Do you believe that Stars are alive(including our Sun)?

Post Reply New Topic

On the basis of dynamics and structure and reproduction a forest fire is alive since it sends out sparks to reproduce. I doubt a forest fire is a intellectually as capable as a jellyfish or even a paramecium but it does have many of the characteristics of life and, considering the recent political history of the citizenry that elected and re-elected G.W.Bush. not too far down the line mentally.

You make an interesting point. However I am not ready to agree that any self-sustaining physical process is, ipso facto, an indication of life. Living things are dynamically self-sustaining in an environment with the appropriate conditions and materials, but I am not ready to agree that the converse is true. In fires I do not see negative feedback dynamics that is common in living systems. Where is homeostasis in fire?


ruveyn

Interesting topic Haliphron! For purposes of discussion, ordinary definition of life may need revision. For me the topic invites a multitude of questions:

Is it possible that light can be alive in non-biological terms? I understand that light carries information. What exactly does that mean? How much information? Can light deliver or convey messages? Can light receive or retrieve messages? Can light decide when to carry and discharge information? Why are some decisions indicative of living consciousness and others not? Does our star consume matter and energy as well as discharge it? For our star, is digestion and respiration the same process--discharging plasma via coronal mass ejection? Do lifeforms generate light similar to the way stars generate light but on a much smaller scale? Is the capacity to generate light a more accurate definition of lifeform than a summary of biological or botanical processes?

When an animal eats a plant, is the sun's energy which was converted through photosynthesis liberated in the form of ATP energy used by animals...this energy is arguably a form of light. Without this light could there be life? Are light and life synonymous? Or is that which generates light [stars] synonymous with life?

Where does AI approach life? Where is the line drawn between intelligent biological life and intelligent electro-mechanical or quantum life? What constitutes intelligence and how does it differ from a living consciousness? What if response to stimuli is in the form of an electrical current or magnetic field? What about frequency modulation as a response to stimuli or means of communication? Between AI? Between quantum particles? Between photons?

Can only living biological systems possess consciousness? Is our current definition of life too limited? Or should the limitations be clarified to be applicable to only zoological and botanical lifeforms found on Earth?

What is sensitivity? Do only Earth lifeforms possess sensitivity? The key is conceptually exploring, and if possible-- explicitly defining, what is intelligence, consciousness, communication, sensitivity, and response to stimuli. Having fully explored and duly considered those qualities, we'd be better able to pragmatically speculate regarding the possibility of various lifeforms...and to broaden our definition of life...to include non-carbon based life and gaseous cells.

I believe in the possibility that our star possess intelligence which is inseparable from human and quantum consciousness and this consciousness is found at every level of the matter/energy universe. But to say our sun is alive would require broadening our definition of what life could possibly consist of..

Is the presence of consciousness indicative of the presence of life? That would depend on how we define the terms life and consciousness. IMO consciousness--in some sense--would conceivably exist beyond what we presently conceive of as life..i.e., consciousness may outlast, be more durable more permanent, than our present limited view of what constitutes life.

Perhaps I shall point beck to my text on the previous page, in which developed the idea that purposeful action (not necessary conscious) defines live: E.g, the active extraction of soil by plants or the hunt for food by animals.

Purposeful action is apparent in almost any computer program. You can object that the action was designed by a programmer but humans and other life forms were "designed" by a very long series of accidents and all our actions are merely chains of stimulation. Which is characteristic of a computer program as well.

Purposeful action - yes; but no purposeful action to sustain itself. A computer does nothing to "feed" himself, a cat or even a tree does.

The stars, sun and Earth all perform certain functions so I guess through an animistic point of view they are indeed alive. So are atoms and molecules.

It depends upon what you include in the computer's environment. If a computer works well and does the job it was designed to do the environment (including the computer's user) sees to it the computer gets electricity and maintenance to keep itself going. This is all any animal or plant does. The fact that most animals are not seen as requiring the actions of other animals is due to most people not envisioning how interdependent most livings things are. Without our gut bacteria we would die. Without their gut bacteria termites could not digest cellulose. Thus a computer, by performing well, utilizes a human to keep its existence going.

Analogy.
The sun is to us as we are to computer.
We need sun to enable our functioning.
Computer needs us to enable its functioning.


We can function without computer.
Sun can function without us.

stars "reproduce" by exploding into a ulta-infernal super-expanding plasmaball. not my idea of "reproducing" sorry.

thats like saying rocks are allive, cus i can take one rock, go at it like a madman w a sledgehammer, and make hundreds of new rocks out of it.

No. And I don't understand how a biological process could be defined in non-biological terms.



You could say that light carries information, but actual messages that can be understood have to be programmed in by intelligent beings, i.e. us. Light has no conscious thought, or any ability to make decisions. You could say that our star "consumes" matter and energy, but it would be a more apt metaphor to say that the sun is like an oven or a kiln, rather than a lifeform. The capacity to generate light would not be a more accurate definition of a lifeform, because then you'd have to include practically everything, as any atom in an "excited" state is capable of emitting a photon.



Well... yes most animals and plants need light to live, but others don't. Even then since life here is carbon-based it would be strange to call life and light synonymous.



This is pretty deep, and getting into a tangential area. The question of when AI becomes actual intelligence has yet to be settled, and I wouldn't be comfortable giving a proper answer. All I can say is that I don't think the sun behaves like a lifeform or like a computer.



Our definition of life is naturally going to be limited to the Earth itself, and the possibility of non-carbon based life and even non-solid life is firmly established, but to extend the definition to include the sun would be ridiculous. There is simply no evidence.



Yes, I agree that there is a possibility, but there's a possibility for a lot of things, and I think the possibility that Elvis is God is more likely. To extend the definition of life this way would cause the word "life" to become completely meaningless.

As for what consciousness is, I can't answer. Maybe its just an elaborate way for God to create an appreciative audience for His music.

Nice post btw

To an insect that lives as a larvae in water for a year, then turns into a flying form for one day to mate, lay eggs and die, the bark on a tree is indistinguishable from a rock on a mountain.

true, but we can study both the bark and mountain, and gather tons and tons of data on both.
the insect cant study anything for its life, since it lacks a "complete brain", and merely posesses a "bundle" of nerves near its head.

I am suggesting we look at intelligence, communication, consciousness, sensitivity, and response to stimuli in terms of non-biological processes..or if you prefer, how a non-biological form [AI] can simulate biological processes.

Humans can't be responsible for programming the entire universe.
Generating light and heat seems to be the primary characteristic of a star. Can we say this of all atoms capable of emitting a photon? On the other hand, this capacity for emitting photons is pretty neat whether it is accomplished by an excited atom or a star.

What about a semi-conscious lifeform based on some unit like a gas cell?


Quanta communicating with each other aren't like Earth based life or computers either, but we don't know for sure.

Slightly ridiculous depending on your point of view.
I don't believe in free will. I believe everything is determined by a sort of universal calculation. Which means that non-biological entities communicating with each other and reacting to stimuli--be they AI or packets of quanta--may not be significantly different from biological entities. And that this communication may link life and non-life in ways we are just beginning to fathom. The distinction we have been making between life and non-life may prove to be relatively unimportant in terms of how the universe functions.

Just expand the definition of life to include communicating with non-life...and the meaning of non-life to include communicating with life.

Maybe consciousness is a fundamental quality of the universe, and need not be equated with Earth lifeforms.
Thanks.

Bark on a tree has cells, metabolism, and reproduction.



Consciousness is the product of a sufficiently "advanced" brain.

The concept that consciousness is more or less a human province is most likely a matter of human hubris. Consciousness probably is on a spectrum and there are very many levels. Any living thing must be aware of the extent of its body in order to protect itself and prosper. It has recently been discovered that honeybees can recognize individual people (http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-F ... ewsNum=510) with the brain the size of a pinhead, so small nervous systems have surprising capabilities. For many years even human babies were treated cruelly because it was assumed they felt no pain and animals were discounted entirely. The arrogance of humanity is a great match for its stupidity.