Hm, I see how this would be universal. But at how do you define ‘secure its own existence’? Is the sun a living being because it keep on burning? Are some chemical reactions that preserve the environment they are happening in living beings? Are any cyclical reactions or maybe even the nutrient cycles or water cycles living beings? The more you get into the details of what life is and isn’t, the more you see that it probably isn’t a binary distinction between living and not living.
Yeah. Stars and fire are alive. They have homeostasis. They reproduce. They can even grow and evolve. You can give birth to a little fire with a spark and some tinder, and when it’s older you can feed it kindling. Eventually when it’s big and strong, you can give it a big log to eat. That seems alive to me.
I don’t really get how the water cycle acts to secure its own existence, but if you can explain it you’ll persuade me it’s alive.
Your whole basis for calling fire alive is to anthropomorphize it… Sure you can use human terminology for fire and feel it is alive. But then anything can be alive, even a painting, a stain on the wall or a single atom if you like.
Homeostasis is not a sufficient criterion for life and there is a certain quality that is different in entities that fall under the scientific definition(s) of life. Fire isn’t even an entity in itself I would argue. Or how would you describe what is part of the fire and what isn’t? It cannot evolve on its own either, it follows certain principles and won’t evolve new ways to burn.
Hm, I see how this would be universal. But at how do you define ‘secure its own existence’? Is the sun a living being because it keep on burning? Are some chemical reactions that preserve the environment they are happening in living beings? Are any cyclical reactions or maybe even the nutrient cycles or water cycles living beings? The more you get into the details of what life is and isn’t, the more you see that it probably isn’t a binary distinction between living and not living.
Yeah. Stars and fire are alive. They have homeostasis. They reproduce. They can even grow and evolve. You can give birth to a little fire with a spark and some tinder, and when it’s older you can feed it kindling. Eventually when it’s big and strong, you can give it a big log to eat. That seems alive to me.
I don’t really get how the water cycle acts to secure its own existence, but if you can explain it you’ll persuade me it’s alive.
Your whole basis for calling fire alive is to anthropomorphize it… Sure you can use human terminology for fire and feel it is alive. But then anything can be alive, even a painting, a stain on the wall or a single atom if you like.
Homeostasis is not a sufficient criterion for life and there is a certain quality that is different in entities that fall under the scientific definition(s) of life. Fire isn’t even an entity in itself I would argue. Or how would you describe what is part of the fire and what isn’t? It cannot evolve on its own either, it follows certain principles and won’t evolve new ways to burn.