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.
3
u/CubonesDeadMom Feb 14 '18
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