jeremyjr Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 In a very concrete sense evolution as a mechanism "discovered" many things: locomotion, flying, vision, etc. And ultimately it discovered "intelligence" with us. The laws that govern Evolution very likely are common in any form of Life, not necessarily only in Life based on carbon. So in the same way that evolution "discovered" "intelligence" with us it could had "discovered" other things that for us could only be produced by other intelligent beings: like moving freely in empty space, moving faster than any of our fastest vehicles, airplanes or rockets, maybe Evolution "discovered" some physical laws that we are unaware of. Some people had tried to see any "unexpected" or complex phenomenon as a manifestation of "intelligence", we have just to remember that we are the result of a "mechanism" that could had created many extraordinary things that may look at first sight as the product of "intelligence" but ciuld be simply manifestations of very advanced or different life forms that not necessary are "intelligent".
hypervalent_iodine Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 ! Moderator Note A reminder that this isn't your soap box. Is there something that you wish to discuss here (that isn't a segue into topics covered in closed threads)?
jeremyjr Posted June 29, 2015 Author Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) Life not based in carbon is a theme that already had appeared in scientific journals, for example in the 2007 article "From plasma crystals and helical structures towards inorganic living matter" quoting: "It is concluded that complex self-organized plasma structures exhibit all the necessary properties to qualify them as candidates for inorganic living matter that may exist in space provided certain conditions allow them to evolve naturally." So the idea about living organisms naturally evolving in "empty" space is a very plausible idea with solid "scientific" backing. http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/9/8/263/pdf/njp7_8_263.pdf Edited June 29, 2015 by jeremyjr
Strange Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) Life not based in carbon is a theme that already had appeared in scientific journals, for example in the 2007 article "From plasma crystals and helical structures towards inorganic living matter" quoting: There was an interesting comment in a discussion on whether mathematics is discovered or invented (1). Someone suggested that if there were intelligences made of gas/plasma then their most basic mathematics would be things similar to real numbers, fluid dynamics and calculus, which are subjects we find quite advanced. One day, one of their more advanced mathematicians would discover these truly bizarre things called "integers" ("useless of course, but fun to play with"). (1) BBC radio, some time ago - I might be able to find it if anyone is interested... So the idea about living organisms naturally evolving in "empty" space is a very plausible idea with solid "scientific" backing. Well, scientific in the sense that it is discussed by scientists. Not in the sense that there is any evidence for such a thing. Edited June 29, 2015 by Strange
imatfaal Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 There was a flurry of activity a few years ago about the possibility that life could and actually did exist without carbon - it was based on arsenic. IIRC the article was a triumph of hope and imagination over scientific methodology (and possibly integrity). I read a blog that pretty much deconstructed the paper from intro to conclusions. I have no problem with papers which are a bit more of a flight of fancy than they should be - but readers have to remember that most scientists started and remain out on their career path because they have an over-active and unquenchable imagination.
pzkpfw Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 It's also very possible for apparently complex "behaviours" to be generated by very simple things. For example, the motion of a plastic bag in the wind is very complex, but not only is that not "intelligence", it isn't "life".
Delta1212 Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 There was a flurry of activity a few years ago about the possibility that life could and actually did exist without carbon - it was based on arsenic. IIRC the article was a triumph of hope and imagination over scientific methodology (and possibly integrity). I read a blog that pretty much deconstructed the paper from intro to conclusions. I have no problem with papers which are a bit more of a flight of fancy than they should be - but readers have to remember that most scientists started and remain out on their career path because they have an over-active and unquenchable imagination. I'm pretty sure that was life that used arsenic in place of phosphorous for some metabolic processes rather than being arsenic-based instead of carbon-based. But yeah, on review I think there were some serious flaws found with those results. 2
imatfaal Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 I'm pretty sure that was life that used arsenic in place of phosphorous for some metabolic processes rather than being arsenic-based instead of carbon-based. But yeah, on review I think there were some serious flaws found with those results. Yeah - that sounds familiar and when I think of it (and remember my periodic table) makes much more sense; adenosine tri and di phosphate are crucial in cellular metabolism and are at the base of most cell energy use/transportation
jeremyjr Posted June 30, 2015 Author Posted June 30, 2015 There was a flurry of activity a few years ago about the possibility that life could and actually did exist without carbon - it was based on arsenic. IIRC the article was a triumph of hope and imagination over scientific methodology (and possibly integrity). I read a blog that pretty much deconstructed the paper from intro to conclusions. I have no problem with papers which are a bit more of a flight of fancy than they should be - but readers have to remember that most scientists started and remain out on their career path because they have an over-active and unquenchable imagination. Is this about what you may have a problem with?? Or you have all the answers in the book? Being a moderator in this place do not make you "authority" in any topic. But the abuse of "authority" is a common motif in many "experts" that try to "extend" their expertise outside of the boundaries of their field. We already had mentioned here the devastating effect of that abuse of authority in the real advance of science or at least in its slowing down, Lavoisier comes to mind. It's also very possible for apparently complex "behaviours" to be generated by very simple things.For example, the motion of a plastic bag in the wind is very complex, but not only is that not "intelligence", it isn't "life". It is really interesting that you mentioned that example, the "flying pattern" of many butterflies appear sometimes so "chaotic" that many will try to "debunk" such flying pattern as the movement of an inanimated object. Simplistic arguments are pervasive in people without real observational experience.
swansont Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Life not based in carbon is a theme that already had appeared in scientific journals, for example in the 2007 article "From plasma crystals and helical structures towards inorganic living matter" quoting: "It is concluded that complex self-organized plasma structures exhibit all the necessary properties to qualify them as candidates for inorganic living matter that may exist in space provided certain conditions allow them to evolve naturally." So the idea about living organisms naturally evolving in "empty" space is a very plausible idea with solid "scientific" backing. http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/9/8/263/pdf/njp7_8_263.pdf ! Moderator Note If you were to present it in a similar way to that paper, then yes. They explain, with math, how a helical structure could be self-organizing. Without that kind of rigor, you can't make the argument that the idea is "very plausible", or indeed that it has scientific backing, There's no science in the idea, yet. Not something that meets our guidelines. Is this about what you may have a problem with?? Or you have all the answers in the book? Being a moderator in this place do not make you "authority" in any topic. But the abuse of "authority" is a common motif in many "experts" that try to "extend" their expertise outside of the boundaries of their field. We already had mentioned here the devastating effect of that abuse of authority in the real advance of science or at least in its slowing down, Lavoisier comes to mind. It is really interesting that you mentioned that example, the "flying pattern" of many butterflies appear sometimes so "chaotic" that many will try to "debunk" such flying pattern as the movement of an inanimated object. Simplistic arguments are pervasive in people without real observational experience. ! Moderator Note This is all off-topic.
jeremyjr Posted June 30, 2015 Author Posted June 30, 2015 ! Moderator Note If you were to present it in a similar way to that paper, then yes. They explain, with math, how a helical structure could be self-organizing. Without that kind of rigor, you can't make the argument that the idea is "very plausible", or indeed that it has scientific backing, There's no science in the idea, yet. Not something that meets our guidelines. ! Moderator Note This is all off-topic. From my point of view there is a very clear "conflict" of interest on moderators making posts in a thread using their "authority" to press for a point. Answering a post about the complex character of the flying pattern of a plastic bag mentioning that the flying pattern of some butterflies may look similar to the flying pattern of some inanimated objects is very much on topic.
Strange Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 So the idea about living organisms naturally evolving in "empty" space is a very plausible idea with solid "scientific" backing. Note that the structures described do not appear in empty space but in a plasma containing small dust particles. Also, the structures are a few millimetres in length and difficult to observe directly (if that is at all relevant ...) It is really interesting that you mentioned that example, the "flying pattern" of many butterflies appear sometimes so "chaotic" that many will try to "debunk" such flying pattern as the movement of an inanimated object. I have never heard of anyone claiming that butterflies are inanimate objects. Do you have some examples? (It should be easy to provide some if "many" people claim this.)
jeremyjr Posted June 30, 2015 Author Posted June 30, 2015 Note that the structures described do not appear in empty space but in a plasma containing small dust particles. Also, the structures are a few millimetres in length and difficult to observe directly (if that is at all relevant ...) I have never heard of anyone claiming that butterflies are inanimate objects. Do you have some examples? (It should be easy to provide some if "many" people claim this.) I am 100% sure that if some images from a certain distance are provided many "experts" in this forum will provide cartoon-like models "explaining" that as some inanimated object caught in some thermal air current. That already had happened.
Strange Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 I have never heard of anyone claiming that butterflies are inanimate objects. Do you have some examples? (It should be easy to provide some if "many" people claim this.) 1
swansont Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 From my point of view there is a very clear "conflict" of interest on moderators making posts in a thread using their "authority" to press for a point. Answering a post about the complex character of the flying pattern of a plastic bag mentioning that the flying pattern of some butterflies may look similar to the flying pattern of some inanimated objects is very much on topic. I have never heard of anyone claiming that butterflies are inanimate objects. Do you have some examples? (It should be easy to provide some if "many" people claim this.) ! Moderator Note We are discussing advanced life without intelligence.
jeremyjr Posted June 30, 2015 Author Posted June 30, 2015 I have never heard of anyone claiming that butterflies are inanimate objects. Do you have some examples? (It should be easy to provide some if "many" people claim this.) That will be off topic and somehow we already know what will be presented, the "fun" will be spoiled. But that could be a perfect topic for a separate thread, if I am not suspended again for "bad behavior", people with "authority" are bound to use that "authority" and will not tolerate other people that appear not to "respect" such "authority", the "human" component is inescapable.
Strange Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 That will be off topic and somehow we already know what will be presented, the "fun" will be spoiled. But that could be a perfect topic for a separate thread, if I am not suspended again for "bad behavior", people with "authority" are bound to use that "authority" and will not tolerate other people that appear not to "respect" such "authority", the "human" component is inescapable. OK. Here is a new thread for you to answer the question in: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89751-inanimate-butterflies/
jeremyjr Posted June 30, 2015 Author Posted June 30, 2015 OK. Here is a new thread for you to answer the question in: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89751-inanimate-butterflies/ I really do not need any "help" to start threads and even less using that very "bad" selected title. This is completely off topic.
Strange Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 I really do not need any "help" to start threads and even less using that very "bad" selected title. This is completely off topic. OK. Please feel free to start your own thread (with your preferred title) to provide some examples of people who 'try to "debunk" such flying pattern as the movement of an inanimated object'? I think it is a very interesting statement.
CharonY Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) In a very concrete sense evolution as a mechanism "discovered" many things: locomotion, flying, vision, etc. And ultimately it discovered "intelligence" with us. It appears that there is the assumption that intelligence is unique to humans. Disregarding the issue with defining intelligence for now, behavior associated with what we commonly associate with intelligence can be found in a wide range of animals to various degrees. It is rare that fundamentally unique traits, if adaptive, are not at least somewhat spread around. Exceptions tend to be adaptations to extremely unique niches or specializations (and in a way, intelligence is just the opposite of that). There was a flurry of activity a few years ago about the possibility that life could and actually did exist without carbon - it was based on arsenic. IIRC the article was a triumph of hope and imagination over scientific methodology (and possibly integrity). I read a blog that pretty much deconstructed the paper from intro to conclusions. When the paper came fresh out I almost lost it. With one simple experiment they could have debunked it (and eventually someone else did). I use it as an example why peer-review alone is not enough. There were so many things wrong with it, starting from the composition of the group (had some famous senior authors on it, but from the wrong field, including e.g. engineers and physicists with little to now knowledge of bacterial physiology). I have been ribbing my physicist colleagues about it since then. Yeah, it seems I cannot stop ranting about it even after all that time. Also, if it was the same paper that I was thinking about it, the claim was that phosphorus could be replaced by arsenic, not carbon (the latter would require even more mental gymnastics). Edited June 30, 2015 by CharonY 2
jeremyjr Posted June 30, 2015 Author Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) So even when we have not "defined" what is exactly the meaning of being "advanced" ( "resonating" with previous post in a certain sense ), the mentioned paper provides at least by the results of numerical simulation a "plausibility" for the "spontaneous" evolution of Life in certain regions of space where complex plasma is present. But if for the sake of argument we disregard the obvious truth that Life based on carbon is a reality, experimentally we really have not gone beyond the "level" that is presented in papers like the one mentioned in regard to have a "clear path" that will lead from complex organic compounds to Life. The fact that we have plenty of observational and experimental data backing the reality of Life based on carbon is an obvious plus. But pretending that Life can only be based on carbon is a narrow way of thinking. This paper and many others around complex plasma show many striking similarities between complex carbon based compounds and complex plasma. The only "detail" missing for Life based on plasma is the apparent lack of observational/experimental data "supporting" that claim. Edited June 30, 2015 by jeremyjr
jeremyjr Posted July 8, 2015 Author Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) It is a well known fact that when apparently different phenomena in different areas of reality are subject to similar "laws" then similar occurences can be expected in these areas. One example of that is resonance that manifest in many areas where oscillations are present, from mechanical structures, electronic circuits to. wave matter. So by the mentioned article and many others around the area of complex plasma there are many striking similarities between complex plasma and complex organic compounds. It is widely believed that complex organic compounds in very special conditions give rise to Life based on carbon, there is absolutely no evidence for that, but it is very "plausible". Now we know that complex plasma have similar properties to complex organic compounds, it follows naturally then to assume that under very special conditions complex plasma will give rise to Life, an inorganic Life. There is plenty of evidence for carbon based Life, this is an almost redundant statement, but many claim that there is absolutely no evidence for Life based on plasma, some people, a minority, will claim that there is plenty of evidence of Life that appear not to be based in carbon and appear to move freely in the high levels of our atmosphere and near space. "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells Edited July 8, 2015 by jeremyjr
swansont Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells Failure of logic. Universal affirmatives con only be partially converted. All new and stirring theories (and presumably this implies correct) being belittled does not mean that all new things being belittled are stirring and correct theories. "'All wood burns,' states Sir Bedevere. 'Therefore,' he concludes, 'all that burns is wood.' This is, of course, pure bullsh**" http://www.montypython.net/scripts/logician.php Or, if you prefer an encore: "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan
jeremyjr Posted July 8, 2015 Author Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Failure of logic. Universal affirmatives con only be partially converted. All new and stirring theories (and presumably this implies correct) being belittled does not mean that all new things being belittled are stirring and correct theories. "'All wood burns,' states Sir Bedevere. 'Therefore,' he concludes, 'all that burns is wood.' This is, of course, pure bullsh**" http://www.montypython.net/scripts/logician.php Or, if you prefer an encore:"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan The Scanning tunneling microscope invented in 1981 earned its inventors, Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer, the Novel Prize in Physics in 1986, that is a well known fact( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope), but what is less known and hidden from public eye is that: "when James K. Gimzewski spoke at a 1985 surface-physics meeting about viewing a single molecule with a new type of instrument-the scanning tunneling microscope. "They laughed me off the stage. It was new and they hated it," he says. This new amazing discovery encountered similar reactions from "experts" in the field of surface physics. So what we are witnessing in a small scale in this very forum about the reality of anomalies had happened multiple times in science when "new" ideas or facts are presented, scientists and "science types" many times behave not different than immature teenagers and very far from any scientific spirit. Edited July 8, 2015 by jeremyjr
Strange Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 The Scanning tunneling microscope invented in 1981 earned its inventors, Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer, the Novel Prize in Physics in 1986, I suspect that was the Nobel prize. This new amazing discovery encountered similar reactions from "experts" in the field of surface physics. And yet both the theory and the implementation worked as expected. So I don't see the point of this little story. I also notice that you provide no source. So why shouldn't I assume you have made it up?
Recommended Posts