Liolixli

I took the time to type a longer response, but it wasn't worth the frustration. That frustration was reflected in the tone, so i deleted it. To quickly progress and touch upon the newer responses, Emergent and byproduct are not counter terms... how are you using them in parallel to make a point that it was incorrect without saying that an opposite term applies? Fire is a secondary event because it is a reaction. We are seeing two elements interact, yet fire itself is not a separate entity. It does not pool or flow to settle independent. Beyond that, this point really doesn't relate to providing or disproving if a star is alive. I only made the point that fire was not. Do you have support that it is? In terms of how it different from a star, I feel I made many various points. I am not sure if everyone agrees that only warm blooded animals make heat or no one feels like chiming in. Can anyone else agree that warm blooded animals simply retain and deal with heat differently? Other organisms metabolize and releases heat, they simply deal with heat differently than we do as warm blooded creatures. I get that this is a speculation sub-forum, but I take it we are not speculating on that particular issue. While there is no direct evidence toward the EM issue, there is also no evidence currently disproving it; thus, it is a speculation. It is the basis of my theory toward an extended definition of life. I make it because I would also include the planet as a living entity. I make that point because planets that have smaller cores do not produce internal heat or much if any of an emf. I feel that this is not just a factor that allows life, but that it is the base of life at a larger scale. If someone wants to argue based on a wider criteria of what defines life, I gladly will. I have already touched upon the issue of evolution and other topics to which I found no current dispute. I am not sure what the normal sense of evolution vs populations adapting to an environment means. How are we defining the environment of stars? Is the filament super structure the environment? Is that structure the population? Are you able to provide any detail as to how, since the earliest stage of expansion, they have not adapted within this or that the very structure itself has not altered? Based on what we currently know, there is a clear link to suggest that some force supplements gravity and that some form of structured and specific adaptive change is occurring. Do you want proof? All I have is my understanding of these topics. If someone had already proven this, we wouldn't be speculating. So, it is fairly cyclical if we say that it can't be true because no one has provided research saying it is. If I personally had funding and I would gladly provide more detailed proof. I say this to simply avoid the conclusion or inevitable end all statement that comes of any internet speculation.

I wasn't calling you out on the evidence. I just regiestered and can only reply once more. So, I was hoping to have more info on which to respond. It limits you initially. I will answer when I have adequate time to respond to all that has been said later.

I am currently at work or I would respond faster and with more detail. I just didn't have time to reach the second point. I am unsure what you are saying does not describe most life. Recent studies are trying to isolate and study plant em fields. So, that is inconclusive. Small organisms are not proven to lack them, they are potentially harder to detect. Can you give an example of a living organism that generates no heat? I see a lot of statements, yet no basis of supporting arguments to explain the reasoning. I need more to work with as to why you assert that point, if I can quickly address it on a break.

I saw this same fire argument way back. I do not believe it applies. Fire is not self contained nor is it adapting to burn new material. Fire also is mostly associated already with life. Things that were once alive burn. So, it is a byproduct of life more than an entity of life. Grass for example has adapted to promote fire and evolved to resist it to gain an advantage. We utilize fire for various reasons. Oxygen exists because of life, which aids fire etc etc. Fire does not being any of this to the table on its own.

I noticed this thread and found recent activity. I have considered the topic for a while and find it fascinating. I have come to define life as the generation of heat and an electromagnetic field. At least to over simplify. One argument was that stars do not evolve. This is untrue. First generation stars are short lived. The material from these stars creates planetary systems and much longer lived stars, such as our Sun. Not only has the star reached a longer life span and more stable form, but it has generated new life, at least once, in us. Since we exist as parts of the generation one star, our life is star life. In the case of dwarf generation, the stars reach an even greater longevity. The conversion of matter is not evolution, yet the star directly adjusts fusion to survive. Even when it fails, the result is a new star that will live longer and avoid the previous pitfall. I find it beyond coincidence that the larger cluster formation of the stars resemble the same neural cluster formation that transfers consciousness for us. I believe in time we will find they are aware and conscious. I also find that they exibit what seems much like a spore or plant reproduction in supernova. What would distinguish this from being considered polination? The raw material collects and attaches to dust, which forms new growth and life.