Why is fire not alive?
- Thread starter Mr.Switchblade
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think another issue with defining fire as alive, by the OP's standards, is that by his own rules anything is alive. He bases that part of the argument on "if we met an alien made of energy", which is not scientific evidence, merely tom foolery with a hint of pseudo philosophy. The scientific process requires at least some proof for a hypothesis.
To the above poster: Conventional exists for a reason.You are using a conventional computer, not a contraption you made of sticks and bird feathers, which runs on tooth paste. The box is there for a reason, and while yes, many scientific advancements were made by thinking "outside the box" those ideas have proven themselves through time and multiple tests. And funnily enough, once something is proven outside the box, it gos in the box.
To the above poster: Conventional exists for a reason.You are using a conventional computer, not a contraption you made of sticks and bird feathers, which runs on tooth paste. The box is there for a reason, and while yes, many scientific advancements were made by thinking "outside the box" those ideas have proven themselves through time and multiple tests. And funnily enough, once something is proven outside the box, it gos in the box.
You could go for some kind of entropy-based explanation. Fire lacks organization. Life as we think of it is associated with a decrease in local entropy (we "balance the books", so to speak, by increasing entropy around us, e.g. through our waste heat). Fire just kinda increases entropy instead.
Perhaps you could also go for some kind of information-based explanation. That's pretty close to the one above, since information involves organization and vice versa.
-- Alex
Perhaps you could also go for some kind of information-based explanation. That's pretty close to the one above, since information involves organization and vice versa.
-- Alex
Fire does not techincally exsist, when their is a fire the electrons of the atoms nearby are excited and give off light, there is also a process of carbon into carbon dioxide. A chemical reaction.
Effectively a fire is a light bulb but without the reaction of carbon into carbon dioxide. So unless someone here is trying to claim that lightbulbs are alive then you could claim that fire is alive.
Edit - I personally define being alive as being sentiant and aware of ones surroundings and making judgement calls about them or potentially becoming sentiant. Bacteria, viruses, fire, mold, some plants, lightbulbs, rocks, planets, etc i would all consider not to be alive.
Effectively a fire is a light bulb but without the reaction of carbon into carbon dioxide. So unless someone here is trying to claim that lightbulbs are alive then you could claim that fire is alive.
Edit - I personally define being alive as being sentiant and aware of ones surroundings and making judgement calls about them or potentially becoming sentiant. Bacteria, viruses, fire, mold, some plants, lightbulbs, rocks, planets, etc i would all consider not to be alive.
Short answer: yes and no.
Long answer: The classification of life as such is variable, to great extents (make of that what you will). The construction of existence as we know it is life itself, from the interaction of particles in the atomic aether to the growth from an acorn to an oak.
Fire is alive. The energy it was before the chemical reaction that released exothermically and brightly the flames you see was alive. I can't really explain it very well but life as I think I know it, is not.
"Life" is not as we know it. We define and adjust it, you can study the smallest of sub-atomic particles and redefine existence, but nothing would have changed.
Well I've stopped making sense, might as well wrap it up: Fire, it's hot. I like matches.
Long answer: The classification of life as such is variable, to great extents (make of that what you will). The construction of existence as we know it is life itself, from the interaction of particles in the atomic aether to the growth from an acorn to an oak.
Fire is alive. The energy it was before the chemical reaction that released exothermically and brightly the flames you see was alive. I can't really explain it very well but life as I think I know it, is not.
"Life" is not as we know it. We define and adjust it, you can study the smallest of sub-atomic particles and redefine existence, but nothing would have changed.
Well I've stopped making sense, might as well wrap it up: Fire, it's hot. I like matches.
sorry sunshine, i don't think a rock is alive, there is a legit answer to this question.Gutlord Grom said:
Hmmm, well, I remember a pneumonic for the things that a life form needs to do: Mrs F Beg - Move, Reproduce, Sense, Feed, Breathe, Excrete, Grow
Certainly, move, feed, breathe, excrete and grow can be considered, but what of reproduce and sense?
Does a fire reproduce, really? If a flame grows, and sets fire to another object (without outside intervention) are there two different fires, or is the fire now in two places at once - has it reproduced, or merely grown?
As for sense, well, that in itself is tricky to define. I'd be tempted to talk about intentional states, but then amoebas and so forth might not have those. It could be "responds to stimuli" in which case fire would sense - it only would respond to some particular stimuli (e.g. adding a new food source, or cutting off it's current one) but respond nonetheless.
Certainly, move, feed, breathe, excrete and grow can be considered, but what of reproduce and sense?
Does a fire reproduce, really? If a flame grows, and sets fire to another object (without outside intervention) are there two different fires, or is the fire now in two places at once - has it reproduced, or merely grown?
As for sense, well, that in itself is tricky to define. I'd be tempted to talk about intentional states, but then amoebas and so forth might not have those. It could be "responds to stimuli" in which case fire would sense - it only would respond to some particular stimuli (e.g. adding a new food source, or cutting off it's current one) but respond nonetheless.
Fire is not alive because it is does not have cells. All known living things have cells
Also, fire does not follow the levels of organization found in living things i.e. cell, tissue, organ, organ system. It can create more of itself, but it does not reproduce through a means of cellular division. Both sexual and asexual reproduction involve cellular division, which fire lacks.
It uses oxygen from the air, but it technically does not "respire" because it lacks cells, and therefore cannot perform cellular respiration, a process that all known living things take part in.
It does not have homeostasis, the process through which organisms maintain a stable, constant internal environment. It does not possess instinct. For example, if fire had instinct, it would be aware that water is bad for it, and would try to avoid water, thus if you threw water at a fire, the fire would make an attempt to avoid it.
if we were to discover something that was somehow alive without having cells, DNA, etc, we would have to rethink how we define life. Since there are no energy organisms, at least any that are known off, something that lacks mass can't be alive, although as I just mentioned, if we were to discover an "energy organism" then
Actually, the OP answered the question himself. It lacks cells and DNA, both of which are the building blocks of life.
Also, I think the OP is confusing consciousness with intelligence. If consciousness is defined as being aware of surroundings and reacting to them, yes an amoeba does have consciousness. But the way the OP describes consciousness makes it sound more like a description of intelligence.
Also, fire does not follow the levels of organization found in living things i.e. cell, tissue, organ, organ system. It can create more of itself, but it does not reproduce through a means of cellular division. Both sexual and asexual reproduction involve cellular division, which fire lacks.
It uses oxygen from the air, but it technically does not "respire" because it lacks cells, and therefore cannot perform cellular respiration, a process that all known living things take part in.
It does not have homeostasis, the process through which organisms maintain a stable, constant internal environment. It does not possess instinct. For example, if fire had instinct, it would be aware that water is bad for it, and would try to avoid water, thus if you threw water at a fire, the fire would make an attempt to avoid it.
if we were to discover something that was somehow alive without having cells, DNA, etc, we would have to rethink how we define life. Since there are no energy organisms, at least any that are known off, something that lacks mass can't be alive, although as I just mentioned, if we were to discover an "energy organism" then
Actually, the OP answered the question himself. It lacks cells and DNA, both of which are the building blocks of life.
Also, I think the OP is confusing consciousness with intelligence. If consciousness is defined as being aware of surroundings and reacting to them, yes an amoeba does have consciousness. But the way the OP describes consciousness makes it sound more like a description of intelligence.
You have no idea how paranoid I am right now, also water could be deemed sentient, oh holy crap now its not just animals and humans that are out to get me, now life itself seeks my demise, I'm going to hide in a caveIndigo_Dingo said:
Is he/she? They proided an answer you like but "It doesnt have cells" is just as valid and a lot simpler because anyone over fifth grade can make sense of that while entropy is somewhat beyond me. Mostly because i lke to study why we generate heat, not what that heat means in terms of the energy of universe or whatever.
I think its lack of evolution is the key. But thats a personal opinion.
Hmm...how about we relabel fire as a...hmm...non-corporeal hyperentropic life-like process?