Why aren't stars recognized as lifeforms? They kind of just seem like the plant life of space to me. They have a life cycle and can have siblings, etc.
People say that life could have possibly in different ways on other planets, but what about in the vacuum of space? It just seems like stars have crazy different biology to me based on the fact they were formed in space.
They aren't made of cells but they're made of elements just like us. How do you know they can't evolve? The way they die and turn into planetary nebula and are recycled into new stars seems like a way of reproduction to me. Either way, what if the way their lives are lived are just drastically different based on the fact they were first formed in such a drastically different environment?
That's a very limited viewpoint. I've heard of aliens who eat the life energy of stars and planets. I think one of them said all the plants (suns) are dead and now they must feed on rocks (planets like earth).
As a child living in Tibet,
we called Stars ''NaKaTooKa'' she who is light.
But since China killed Tibet in 1959, no-body calls them that anymore.
As a child living on a Star,
we called Earth ''NaBooRu'' she who is dirt.
But since haters gunna hate, no-body calls on the land-line anymore.
They don't grow, and they don't "reproduce" in any meaningful sense.
Sure, new stars come from the remains of the old. But this is no more meaningful a form of reproduction than growing sugar crystals from smaller crystals as seeds, or a small fire starting another one as its sparks and embers spread on the wind.
No unique structure is inherited from the remains. The star blows itself apart, and the shockwave perturbs nearby molecular clouds of random gas, causing them to get dense enough to collapse. (Or several other things can perturb them.) Every child owes something to its parents, a shared genetic code making them related to its progenitors. A "daughter" star owes jack shit to the supernova that created it - it's about as related as a flame ignited by a separate blaze..
OP, I think your on the right track. I was on this exact train of thought last week. We have a really rigid definition of life. How can we consider trees to be alive but not planets? Everything makes sense when you view planets as being alive. All of the old mythologys were basically just the practice of personifying mater.and more specifically the heavenly bodies and stars. The sun is always the chief diety in EVERY mythology. The sun really is our God. Every thing about our reality is based around the sun and its nature. More specifically the day night cycle (see horus and set). When you really think about it you will see that every thing from our language to our morality is based on the sun. The monomyth, if you know what that is, is just the personification of the suns path across the sky. Let me stop here before I go on a tangent. Everything just makes sense when you see everything as living.
I think it's more of a possibility that Earth is a life form than the suns are.
Earth is full of life, all responding and interacting with eachother in it's own ways. Earth could be this being that is the combination of all of those things.
Its all one big conciousness
The earth breathes, grows, heals, has a 'heart beat'.
As soon as we realize this it will help us on our path to the next step in our evolution.
We are all connected. Apart from niggers
>We are all connected. Apart from niggers
Enlightenment is just one step away, seeker. Just one small step...
Seriously, or maybe not so seriously as this is going to trigger someone into an outbreak of self-righteous materialist derping, the writings of Alice Bailey talk about the consciousness of all physical forms at all levels from atoms through rocks to stars and beyond. I have no idea how that works.
>Why aren't stars recognized as lifeforms?
The word or phrase lifeforms is old. There are no life forms, just life.
I dropped biology after i asked why the galaxy wasn't alive since it had the complexity and behaviour of an amoeba, just different scale. Professor admitted that there was no hard and fast definition of 'alive'. So biology is a science with no first principles.
The universe is one thing, it is alive. There are no parts, your mind is a powerful cutting tool that names the pieces it chops life into and calls that practice science. That's why psychology is such a horrible word, Psyche, beautiful mortal who married Eros and became divine, -ology, naming the pieces.
>We are all connected
That's marketing nonsense. To be connected things have to be apart. The universe is one closed system, it's impossible for anything to be disconnected from anything else. When you move a chair, it might take light 8 minutes to let people as far away as the sun know you did that, but the fact you did it is true instantly everywhere in the universe.
Information travels faster than light.
even niggers have a place in the future, yes, even niggers.
All depends on how you define 'alive' which there doesn't seem to be a hard answer. However by saying a star is alive you would have to say EVERYTHING is alive and by the same logic you can also say nothing is.
Ken Wilbur goes on and on about how consciousness is the field that all springs from, and i've had experiences that seem to match that.
It all comes down to whether you think consciousness erupts from matter (impossible) or that the material depends from the subtle.
I'm old and still can't make up my mind, Wilbur seems to have convinced himself because his wife died and he's sheltering in this idea, but he does it really well and quite convincingly.
>A "daughter" star owes jack shit to the supernova that created it
The calcium in your teeth was formed in the heart of a much larger star than our sun. Probably it's shockwave providing parent.
this is wrong. information does not travel instantly, as this would require the universe to have an absolute reference frame, and it can be clearly demonstrated, through relativistic effects, that this is most certainly not the case.
information cannot travel instantly because there is no such thing as a discrete instant. positions in time and space are entirely subjective to ones own reference frame. time and space can both warp drastically under the right conditions. two events that to me appear simultaneous, from a different reference frame, could happen a millennia apart. two objects of the same size, moving toward each other with sufficient speed, can actually each fit inside the other, such as in the case of the ladder paradox.
the only thing that prevents all this temporal fuckery from going off the rails is that nothing can exceed light speed, thus, everything is always moving forward in time.
the one and only exception to this rule is quantum states, but that only works because of the no-communication theorem. basically, quantum information is indistinguishable from randomness, thus it cannot effect causality or disturb the timeline.
Makes me think of how fire has most of the requirements for being a living thing, too. It's born and dies, grows and moves, and even consumes oxygen to stay alive. Does all life have to be the exact same as us?
Life as we know it = complexity organization. Complex bio-chemistry, in other words. Chromozomes, cells, dna, tissues, organs and organisms. Star is just a hot stove fusing atoms together. If star than any rock or pebble is alive too.
Ever notice how smaller creatures seem to think and move a whole lot faster than us? I think that trend continues as consciousness continues through the different levels. The sun and even the planets could be living things but think and act so slowly we can't communicate.
The question, "what distinguishes life from non-life" is actually a tricky one, trickier in biology than some people in this thread are making it sound. A lot of things, like stars, some crystals, fire, have a good number of the traits we assign to life, growth, energy consumption, waste expulsion, chemical reactions, chemical complexity, etc. There are only a handful of ones that really distinguish life from stars.
The most obvious one is DNA, and that's pretty much the big distinction for life on Earth. Have DNA? You might be life. Don't have it, no chance. But there's more to it than that. For one thing, stars don't reproduce. Now, fire and crystals in a way can, but there's more to it than even that!
One real feature for life on Earth is not just that it can react to external stimulus, but that it can "learn" and find new ways to react. Sometimes it does this utilizing a complex nervous system. Other times it involves simply using stress guided reproduction to evolve into new behaviors. But it's something that right now really only life does, in human experience. So those are the biggies.
>holy shit, it's alive because it is governed and abide by few simple laws of physics!!! hurrrrrrrrrrr
You know that blunt exacerbates your schizophrenia, right?
Any experienced fly swatter knows how quick they are. I believe you fabricated that tale of swatting a fly just now, sir. But it could be other things like less environmental resistance and less mass causing it instead.
>and are recycled into new stars
this is what we would call asexual reproduction, which is not a characteristic of life
now if two nebulas from two different dead stars were to come together, and THAT make a new star, then that could be considered sexual reproduction
I feel like fire is a form of life. Just like us, it can only exist when certain conditions are met (things like fuel, temperature, oxygen, ect). When fire begins to run out of resources it will slow its consumption of those resources as if it's trying to conserve in order to live longer so that it can find more "food". Just because it does not exist the way many lifeforms do does not mean that it is not alive. #openyourmind
The criteria's always being challenged but I gotta say, doesn't adapt or reproduce are sort of deal breakers for me, especially given it doesn't do anything else like communicate or whatevs.
Although one thing I enjoy thinking about, and a star could serve as a hypothetical for this, a being, not god like, but simply so immense, powerful, self sustaining and well designed (so to speak) that adaptation simply isn't anything it has to do anymore. It just sits there, not really bothering to respond to the environment or grow or adapt or reproduce because it's such a potent, singular force of existence that those things no longer really benefit it or hold any meaning for its continued existence.
It's a fun idea, but I'm still gonna favor the more well evidenced probability that the sun's just another big dumb non-living mass of matter and energy.
This thread is so silly
Ethereal = matter/energy = body life
Astral = empty space/the void = soul/spiritual life
Ethereal + Astral = mind/consciousness = incarnated, moving life
Rocks, stars, dirt = ethereal
Ghosts, fae, djinn, gods/entities of any and all description = astral
Humans, ants, apple tree = c-c-c-comboooo
Thanks, I'll be here all week
Actually the earth is a computer, using life itself as a means to aid in its computation.
>not living organism
>why this does not count as life? me not understand
This kind of retard logic is possible only in /x/. Oh look, I can make life with lighter and matches.
why don't you scroll through the thread and read the discussion on that we've been having for a day now
stars metabolize, grow, regulate their own body, react to stimuli, etc
the only debatable thing is whether their method of recycle themselves count as reproduction or not
Sun is nuclear fusion, not living creature. Sun keeps going as long as the core keeps going. When it stops, super nova takes a place.
Damn. These days I can't tell anymore who is roleplaying, who is trolling or who is legitimately retarded.
you only think it's not alive because you're looking at it through your narrow vision
the criteria for what makes something count as 'alive' should be challenged and is the point of this entire thread
Your inquiries sound utterly ridiculous but I can't think of how you're wrong, really. They are born, they consume and then produce waste, they have a life cycle, they control the physics around them...it's hard to prove something isn't thinking, and eukaryotic cells shouldn't be the most important thing when determining if something is alive
I said it works with nuclear fission as in nuclear reactor works with nuclear fission. Then you pretended to be retarded and now you make even less sense. You're just mad because I can't see how sun is supposed to be alive.
ok we aren't talking about nuclear reactors that use fission
we are talking about stars that use fusion
then you got mad because i can't understand your poorly constructed sentences
The stars are the oldest things in the galaxy besides pockets of hydrogen and helium. And you could concider stars to be fetuses. Some yet unknown cosmic spark impregnated the gas clouds to create stars, then after living a life longer than life has been present on earth they either shrink until they die, or turn into black holes that pretty much live forever.
You know how many scientific breakthroughs have been made with that kind of thinking? I think it's less than 1. Even when something sounds crazy at first you've gotta reason it out before you just start nay saying.
How's it an issue worthy of discussion, even on /x/? Even if all scientists tomorrow agreed to call it life it would only be a linguistic preference and no one will get a nobel prize for it. It will be a flaccid cock for physicists, biologists and everyone else. It's not the fucking higgs bosone. Jesus
>Possibly the first life in the universe we have discovered that isn't on earth
>it's not the fucking higgs boson
What an unintelligent response devoid of any reasoning. You're like a general who stops the scientist from destroying the meteor before it hits earth because you don't understand physics beyond guns.
If anything the public will be infuriated. A significant percentage of the population think the american and other government is hiding greys in front of everyone's nose, and now you tell them this hot ball of gas actually qualifies as life? Are you kidding me? How the fuck can i even interact with it in any meaningful way?
2% is not a significant percentage
who the fuck cares if you can interact with it or not? you aren't always going to get what you expect when it comes to space
we probably can't even interact with a good 90% of the possible life in space due to the fact it's probably so many lightyears away
>who the fuck cares if you can interact with it or not?
Who the fuck doesn't? It's incapable of enriching my experience more so than dropping penicillin on a bacteria and watching it die under microscope. That's when the label 'alive' becomes meaningless in everyone book.
Many people did, because many people were inbred and uneducated except by the church which had already indoctinated them to believe heaven was above us, not outerspace, and that god put us here. However, no intelligent person has thought the earth was flat passed childhood.
>stars don't qualify as life because i can't interact with them and i don't like that
I need citation because I don't remember school or know how to use google, even though the points made can be logically justified with general knowledge and basic reasoning skills.
Actually yes. There's a point where chemical reactions or/and atomic reactions become so boring and uninteresting it's unpractical for anyone to call them life. That's basically the definition of the word, dumbed down for you.
It's a ball of gas that is powered by the fusion of atoms under its own gravity... like, I guess you could call that life if you are fucking retarded and think every other mechanism of space is a life form.
>hurr durr what if elements on the periodic table are life forms?
>you're shit, /x/ has been shit, kill yourself faggot.
>listening to the lies of popular education
I worry /x/ don't actually want to understand or discuss anything, just vomit out whatever "insight" their most recent bong hit provided them.
No, a star is probably not alive in the sense intended. It does not encode an unusually large amount of information, does not self-replicate in a meaningful way and as such does not preserve information much longer than it's component matter otherwise could, nor does it increase in complexity.
Yes, those people shrieking "But THE definition is..." are missing the point. You can't add anything genuinely new to a taxonomy you're unwilling to update or change.
I really want to believe this >>16935654 is not beyond /x/'s attention span. Adami's loose, essentially statistically driven, "definition" of life is an interesting one especially when dealing with the sort of unknown unknowns we're supposed to be discussing.
Well AI or similar "simulated" organisms for one. But I guess you'll just dismiss that as impossible because the tech isn't quite there yet? It's not like machine learning has made any progress in the last decade, right?
I see where you are getting here. This is actually pretty interesting even though I will keep nay line.
Let's say we create a robot. How advanced this robot should be that it could be considered as living being? And if we created simulation in which ai characters believe they are in real world, would you consider it as life? I would not call it life even if they would call their own lives life.
Personally, I don't think there's any fundamental difference. As long as it exhibits the same informational structures as "real" life it shouldn't matter what it's made of, be those bytes or electrons.
I believe here are no correct answer when we get to this point, it is only yes or no depending on your personal opinion. In my I wouldn't consider it as life as I said earlier. In another hand I call this life even though this could be some kind of simulation too. Therefore it would be sort of funny to say ai can't have real life while we are in our own simulation.
>Cancer is a metaphor for uncontrolled growth
That's odd because cancer is more of a small group taking so much for themselves they starve everything else and kill the organism they all live in.
I have yet to go through the entire thread but the majority of posts I have read are negative and very close minded.
Plants have different cells than we humans do, yet they still live and have a reproduction cycle. OP has a good point in the fact that stars are a facet for life. With no stars, we wouldn't exist.
My theory is that stars are alive but just like how plants are different to animals, stars have a completely different genetic make-up. Also, the purpose of a stars life is to emit it's energy to support the life that is within it's gravitational pull until it's energy is exhausted and it turns into the next stage of the stars life.
My theory for planets is essentially the same thing but with the stages in it's life being different from a stars life cycle.