Butts yous carnt speal Ma werr edyousmarkatid butt yous werrnt An yous dawgown brook mars spealchequerrer Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Since an "infection" classification as derived from the biological environs itself has been nuked elsewhere in the thread, let's examine such from the remaining technological meaning. Life judged as a malware infection would need a context like the simulation hypothesis. But even then, it has to be argued why "extraneous invading malware" would be preferable to just life's origin as an incidental product in an unfolding, computational cosmos. The latter also assumes another prior in rank stance in which the simulation is not "about us"; and thereby the assessment of life (as irritation, menace, or arbitrary benign agency) would be dependent on how much life in the future will disrupt the virtual reality's original purpose (as a "model for conjectural physics" or whatever). Joscha Bach delves into that: How our apparent insignificance doesn't actually do any damage to the simulation hypothesis, if it was the case. He also offers a "computer program" view as an alternative (i.e., in which this could still be the "base reality" rather than an imitation, even if it arises from a quantitative / information processing system). Are we living in a video game? If so, the joke is on us, says cognitive scientist Joscha Bach. When people debate the possibility of human existence as a simulation, it's predominantly assumed that we are the players. Our overlord simulators are watching us, right? Well, that doesn't seem to gel with the amount of detail present in our world and the observable universe beyond. Why did our cosmic creators bother to code trillions of galaxies into the viewfinders of our telescopes? The Higgs boson, for example, is not necessary for our existence, so who would have the time to add such irrelevant frills just for our amusement (maybe the simulators had a really great intern that summer)? The answer? It's not made for us. According to Bach, if this is a simulation it's unlikely that we are the main attraction and much more realistic that the simulators wanted to make a model of a universe to explore hypothetical physics. That tiny blue dot with primates mixing concrete all over the surface? "We are just a random side effect or an artifact of the fact that evolution is possible in this universe," says Bach. But, that explanation is purely hypothetical because Bach is confident that we are living in base reality. However it's not bubble bursting from Bach: while we are not living in a simulation, we are living in a computer program. How can that be? Above, he explains why, and also gives his response to the 'game console probability' hypothesis popularized by Elon Musk. --Are We Living inside a Massive Computer Program? - - - - -
The topic is about lifeforms, like humans, being analogous to disease and infections. What I was doing, was drawing a parallel between humans, like you and I, and the cells of a human body. This is not biology, but analogy. For example, the cells of the human body are not all the same, just like humans are different all over the world. However, the cells of our body all have the same DNA, just like humans all have what we call human nature, which defines us as a species. Different does not mean one is good and other evil or one is better than the other. Like the human body, they are all part of a human team, with each contributing needed elements to the whole. I then made a parallel between disease and sickness (body) to free will and choice (humans). In terms of disease, this is when cellular choices are made that depart from the natural optimized DNA design. This can be caused by invasion of bacteria or virus. Or in the case of cancer, a brain cancer cell does not remain a brain cell. There is departure, causing as problem for the system. It is not a disease to be black, white, male, female since these are valid and needed parts of the body human. The problem appears when each tries to be what it is not, due to choices that conflicts with the natural balance. If a kidney cell decided to be brain cell, it is no longer in the proper context to be useful, even if it appears to be a healthy version. Nature tends to recycle schema like a climbing up a helical staircase. As nature gets more advanced, the schema repeats. If you look at nature, animals and trees will remain true to what they are, allowing the natural body of nature to remain healthy. Humans have will and choice and therefore can attempt to become something that is not initially part of their natural design. This results in problems for humanity. This can also translate down the spiral staircase to the physical body, such as insanitary human behavior, causing a plague or common disease.
I sort of get what you are trying to express However I don't think such comparisons stack up cellular choices and kidney cell decided Cells do not make choices or decide They operate under biological processes which are mainly chemical in nature If the DNA is damaged the same chemical reactions occur but push out defective cells Humans have will and choice and therefore can attempt to become something that is not initially part of their natural design I'm not sure what you think humans are trying to become by choice You lost me there If you may be thinking we should still be walking around grasslands and not become city dwellers I contend if we didn't become city dwellers another species would have So I also contend surely we ARE being true to NATURE by evolving the way we have as part of our natural design If you contend we are spoiling our habitat Earth? yes we are Could we do better? yes we can Will we do better? dubious How many people still smoke dispite the evidence they are hastening their death? It is also worth noting raw nature is not all lovey dovey Earth is not a sentinel entity otherwise we might be able to convert it to stop spewing out CO² Not helping the ozone layer So yes we (along with all other life forms) can be regarded as a Earth disease But the other option is to eliminate all life What is the reward? A 1 lifeless planet in the Goldilocks zone and 7 other planets with even less chance of life developing Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is what origin meant by applying punctuation. Lacking punctuation, your message had multiple interpretations (I understood it the same way as origin at first). Sure, we know it's not your first language, and we take that into account. But the onus remains on you to communicate effectively. You've no business name-calling when it was you who made the mistake in the first place.
Yeah, and I think about food before disease that we eat(kill Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) to live.
"What can I have Nan?" "Anything on a green plate." -An advert. That includes milk, coffee, tea, sugar, pizzas, vegetarian curries and of course beer and wine. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
