Re:Will We Know Alien Life When We See It?
by t8sr on Sunday January 08, 2023 @03:12AM
(#34297133)
Yeah, I didn't express myself very clearly, sorry.
Let me try again: I think our various definitions of life are not the actual definition that most astronomers have in their head. I think the actual definition people believe is "I know it when I see it." Two illustrative examples:
Let's say we find a system of chemical reactions going on somewhere that meets most definitions: self-regulating, initial chemical seeds as a basis for heredity, some chain of triggers that causes it to look like it's responding to a stimulus.... This is isn't far-fetched, reactions like this exist in a lab. I don't think we'd call that thing alive - we don't currently. There would be arguments, but most people would probably agree it's a technicality.
Now let's say we find something totally way out there crazy from a science fiction book, like a naturally occurring "computer" running an alien civilization on it. It doesn't have homeostasis - would we call it alive? Most people probably would.
I guess I am prposing that the prevailing actual definition of life that lives in our heads is probably closer to "would I feel bad about killing it?" By both this and the more technical definition, we'd almost certainly recognize it, at least when studied up close. (But probably not through a telescope.)
Is that more sensible?
> you appeal to authority (your own) to elevate your opinion over those of us mere common-sense mortals.
I mean, I'm actually kind of arguing in favor of a common-sense definition, and it's a comment on the internet, which would take me three times as long to type if I sourced it. I would do that for a blog post, but I don't even know if anyone is going to read this :)
But, in fact, this is all so abstract that I wouldn't know what to cite. I still think having an idea of biochemistries, the energy scales, etc. makes someone in the field more qualified to speculate than completely uninformed internet comments.
Let me try again: I think our various definitions of life are not the actual definition that most astronomers have in their head. I think the actual definition people believe is "I know it when I see it." Two illustrative examples:
Let's say we find a system of chemical reactions going on somewhere that meets most definitions: self-regulating, initial chemical seeds as a basis for heredity, some chain of triggers that causes it to look like it's responding to a stimulus.... This is isn't far-fetched, reactions like this exist in a lab. I don't think we'd call that thing alive - we don't currently. There would be arguments, but most people would probably agree it's a technicality.
Now let's say we find something totally way out there crazy from a science fiction book, like a naturally occurring "computer" running an alien civilization on it. It doesn't have homeostasis - would we call it alive? Most people probably would.
I guess I am prposing that the prevailing actual definition of life that lives in our heads is probably closer to "would I feel bad about killing it?" By both this and the more technical definition, we'd almost certainly recognize it, at least when studied up close. (But probably not through a telescope.)
Is that more sensible?
> you appeal to authority (your own) to elevate your opinion over those of us mere common-sense mortals.
I mean, I'm actually kind of arguing in favor of a common-sense definition, and it's a comment on the internet, which would take me three times as long to type if I sourced it. I would do that for a blog post, but I don't even know if anyone is going to read this :)
But, in fact, this is all so abstract that I wouldn't know what to cite. I still think having an idea of biochemistries, the energy scales, etc. makes someone in the field more qualified to speculate than completely uninformed internet comments.