It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Does Fire Have Life?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 01:40 PM
This is interesting...

I would agree that fire does have life and that it is infact very like a virus:
It doesn't think as such
It has to 'invade' a 'host' in order to 'reproduce'

Originally posted by Simulacra
If fire does have life then why have humans been embedded with the power to create it? Would this make us Gods in our own right?

Maybe the term 'God' is relative, and has infinite 'layers'
Our gods may have been created by an even greater being and so on.

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:59 PM
fire lacks life's basic building blocks.

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:13 PM
Hmmmm what about Virus's? Are those alive or not? Its basically the same question and it should have the same answer. Also on a side note I think that fire is more alive than waking up and going to school for 8 hours a day to come home and do homework for another 5...just saying

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:13 AM
A lot of those saying that fire isn't alive are saying this on the basis of characteristics that they say are basic to life, but actually aren't, such as:

Intelligence -- found only in the more complex animals.

Locomotion -- not found in plants.

Consciousness -- not verifiable in any life whatsoever, but supposed to exist in animals. If we want to assume that plants are also conscious, then we have no real reason not to assume the same thing about fire.

(Note -- "animals" doesn't mean "beasties other than humans." It means all living things that are multicellular, move themselves about, and do not photosynthesize. That includes humans. We are animals.)

Fire does exhibit many of the characteristics of life. It metabolizes, it reproduces, it grows. There is a reason why when a fire goes out, we say that it "dies." The similarity between fire and life is obvious.

What this really should show us is that the line we draw between the living and the nonliving is arbitrary. Life is an emergent property of matter. Fire is either a primitive sort of life, or a life-like nonliving process that living things build upon, depending on where you arbitrarily draw the line.

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 09:46 PM
Fire is, as stated, something that is non-living, but exhibits life-like properties (hence why we say it dies).

However, fire is simply the reaction of chemicals. Put a spark to a pool of gas, and it will light on fire. chemicals in the gas break down because the energy is sufficient enough to force that change. The energy released by this reaction keeps the flame burning (keeps reactions continuing).

However, fire will not evolve. Fire will not attempt to reproduce (even though it could be said to reproduce by accident - all life must reproduce by its own will). Fire will not fight for its own survival (even though it will appear to try to fight its demise, this is simply a product of the environment around it).

Fire is the conversion of energy. That is how it mimicks life. Life's basis is that it takes energy from one thing, and makes it into an energy that it can use. Fire does the same thing. It is the chemical change that life is based on - but this does not mean fire is alive.

Fire does not move with intelligence. Fire moves and spreads because the environment gives it the chance to spread. This does not make it intelligent.

My pants today tore open. They tore open, of course, when I bent far down while looking for a holiday gift. They could almost be said to have torn with an intelligence in mind - but the pants are not intelligent. A tear will expand given the circumstances, like fire. But pants are not intelligent.

It's humanity trying to instil the concept of life into something that does not have it that makes fire appear to be alive, but this is because fire acts so much like life.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in