Plenty, and never was such a thing asserted in any of the classes I took. In fact, I think you just made that up. Perhaps you can point us to a cresible source of this claim, other than yourself?
Do you know what a covalent or ionic bond is? Do you know the main three advantages to water as opposed to something like liquid methane? It was probably never asserted because either you didn't take organic chemstry or it wasn't on your learning module. Go ask your professor as I did and also do some quick googling to see why carbon is realistically the ONLY element capable of forming the complex chains needed for life AND holding those chains together in water and other solubles.
Yes and yes. I did take organic chemistry. Never was it asserted in that class that the only possible life is based on Silicon or carbon, nor does any scientist assert such a thing. Your error is to think that life "as we know it" is the only possible life.
We KNOW that life won't form from element lower on the table (higher count) that is a fact. We know from many many experiments that ONLY carbon possess all of the qualities necessary to form the extremely long and complex chains required for life and maintain them. Silicon is capable of forming long and complex chains although not the the extent carbon does but it also isn't as good at holding those chains together meaning its much more fragile and far more likely to dissolute before proper life can form. This is not conjecture, this is scientific fact. Stop being lazy and do a quick 5 second google and you can see for yourself. This isn't new stuff its been debated for decades and the scientific community is absolutely on my side of the argument.
It is not. That is merely a restriction we put on "life as we know it". I already have this info. What I am saying is that the definition of life you are using is narrow. While it certainly does make sense for us to limit our paltry resources in our search for life to "life as we know it", I don't believe it necessarily true that this is the o ly possible type of life.
We only know what we know today...and what we think we know today pales in comparison to what we don't know...
For those who believe AI can displace humans and take over the world, what if we discovered this type of intelligence on a distant planet? Would we allow our archaic definition of life to include AI or must life only be carbon-based units? We should be prepared for all that is today unimaginable...
Mr. Steven D. Kelley presents a powerful case that aliens have been in contact with the CIA or NSA at some level. AboveAlpha verifed that to be true. A great book to explain UFO - CIA connection? Well said........... and how about a being or Being......seemingly composed of light who reviews lives with mere humans.....? Could an off the scale powerful being composed of fundamental or near funadmental energy...... become addicted to the lives of humans.... much like some of us get interested in Soap Opera's....... or a series like "Homeland" on Netflix that I watched the first eight episodes of yesterday evening..... https://www.near-death.com/science/research/life-review.html The Life Review and the Near-Death Experience
What? Says who? Even if there are advanced civilizations near by what makes you think that Earth is important enough to visit? If there is a civilization advanced enough to travel to Earth then they are advanced enough to travel other places as well. Plus we aren't exactly a large planet. Even if Aliens lived in our own spiral arm of the galaxy there is a very real chance that they have no idea we are even over here. We aren't advanced enough to produce anything resembling a proverbial galactic "welcome" sign. Even with all of our emitting radio waves and little space probes floating around the Solar System you would have to know EXACTLY where to look to find our tiny little planet. There is speculation that there is another planet in our own Solar System that we haven't found yet because it's too far away and space is huge and we don't know EXACTLY where to look. What leads you to believe that Aliens would know where to find us from another whole star system?
Personally.... I believe that the authors of this study..... .are biasted toward carbon based life forms....... and biased against beings or Beings composed of fundamental or nearly fundamental energy would I believe....... would have been learning and growing in knowledge and understanding since essentially infinite time in the past....... much much loger than merely 13.72 or so billion years..... www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/
imo, postulating fabulous undetectable everlasting supernatural free form intelligences (of which there is no evidence) doesn't strengthen your argument. One must doubt every single perception and measurement once you escape to that argument.
We have no basis for how life composed of fundamental energy or "nearly" fundamental energy would work. Life by the present definition is a system built of many different organic compounds. How would energy be arranged into a similar system? Find something to support the idea if you're going to postulate the existence of such life and find evidence before you make any assertions.
Personally... I believe that the Dr. Chaim Henry Tejman writings, comparisons and illustrations do actually give us the foundation for exactly that........ I admit that I could be wrong....... I regard AboveAlpha's writings as brilliant.... and he stated in the forum that he thought that Dr. Tejmans' writings were not very good....... but I personally cannot argue with Dr. Tejman on much of anything that he asserts...... Dr. Chaim Tejman deserves Origin of Life Prize.
You could be correct... I was told after writing the SAT that my IQ was only around 118..... so frankly I just don't feel capable of arguing with him about that......... If nothing else.... his writings were the best that I have ever found on the topic of how intelligence might develop in fundamental energy Strings.... (Super Strings) and fundamental energy Waves...... that could perhaps be called.... Super Energetic Matter. http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/gender/g1.htm
Humans likely alone in universe, study reports Absurd. The study is flawed & absolutely wrong. Life is what the Universe is for. It's teeming with life, and we'll find it--soon, I think.
I tend to come to the same conclusion. The universe without life is dead. It feels nothing, it sees nothing, And is aware of nothing. It is the same as non existence.
Right up until astronomers were able to prove that there actually were planets in other solar systems the same type of 'voices' in the science community were convinced that only our solar system had planets; and their 'proof' of that was quite convincing . . . just as long as one eschewed common sense.
Are there any other carbon based, simian, oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere, mammalian intelligences out there, probably not. Are there other intelligences there, I don't know.
The science before Galileo's day was not the same as scientific method of today. Back then, it was tied quite closely to philosophy and religion. With religion/philosophy at the helm, it's not as hard to steer clear of common sense.
True but science is also always evolving with new theories and ideas. The more we understand, the more we refine what we "know". We humans tend to make conclusions based on what we currently know but we are steadily learning to stop saying "we know" and start saying "we don't know", which in itself is a huge step forward in scientific thinking. Right now the notion of humans being the only intelligent life in the Universe is pure speculation regardless of how much science there is to back that up or lack thereof. Same with the opposing view. We simply don't have enough information to make any such conclusions yet. History has shown us that trying to draw absolutes from our current understanding of the cosmos is rarely a good idea. True while many of these "truths" were based partially on religion and philosophy they were still backed up by the current scientific understanding of the time. And those truths did actually make sense at the time. We humans are intelligent beings and have made extraordinary leaps in science over the years, but we are still nowhere even remotely close to understanding the Universe. We know more than our ancestors did, but we are still in our infancy of actually understanding anything and trying to draw absolute conclusions based on our limited understanding is irresponsible in my book.
Yes. Science says we're human, so everything we have figured out could be a mistake - just show us the evidence. Religion says god told us so, therefore we know the answer - being human is irrelevant, evidence is irrelevant.
For me it's as simple as saying if it can happen on Earth then it can happen elsewhere. Sure there are long odds but there is a billion-trillion or more stars in the Universe then multiply this by maybe (10) for the number of planets? I also believe there should be two parts to SETI; One is if any life exists today, and one is how much life has existed at some time in the past? Unless there is an Encyclopedia Galactica we'll never know the answer to part 2. And in order to know the answer to part 1, we pretty much need to communicate with them in real time +/- a few decades, and due to distances and time this leaves out about 99.999% of the Universe. But just because it's unlikely we will ever communicate with other life forms, this doesn't presuppose that some forms of life are not abundant throughout the Universe...