Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

iCameToLearnSomeCode t1_jedn00j wrote

Reply to comment by chimpaflimp in ELI5: If the chemical dopamine stimulates a 'feel good' sensation, is there a chemical that makes us angry? by Kree_Horse

A virus is a chemical, it's not alive and it's not doing anything for any reason.

−13

SeattleCovfefe t1_jednl7l wrote

The line between “alive” and “not alive” is somewhat fuzzy and viruses straddle that line even though we classify them generally as “not alive”. They don’t have their own energy metabolism but they do have their own genetic material, and undergo evolution and “survival of the fittest” in the same way as life does. So the virus has evolved to “make” its hosts aggressive because it helps it spread. In a sense you can say that the virus does have a “reason” to do so so that it can reproduce.

7

KeyboardJustice t1_jedoas7 wrote

Teach a bit of code to copy itself with errors, give it selective pressure over millions of years, and... Bam! You've got a self writing program for hijacking mammals and making them bitey.

6

iCameToLearnSomeCode t1_jedodum wrote

>In a sense you can say that the virus does have a “reason” to do so so that it can reproduce.

Viruses do not reproduce.

They are a chemical that your body replicates when given the chance.

Saying that the virus makes people aggressive to spread itself is disingenuous at best and completely the ignores the topic.

The virus doesn't make people aggressive, it causes swelling in the brain and damage to neurons required to think rationally. This results in people becoming afraid, people who are irrational and afraid become aggressive because the fight or flight response is triggered by these stimuli.

The flight or fight response is caused by a huge rush of adrenaline and cortisol which is the actual question OP was asking about, the chemicals involved in emotions and feelings.

The only thing the Rabies virus is doing is killing your brain tissue, the symptoms of that coincidentally make spreading the virus more likely.

It would be like saying chlorine reacts with your skin to cause a rash, it skips all the important parts of why rashes form on contact with chlorine and implies an agency that chlorine doesn't have.

−4

SeattleCovfefe t1_jedov9v wrote

You’re right that viruses don’t “do” anything on their own, they get our cells to do things for them. But calling a virus a “chemical” (which usually implies a substance composed of a single type of molecule) is also overly simplistic. The genome of viruses can be quite sophisticated and can instruct our cells to do lots of things that are to the virus’s benefit, like making certain chemical messages that interfere with the functioning of our immune systems, helping the virus to evade detection.

A prion is closer to what you’re describing, consisting of truly just a single protein.

13

chimpaflimp t1_jee6fls wrote

The information I supplied came directly from the CDC website.

Viruses infect cells and use the host cell to spread itself to other ones. They're preprogrammed to replicate by the most efficient available means, which in the case of rabies is biting, as it spreads though saliva.

You're not more correct, you're just pedantic.

4

Chromotron t1_jeezofz wrote

They are not even pedantic, they are just wrong. Even pedantry would be about objectively true statements instead of pushing the opinion that "viruses are nothing more than chemicals" like that means anything.

4

iCameToLearnSomeCode t1_jee71mo wrote

The whole topic of conversation here is brain chemistry, you're ignoring the topic in your answer by giving answers like that.

−3

Chromotron t1_jeezh5y wrote

> Viruses do not reproduce.

That's nonsense. They do, by hijacking cells. Do humans not reproduce because they need external air, water and nutrients? Heck, do men even reproduce if they just "hijack" women to grow the little things?

2

m7samuel t1_jefqexa wrote

Viruses are not "a chemical". They are comprised of multiple "chemicals", if you want to call them that, including proteins and genetic sequences.

By the logic you're using here you might as well call a skin cell "a chemical".

1

Chromotron t1_jeez1w3 wrote

They never said that viruses are alive, so I have no idea why you even mention it. And it doesn't matter anyway, unless you can show me an objective universal definition of that word which at least a majority of relevant researchers can agree on.

Being alive and having a "reason" is not the same. A complex but definitely not alive machine like a car has a purpose and does it's functions for a reason. Ultimately, all things do what they do for a "reason", be it just the laws of physics.

If instead you meant "reason" in its second meaning, based on consciousness, then it fails just as well. Bacteria are considered alive by almost everyone, yet they have no mind to speak of. They don't reason with themselves at all, they just do like a bio-machine.

If you think that it matters if viruses or prions are "alive", then you are wrong. It simply does not matter, what counts is what they do (with or without "reason"), and that is exactly what the post your responded to described. No researcher would suddenly change their approach for treating or preventing rabies or covid if you or anyone else decides they are (not) alive.

1