life (līf)
n., pl. lives (līvz).
The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
me·tab·o·lism (mĭ-tăb'ə-lĭz'əm)
n.
The chemical processes occurring within a living cell or organism that are necessary for the maintenance of life. In metabolism some substances are broken down to yield energy for vital processes while other substances, necessary for life, are synthesized.
The processing of a specific substance within the living body: water metabolism; iodine metabolism.
From what I can tell fire fits that definition quite well, and yet we all, generally, do not consider it alive. What defintion for life are we using internally then? And why can we not communicate it in a way that is understandable?
You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want.
As I see it, "alive" is just a convenient, and vague, short-hand label for a whole bunch of biochemical processes. It doesn't mean much, scientifically speaking. In nature, nothing is "alive", there are just chemical reactions, some of which occur at high temperatures. You can't treat the label "alive" too seriously because it's not precise enough.
It's like saying, "rocks are heavy". Well, yeah, some of them are, some of them aren't, it depends on whom you ask, etc. It's a convenient label, but if you're building a bridge, you want more precise terms, such as "mass", "density", "Young's Modulus", etc.
Bugmaster wrote:As I see it, "alive" is just a convenient, and vague, short-hand label for a whole bunch of biochemical processes. It doesn't mean much, scientifically speaking. In nature, nothing is "alive", there are just chemical reactions, some of which occur at high temperatures. You can't treat the label "alive" too seriously because it's not precise enough.
It's like saying, "rocks are heavy". Well, yeah, some of them are, some of them aren't, it depends on whom you ask, etc. It's a convenient label, but if you're building a bridge, you want more precise terms, such as "mass", "density", "Young's Modulus", etc.
That's why this is in the philosophy forum
You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want.
I've challenged people to define "life" before. Most think its crazy to pose such a question but it's not so trivial an exercise. There are many preconceptions and sloppy observations which get in the way of a proper treatment. For example, some ask what the difference is between an animal immediately before and after its death. The animal might "look" to be identical so, they argue, life is something other than material.
Fire is an interesting example of a form of life that only passes on one parameter to its offspring (heat in the form of electromagnetic radiation). It makes me wonder what other forms of "life" are possible.
AClockWorkOrange wrote:If you want to say fire is not alive, you can argue that it lacks volition.
Sure, but then you're bound to run into another philosopher who will argue that no life has volition! BTW welcome to the DC&R forums and thanks for reminding me of the literary genius of Burgess
AClockWorkOrange wrote:If you want to say fire is not alive, you can argue that it lacks volition.
but you can argue that yeast or moss also lack volition.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good. First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians The truth will make you free. Gospel of John
AClockWorkOrange wrote:If you want to say fire is not alive, you can argue that it lacks volition.
but you can argue that yeast or moss also lack volition.
Or trees or certain sponges, and how do we know fire has no volition anyway? It's mobile and from time to time it will consume some things when there are similar things nearby that it could also consume but did not.
You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want.
This is my kind of topic, as a biologist!! (I'll get more philosophical at the end..I promise!)
In biology we consider something to be a living this if it has these properties:
Organization/Order: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A cell is more than a bag of proteins, a rabbit it more than a vessel of cells...
Homeostasis: self-regulatory mechanisms which keep the internal environment within tolerable limits even if the external environment isn't. We sweat when it is hot to cool down, this keeps our internal environment safe from hyperthermia
Metabolism: The ability of a living thing to convert nonliving material into cellular components and decomposing organic matter, producing energy and transforming it to do many kinds of work. When a bat eats nectar it will use the energy stored in the molecules of its food to power its flight and other work.
Growth and development: This includes the living thing maintaining a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis: which basically means as it takes in material and consumes it, it makes more components for its cells than it makes waste products or just gathering things to consume. For example, a growing baby chick increases overall (growing its 'wings' out, legs, head) rather than having a pile of matter such as food and its waste products. Also, this refers to how heritable programs in the form of DNA direct the pattern of growth and development, producing an organism that is characteristic of its species...its 'parent' or 'parents'. It doesn't just grow randomly, a chick will look like a chicken, not an eagle. There is a predetermined set of characteristics it will have.
Adaptation: Life evolves as a result of the interaction between organisms and the environment. Adaptation to the environment is a result of evolution. This is a result of heredity, parents pass on the genes to offspring, and so on...
Response to stimuli/environment: Exactly what it means... for example, a venus flytrap responds to a cricket stimulating hair cells on the surface of its leaves that make up the trap by rapidly closing. Trees grow towards the sun, and will slant during its growth if it has to in order to get as much sun as it can. A child pulls her hand away from a hot stove. Some bacteria flee in the opposite direction if too much salt is introduced to the water on one side of the petri dish.
Reproduction: Living things reproduce their own kind. Life comes only from life, from itself ... known as biogenesis. Can occur asexually or sexually.
Now, lets go through this with fire and see if it fits:
Order and organization: I can take a bit of fire from my fire place and not 'kill' it or put out the flames. The whole is equal to its parts, not greater than as with life.
Homeostasis: If I put water on fire does it burn hotter in order to not be put out? Does it have a mechanism for internal 'dryness'?? No, it cannot maintain itself.
Metabolism: The definition in my dictionary of metabolism includes living organisms in it..."a process of a living thing..." However, I do see that people can say this is the same as energy utilization, so I will use that language. Does fire use energy or does it produce energy? Life does both. I am not sure about how and what fire does in this respect...the exact chemical reaction. But I do know, in the context of what biologist mean by "energy utilization," that living things and fire are different. In the cell carbohydrates are broken down into ATP (the energy of the cell), water, and oxygen (if I remember correctly). The cell uses every bit of this in some way. So, on this one, since I do not have all the knowledge I need to make a fair decision, I will say it is possible fire exibits this property in the context of what biologists and scientists mean by 'life.'
Growth and development: Fire does grow bigger if you give it more wood and oxygen, but it does not develope. It also does not synthesis more than it catalyses...meaning it does not convert things into usable forms more than it produces waste from what it consumes. Also, it need not resemble where it came from...I can take a camp fire and turn it into different colors. It does not have a set structure/pattern/'type' when it is formed (or 'born', if you will). It changes with what it is given for fuel or where it is...I will not change into a tree if I eat what trees use for energy, and I will not develope fins and turn into a fish if I go swimming, but a fire will change depending on these things.
Adaptation: Adaptation requires heredity. Fire does not possess genes. It may change size with low oxygen, but it isn't due to adaptation. Fire has always been what it is now, living things evolved and look much different today than they did millions and millions of years ago.
Response to stimuli: Fire does respond to water, oxygen levels, fuel levels. Just like water freezes due to cold weather, Hydrogen Peroxide breaks down into water and an antibiotic agent when left in the light, etc.
Reproduction: life does NOT happen out of the clear blue sky, but fire can. At the right temperature and pressure anything can suddenly burst into flames. Fire need not come from fire. Strike a match if you do not believe me! As for someone saying fire is like mitosis, this is not the case. Mitosis is a very complex process which includes five stages, and it happens per direction of the genes inside, all by itself. Fire, when divided or when someone takes a piece of wood and sticks it in the fire and takes it out again to get fire, does NOT self-divide on its own, it needs something to make it do that. There is nothing in the fire that tells it to split apart and self replicate.
In order to be a living thing, according to biologists, the thing in question must possess ALL of the things mentioned above. Fire possesses one, maybe two, of them.
It sure does act like life in some respects. When something moves on its own and grows and just disappears; when something can hurt us, kill us, help to feed us, destroy our home, help make our spears stronger, and help us build....we have to wonder. We feel a very tight bond with fire because our relationship with it is so complex, we love it we hate it, it saves us it kills us, it destroys and builds for us... Something like THAT, with ALL THAT POWER, MUST be alive, we think to ourselves!
This must have been what the ancients felt when they labeled the sun, the oceans, the thunder and lightening, and the wind, as gods!!! They recognized these things as powerful, both helpful and hurtful, needed yet feared, and wondered, "Is it alive?" "We cannot kill it, but when it goes away or we think we have tamed it it just comes back again, so it MUST be more powerful than us....if it cannot die it MUST be a god..."
We have found out what the sun is and how to protect ourselves from it, we know about thunder and lightening, our boats can conquer the oceans, our homes withstand the wind...most of the time...but fire is still just as powerful. And fire is part of our lives...we cannot cook without it, we need it in factories, welding, etc...
So is it a living thing? Its way too powerful to be a mere mortal!! don't ya think!!
Antigone wrote: And fire is part of our lives...we cannot cook without it, we need it in factories, welding, etc...
So is it a living thing? Its way too powerful to be a mere mortal!! don't ya think!!
Not only is it part of our lives...it is part of us.
The metabolic process is a 'slow burn fire'. Fuel is used to produce energy.
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
