3 ms·

When discussing these issues I have always the impression that we have a too strong anthropomorphic view. For example, we assume that life needs a liquid for s

When discussing these issues I have always the impression that we have a too strong anthropomorphic view. For example, we assume that life needs a liquid for support, but maybe it can work with other substance (gas, plasma, ...). We think that watter has magic properties, but maybe another material works better - we simply do not known about it. Why? Because Earth does not contain enough material to produce and study the compound, or because Earth simply does not have the conditions which make the substance perform at its optimum level (maybe millions of degrees, or extremely high pressures). I think we barely know anything about chemistry: the universe offers so many options, that restricting outserlves to life as we know it is bound to make us miss most of the real alternatives.

LeifCarrotson 11y ago
I agree that we have too strong an anthropomorphic view, but disagree that water and carbon are bad assumptions. There are only a finite number of elements, and these elements are prouduced in similar ways due to radioactive decay and stellar processes. Of these, a simple study shows that carbon is best. Also, life requires some kind of chemistry to reproduce - this is easiest in a liquid, and water is the best, most abundant liquid for the process. Perhaps a complex molecule is superior to carbon in some way. Or perhaps something could exist and reproduce as a plasma. These materials and conditions may exist somewhere in the universe, but are not nearly as likely as carbon and water.
- gonvaled 11y ago
  > There are only a finite number of elements, and these elements are prouduced in similar ways due to radioactive decay and stellar processes. Of these, a simple study shows that carbon is best. Maybe another element (or compound) performs better in certain conditions or in the presence of certain catalizators than carbon. We have not detected this because we do not have the conditions to perform the experiments, or maybe we haven't found the right proportions of catalizator to compound, or maybe we have not even tried that specific combination. There are maybe other stables elements that we have not yet discovered, with >1000 protons in the nucleus: another isle of stability which we do not know about because the stars do not easily reach it when going supernova. Maybe there are other organization structures (not atoms) for matter that do not occur in this part of the universe. "Chemistry" would be very different then. There are too many variables: humankind is very young, science is in its infancy, we have a very limited spectrum of the possible conditions / materials at our disposal, and anyway the possibilities that the universe offers are way too big for us to make any final statement. The universe has been running for a long time, in a massive parallelized manner: it sure has found possibilities that we do not even dare of dreaming about. > These materials and conditions may exist somewhere in the universe, but are not nearly as likely as carbon and water. You can be right there, but what is more likely: carbon and water or "the rest of possible alternatives"? It could be that carbon+water is the most common option, but still most life in the universe is based in lots of different alternatives.
alanwatts 11y ago
There is also the limitation of our 5 senses. Perhaps another sense could lead us into a entirely new conception of life. Furthermore we really have no distinct line between biology, chemistry, and physics.
- gonvaled 11y ago
  > Perhaps another sense could lead us into a entirely new conception of life. Exactly: other environments would push evolution (in whatever form happens in other ecosystems) in complete different ways. > Furthermore we really have no distinct line between biology, chemistry, and physics. Right, those are human classifiers, which are mostly well defined, except when they are not.
collyw 11y ago
Exactly, and as far as I am aware, we haven't really got much clue what consciousness is or where it comes from. It doesn't seem to be physical and we can't measure it or observe it (brain activity yes, but not consciousness).
- gonvaled 11y ago
  I am not with you there: in my opinion conscience is an emergent property of the way matter (in this case probably the human brain) is organized.
  - collyw 11y ago
    That's fine to have that opinion, but its not backed up by any peer reviewed studies is it?
    - gonvaled 11y ago
      Not an expert, but I would say the opposite view is also not backed by studies, or can you correct me there?
      - collyw 11y ago
        Come on, that's equivalent to saying "prove that God doesn't exist".
        gonvaled 11y ago
        You are turning the tables here: it is not me the one postulating the existence of an non-falsifiable entity; quite the contrary: I am assuming that all phenomena in the universe is based on measurable quantities. You are advocating that consciousness derives from non-physical entities ("it doesn't seem to be physical". To whom doesn't it? To you? To me it seems quite physical!). Which could be very well be true, but that statement is non-falsifiable, like God. I am assuming the simplest thing (Occam Razor): that all we have is the material world, and there are no invisible pink unicorns. Which could be wrong of course, but then be careful because it is behind your back. So, maybe you are right or maybe you are wrong. If you are right, we can stop talking right here, since your statements are not based on reason, and can thus not be argued (for or against): you can always postulate the pink unicorn wherever you see fit. If you are wrong, we do not need to discuss anymore either, since that's the end of this topic.

LeifCarrotson 11y ago

I agree that we have too strong an anthropomorphic view, but disagree that water and carbon are bad assumptions. There are only a finite number of elements, and these elements are prouduced in similar ways due to radioactive decay and stellar processes. Of these, a simple study shows that carbon is best. Also, life requires some kind of chemistry to reproduce - this is easiest in a liquid, and water is the best, most abundant liquid for the process. Perhaps a complex molecule is superior to carbon in some way. Or perhaps something could exist and reproduce as a plasma. These materials and conditions may exist somewhere in the universe, but are not nearly as likely as carbon and water.

gonvaled 11y ago
> There are only a finite number of elements, and these elements are prouduced in similar ways due to radioactive decay and stellar processes. Of these, a simple study shows that carbon is best. Maybe another element (or compound) performs better in certain conditions or in the presence of certain catalizators than carbon. We have not detected this because we do not have the conditions to perform the experiments, or maybe we haven't found the right proportions of catalizator to compound, or maybe we have not even tried that specific combination. There are maybe other stables elements that we have not yet discovered, with >1000 protons in the nucleus: another isle of stability which we do not know about because the stars do not easily reach it when going supernova. Maybe there are other organization structures (not atoms) for matter that do not occur in this part of the universe. "Chemistry" would be very different then. There are too many variables: humankind is very young, science is in its infancy, we have a very limited spectrum of the possible conditions / materials at our disposal, and anyway the possibilities that the universe offers are way too big for us to make any final statement. The universe has been running for a long time, in a massive parallelized manner: it sure has found possibilities that we do not even dare of dreaming about. > These materials and conditions may exist somewhere in the universe, but are not nearly as likely as carbon and water. You can be right there, but what is more likely: carbon and water or "the rest of possible alternatives"? It could be that carbon+water is the most common option, but still most life in the universe is based in lots of different alternatives.

alanwatts 11y ago

There is also the limitation of our 5 senses. Perhaps another sense could lead us into a entirely new conception of life. Furthermore we really have no distinct line between biology, chemistry, and physics.

gonvaled 11y ago
> Perhaps another sense could lead us into a entirely new conception of life. Exactly: other environments would push evolution (in whatever form happens in other ecosystems) in complete different ways. > Furthermore we really have no distinct line between biology, chemistry, and physics. Right, those are human classifiers, which are mostly well defined, except when they are not.

collyw 11y ago

Exactly, and as far as I am aware, we haven't really got much clue what consciousness is or where it comes from. It doesn't seem to be physical and we can't measure it or observe it (brain activity yes, but not consciousness).

gonvaled 11y ago
I am not with you there: in my opinion conscience is an emergent property of the way matter (in this case probably the human brain) is organized.
- collyw 11y ago
  That's fine to have that opinion, but its not backed up by any peer reviewed studies is it?
  - gonvaled 11y ago
    Not an expert, but I would say the opposite view is also not backed by studies, or can you correct me there?
    - collyw 11y ago
      Come on, that's equivalent to saying "prove that God doesn't exist".
      - gonvaled 11y ago
        You are turning the tables here: it is not me the one postulating the existence of an non-falsifiable entity; quite the contrary: I am assuming that all phenomena in the universe is based on measurable quantities. You are advocating that consciousness derives from non-physical entities ("it doesn't seem to be physical". To whom doesn't it? To you? To me it seems quite physical!). Which could be very well be true, but that statement is non-falsifiable, like God. I am assuming the simplest thing (Occam Razor): that all we have is the material world, and there are no invisible pink unicorns. Which could be wrong of course, but then be careful because it is behind your back. So, maybe you are right or maybe you are wrong. If you are right, we can stop talking right here, since your statements are not based on reason, and can thus not be argued (for or against): you can always postulate the pink unicorn wherever you see fit. If you are wrong, we do not need to discuss anymore either, since that's the end of this topic.