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:
Why is fire not alive?
- Thread starter Mr.Switchblade
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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?
Allow me to use MRS GREN, fire must meet all criteria to be called 'Alive'.
Movement - Yes fire moves.
Respiration - Surprisingly, fire respires.
Sensitivity - It can't taste touch ect. but is affected by surroundings so im going to say that fire is sensitive.
Growth - A fire does indeed grow.
Reproduction - ...Uh Oh QUICK we need an example of fire repoduction!
Excretion - waste gases are excreted with a lot of fires.
Nutrition - A fire needs a fuel and something to combust with (IE oxygen).
So some one come up with a way fire reproduces and it can be called alive.
Disclamer: I am bending many a rule here and using faulty logic. It's all in the fun of things. Don't hate me.
Movement - Yes fire moves.
Respiration - Surprisingly, fire respires.
Sensitivity - It can't taste touch ect. but is affected by surroundings so im going to say that fire is sensitive.
Growth - A fire does indeed grow.
Reproduction - ...Uh Oh QUICK we need an example of fire repoduction!
Excretion - waste gases are excreted with a lot of fires.
Nutrition - A fire needs a fuel and something to combust with (IE oxygen).
So some one come up with a way fire reproduces and it can be called alive.
Disclamer: I am bending many a rule here and using faulty logic. It's all in the fun of things. Don't hate me.
Both these are so obviously untrue, that reading them almost made me bust out laughing.megapenguinx said:
First:
Fire indeed does evolve, as more and more discoveries are made into chemistry and more substances are made that are more/less flammable, over time, fire has changed, and thus, evolved.
Second:
Fire is almost entirely dependant on conditions including amount of fuel, type of fuel, humidity in the air, density of the air, wind speed/direction, and so on and so forth.
Also, fire meets at least three of the things that science defines as being necessary to be considered life: It eats, it grows, it reproduces. It also dies. Little do some people know it, the phrase "dies out" or "dies down" is very appropriate.
Isn't it funny how theoretical physics can come off as a hand wave rather than a science?The Admiral said:
Really? That's not what I felt like I was doing. Entropy is a pretty commonly-used scientific concept (though also one that's kinda ugly to actually use); I just plucked it out of the "science" toolbox. No great insight or innovation there. Talking about the universe in terms of entropy, information density, &c. is something I specifically learned, not something I invented.Mr.Switchblade said:
This is far closer to "outside the box" than the response you expected:
Why do you care about defining "life" in specific and absolute terms in the first place? Can you show that some hard-and-fast definition isn't going to be about as arbitrary and restrictive as the definitions you complained about in the initial post? What value is there in being able to say "fire is alive" or "fire is not alive"?
-- Alex
Define alive.
From certain perspectives, nothing in the known universe is alive.
Its just an ocean of molecules, some of which organize themselves into...well, organisms, to improve their chances of remaining in the same chemical state.
From certain perspectives, nothing in the known universe is alive.
Its just an ocean of molecules, some of which organize themselves into...well, organisms, to improve their chances of remaining in the same chemical state.
I disagree.Emperor Inferno said:
First: The fire hasn't actually evolved, we've just discovered more about it, the nature of the fire hasn't changed because we've created different types of fuel for it. It can be made hotter or faster, by external influence. It does not change it's nature in order to survive.
Second: Dependant on does not equal sensitive to. Water staying in it's liquid form is dependent on temperature. The same with every metal element, for example.
Fire doesn't react either - if you approach it with water, it doesn't move away. It doesn't sense it's approach. It doesn't perceive or do anything about that danger.
Either a fire grows OR reproduces. You can't have both for the same situation. If a fire spreads, is that growth or reproduction? How do you know that an extinguished fire has died or is merely the end of a chemical reaction?
Homeostasis - Fire does not regulate it's temperature/internal environment in order to survive.
Organisation - Fire is not composed of organised cells, which are the basic components of life.
Metabolism - Fire can be said to consume and excrete, but not using organic components.
Growth - Debatable, but can be said to grow.
Adaptation - Fire does not adapt according to different surroundings. It can be made to change by introducing different elements, but fire cannot adapt or change itself.
Response to Stimuli - No. Fire does not react to approaching danger, all that can happen is that the chemical reaction is altered by an external force. The fire itself cannot respond, only be altered.
Reproduction - As above, either fire reproduces when it spreads, or it grows. The fact that two fires can merge into one suggests that reproduction has not taken place.
Broloth has come up with the best explanation so far.
Just enjoy the irony of it, because this is comedy gold right there. You gave the least imaginative answer you could, but because you used a lot of highbrow words Mr. Switchblade didn't understand, he's impressed with your creative genius. This is the kind of thing that makes people laugh at postmodernists.
Thats a little trite, isn't it? Life involves a vast combination of chemical reactions, what something does doesn't equal what it is.Indigo_Dingo said:
You can't pour an acid and an alkali into a beaker and say you have created a living thing?
fire is a process, it consumes energy, living things consumes energy, but fire is without the being it IS what living things do it isnt a living thing however. A soul without a body in other words. The fire grows, because it heats the surrounding material, it dies because it runs out of material or energy. Living things produce heat after consuming material, however the energy fire produces doesn't go to anything, its just heat energy, and anyways fire would be invisible what we see is super heated carbon particles.
*edit
and one more I realized, fire doesnt always start from other fires, it can come from anything any spontaneous release of heat creates fire. Energy just can't be living.
*edit
re-read what i typed, and my conclusion is, fire acts as a process to which life becomes existant, so if you require structure in your definition of life then no, fire isn't life, however if just the existance of the ability to consume and grow is your basis of life then yes it would be alive.
*edit
and one more I realized, fire doesnt always start from other fires, it can come from anything any spontaneous release of heat creates fire. Energy just can't be living.
*edit
re-read what i typed, and my conclusion is, fire acts as a process to which life becomes existant, so if you require structure in your definition of life then no, fire isn't life, however if just the existance of the ability to consume and grow is your basis of life then yes it would be alive.