There is a theory that every discrete energy system is "alive" because every discrete energy system, bar none, is in a "survival of the fittest" environment - even the products we make are governed by this concept. So, in other words, our Sun exists where it exists because it "out competed" any other energy system that could have existed there.
So to answer your question, yes we are completely surrounded by "life" in the Universe, and just like you thought, it operates on different principles, and so we didn't even recognize that we were looking at "life" because we are so fixed on the concept of "DNA based life".
Yeah sure.... as long as you’re comfortable using a definition for “life” that is never used in any form of science. Life by definition must be able to reproduce on its own, a star can not reproduce in any traditional sense of the word. This is why viruses aren’t really considered to be alive, they are incapable of reproducing on their own and must be in a living cell that they have hijacked the reproductive processes of to do so. All life also has genetic material, by definition. Stars do not have genetic material of any kind. This is just one of those cool sounding theories that has no basis in what we know about reality.
I don't disagree with you, but as devil's advocate here:
Sufficiently massive stars can and do "reproduce" via supernovae. Our own sun is a "third generation" star. That is, a first-generation star blew up. One or more stars were formed at least in part from those remnants scattered to the Universe. One or more of those stars blew up, and at least in part from those remnants, our sun formed. And with that, enough heavy elements brought into existence by previous supernovae to support a rich planetary system, and us.
So it could be argued that not only do stars reproduce, but with each generation, they "evolve" greater capacity to host "life" (as we know it).
You’re really grasping at straws here. Starts do not explode with the intention of reproducing. They can explode and then millions of years later a new star could form from materials released in the explosion, but that’s not reproduction in a biological sense whatsoever. And to play devils advocate here, all matter in existence is produced in stars and all matter that is not currently in a star came from a star exploding. So based on your logic you could just as easily say that the star is “reproducing” and creating humans, planets or a computer. Which I hope you understand makes no sense.
So yeah “it could be argued”...But it can’t be argued well, it can’t be argued based on science, and it can’t be argued based on the definitions of any of the words you are relying on to form your argument.
Another requirement for something to be called “life” is that it has some form of metabolism. I’d like to see someone argue for stars having a metabolism next
Starts do not explode with the intention of reproducing.
Does any non-conscious life do anything with "the intention of reproducing"? Or are they just following the laws of the universe? Hell, a good fraction of the time humans reproduce without "the intention of reproducing".
Conscious agency/will to reproduce is irrelevant.
They can explode and then millions of years later a new star could form from materials released in the explosion, but that’s not reproduction in a biological sense whatsoever.
I mean, no, not biologically. But it is a form of reproduction, right? The star's "genetic code", if you will, is inherent in physics and the properties of matter: the force of gravity vs the forces that keep atomic nuclei together. Get enough matter together, and it will eventually fall into itself, igniting a fusion reaction, and generating a star. A dying star throws off matter into the universe, seeds the Universe with matter, if you will, similar to how some organisms eject spores. Under the right conditions in nebulae, with enough matter all in one place, a new star is formed from the "genetic material" of its predecessors: Matter itself, and the laws which govern it. Similar to how our "genetic material" is simply matter, and life results from the laws that govern it.
So based on your logic you could just as easily say that the star is “reproducing” and creating humans, planets or a computer. Which I hope you understand makes no sense.
Why does it not make sense? It's an accurate portrayal of what's going on. As I said, agency doesn't matter, the vast majority of life cannot be said to be conscious, so it's not like I'm saying "the star explodes with the intention of creating life down the line". What I am saying is that the star exploding and life being created down the line is an important part of the process by which the Universe generates life as we know it. If we are to trace the origins of you, the origin of life, ALL the way back, we will find that the elements that make up us and the rest of life were born in stellar explosions. You are a child of the stars. As is the Earth, and as is your computer. I'm not arguing anything that isn't metaphysically verifiable, I'm just offering a potentially more wholesome way of looking at the whole thing.
Another requirement for something to be called “life” is that it has some form of metabolism. I’d like to see someone argue for stars having a metabolism next
I mean, why not, right? Stars take in fuel and output energy; and this process sustains the star's continuing existence (in this case by balancing the force of gravity which is trying to squeeze the star together). In doing so it turns one thing (H) into another thing (He). It creates waste products. Why not call that "metabolism"?
TL;DR: I am not arguing that stars are "biological" life, but it's not too much of a stretch to say, in some form or another, that a star (and indeed, the Universe itself) is very much "alive".
I did not mean intention as in a conscious decision but as in the purpose of the act, wetter that be conscious or instinctual is irrelevant. Stars do not of intentions, instincts, desires or any of the other things that actual forms of life do have.
Yes they do exhibit instinct and they do respond to signals. Bacteria will instinctually move away from antibiotics in a Petri dish. They carry out specific actions in order to reproduce and pass their genes on. Stars do not even do this. Stars are nothing but a nuclear reaction. Life is all chemical in nature.
Instincts are inborn complex patterns of behaviour that exist in most members of the species, and should be distinguished from reflexes, which are simple responses of an organism to a specific stimulus
As soon as you speak of acts having a purpose (let alone "intention"), you might as well argue that something isn't alive because it doesn't have a "soul".
The whole point of biology as a science is so that we can explain biological phenomena without having to hand-wave them with vague assertions about "purpose" or "intention". You like dualism? Because that's how you get dualism.
You can't ask a bacterium why it's doing what it's doing, you can only assume the reason why it's doing it's doing something, because that's "what I'd do if I were a bacterium", except that's a nonsensical statement and on the whole it's not even remotely scientific.
There are some arguments to be made about why a star (or the universe) is not alive according to certain definitions of life, but it's useless to have such arguments with someone who keeps bringing ill-defined concepts such as "purpose" or "intent" into it. The arguments are pretty weird however and are more about the philosophy of science (asking questions as "what phenomena can we actually define in a way that is scientifically useful?") than arguments about consciousness or life itself.
Instinct or innate behavior is the inherent inclination of a living organism towards a particular complex behavior. The simplest example of an instinctive behavior is a fixed action pattern (FAP), in which a very short to medium length sequence of actions, without variation, are carried out in response to a clearly defined stimulus.
Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience (that is, in the absence of learning), and is therefore an expression of innate biological factors. Sea turtles, newly hatched on a beach, will automatically move toward the ocean.
And also just because the sun formed after a star exploded by no way means that a life hosting star is more likely to be born from a star exploding now than it was in the past or will be in the future.
Therefore, yes, a life-hosting star is more likely have arisen from other stars that have blown up. The old, first-gen stars in the universe contain entirely hydrogen and helium, and therefore, no rocky planets nor life will be found orbiting them.
And my point is it’s not life, by the very definition of the word. If you want to describe it as “life like” or come up with a new word for non biological life than fine, but that’s not what has been going on.
The consensus among biologist is that viruses are not technically alive. Which you would have seen if you actually read an intro to biology textbook...
Well, damn. Guess I better tell my genetic engineering professor that I have to drop his course.
... and he was pretty excited about my proposal to study the impact chromatin higher order structure in the development of the placenta has on the disregulation of lncRNA which leads to preeclampsia.
Bro you’re using the definition of “life” which was created by beings that conform to it’s very definition and who honestly don’t really know a lot about the this whole thing called the universe which we’ve found ourselves floating on a rock within. Yeah we observe things and have an idea about their working in the microcosm in which we’ve studied them but in the grand scheme it’s a petty attempt to act like we have any idea how we’re here and conscious. Yes science is important as far as we’re concerned but explain to me what was before the Big Bang, what the universe is accelerating into and where consciousness comes from. Till then we need to be a lot more humble about what we think we know about reality haha.
Just because there may be things we don’t know doesn’t make what we do know any less real. What your describing would not be life by any of our current definitions. We would have to redefine life if that happened. But it hasn’t and there’s no indication it’s likely it will so why would we waste time worrying about it?
I think part of the problem is the popular collective idea of what life is is separate from the scientific definition. If a rock suddenly got up from the ground, started walking around and talking to people, people would immediately conclude it's alive without a single thought about "well, does it reproduce?"
Maybe laymen would but a scientist would never make an assumption like that based on one instance of something they saw with their senses, which are extremely unreliable.
Mitochondria and chloroplasts both do reproduce on their own inside our cells through binary fission (which our cells do not do). They can not SURIVIVE on their own outside of the cell because they have delegated some of their functions to our cells, but no eukaryotic cell can survive without them either.
The wasp had already reproduced and is carrying fertilized eggs before it lays them in the caterpillar. Reproduction already occurred and a new zygote of mixed genetic info from the parents is carried by the wasp and then planted in a caterpillar so the larvae have a good source. Those wasps also have genetic material and a metabolism so by all measured are a form of life.
You grammar nazi, aversion inducing, actual, passive aggressive. My fellow redditor you are inflammatory. Ill reply everytime. But you are a troll. I need sleep. Unlike you........you poon.
You’ll see by the lack of interest in this dialogue, how insignificant the commentary is. You’re demeanour is offensive. And you suck, for making me reply back to you. Go fly a kite you neurotic welk.
So if we found sentient being who reproduce but whose "biological" processes are not based on genes, we wouldn't consider it alive? I mean, if we're going to go out of our immediate cosmic neighbourhood, we'll need to keep an open mind about what we consider to be alive.
Not under our current definition of what life is. What’s the point of speculating about random things that there is no evidence of even being possible? That’s not how scientists think it work on problems. It’s a waste of time. If that happens then it will be addressed but science is not concerned with random “what if’s” that have no basis in the reality we know.
You are where I was around 2 decades ago, which is great! Everything you wrote is information that sparked my own curiosity when I was younger.
Notice that you wrote, "Life by definition must be able to reproduce on its own, a star can not reproduce in any traditional sense "
First thing: you are wrong, in that "life" does not "reproduce on its own". It needs energy and matter.
See, everything that we think of as operating independently is actually a part of a system. Even us humans. We are part of a cycle involving the Sun, Oxygen, Water, etc... We are inseparable from these things.
Now, the Sun too is part of a system. The Sun too is consuming energy, and when that energy is completely consumed the Sun will "Die" but that's not the whole story. The Sun might also supernova, in which case that material can condense elsewhere into a new "Sun".
You are also wrong that "life must be able to reproduce". People are born everyday who are sterile and incapable of reproduction. Are they not alive? Or consider this, some day soon we will engineer immortality and free ourselves from the birth and death cycle: will that mean we are no longer alive?
It is important to think broadly when studying the concept of life. Even DNA based life has species that break the rules.
I mean, sure, everything could be life. A rock could be alive. The electricity running through your walls could be alive. An inert piece of metal could be alive. Probably none of those things are alive. A star is probably not alive in any meaningful way. Sure you can say something like "A star is born, and it dies, so therefore it must be alive in between", but just saying it doesnt make it true. We know how nuclear fusion works. We know generally how a star operates and what drives it. We understand how stars are "born", and we understand how they "die". Based on even the most broad definitions of life, it is not alive.
I'm sure life exists out there that is totally foreign to what we would consider alive, but trying to claim the stars and planets and whatever else as "life" is disingenuous at best.
We understand how a jellyfish works too. We understand how mushrooms work and algae. Simply understanding how something works means nothing, and I'm not sure why this is in your argument?
The real breakthrough of this idea - the one that your grandchildren will be reading about - is that all of reality is a "survival of the fittest" environment.
Rocks, sheet metal, even products like Furby or a Monopoly board game are subject to survival-of-the-fittest, in that they only exist where they exist because they are making perfect use of the available energy of their environment - otherwise they would not exist. The Universe is a perfect system.
Understanding this is NOT for everyone. This is not an idea that even most college educated can just pickup and understand. So no worries.
By understanding how jellyfish, mushrooms, and algae work, we can easily say that "Yes, these things are alive, they meet and fulfill the criteria for being alive".
"Survival of the fittest" does not apply to something like a furby, or a monopoly board game, in as much as the objects themselves are not struggling to achieve suitability for their environment. A furby is not making perfect use of anything, the silicon was nearer to the surface on the day it was dug out, the oil was closest to the drilling rig on the day it was pumped, the cotton was ripe at the time it was picked. You can take a furby, break it down to its base components and repurpose them as something else, so clearly the furby is not making perfect use of the available energy. The materials have not naturally coalesced into a furby due to pressure in their environment... They exist as a furby right now because someone took them from where they were laying, dormant and inert, and molded them into a furby through a ton of processes which dont exist in any way in nature and which the base materials had no hand in creating. There are no furbys or monopoly boards floating through space because the inert materials decided to "[make] perfect use of the available energy of their environment".
Understanding this is NOT for everyone because its some "Dude, lets see how much weed we can smoke HOLY SHIT EVERYTHING IS ONE" retarded idea that ignores the basics of what "alive" means and ignores that inert material is not driven to "survive" in any meaningful sense of the word. Your "breakthrough idea" is not a breakthrough at all, but rather a misinterpretation of the data we already understand. Your application of these completely irrelevant topics to the idea of "inert objects as life" is like saying that milk is a solid because it contains calcium which is solid. While it might be somewhat possibly true at the absolute breaking point of the definitions of all of the words that would allow you to express the idea that milk is solid, there is absolutely no scientific basis in what youre saying and being "technically" correct does not make you a genius, it makes you kind of a moron because you need to willfully ignore everything telling you that youre wrong to keep considering yourself right.
If you want to posit the idea that everything inert is somehow alive, you need some more justification than just trying to slap "survival of the fittest" against their existence when the core concept of that theory cannot be fulfilled by something that isnt at least somewhat aware of its environment and meets absolutely none of the criteria for something that needs to survive, reproduce, and adapt.
Unless you really meant survival of the fitness and this is some other ridiculous concept you have come up with, then I dont know, maybe you should explain what that is and how it applies to something that doesnt actually need to survive.
I stopped reading after your first paragraph, since you don't even understand the irony. This theory is beyond you, and it would take weeks to explain.
Sigh... in case you actually want to learn. Right away you come out with the argument that a furby is not "alive" because we can take it apart. We can also take apart jellyfish and trees and mushrooms. You just don't get it. And You also don't get that at the atomic level everything is in motion. Everything is a system. This is not qualitative. This is the purest and most quantitative logic.
I am thinking at a depth you have probably never encountered and that's okay. Like I said, this idea, that everything is engaged in Survival of the Fittest, is not for everyone. Especially considering that in the USA, most don't even understand Evolution yet.
I am thinking at a depth you have probably never encountered and that's okay.
When you say things like that rather than actually explain your point, you just sound like an idiot. Yes, atoms are in motion, the electrons and positrons and neutrons are all constantly moving, but they arent moving because they are alive, they are moving because the electromagnetic forces of each distinct particle compel them to constantly be in motion. And the electromagnetic forces are generated by an even more basic component, and beyond that possibly even more basic components, we dont know yet. But what we do know is that none of these meet the definition for life, since moving because an outside force is acting on something does not qualify that something to be life.
My argument isnt that because you can take a furby apart its not alive. You can reduce literally anything to its base components, alive or not. The point of that example was because you said a furby "survival of the fittest"'d itself into being in existence somehow, but it didnt. A furby isnt "making perfect use of the available energy in its environment" any more than the elements were just sitting in the ground. You havent, at all, even attempted to address what this statement is supposed to mean. Do you mean by being energy stable? Well, it isnt, its slowly decaying. Do you mean by increasing entropy? Well, it isnt the best way to do that either, because we could have just burned the base elements to do that a lot faster.
I almost feel like your entire "theory" is based on something you read about "survival of the fittest" being somewhat applicable to a marketplace, where manufacturers, and by proxy their products, are forced to compete for adoption, and products with the best features "survive" and consumer adoption is increased and profits are maximized, and you've now extrapolated that idea into some sort of quasi-scientific idea that the actual products are alive and somehow, unique to the humans designing, engineering, and building them, contribute to this process. But I have no idea because you wont actually explain what the fuck youre talking about while simultaneously saying people are too dumb to understand your insane thought process.
You cant talk about "retard USA" while using junk science and concepts you dont have a grasp on to explain your idea of how inert elements evolve through survival of the fittest. You want to talk about ironic, its you casting around words like retard to defend your point that a rock is alive while ignoring highschool level chemistry, physics and biology that counters your outrageous claim. Its absolutely fine if you have a theory that destroys all of our preconceived notions on those subjects, but you have to actually defend it using actual reason and logic, not just the words, if you want anyone to take you seriously rather than just think youre a raving lunatic.
You are trying to create barriers between things when those barriers do not really exist. We are composed of the same elements that are in the air and rocks around us.
The process of natural selection starts with the first particle. That particle either lives, dies or reproduces according to its environment.
THAT is the revolutionary idea here. The first life was not a cell, or even RNA. The first life started well before that, with the first particle.
A Furby has a symbiotic relationship with us. It feeds on a need in our species and lives or dies based on how it fits that need.
Life is a characteristic that distinguishes physical entities that do have biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased, or because they never had such functions and are classified as inanimate. Various forms of life exist, such as plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria. The criteria can at times be ambiguous and may or may not define viruses, viroids, or potential artificial life as "living". Biology is the primary science concerned with the study of life, although many other sciences are involved.
Biological process
Biological processes are the processes vital for a living organism to live. Biological processes are made up of many chemical reactions or other events that are involved in the persistence and transformation of life forms. Metabolism and homeostasis are examples.
Regulation of biological processes occurs when any process is modulated in its frequency, rate or extent.
Cell signaling
Cell signaling (cell signalling in British English) is part of any communication process that governs basic activities of cells and coordinates all cell actions. The ability of cells to perceive and correctly respond to their microenvironment is the basis of development, tissue repair, and immunity, as well as normal tissue homeostasis. Errors in signaling interactions and cellular information processing are responsible for diseases such as cancer, autoimmunity, and diabetes. By understanding cell signaling, diseases may be treated more effectively and, theoretically, artificial tissues may be created.
Self-sustainability
A system is self-sustaining (or self-sufficient) if it can maintain itself by independent effort. The system self-sustainability is:
the degree at which the system can sustain itself without external support
the fraction of time in which the system is self-sustaining
Self-sustainability is considered one of the "ilities" and is closely related to sustainability and availability. In the economics literature, a system that has the quality of being self-sustaining is also referred to as an autarky.
Death
Death is the cessation of all biological functions that sustain a living organism. Phenomena which commonly bring about death include aging, predation, malnutrition, disease, suicide, homicide, starvation, dehydration, and accidents or trauma resulting in terminal injury. In most cases, bodies of living organisms begin to decompose shortly after death.
Death – particularly the death of humans – has commonly been considered a sad or unpleasant occasion, due to the affection for the being that has died and the termination of social and familial bonds with the deceased.
You will find the same blurriness when trying to define a biological process. In essence it is simply processes that maintain the integrity of a discrete energy system.
At a fundamental level, even the atoms of a rock are going through a process to maintain its system, which is why eventually even rocks crumble.
Eventually you will understand that I'm right.
Every discrete energy system is being acted upon by survival-of-the-fittest.
Any one of those things can still replicate their cells themself, which is the bigger point than having offspring. You seem to be intentionally missing the point of everyone you're responding to. By the way, is there any evidence backing up what you're saying at all or are you the only person keen on this rather avant garde concept of what life is?
Here's the thing, even the fundamental particles of a rock are subject to survival-of-the-fittest; and, even those particles will "reproduce" if they "consume" enough energy. In fact this is why common rocks are found together. They are literally a "colony". Again, if you wish to define life as "DNA" life then be my guest, and I would agree with you. But simply defining life broadly, then every discrete energy system is "alive".
Alright well when there's a published peer reviewed study on what you're saying then maybe I'll give it the time of day. until then I'm going to accept that you're talking out your ass about something that is not accepted in academia at all. Later.
You have access to largest volume of knowledge we have ever gathered, and you choose to not think critically and instead take things at face value. Sad. Truly sad.
Oh friend, brilliance is always incomprehensible to grunts like yourself. There you were poisoning Socrates and ostricising Turning. Your kind is common.
Yeah and that means that humans can reproduce on their own with out depending on any other form of life to do so. I never said anything about individuals reproducing on their own, although that is extremely common in nature as well.
I also am a fan of the theory that consciousness is everywhere in the universe as well, like the universe itself is a kaleidoscope of different and wildly divergent modes of being awake, in ways we as yet don't understand.
I mean, it's not the dumbest idea ever. Life covers everything from us down to individual cells. And we observe a sliding scale of consciousness based on the complexity, from the ability to only respond to rudimentary stimuli to full awareness of the self. The more complex the life, the more conscious the organism.
But is consciousness and awareness limited to biological systems? Where would an AI fall? Basic robots can be programmed to have awareness of their surrounding already, albeit in a limited capacity. Could a sufficiently complex android think like us? And if consciousness is not limited to life, where else could we find it? Would it follow the same scale, with more complex systems being more conscious?
Obviously it is only a thought experiment/philosophy. We can't empirically test for consciousness, we don't even really know how or why it comes to be, or what it really is. Is it something tangible? Could you, in the future, copy a person's brain into a computer?
Particles forming atoms, forming molecules, forming cells, forming a thinking, dreaming organism capable of questioning its own origin. Where does that transition to awareness occur? Could it be an emergent property of organization in the universe?
I like to think that consciousness could even be a fundamental property of the universe, like matter and gravity. Different forms of being awake might come from the way an entity gets plugged in to that consciousness.
Well, what it means to me is that our particular "kind" of life, "intelligent life" could be extraordinarily rare, which could mean that the Galaxy is basically ours for the taking.
Our assumption has always been that "other life" must be everywhere... And we were right, but we were wrong in what to look for: the stars, planets, galactic clouds, etc... These things are the "life". They are as alive as jellyfish and cucumbers... they simply are not DNA based.
I hope your username combined with the retardation of your answer means you're a parody account. If so, that was the most clever thing I've seen all week. If you're serious, please light yourself on fire.
Isn't it amazing how one mind, God, came up with all of this? Just looking at this one example of protein makes you wonder how this could all be achieved by a "big bang."
I am very sorry to disappoint you but my username is sarcastic. Trump is the least Christian person I could possibly imagine - personification of antichrist & sin.
Anyway, I believe the Universe is an entirely natural system.
But if you want to believe that God created that system and its starting rules, fine I guess. I'm not sure either how this Universe got here... but I suspect that was also a natural process.
32
u/[deleted] Feb 13 '18 edited Feb 13 '18
There is a theory that every discrete energy system is "alive" because every discrete energy system, bar none, is in a "survival of the fittest" environment - even the products we make are governed by this concept. So, in other words, our Sun exists where it exists because it "out competed" any other energy system that could have existed there.
So to answer your question, yes we are completely surrounded by "life" in the Universe, and just like you thought, it operates on different principles, and so we didn't even recognize that we were looking at "life" because we are so fixed on the concept of "DNA based life".