The following is the definition of life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_life It includes.... 1. Organization 2. Metabolism 3. Growth 4. Adaptation 5. Response to stimuli 6. Reproduction So here we go! 1. Organization Stars are organized. They have a distinct structure. They have a nucleus. They also have hydrogens and many other substances that are analogous to cells. 2. Metabolism Stars have a life cycle. They are born when hydrogen comes together. The hydrogen "makes" energy and keeps the star alive. The star evolves and produces more kinds of materials that produce greater energies. 3. Growth Stars grow. They have entire life cycles. They grow both in density and size. 4. Adaptation Stars adapt to their environments. Binary systems are a good example of that. 5. Response to stimuli When two stars interact, they respond to stimuli. A black hole with a blue straggler for instance... 6. Reproduction When stars explode in supernovae they are reproducing. More on stars... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stars Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ... now disprove me! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
With the sound of music... 1. Organization Pieces of music are organized. They have a distinct structure. They have a rhythm. They also have notes and many other frequencies that are analogous to cells. 2. Metabolism Pieces have a life cycle. They are born when notes comes together. The series of notes "makes" music and keeps the piece alive. The piece evolves and produces more kinds of frequencies that produce greater emotion. 3. Growth Pieces of music grow. They have entire life cycles. They grow both in density and size. 4. Adaptation Music adapts to its environments. Genres are a good example of that. 5. Response to stimuli When two music tracks interact, they respond to stimuli. A straight track and one for scratching for instance... 6. Reproduction When CD's are played back they are reproducing.
A poor definition. What do you mean express? Musically? Drawings? Emo? How about nature? It expresses itself as clear skys to tornados.
I hardly think "affected by gravity" counts as response to stimuli. Also, the definition of life is very loose, and I'd like to see some mention of self-preservation there - common to all life, but certainly not present in stars.
Well I can see what Thruthseeker means by stars are alive, but it doesn't could as life in the sense humans would recognize it and use it for food or balance out the food chain.
If something can express itself, it has a self, and self is life (Christ), consciousness. Everything can express itself in some way, but when the self is in a rock, it can't express itself as much as if it is in a human. The body is a limitation. Only a human can learn to express himself (God) entirely. What's the difference between organic and dead matter? If the matter of stars was not alive, how could they burn and shine? How could they move, rotate, travel in space? How would movement be possible without self, consciousness, life?
Please leave religion out of this. I want a definition of expression in terms of human observation. If I look at a rock, how do I know it is not expressing itself? They can be the same or not... organic means carbon containing. Nuclear fusion... it's made of plasma. Big bang.
Impossible, I'm interrested in religions. A rock expresses itself by drawing things towards it (gravity) and by resisting (magnetic repulsion). Why would carbon be needed for something to be alive? What causes the nuclear fusions? I think stars are rocks like any planet, but because they're so much bigger, other rocks started to dance around them as if they were gods or kings. The stars became happy and started to rotate fast so they began to shine and became more liquid and fiery. Physicists recognize four states of matter: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. These correspond to the four elements of the ancients: earth, water, air, and fire – which were followed by the fifth element: ether.
What is expression then? It is simply repeating what one has viewed from the past somehow. Even in an apparant random form, all the basics are previously seen and thus only replications of what was originally transmitted. In other words, each star is unique and with being so, its solar flares express itself in a fashion only that star would produce. Stars are live.
...so what if stars, rocks, music, or anything else as such is/are alive? what matters is wether they are conscious, and wether they are reflective or not....stars certainly arent.
I just have a problem with people tweaking definitions to make something that is not. I try not to tweak them myself, but when I cannot think of other words to use, I try to work around it. Or maybe I am just being hypocritical. Either way, I still think we should not tweak definitions as it makes communication of abstract ideas harder than it needs to be.
I definetly agree, though my post was directed more at those who are claiming that these things really are alive.
Yea, my post was a reply to you and the others. I was agreeing with you and also offering my two cents. But I think what we consider to be "alive" (as in, plants, roaches, humans, unicorns) is a subset of a general description of motion and order.
animals are more alive than plants, plants are more alive than "rocks". if plants are alive, why not matter too? how could lifeless matter become living? they're just definitions, it's all alive.
exactly. We try too hard to make ourselves to be something so unique and special as if reoccuring interactions don't take place anywhere else than in our lives. Living is simply enabling the same circumstances to continue. If you wish to join consciousness and life to mean the same, then I would have to argue. A computer would then have to be alive. It interacts with the environment and processes information. I think a star is more alive than a computer.
Well I think we are all arguing using different definitions of life. I can see how you consider a plant alive but not a rock. However, I think trying to argue whether something is "alive" or not is a pointless conversation because there is not even an accepted definition of it. I think it would be best that people talk about ideas without introducing ambigious words. Asking whether or not something is "alive" will never be resolved. Hence, this thread is pointless.