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.
Because stars aren't made up of cells, they can't evolve, they don't multiply.
>>16930466
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?
this the most retarded shit i ever read desu senpai
>>16930487
People said that about the spherical earth and microbes too, you faggot.
>>16930466
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).
>>16930475
>but they're made of elements just like us.
so are rocks
>>16930498
Did you not read the rest of the post?
Rocks don't have a life cycle where they explode and then are recycled into new rocks.
So apparently nuclear reactions are a form of life now... Every day this channel surprises me with its special kind of retards
>>16930506
A form of biochemical process with a consciousness in a higher dimension. Maybe.
>>16930506
you know what mostly drives our biology? chemical reactions
>>16930512
There is no biochemistry or higher consciousness, just basic hydrogen fusion into helium
>>16930501
>Rocks don't have a life cycle where they explode and then are recycled into new rocks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_cycle
>>16930520
#rekt
>>16930520
Hah yeah it's exactly what's happening along the fault lines in the subduction zones. You can find it all along the west coast, causing major earthquakes every once in a while
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.
>>16930464
Because it's just playing with semantics and isn't useful in any way scientifically.
Taking metaphor literally is the cancer of the modern era.
>>16930464
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.
>>16930745
This x1000
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
>>16931054
>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.
>>16930464
>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.
>>16930466
Wrong on all three counts
>nide dubs, though
>>16931054
>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.
report function is broken, retards flourish
>>16930464
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.
>>16932732
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.
>>16930656
>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.
>>16932780
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.
>>16930464
I think you're either a retard or schizophrenic.
>>16930464
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.
>>16930464
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.
>>16932968
>but think and act so slowly we can't communicate.
Though normal means, at least.
>>16930464
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.
>>16930464
Basically, TimeCube.
>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?
>>16932968
Try telling that to the fly I just made into a pancake. You're creating patterns that aren't there, anon.
>>16933169
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.
>>16930475
>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
>>16933266
Bullshit. Some parasitic worms asexually reproduce!
I learned that shit in highschool.
>>16933266
>this is what we would call asexual reproduction, which is not a characteristic of life
All single celled organisms reproduce asexually.
>>16933284
they have the capability to sexually reproduce as well
>>16933294
bacterial conjugation m80
just because it CAN reproduce asexually, doesnt mean thats all it does
>>16933326
you're a fucking idiot
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
>>16930464
I've thought the same thing about plasma. We're either very smart or very stupid, together, anon.
>>16932732
>ebrebing ib cobbected :DD
>i will believe anything you tell me if it sounds cool
>>16930464
Read on the criteria for living organisms. There's always google.
>>16933438
OP is saying we should challenge that criteria you retard
>>16933480
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.
>>16930464
wow you're right never thought of that.
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
>>16930745
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.
>>16935193
the sun isnt made of fire you retard
>>16935419
It's no use anon.
>>16935422
how retarded do you have to get to be on an 18+ website and still think the sun is made of fire
>>16935419
I didn't say so. It was an example. Now, care to explain which part of the sun is organic?
>>16935449
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
>>16935424
Wrong anon m8.
>>16935460
Ok. I scrolled it through now. No citations whatsoever. According to this thread the sun is living being because you want to believe so.
>>16935488
lol
just go do some basic research
you'll learn of all the basic processes of the sun
i learned all about the sun metabolizing hydrogen and shit like electron degeneracy in school
>>16935460
Ray of creation. The Earth is a growing star and the Moon a growing Earth. The Sun will become similar to the role Saturn plays now
>>16935495
wat?
the sun is bigger than saturn tho
>>16935460
>react to stimuli
>>16935494
I still can't see how it is supposed to be alive.
>>16935507
oh, so you're retarded?
okay
>>16935508
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.
>>16935516
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
>>16935519
We already have definition for what is alive and what is not.
>>16935519
Also, should I do some lsd and bath salts to understand your messed up logic?
>>16935526
>>16935531
and that's the beautiful thing about science
what we 'know' can changed with the right evidence
i don't even do drugs lol
>>16930494
Nobody ever thought the Earth was flat. Ever.
>>16935543
The "in MY opinion the sun is alive" is not evidence you dummy.
>>16935548
you are seriously the most dense, closed-minded person i've ever had the displeasure of speaking to on this website
>>16935552
Alright, you're still here. Good. I just wanted to ask do you think nuclear reactors are alive?
>>16935555
what makes something that runs off chemical reactions alive and something that runs off nuclear reactions not alive?
>>16935558
Actually it works with nuclear fission which is nuclear reaction.
>>16935555
Everything is alive anon.
>5555
>>16935564
you're trolling lol
stars use fusion
>>16930464
Stay on your meds desu senpai
>>16935575
I was meant nuclear reactor. You're pretending to be retarded as defense. Absolutely pathetic.
>>16930464
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
>>16935583
>I was meant nuclear reactor.
could say the same for you buddy
>>16933266
So you're just making your own rules now, huh?
>>16935590
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.
>>16933326
>>16933360
I second that. You made no valid points, and the points you made didn't actually make sense. Have you even read a book before?
>>16935598
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
>>16930539
Death Star prototype seeded life on Earth? Thats something I can get behind
>>16930464
I mean sure, if you want to stretch to word 'life' to the point where it loses any meaning. WE as a universe are all a bunch of physical processes, anyway.
>>16935606
>using grammar as an argument
Whatever, delusional smart ass. Stars are not alive. They don't have biological processes. Deal with it.
>>16935614
stay mad fag
>>16935618
Honestly, it's not my problem if you are retarded.
>>16933503
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.
>>16935621
you need some of this for your ass?
>>16935625
No.
>>16935449
How is the sun not organic? Who made if it didn't naturally occur? You're not going to call this idea outlandish but then still believe in god, are you?
>>16935627
you sure about that
>>16935623
I think there is a black hole inside your skull.
>>16930464
Okay, let's say yes. What the hell changed now? We're still looking for a life in outer space.
>>16935193
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.
>>16935633
ayy lmaos made le sun lmao xd
>>16935642
why are you acting as if the whole point of this is so accomplish something
>>16930464
You'll have to be patient, but this is well worth the time for everyone in this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F17_KiAZOxg
>>16935633
Gravity forms protostar and protostar evlolves into star.
>>16935495
You're the kind of crazy people have been claiming op to be. You can't phathomably reason out what you said. Maybe it's poetry but it's not philosophical or scientific.
>>16935644
Do you know what is definition of life? You can't just go around changing words meanings as you please. Stars don't have biological processes thus it is not alive.
>>16935666
what if.... uh i don't know
THEIR BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES ARE NUCLEAR FUSION AND ELECTRON DEGENERATION
>>16935655
So stars come together organically, correct?
>>16935650
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
>>16935678
Naturally, yes. Not organically.
>>16935680
>Possibly the first life in the universe we have discovered that isn't on earth
>it's not the fucking higgs boson
>>16935609
Agreed. It doesn't matter if it's alive. I only care if it's conscious and especially sentient
>>16935642
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.
>>16935689
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?
>>16935715
>significant percentage
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
>>16935666
I'm pretty sure they have biological processes similar to some single celled organisms.
>>16935727
I'm pretty sure you can't find sauce for this.
>>16935729
ELECTRON DEGENERATION
>>16935725
Nah man, just look how cynical was the public when NASA announced they found LIQUID water on Mars. This will be a joke in comparison.
>>16935686
Organically means naturally. Maybe choose a more specific term than organic.
>>16935735
Word organic has many translations. I was not aware it meant natural too.
>>16935689
Life that's meaningless when it comes to the reasons we are searching for life in space. But it may convince some people to look for consciousness is more intricate ways.
>>16935725
>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.
>>16935746
>But it may convince some people to look for consciousness is more intricate ways
In such ways as? Such as the sun has feelings too?
>>16935752
like i said you aren't going to always get what you expect
if you don't like it, go fucking cry about it
that's life
>>16935766
I could say same to you. Stars does not qualify as life. Not today, not tomorrow.
>>16935544
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.
>>16935775
>stars don't qualify as life because i can't interact with them and i don't like that
>>16935779
yolandi's a babe
>>16935779
Stars don't qualify as life because word life has certain meaning.
>>16935488
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.
>>16935789
They definitely did not tell me back in the school that stars are alive.
>>16935779
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.
>>16930464
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?
>tl;dr
>you're shit, /x/ has been shit, kill yourself faggot.
>>16935796
>listening to the lies of popular education
>>16935825
>run out of arguments
>time to post anime
>>16935825
>>16935831
Yeah, that was a cop out post right there. You can look at most of the opposing arguments to see more examples of cop out posts.
>the earth is flat
>the earth is concave
>the sun is alive
I find something stupid here every week.
>>16935851
I know right? Next thing you know faggots will start to say that the Earth isn't hollow.
>>16935838
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.
>>16935878
What purpose would expanding definition of life possibly serve? Absolutely nothing.
Its threads like this that makes me realize i aint bout this /x/ life
>>16935913
normie kek
>>16935891
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?
>>16935913
hah
>>16935947
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.
>>16933002
>>holy shit, it's alive because it is governed and abide by few simple laws of physics!!! hurrrrrrrrrrr
you could say the same thing about human life too
>>16935958
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.
>>16935985
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.
>>16930551
Cancer is a metaphor for uncontrolled growth which is great if it's IQ or penis/boob size or dollars in bank account.
>>16936322
>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.
>>16933266
Jesus you're retarded. I expect no less from /x/ though.
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.
