Why is fire not alive?

[Damien the Pigeon]

You guys realize that the answer that he was looking for was said on the top of page 2....
And another correct one was slightly below that.

 

[The_Prophet]

To put it simple - fire is not a material. It's a result of a chemical reaction.


Plus, if fire was living we'd all be screwed.

True, true.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I'll paraphrase my biology textbook (Biology International Edition edition 7), according to that life is:
Orderly, shows evolutionary adaptation, responds to the enviroment, has regulation, processes energy, reproduces and grows and develops.
Wikipedia says this about life:

Conventional definition: The consensus is that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena:[9][10]

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

and

Proposed definitions of life, to reflect the minimum phenomena required:

Living things are systems that tend to respond to changes in their environment, and inside themselves, in such a way as to promote their own continuation.[10]
A network of inferior negative feedbacks (regulatory mechanisms) subordinated to a superior positive feedback (potential of expansion, reproduction).[11]
A characteristic of self-organizing, self-recycling systems consisting of populations of replicators that are capable of mutation, around most of which homeostatic, metabolizing organisms evolve.[citation needed]
Type of organization of matter producing various interacting forms of variable complexity, whose main property is to replicate almost perfectly by using matter and energy available in their environment to which they may adapt. In this definition "almost perfectly" relates to mutations happening during replication of organisms that may have adaptive benefits.[citation needed]
Life is a potentially self-perpetuating open system of linked organic reactions, catalyzed simultaneously and almost isothermally by complex chemicals (enzymes) that are themselves produced by the open system.[citation needed]

Fire doesn't fit in neither of them.

 

[beddo]

I wonder how much fire weighs.

 

[Trivun]

There are at least six things that something has to be able to do to be classified as alive, which all animals, plants and fungi, and bacteria/viruses do. They are:

1. Movement
2. Respiration
3. Nutrition
4. Excretion
5. Reproduction
6. Growth

Fire moves, as energy. It respires because it gives out carbon and water, and it grows as it spreads. However, it does not reproduce in any conventional manner, and does not excrete. However, it is difficult to say whether or not fire consumes any sort of food (nutrition), as it needs to 'feed' on fuel in order to sustain itself. Despite this, fire fails to do at least two of the above, and so cannot be defined as alive.

[/thread]

 

[Skalman]

It doesn't have mass.

Everything has mass.

Just arguably much of it, photons have mass, electrons, neutrons and protons have mass.
The problem is that we'd have a lot of trouble trying to measure it.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

It hardly reproduces. It simply spreads, it doesn't create more offspring via genetics.

 

[Trivun]

It doesn't have mass.

Everything has mass.

Just arguably much of it, photons have mass, electrons, neutrons and protons have mass.
The problem is that we'd have a lot of trouble trying to measure it.

Only matter has mass. Fire is energy, not matter. It could possibly be converted to matter due to the Conservation of Energy Law and Einstein's Theory of Relativity, but in it's current state fire is only energy. Therefore it does not have mass. Your own logic is fundamentally flawed by a basic misunderstanding of the laws of Physics.

 

[bad rider]

Fire also doesn't reproduce, it simply grows.

Like asexual reproduction in plant's, nothing new is created it's just the same plant.....

First. Most plants sexually reproduce. In-fact, Mendel studied most of genetics using pea plants. (as in, the differences, asexual beings don't show differences in their offspring.

Yes but not all plants sexually reproduce i can't remember the plant (I was watching some bill oddie style program) but it suggested that something like the japanese knotweed only reproduces asexually and their may only be one plant on the planet.

Second. When a creature asexually reproduces, it creates another being that can either live, or die. You wouldn't look at a star fish, cut off it's arm, have two starfishes, and go "boy, I really don't see two starfish, just one starfish that grew". Killing one starfish wouldn't damage the other starfish the way putting out part of a fire would.

so if a fire split and i put out one of them, how would it damage the other?

In short. Yes, something new IS created, it is just genetically the same. Like twins, you wouldn't have human twins and go "uhp, just one baby, since their genetics are the same nothing new was created."Oh, and since fire has no genetics, you can't even claim the same argument for it.

Why can't I claim the same arguement? Please tell me why, I don't like being told to ignore the logical arguement because you say so. Besides a regular twin is made up of two different eggs, this is more like a siamese twin where you would say they are the same until the point at which they are seperated. But no my point on the asexual reproduction (I didn't word this well) isn't that there is no new plant it's that it is the same plant.

 

[Skalman]

Your own logic is fundamentally flawed by a basic misunderstanding of the laws of Physics.

Probably.

But still, photons are considered energy? correct?
and they've seen that a black hole made the light coming from a far away star change direction. Making the star not visible.
Think throwing a ball in strong side wind, or a metal object falling past a strong magnetic field (not enough to stop, just enough to change direction)

My knowledge of physics is limited however, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Trivun]

Your own logic is fundamentally flawed by a basic misunderstanding of the laws of Physics.

Probably.

But still, photons are considered energy? correct?
and they've seen that a black hole made the light coming from a far away star change direction. Making the star not visible.
Think throwing a ball in strong side wind, or a metal object falling past a strong magnetic field (not enough to stop, just enough to change direction)

My knowledge of physics is limited however, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

You're right that photons are considered energy. They are the pockets of energy that are given out when electrons perform what is known as a quantum leap within the energy shells of an atom (i.e. they switch to a different energy level). The photon is released to conserve energy. Incidentally, this is how fluorescent lights work. However, they do not have mass. They are basically pure energy, that is given out in the form of light energy. As for the black hole thing, I'm not really sure (I did A-Level Physics but we never covered astronomy).

EDIT: Thinking about it, black holes do make light enegy change direction. There is still no mass, but the gravity of a black hole is so strong that even energy can't escape. Mass has a large effect on gravity, but energy doesn't normally be affected by it, due to a lack of mass. Near a black hole, though, the point of the hole is so dense and has such a large gravitational force centred in one small place that it sort of warps and bends spacetime itself (a theory exists that they may be connected due to this warping effect, creating what are known as 'white holes' which are the opposite to black holes, and that travel between them may be possible through 'wormholes'). Then the laws of physics that we understand in standard reference frames do not necessarily apply.

 

[DeadMG]

It doesn't have mass. Think about it. It's simply pure thermal energy, manifested in a chemical reaction.

Edit: Actually, I guess a being of energy could be alive...

How about this: It has to be created by some external influence.

So when strike a match and create fire the external influence surely would be me.

Anyway my input is lack of a nucleus in it makes it not alive.

E = MC^2. Therefore, thermal energy does infact have mass. I see no reason that fire would not be considered alive.

 

[Bocaj2000]

Fire does not respirate, aerobically nor anaerobically. In order to resperate you need water, and if you try to get fire to undergo osmosis, you'd have a hard time keeping it "alive".

In order to resperate you need oxygen. Fire consumes oxygen

You also proved yourself wrong right off the bat "...nor DNA..." DNA is the building block of life. Without it, life can not exist. Find me something that is proven to be alive that doesn't require DNA (oh and viruses aren't alive for those of you who thought it was).

Also, viruses are alive.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=are-viruses-alive

Fire also doesn't reproduce, it simply grows.

Put a stick in a fire. It will catch on fire. That is rapid asexual reproduction.

In response to your "consciousness" argument. An ameba may not have consciousness but it still has instinct, which is programmed into its DNA. Life needs instinct to exist, and needs DNA in order to have instinct, therefore fire isn't alive.

Hah. What instincts does an ameba have? Eat and reproduce asexually. Fire does that too.

Only matter has the possibility of being alive, and fire is not matter. Sure you may be able to bullshit the mass thing, but the fact of the matter is that if it isn't matter, it can't be alive (no pun intended). Sure fire produces matter (plasma) but it isn't matter, therefore it can't be alive.

Hahaha. Everything is made up of matter. Fire is a collection of gasses.

Carbohydrates, nucleic acids, protein, and lipids are the four main necessities of life (no water isn't, since you can theoretically live off of the water you create as a byproduct of respiration see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_rat), and since fire can exist without any of these things. It can't be alive.

What about plants?

 

[Emperor Inferno]

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.

I disagree.

1) 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.

2) 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.

3) 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.

1) A good point, I spoke of fire evolving as a certain perspective, like Obi-wan talking to Luke about the truth.

2) True, dependant on does not necessarily equal sensitive to, but in this case it does. What I meant by saying that is that a fire changes based on shifts in condition: in drier air, it surges with strength and spreads more easily; in high winds, it spreads more rapidly and consumes fuel quicker; with certain fuels, it burns better, and so on.

3) Fire both grows and reproduces. In some instances, the fire simply gets larger, this is growth. In other instances, fire can sometimes beget other separate fires, this is reproduction. I have seen fire "spread" to another object without touching, thus creating a separate fire, thus reproducing, like an animal budding.

 

[DannyBoy451]

I know what your thinking. "Duh, fire isn't alive retard, everyone knows that". No shit sherlock, but why? This is a challenging question, because fire has many of the traits that we associate with living beings. It reproduces, it consumes, it creates waste, it adapts to its environment, and it has diversity. Now, i know it doesn't have cells nor DNA, but open your mind for a second and realize thats how we define LIFE AS WE KNOW IT, meaning that if there was an alien life form with an incorporeal body or didn't have cells, we would have to change our definition, so those answers suck. There is an actual answer to this that makes sense and has no loose ends, given by a nobel peace prize winning bio chemist, but i challenge you to see what you come up with. Cheers.

Wrong on the mass front. We as humans are nothing but a large reservoir of chemical reactions guys, think harder. Consciousness does not count either, do you honestly think an amoeba is conscious? A life form does not need mass to be alive. JUST LIFE AS WE KNOW IT. External influence is also wrong, since we too are created by external influence. Think harder. If you think your smarter than a nobel winning bio chemist, thats very cute, but your still wrong.

Hint; it has to do with entropy

If you don't want to stress your brain, Alex nailed it pretty good on page 2, he knows how to think outside the box. Only a few posts down. Don't let that stop you from trying yourself

This is the kind of thing that pretentious wannabe-philosophers get throbbing erections about.

It's also retarded.

 

[Skalman]

Your own logic is fundamentally flawed by a basic misunderstanding of the laws of Physics.

Probably.

But still, photons are considered energy? correct?
and they've seen that a black hole made the light coming from a far away star change direction. Making the star not visible.
Think throwing a ball in strong side wind, or a metal object falling past a strong magnetic field (not enough to stop, just enough to change direction)

My knowledge of physics is limited however, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

You're right that photons are considered energy. They are the pockets of energy that are given out when electrons perform what is known as a quantum leap within the energy shells of an atom (i.e. they switch to a different energy level). The photon is released to conserve energy. Incidentally, this is how fluorescent lights work. However, they do not have mass. They are basically pure energy, that is given out in the form of light energy. As for the black hole thing, I'm not really sure (I did A-Level Physics but we never covered astronomy).

EDIT: Thinking about it, black holes do make light enegy change direction. There is still no mass, but the gravity of a black hole is so strong that even energy can't escape. Mass has a large effect on gravity, but energy doesn't normally be affected by it, due to a lack of mass. Near a black hole, though, the point of the hole is so dense and has such a large gravitational force centred in one small place that it sort of warps and bends spacetime itself (a theory exists that they may be connected due to this warping effect, creating what are known as 'white holes' which are the opposite to black holes, and that travel between them may be possible through 'wormholes'). Then the laws of physics that we understand in standard reference frames do not necessarily apply.

I take it you understand what I meant, though for others who maybe didn't I just thew something together in paint to illustrate:

Bear with me, it ain't pretty, it's just to make a point.
Also this was first told to me by discovery channel. okay so their word may not be law but still, they're credible enough.

they said the only, or at least most probable reason was that light actually has mass, it's just so small that we have no means of actually measuring it. for all normal applications it's got no mass, because it's so small we might as well neglect it's existence.
I hope I made some form of sense.

 

[Jursa]

Well fire for one doesn't really reproduce. It spreads using anything in it's path as a something to burn. Your body does the exact same function of turning carbohydrates into CO2, H2O and heat, but that isn't why we are considered to be alive. Of course without that function we would be dead just like if you took many other functions of our body. Besides it would be pretty weird if pyromaniacs should be worshiped instead of thrown in jail for creating something living...

 

[iain62a]

Fire is simply the reaction of oxygen with another substance, for example

C + 02 -> C02
(the reaction of oxygen and carbon, like coal burning)
Your problem is that you're defining life philosophically, and not scientifically.
By your argument you could say that the reaction of hydrochloric acid with calcium carbonate is life. It's not, it's a chemical reaction.

Also, how do I make subscripts?

 

[I_LIKE_CAKE]

Because it is most analogous to a virus, which are not classified as being alive. Fire consumes fuel and cannot exist without an immediate supply, a host if you will. Lacking the ability to store energy and sustain itself without a host, it cannot be classified as living.