Computer viruses as a form of life?

Dustin Kesselberg

Illuminator
Joined
Nov 30, 2004
Messages
4,669
Could computer viruses develop into a form of life? Basically evolving as well?

Can viruses create themselves? In someone’s computer without them actually designing it? Is it possible for a virus to naturally form in someone’s computer? As some type of error?

Are computer viruses subject to natural selection? The viruses which are less complex and sneaky get erased by Virus detectors and the ones which are more complex or sneaky continue to live and proliferate.
Discuss.
 
Could computer viruses develop into a form of life? Basically evolving as well?

Not within any current definition of the term life. Actually, as you may know, even real live vira are border cases, when it comes to life forms.

Can viruses create themselves? In someone’s computer without them actually designing it? Is it possible for a virus to naturally form in someone’s computer? As some type of error?

Well, this could happen in two ways:

- A random set of data happen to form a workable virus code. Such an incidence is possible, but highly improbable, and here, "highly improbable" means against astronomical odds.

- A program module mutates (due to a replication error), and attains a virus-like function. This is unlikely, but not entirely improbable.

Are computer viruses subject to natural selection? The viruses which are less complex and sneaky get erased by Virus detectors and the ones which are more complex or sneaky continue to live and proliferate.
Discuss.

Certainly! Most attempts at a computer virus do not survive in the wild, for a number of reasons:

Inability to spread over multiple platforms (if it only works on one brand of computer, its chance of spreading effectively is poor).

Too easy to spot for antivirus systems.

Not built with a sufficiently aggressive spreading strategy.

Too harmful effects (infected computers malfunction and are purged before they have a chance to infect others).

Etc.


I suppose you could say that computer vira are simulated life forms.

Hans
 
Given enough computers and enough time...I think it's as possible for computer viruses to 'self form' as it was for life to form.


Remember the memory size of computers continues to grow giving more and more room for such a thing to occur. Assuming it hasn't already.
 
It's not the memory size that counts, here. Once data sits in your memory, it is unlikely that anything will happen to it. However, the fact that programs and other data is so often transmitted via the net opens the possibility for corrupted data that happens to be ... something. Then again, modern computer systems have very thorugh safeguards, so even if a random data streak does in fact happen to mimic a virus code, it is not likely to make it to your hard disk, much less get executed.

Yes, enough computers, and enough time, but remember: Large as it is, the number of computers on Earth is nowhere near astronomic.

No, I don't think a computer virus has the same probability as abiogenesis, for the same reason as we don't observe any signs that abiogenesis happened more than once: The proto-life could only survive in an environment without predation and competition. Any later occuring proto-life would immidiately be eaten/killed by existing life.

Computer vira are "born" into a fiercely competitive world, full of voracious predators. It would not only have to be viable, it would have to come right out well protected against data integrity schemes, operating system safeguards, and dedicated virus killers.

In comparison, none of the classic computer vira that raged back in the late 80es would stand a chance today.

Hans
 
Doesn't the chance increase with the increasing amount of data being transfered around the world?

In 20 years I think the amount of data being transfered via computers will increase something like 10,000 fold.
 
Data is not code. It's wildly unlikely that any random block of data would form more than 1 or 2 valid instructions.
Most viruses etc in fiction are wild nonsense for the reason that writers too lazy to understand anything about computers just write any old crap. "Digital Fortress" is one of the worst examples. I couldn't think of any way to make that plausible.
 
Doesn't the chance increase with the increasing amount of data being transfered around the world?

In 20 years I think the amount of data being transfered via computers will increase something like 10,000 fold.
Yes, that was what I said. However, in the same amount of time, the requirements for a virus to survive have also increased drastically.

Since we are talking probability here, let's figure out the probability of a virus appearing spontaneously. The shortest viable virus ever written was, IRR, 14 bytes long. Mind you, that was in the days of ye olde DOS boot sector vira, and this one did absolutely nothing but survive. It would not last many machine cycles today.

Now, a byte can have different 256 values. So to randomly get a given 14 byte sequence has the odds of 256**14. That is a value so big that homeopathic dilution rates pale in comparison. Of course, there may exist several versions of a 14 byte virus, so lets be charitable and allow for 10 different winner sequences, that is still an absurdly big number.

Now, let us see what our randomly created against impossible odds virus has to do to survive in the wild:

First of all, it has to occur in the right place in a transmitted code sequence. It has to replace non-essential code or otherwise happen to fit into the program so that it executes without crashing, allowing the virus to spread. It has to have the luck to not interfere with the checksum control in the data package it occurs in, otherwise the transfer protocol will zap it. It has to dodge the operative system's flow control facilities (a tall order these days), and finally it must evade a number of virus checkers.

I'm not saying it can't happen, I'm just saying it aint very likely.

Hans
 
The point Richard Dawkins has made is not that a computer virus is alive- but that it is, in the right environment, a replicator.

The same is true of memes- but memes parasitise the human imitative response to get themselves copied, so they are a closer analogy to biological parasites in that sense.

Computer viruses (it's an unfortunate name) are similar only in a very narrow sense, the biggest difference being that they do not directly affect living organisms and so have nothing analogous to a germ line. They can replicate, but not breed. The two are subtly different.

But there are analogues to HERVs in code. Even non programmers like me know that DOS carried rather a lot of code that looked suspiciously like CP/M. I imagine there is code in Vista that goes all the way back, too. (Even if only very short segments). Some of it may no longer ever do anything at all, but it has been replicated by the equivalent of cut and paste genetics.

Still, such code would still be originally man made, rather than spontaneously generated, unless you choose to view the code as a software manifestation of a meme - the idea in the mind of the original programmer. So - the idea becomes code, which becomes relict code in a backwater of a computer OS-ome (as in genome). Getting fanciful, methinks.
 
it's a fascinating idea....

as soapy sam says (a rather nice alliteration :) ) dawkins does talk in terms of replicators and vehicles....

in our case our replicator is the DNA and the vehicle for that replication is out bodies, so in the case of computers, the replicator would be the computer code/virus and the vehicle the computer......

there's a good section about it here in dawkin's essay "viruses of the mind"

Looking into the future, it is not fanciful to imagine a time when viruses, both bad and good, have become so ubiquitous that we could speak of an ecological community of viruses and legitimate programs coexisting in the silicosphere. At present, software is advertised as, say, ``Compatible with System 7.'' In the future, products may be advertised as ``Compatible with all viruses registered in the 1998 World Virus Census; immune to all listed virulent viruses; takes full advantage of the facilities offered by the following benign viruses if present...'' Word-processing software, say, may hand over particular functions, such as word-counting and string-searches, to friendly viruses burrowing autonomously through the text.

Looking even further into the future, whole integrated software systems might grow, not by design, but by something like the growth of an ecological community such as a tropical rain-forest. Gangs of mutually compatible viruses might grow up, in the same way as genomes can be regarded as gangs of mutually compatible genes (Dawkins, 1982). Indeed, I have even suggested that our genomes should be regarded as gigantic colonies of viruses (Dawkins, 1976). Genes cooperate with one another in genomes because natural selection has favored those genes that prosper in the presence of the other genes that happen to be common in the gene pool. Different gene pools may evolve towards different combinations of mutually compatible genes. I envisage a time when, in the same kind of way, computer viruses may evolve towards compatibility with other viruses, to form communities or gangs. But then again, perhaps not! At any rate, I find the speculation more alarming than exciting.

At present, computer viruses don't strictly evolve. They are invented by human programmers, and if they evolve they do so in the same weak sense as cars or aeroplanes evolve. Designers derive this year's car as a slight modification of last year's car, and then may, more or less consciously, continue a trend of the last few years --- further flattening of the radiator grill or whatever it may be. Computer virus designers dream up ever more devious tricks for outwitting the programmers of anti-virus software. But computer viruses don't --- so far --- mutate and evolve by true natural selection. They may do so in the future. Whether they evolve by natural selection, or whether their evolution is steered by human designers, may not make much difference to their eventual performance. By either kind of evolution, we expect them to become better at concealment, and we expect them to become subtly compatible with other viruses that are at the same time prospering in the computer community.

DNA viruses and computer viruses spread for the same reason: an environment exists in which there is machinery well set up to duplicate and spread them around and to obey the instructions that the viruses embody. These two environments are, respectively, the environment of cellular physiology and the environment provided by a large community of computers and data-handling machinery.
 
Dustin said:
Given enough computers and enough time...I think it's as possible for computer viruses to 'self form' as it was for life to form.
Really? What is the computer equivalent of chemistry? What is the equivalent of random mutation? What is the equivalent of selection pressure?

~~ Paul
 
Really? What is the computer equivalent of chemistry? What is the equivalent of random mutation? What is the equivalent of selection pressure?

~~ Paul



Random errors in the virus's code that occur when it copies itself?


Powerful viruses continue to spead and weaker ones die from antiviruses on computers?
 

Back
Top Bottom