someone says it is just barely alive. Then someone says it switches back and forth between being alive and not being alive. So although the article begins with the assertion viruses are not alive, it cannot seem to maintain that assertion. Instead, it goes back and forth trying to have it both ways.
The article in the first link is also very good. Many references say the question of whether a virus is alive has not been settled. I do not believe it has been settled.
None of what I have said about this is affected by semantics. If any detail seems that way, I would be happy to explain why it is not.
Maybe I misunderstood what you ment by posting what I had said about this matter in another thread. I thought you meant that what I say here was in conflict with what I said earlier.
In any case, the question of whether viruses were living or non-living occurred to me because many people characterize them as though they are living, and yet some say they are not living. The main point would be that if they are alive with conscious purpose and intent, it adds a powerful dimension to the threat viruses pose.
Convicted OneHow can you kill something unless it's alive to start with?
Well, I drove into the garage and killed the engine, and it wasn't alive to begin with. I had a discussion of metallurgy involving killed steel, and that wasn't alive either. So it's not a wild violation of semantic precision to use 'kill' instead of 'permanently de-activate' as applied to chemical antiviral activity. (Note I avoid 'virucidal' as that's the Latin for the same sense of 'intentional causing of death')
There's a difference in both science and terminology between 'what works as an antimicrobial' and a 'sanitizer' -- we see quite a bit of this now that companies are coming out of the woodwork to 'help protect against COVID-19'. Note that the term 'antibiotic' specifically references that it acts against living things ... and that antibiotics are recognized as ineffective against viral infections. That's not just a matter of semantics.
Viral 'killing' involves permanent 'denaturation' of the actual viral genome -- the DNA or RNA that constitutes the viral 'code' that infected cells subsequently run to produce new virus. That specifically includes penetration through the defenses of the viral envelope and capsid ... which is why 70% alcohol is more effective as an antiviral agent than 91% or stronger alcohol.
Denaturation essentially being thought of as 'enough' chemical modification of the genomic material so that it can no longer generate all the complex steps needed to replicate the full virus-- ideally, so that even if an intact envelope/capsid complex introduces the genome, it can induce none of the deleterious changes in cell metabolism that result in viral illness.
Note that agents like 3CLpro inhibitors, and Avigan, act on specific viral chemical actions that are 'highly conserved' -- meaning that many viruses depend on them for effectiveness and have no alternative pathways as living microbes do -- and ensure that viral action is shut down effectively within one generation without requiring extensive random changes in viral structure.
I guess there are some who will argue that unless there is sentient will, there is no life. But in context with my original thought that that the virus might evolve, or mutate into a less deadly form, I really wasn't thinking in terms of willful evolution. (perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully, I wasn't anticipating an inquisition)
Quite simply my thoughts were more geared towards how the best interest of the virus would be better served if it didn't kill it's host. SO if a less lethal strain did emerge, it's likelihood for proliferation should be better than the killer strain.
A less lethal strain should be able to outperform it's lethal counterpart, in other words.
EuclidNone of what I have said about this is affected by semantics. If any detail seems that way, I would be happy to explain why it is not.
I was thinking more of the frequent occasions where you claim to not understand something, when actually you do, it's just more a matter that you disagree, rather than fail to understand.
This looked to be another of those type instances.
EuclidThe main point would be that if they are alive with conscious purpose and intent, it adds a powerful dimension to the threat viruses pose.
This woud indeed be true, and it factors into some very memorable SF tropes, including Jack Chalker's Dreel and the infamous if deprecated Midichlorians. One can find a similar concern over 'emergent' consciousness in the Empire of the Ants ... and in a number of places in the various Gaia hypotheses.
I would note, though, that 'man' as a conscious entity may not go too far back (see Julian Jaynes with his almost book-length title Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind) and through recorded history man has loved attributing human characteristics to the non-human and then judging it by those standards. Man also loves inventing 'agency' of some sort for unexplained phenomena ... and 'explaining away' phenomena rather than coherently attempting to explain them. These are fun, and heaven knows they can have psychological value, but it does remain that you can get a lot further treating disease with science, even through applied placebo effect, than with attempting to reason with the agent of disease, or with an anthromorphized Reaper or Azrael or whatever who holds the reins, or for that matter claim that if you have just the right kind of faith disease will have no hold over you.
There's certainly a great deal "science" doesn't know about disease. Spontaneous regression is certainly one of those areas, more so in that there is some evidence of 'mind over matter' action in its induction. But there is no need to imply that consciousness 'masters' some malignant intent in order to shut down cancerous or viral activity. It's very human to talk about people 'fighting' cancer and 'beating' it for a while -- or regrettably 'losing their battle' against an implacable foe -- but there is little if any need to attribute actual conscious viciousness, let alone scheming domination, to "cancers" of any efficient kind.
Convicted OneQuite simply my thoughts were more geared towards how the best interest of the virus would be better served if it didn't kill its host. SO if a less lethal strain did emerge, its likelihood for proliferation should be better than the killer strain.
Some of the "fun" details in epidemiology involve the complex interactions that govern viral 'epidemics'. Some of these are also taken up in science fiction, and it can be amusing to see some of the disease descriptions in pre-molecular-biology fiction (like Jack London's Red Plague) and compare them to likely actual disease etiology... for example, the various presentations of Y.pestis infections, or tuberculosis, or more recently Ebola and Marburg. There are also various discussions pro and con about the best ways of actually consciously affecting viral action, one example being the somewhat screwworm-like solution in 'live virus vaccines' (which are, in effect, quite similar to original 'vaccination' in their practical effect) where a less pathogenic virus has, or is given, immunomodulative characteristics that are then effective for more pathogenic types.
Note that 'weaponized' viruses have other categories than 'lethality', too. Most of them do share a reasonable relatively asymptomatic induction time ... to give the infection a chance to spread before subsequent 'effect' slows the effective vectors down ... but very effective binding and expression, even in relatively small concentration, to highly conserved peripheral-tissue areas that cannt easily be blocked or inactivated (as for example some analgesics block COX receptors), so that progression of infection is certain even with slow induction. Once established, you want relatively good induction before a given cell lyses, and you want some enhancement of responses that will tend to 'spread' viral particles effectively, this being provided in 'cold' viruses via the usual familiar things like leukotriene cascade. (Note that at this stage a conscious virus wouldn't 'care' as much if that cascade overruns safe expression for the host, and an unconscious one preferentially spreads 'enough' for its enhanced overall survival. Viral engineers, on the other hand, want to consciously maximize overall transfer, and this may indeed involve keeping the reactions 'shy of death' for the longest practical time, both to lengthen the potential exposure time per host and to tie up the maximum resources in time and hospital facilities taking care of the debilitated.
An interesting thing to consider about SARS-CoV-2 while we're in tinfoil deployment mode is that its rate of ARDS induction is actually lower than that reported for the original (~40x less contagious) clone of SARS, with MERS being considerably more lethal. You could argue 'for' or 'against' this being a desirable combination in a consciously engineered bioweapon, but it would be a surprising one.
Convicted One Euclid None of what I have said about this is affected by semantics. If any detail seems that way, I would be happy to explain why it is not. I was thinking more of the frequent occasions where you claim to not understand something, when actually you do, it's just more a matter that you disagree, rather than fail to understand. This looked to be another of those type instances.
Euclid None of what I have said about this is affected by semantics. If any detail seems that way, I would be happy to explain why it is not.
Well kind of on topic, I have a mild dust allergy and purchased an air purifier from IQ Air (Home Healthpro Plus....you can Google). Designed by the Swiss and made by the Germans. It will filter out the Coronoavirus germs from the air. I bought it long before the virus outbreak though. It is a Hospital grade air filter though and eliminates particulates down to .003 micros. All I know is I sleep better at night with it running and it is like sleeping at Chateau Lake Louise in Canada the air is so clean and it is noticeably clean. Anyways what is cool and back to how this relates to trains is they just introduced a smaller air filtration system that I think could be retrofitted or modified to handle air for a sleeping car compartment. It can be mounted in your car and controlled by smartphone as well......here is the link....
https://www.iqair.com/us/solutions/air-quality-on-the-go
Now that is awesome! So it's pricey at $400 then there are the air filter changes......so on a per compartment bases on a Superliner might not be economical or practical....... but they also make a whole house purifier as well which could be potentially retrofitted or redesigned for the HVAC system on a Superliner Sleeping Car. Then again it would be a recurring maintenence item to replace the filter after x hours of operation and you would need a monitor system for that. Not sure given Amtraks cycle of on again and off again maintenence they would be disciplined enough for Hospital Grade HEPA air filtration.
EuclidCan you give me an example?
There have been quite a few instances, but I really don't keep score in a vindictive manner, so I don't have a catalog to go back to.
Page 4 of the "Blockade getting worse" thread is one such example. I jested that perhaps the problem might be resolved through treaty, and you claimed that you didn't understand what I was getting at.
Overmod explained to you how he understood my intent to be, which I followed up with a more detailed explanation to which you specifically replied :
"Yes, that is exactly what I figured you were getting at."
Before you start some long deliberation of what the definition of "is" is, or who "they" were (or whatever,... trying to mince words)...I'm just capsulizing for brevity to give you the example you asked for depicting an instance where you first claimed you did not understand, only to fess up later that you knew exactly what I was getting at.
Often enough that it's become a pattern that I recognize.
Convicted One Euclid Can you give me an example? There have been quite a few instances, but I really don't keep score in a vindictive manner, so I don't have a catalog to go back to. Page 4 of the "Blockade getting worse" thread is one such example. I jested that perhaps the problem might be resolved through treaty, and you claimed that you didn't understand what I was getting at. Overmod explained to you how he understood my intent to be, which I followed up with a more detailed explanation to which you specifically replied : "Yes, that is exactly what I figured you were getting at." Before you start some long deliberation of what the definition of "is" is, or who "they" were (or whatever,... trying to mince words)...I'm just capsulizing for brevity to give you the example you asked for depicting an instance where you first claimed you did not understand, only to fess up later that you knew exactly what I was getting at. Often enough that it's become a pattern that I recognize.
Euclid Can you give me an example?
Okay, I see that. I would always do that if someone says something that don't fully understand, or especially if I can see more than one interpretation possible.
But I do recall the instance that you mentioned.
In the case you mentioned, I did think I understood what you were getting at, but I wanted you to say it. It seemed to me that you were trying to introduce it by dropping a hint. The hint was that you were referencing past injustices to the indignenous people by the non-indigenous settlers. And that that was a reason why the indigenous people today would be uwilling to trust a new treaty of any sort. But I thought that if I were to take issue with that, I should get beyond your hint and make sure I understood what you were getting at before going further.
So I did not want to jump in and and sort of take the bait, and then prove to be wrong about what you meant. So I said I did not understand what you were getting at for the purpose of getting you to tell me rather than me jumping to a conclusion. It certainly was not meant as a deception of any kind. It was true that I did not fully understand what you were getting at.
By you introducing that issue as a hint, it and me assuming I new where you were going, it almost felt to me as a kind of setup or ambush. My actual position on that subject is that I agree the there were past injustices. But they can become perpetual greivances where no amends can be enough. I definitely get that impression of the situation in Canada as well as the demand for reparations in this country. So, I did indeed see it as a kind of loaded hint.
If I recall accurately, you were pretty determined throughout that thread to see only the "trespassing" aspect. I felt that the conflict was deeper, ranging into more complex issues. The coyness that you perceived was not an intentional attempt to trap you, I was just being abstract to skirt prohibitions on political discussion.
And here all this time I just suspected you were trying to bait me so you could hit the "report abuse" button.
Okay, I understand. I did not think it was much of an issue at the time, and definitely had no intention of reporting it as abuse. I have never reported abuse except for one time and that was mass abuse by a dozen or more people at once for the intention of getting my thread locked. You proably recall it.
Convicted One Flintlock76 I'm really curious on that one. Is it from Michael Crichton's "The Andromeda Strain?" I saw the movie years ago but never read the book. It was a cut and paste from one of Euclid's own posts in another thread
Flintlock76 I'm really curious on that one. Is it from Michael Crichton's "The Andromeda Strain?" I saw the movie years ago but never read the book.
OK. I don't read every thread, some just don't interest me at all so I pass 'em by. Maybe I read that thread and the post didn't make any impression at the time, or I just plain forgot it.
Hey, some days I don't remember if I went to the can in the morning! I'm sure I did, but you know how it is.
Convicted One I guess there are some who will argue that unless there is sentient will, there is no life. But in context with my original thought that that the virus might evolve, or mutate into a less deadly form, I really wasn't thinking in terms of willful evolution. (perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully, I wasn't anticipating an inquisition) Quite simply my thoughts were more geared towards how the best interest of the virus would be better served if it didn't kill it's host. SO if a less lethal strain did emerge, it's likelihood for proliferation should be better than the killer strain. A less lethal strain should be able to outperform it's lethal counterpart, in other words.
I'll try to keep that in mind.
Well, here in Maryland the Governor has us all wearing facemasks.....
And the protests demanding a lifting of the economic restrictions on non essential businesses have begun.
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRALWell, here in Maryland the Governor has us all wearing facemasks..... And the protests demanding a lifting of the economic restrictions on non essential businesses have begun. Sheldon
Well you can generate herd immunity or cull the herd. With what we 'currently think we know' opening too soon will be culling the herd.
We need to know more medical facts than we presently know to 'get back to normal'.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD ATLANTIC CENTRAL Well, here in Maryland the Governor has us all wearing facemasks..... And the protests demanding a lifting of the economic restrictions on non essential businesses have begun. Sheldon Well you can generate herd immunity or cull the herd. With what we 'currently think we know' opening too soon will be culling the herd. We need to know more medical facts than we presently know to 'get back to normal'.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Well, here in Maryland the Governor has us all wearing facemasks..... And the protests demanding a lifting of the economic restrictions on non essential businesses have begun. Sheldon
Not disagreeing or agreeing, just observing........
The bigger question remains, will the unintended consequences cull the herd anyway?
Again, not an opinion either way, just asking the question.
I do agree we need to know more.
As my wife and I came from the grocery store today, we drove thru McDonalds for her favorite sweet tea. In front of us was a small car FULL of rowdy, smoking, laughing 20 somethings with an unsavory look about them. No masks, no distancing, no fear, and the aroma of more than tobacco from their open windows.
Just wondering if culling the herd might be a moral wake up call for this culture?
My wife is high risk, 65, rheumitoid artritis, recent shoulder replacement surgery, etc. We are being very careful.
But it seems unfair that AMAZON can continue to sell EVERYTHING they sell, but the state of PA will not let Bowser Trains and its retail/mailorder divisions do business? Even my internet/mail order?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.