pnaermao

Janus brought up the point that for silicon reactions to take place easily enough the conditions would have to be extremely warm. But isn't it that as pressure increases, temperature increases (trying to remember back to High School science)? If this is so, what about a planet (we will assume a "rocky" planet and not gas) large enough and at the correct position to its star that it could have a normal gravity of 2,5,10, etc. (whatever would be neccessary) Gs. Underneath what ever atmosphere existed, and maybe then under water or another similar liquid, the combined effects of gravity and atmospheric, as well as water, pressure created the high enough temperatures? Also, the point has been mentioned that chains based off of carbon are capable of being much longer than those of silicon. But chains still can be made, right? Would that then, should the possibility of life arising around silicon being true, limit this life? Something not as diverse as what has happened at Earth? Allowing only a few prominent "species" to exist? And then even at that, they remain simple. Single celled, or simple multicellular life forms; could they arise from these conditions? It need not be more intelligent than, lets say, bacteria.

This thought has always intrigued me. You look back to the original periodic table made by Mendeleev (this is where the idea first struck me) the elements are alligned by similar chemical properties. "Gruppe" (I'm assuming Group) IV contains Carbon, Silicon, Titanium, Germanium, etc. (For the modern table it would be columns 13, 4, and elements 58,65,90,97) My question is, under what conditions would planets/planetoids/comets/other cosmic bodies be formed where any one of those elements would be a prominent one. Different star types, positions in galaxies, multiple stars, etc. I figure that if life was able to arise once on a planet, it would be able to do so on others as well, and if the main key element changes from Carbon to something else, life would then arise based on other things. I'm curious on: A)What conditions are necessary for such bodies to be formed B)What validity is there that life could be based off of anything other than carbon.

An urban legend? Thank you for telling me. I apologize then for making that statement, I now know better. For further clarification: Do we know what ever part of the brain does, or are there still sections that their functions remain unknown? Regardless, the brain still acts as a filter for the information coming in through the senses. It has to, we are just not wired correctly to handle everything. Certain sensations, sounds, smells, and sights are pushed to the back of the mind when there are things that it is already focusing on. Your in a room and a butterfly flies by a window. Most of the time you wouldn't even notice it, because mainly you are focused on something going on in the room. But when your bored, those secondary sensations are now brought up to the fore front. You notice the butterfly, the way the seat feels against your body, your breathing, and many other things. Maybe the brain is just so focused on the obvious 3D world that the majority of a 4D world remains unnoticed. Only under certain cirumstances when the brain is nearly seperated from the world (Sleep, Near Death Experience, maybe comas? This is just an idea, so I haven't looked into comas yet.) would things be seen. Then filtered again slightly by conciousness (read my last post). Does that make sense? I'm rereading it and it sounds a little haphazard.

You mentioned a tool to be able to look out onto this universe and even into the shadows of a fourth dimension. Well, what if that brain is the tool. I believe Alt f13 is onto something. The brain itself is the tool that can look out onto this world. If the brain (or in this case, more particularly the unconciousness) has the ability to look out and "dream" of the fourth dimension, that could make sense. The concious "cultured" part of the brain is use to only thinking of three dimensions, so any input received in any manner of a fourth dimensional glimpse would then be: A) Filtered through to a point that the mind can comprehend it B) Misinterpreted to fit into what the mind is expecting and C) Then again dismissed as society frowns upon dreams being anything more than random firings of neurons. This is all based on the already (at least partially) confirmed idea that the brain filters all information given to it so that it really only sees what it can already comprehend. The brain is a huge mystery, 90% (or something close to it) being constantly unused, so maybe a fourth dimensional view (or a three dimensional view of activity in four dimensions) is only one of the possible abilities. Who can guess what else lies hidden behind layer upon layer of nerve cell.

It has been mentioned that the brain works both as a digital and analog machine. Also, it was mentioned of the numerous variables and possible options that can be done, not just "on and off" like a computer. But there is another aspect that must be considered because of the brain's organic nature. When a specific area of the brain is used continually, the neurons themselves begin to shift around and form new connections to make these often used areas easier and easier to use. So, can it really be compared to a machine? Until we are capable of building a computer that has the ability to re-wire its own hardware to produce the most effective system available, could we ever come close to creating A.I. or self-awarness? Or does this contribute to the brain's abillity to create its own "code". Maybe this is the source of a living organisms ability to be intuitive, creative, and "out of the loop". Think, for every thought there is the possibility of a completely unique system behind it.