It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: intrptr
I talk about aliens using thought to communicate in my other thread:
Fermi Paradox - Communications Problem
originally posted by: Agnost
a reply to: eriktheawful
Eric, many thanks for a breath of fresh air!!!
What is life and what is intelligence? I think we have to differentiate between an anthropocentric definition of both terms and a possible broader interpretation.
The anthropocentric definition of life is how we see ourselves and our sister organisms here on earth: we are physically contained in a kind of shield that separates us from our environment, we have an internal organisation that is active and in equilibrium, we are dependent on resources (nutrients, energy) in order to grow and procreate, we can interact with each other and our environment and we can adapt to new environments and challenges in order for our species (or clade) to survive. We carry and pass on information to do all this. And we die.
And, as we also have observed, in order to have gotten to this point we needed a kind of liquid medium (water), and some atoms with special properties (CHON) to make this biochemistry possible under our local conditions (Goldilocks / Earth).
The anthropocentric definitions of intelligence are manifold, but cover such terms as (and/or) perception, cognition, consciousness and abstract thinking, depending on how evolved we consider the intelligence. And the main reason for the coming into existence of intelligence is to ensure our survival.
But would a more universal definition of life and intelligence necessarily need all these characteristics and pre-existing conditions? Would the environment outside our Goldilocks zone favour some other kind of life/intelligence? Does life/intelligence necessarily need a physically independent body? Does it need a metabolism; an environment? Does it need to procreate and die? Does intelligence stop at the step of abstract thinking? Or could completely different kinds of intelligence exist?
Just a few of many questions, but my main question here is what Fermi and Drake were looking for. Depending on one or the other definition, life and/or intelligence may be much more abundant, maybe closer than we think, and we may have to find other techniques to detect it.
Cheers!
originally posted by: Agnost
a reply to: WHWIV
On Earth all organisms today share exactly the same biochemistry: same DNA, same amino acids, which would indicate that the coming into existence of successful life on Earth was a one-time event.
So successful life has come into existence on Earth only once, 3.7 x 10^9 years ago (although recently found fossils might indicate it might have been 4.2 x 10^9 years ago), because in all those years we have no evidence of organisms with an alternative biochemistry.
originally posted by: playswithmachines
a reply to: intrptr
Yes, since if they had FTL they only needed a few years to build more, and a few hours to get here, they would of had the exact coordinates & reports from the last mission. But i digress.
And what chemical reaction would that be? Water, in some form or another, is fairly ubiquitous.
originally posted by: verschickter
-any alkalic metal (there are many variations)
-acids
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
... otherwise I would put forward aliens made of Velveeta because, you know, speculation.
originally posted by: verschickter
But you were responding to him.
Now that your original point was explained to you and why it was wrong you move the goal posts.
Like he said, you can't admit his post went way over your head.
originally posted by: whereislogic
Nature didn't do it (nature didn't find a way as some like to use that phrase). Neither was it 'by chance or necessity' (same storyline rephrased). Philosophical naturalism is wrong. Doesn't matter how many planets and suns there are in the universe (or how many universes one invokes), there's no life on them (the planets) other than the one planet were physical lifeforms were created wih a special care for their conditional requirements, the one we call earth.
originally posted by: verschickter
Try to keep track with whom you are exchanging arguments, with I feel this might help understanding our whole conversation.
originally posted by: eriktheawful
and alien abduction stories aside, they do not constitute as actual proof of anything.
The biophysicist Jeremy England made waves in 2013 with a new theory that cast the origin of life as an inevitable outcome of thermodynamics. His equations suggested that under certain conditions, groups of atoms will naturally restructure themselves so as to burn more and more energy, facilitating the incessant dispersal of energy and the rise of “entropy” or disorder in the universe. England said this restructuring effect, which he calls dissipation-driven adaptation, fosters the growth of complex structures, including living things.
In the study, published in Astrophysical Journal Letters, scientists identified negatively charged molecules called 'carbon chain anions' in the atmosphere of Titan, Saturn's largest moon. These linear molecules are understood to be building blocks towards more complex molecules, and may have acted as the basis for the earliest forms of life on Earth.
The team say the discovery of the negatively charged carbon chain anions is surprising because they are highly reactive and should not last long in Titan's atmosphere before combining with other materials.