Debate Disturbingly lifelike animate inanimate objects

Yes the sun can be considered alive just as plants are. Instead of comparing stars to humans you should have started with plants theres just too much difference between the stars and us. But a star is in no way intelligable just like plants it cannot think for themselves. Yes the sun is "life like" No it is not intelligable.

 

No. Rocks elsewhere are the same as rocks here, because the definition of rock doesn't change. If somewhere else you find something that doesn't have the qualities of a rock, then... IT'S NOT A ROCK! This is the root of your problem. Life has a set definition:

"the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally."

Anything that does not fit this definition is not alive. You use comparisons that have nothing to do with living.

1. "Born" and "die" are just terms for beginning and end.
You can say this stream was born of this river because it splits off of it and then dies in the ocean because that is where it empties, yet the stream is definitely not alive.

2. So A-bombs are alive? Any type of bomb for that matter. Even cars would be alive under this definition.

3. No just no. So anything that has variety is alive? money? food? video games? I guess I should feel bad about killing all those people in video games then.

4. My alarm clock has a back up battery to save it when the power goes out. I guess it's alive, too.

All you are doing is making comparisons between things, then saying that means they are the same. In this same way I can make a circle square because squares and circles are both geometric figures and therefore they are the same. This statement is wrong because squares and circles are inherently different, just like stars and organisms are inherently different.

 

You gotta think a little more outside the box. Don't just go by what scientists have considered life on Earth, think about life in a more abstract way. Here's an example: A virus. No, not a computer virus, a biological virus. A virus is basically a bundle of RNA or DNA that attachs itself to cells, releases its information, and multiplies. And as life-like as that sounds, Viruses are not considered living, despite the fact that they use RNA, adapt to certain cells, and reproduce. The standards of what scientists consider life cannot be compared to everything.

 

That is because Viruses are capable of laying completely dormant for hundreds to millions of years, and then can be activated by an event.

Also the idea that the Sun functions as a nuclear fusion reactor is entirely a controversial one. It's peculiar how most would consider it that way, when there is little actual evidence pointing towards it, and many unexplainable events contradicting it. It is probably a propoganda tool to make citizens feel that fusion is an entirely clean and safe event, in the hope of solving an energy crisis.

 

You went from listing metaphorical similarities between the stars and living organisms, to analogizing Pluto's rocks to civilization.


Stop trying to semanticize the definition of life.

 

This is not a debate on how someone has gotten off topic he is only defending himself his origional thougt brought up the question of wheather rocks on other planets can be alive just like the sun is and he was simply defending this statement.

BTW we are traveling to the moon and to mars to find SIGNS OF LIFE as in organisms and we are searching cells for those signs of life or if the moon would be inhabitable and no where are we searching to see if a rock can move the analogy to rocks being alive was okay but I think it would be best to drop it because we are focusing on that and diverging from the main topic.

Yes the topic is disturbingly lifelike animate inanimate objects but your missing the lifelike part i.e. it is lifelike not alive two compleatly different deffinitions. The sun is closely related to all life and therefore can be considered alive just as a flame is. I am not saying that it IS alive just that it is similar to actual life and therefore can be considered alive but never be alive. In order to be considered alive something must have the following traits; They must be able to maintain homeostasis(regulates itself), Be composed of cells, Have a metabolism, grow, adapt to a changing environment (Im not sure that the sun can adapt cause space will still stay the same), Respond to stimuli, and reproduce. The sun has many of these characteristics so can be considered alive but are not alive.

 

If I had to define Life in one sentance I would say this "A subject of matter that can modify its energy state in a beneficial way"

Meaning, it can move, grow, change, etc. A sun cannot defy it's energy state and as such all of it's actions are dictated by the laws of physics, not the laws of life.

 

From what I recall, life is defined as an organism that has the properties of:

1. Cellular organization
2. Reproduction
3. Metabolism
4. Homeostasis
5. Heredity
6. Responsiveness
7. Growth and development

It doesn't have to have all these properties active at the same time, but it must undergo each of these processes once in its lifetime, otherwise it is not characterized as "living."

 

What about subjects of matter that modify their energy in negative ways?

 

Life has a myriad of arguable definitions, however the processes of a star will fall into none. The processes a star are merely forms of categorization. A star does no even have to follow a specific trend of it'd different States, and the idea that it will change specifically from one to the next revolves around probability and formulae. This thread educates in the lack f common background knowledge of both stars and life. (stoned iPhone reply)

 

Things that are biologically inanimate are actually, given common sense, animate. i. e. ( I believe the only exception, on second thought) Viruses. They only lack one component of biological life: reproduction. Any idiot knows it's a live, but it is scientifically inanimate. However, lacking metaphysical aspects to life, all is inanimate, just moving about according to physics.

 

this post is a great example of the need for us to define our terms in this discussion. I think the OP meant 'alive' as we know it when he referred to 'animate' as opposed to the physical state of being animate. Additionally, its quite hard to discuss whether something is alive or not when we aren't even sure what exactly 'alive' is. This discussion should either attempt to define 'alive', or it should be locked as all posts must be speculation and not discussion.

 

My thoughts exactly! All everyone is posting about in this is the deffinition of what is alive or not and therefore not sticking to the topic of if the sun is alive or not. I stick to what I have said before the sun CAN be considered alive but never will be alive.

 

umm... within reason, with enough data, you can predict anything, "human nature" is a prediction on how people act