Looking For Life on Other Worlds

SameerJB #64 The point I was making was not that science was ``proves`` or ``disproves`` God`s existence. It is as irrational to think that science proves Gods existence as it is to think that science disproves it. All I said was that there will always be a boundary to human knowledge. Indeed, the more we know, the more we realize how much more there is to know. So, if anyone wishes to BELIEVE that there is a overarching consciousness of some kind that we can never fully understand (i.e. God as understood through religious teachings) then I think that is his/her business. If anyone wishes to BELIEVE otherwise that is fine too. Neither belief comes in the way of the scientist as he/she persues what I consider to be the finest occupation of all for a human being - expanding the knowledge frontier. I hope this clarifies my point.
PS: Incidentally, on the question of SETI, I understand they are now putting up a new telescope named the Allen Telescope Array (after Paul Allen, of microsoft fame, who is a major donor along with another microsoft almuni, Myrhrvold) in California which is expected to increase the capacity for the SETI search 100 times over the present telescope array (the Arecibo Telescope Array). This, per the SETI website, is considered a very significant (and not an incremental one only) over the ability to search for a ``needle`` (i.e. artificially generated signals, which would indicate the presence of ET) in a haystack (the vast amount of ``noise`` generated by the trillions of heavenly bodies, some stretching back to Creation - excuse me, Big Bang - itself).

Unfortunately, the discussion that could have been a good learning experience has turned into religion bashing. This discussion was never about religious doctrines. Science is all about possibilities and not impossibilities. I am out.

tahmed321 and anarayan:
Let me first handle before Big Bang and soul before getting into entropy and life beyond chemistry.
What was before Big Bang can not be explained with our current understanding because that is beyond time and space. That is, though, no reason to believe a designer on one side and nothingness on the other. However, if in time we are able to answer history 100 years before Big Bang, Christian and Muslim fundamentalists and other believers in designer hypothesis will immediately ask: haha, but what was 200 years before Big Bang. See, in this way a believer could never be convinced despite absolute failure on jis part to answer the making of designer himself except that he was always there. Billions of dollars and a million scientists around the world are not doing reasearch to answer a mullah or a priest somewhere in the world. The adamant hangover with the creation hypothesis on part of these people is detrimental to their religions because religions are more than just about creation or god. Buddhism for example has no opinion about either.
Extramaterial part of life called soul or something else also falls because whether it is or not, it is totally in control of human, excluding everything outside human mind. If I do not want to participate in creating a soul (fathering a child), the god`s participation is terminated. With it falls all the concepts of hell, heaven, morality and everything that were to be applicable to this future human being - all because of me and my decision not to bring this human being into the world. If you believe slightly differently that we create the chemical part and designer adds the non-material one is also dependant on us because chemical one is independent (X-axis) and non-material is dependent (Y-axis). The point I am trying to make is that even if there is to be something beyind material form to life, it is so minor (insignificant) - discarded or ignored in scientific calculatioins.
Entropy is a minor component in determining the fate of a reaction, measured in cal/ deg/ mole unless at very high temperatures because it is per degree temperature dependent. The right term is free energy commonly known as deltaG which is related to equilibrium at every step of a reaction. For a series of reactions taking place over 3 billion years, all the intermediate steps with equilibrium constants have to be known to find out overall free energy as downhill or uphill for all the processes leading toa cell formation. Along the way, entropic loss or gain has to be calculated factoring in the pre-association or pre-organization (orderliness) of the previous step(s). Sorry to be too scientific here but what it means is that a comparison of living cell in energetics could not be compared with the large number of chemicals that it is made up of and neither with the basic elements of the cell as C, H, O, N, S.
An random agglomeratioin of watch, car or human cell components will not start function as a watch, car or human cell respectively. There is an order to put them together to get to a watch, car or human cell. If you know the right order exactly in detail, having the availability if all chemicals involved in a cell, knowledge of exact conditions for every reaction and several million years of time at hand, a living cell could be produced from its chemical constituents. This is called principle of microreversibility in chemistry, something similar to reverse engineering. Did life took all the right steps to get to this point?
Depends what do you means by wrong steps. Wrong step would have tajen us to different shapes and forms of life and if intelligent would have considered them right steps. The right and wrong is thus subjective once we consider us to be the only right outcome. At every step, life and chemistry associated with it tinkered with large number of competing reactions and they still do but thet lose out through the complex selection process. None of the reaction in body produces 100 percent desired product, some are actually very poor yield processes. That is why we excrete, sweat, fart and ultimately die. It is optimum and not the most efficient overall chemical result. An efficient would have left no waste, taking in exact amount of fat, protein and carbohydrate calories in the form of pills three times daily and living happily ever after.
anarayan, I think I have answered your question as to why we have not created a living cell in laboratory. For microscopic reversibility, all details at micro levels must be known and time at hand. Many chemicals previously thought to be natural part of living cells are now produced in the labs. The vitamin C is no longer dependent upon exepnsive and time consuming extraction from lemons and lime. The Jasmine scent used in perfumes as well as many other perfume ingredients are chemically synthesized with ease. These are just couple of examples from top of my head.

sameer,

If I may speak for others also...we welcome your thoughts, especially in your field of expertise.

However...I think urstruly and yourstruly...were on a somewhat diffrent wavelength. By `life` we meant the ultra-subtle intelligence that seems beyond grasp and not its material manifestations.

Lets take it point by point.

----------------------------

You say: ``I will disagree with the separation of life from matter. The chemical basis of the functions of all aspects of life is beyond doubt ...So life is a manifestation of matter in a very organized, synchronized, collaborative, complex and not yet totally understood way of a chemical based machines that was in the making for the last 3 billion or so years.``

Off course, there`s no doubt about that. But if `life` was mere chemical reactions, then there would be no problem in creating it in the laboratory.

Naturally evolved life may be several billion years old, but today we have taken it apart...we know life chemically. So why should it be difficult to reproduce a cell in the lab?? Maybe you can throw some ligth on that.

To my knowledge, no life has ever been created artifically by man. All the scientiests have done is the `play` with living cells by injecting them with DNA made externally, etc.

--------------------------

Your other point was with respect to `entropy`...which is VERY central to this question of `what is life`...and which I felt would creep into this discussion...were it to get serious.

All naturally occuring `movements` or `reactions` are due to the entropy principle. Matter and energy seem to seek the most stable, most disorderly state.

Now, the million $$ question is...did life first evolve due to this principle??? Is life in its present state based on this principle???

If yes...then you are correct...`life` is nothing but a bunch of chemicals trying to find its lowest state.

If no...then we are forced to accept that there is something non-materialistic in life. Something we may call `will` or `intelligence` or `desire`... which is not material.


Borrowing your example...water flows downhill. If at some place we observed it flowing uphill...we would conclude that it is NOT NATURAL...that therefore there was some `will`or `intelligence` at work here that developed a `mechanism` to make it go uphill.

Similarly...you know very well (as a scientist) that the simplest living cell is tremendously complex. DNA chains are (I believe) several hundred-thousand molecules long.

There is ORDER...not little...but TREMENDOUS, repeat TREMENDOUS order in `life`. You would agree to this I think.

Therefore...`life` is a NEGATION of the entropy principle.

On its own, the entropy principle would NEVER allow the first cell to ever be constructed.

What do you think?

cheers,

sameerJB #61 The statement ``The chemical basis of the functions of all aspects of life is beyond doubt`` leaves no room for the soul as traditionally conceived. So, once the chemical reactions stop, that is the end of life as we understand it. ALthough not a scientist like you, from all indications your statement is probably true - since we know that neurotransmitters allow cells to communicate (thus bringing them together to form a brain). And there seems to be a vast number of neurotransmitters in the brain, ranging from small molecules like Dopamine (which gives the ``racer`s high``) and Serotonin to larger amino acids), and a minor imbalance between them can have devastating affects in terms of mental disorders. For ages mental disorders have been considered to be the result of the devil taking over the human mind - and now we know it is tiny bits of chemicals, and the imbalance is often rectified relatively easily with simple pills. It does not therefore require much leap of imagination to consider consciousness itself to be the result of these intricate chemical interactions spread over trillions of nerve cells.
But where does this leave religion? I think it simply indicates that things like ``soul`` and the ``Almighty`` are well beyond our understanding - since we will probably never know where these chemicals came from in the first place (since science also tells us that all matter in the universe came into existence in a flash out of essentially ``nowhere``). And as long as we dont know what happened before the Big Bang, how the laws of nature were formed to begin with, and other such basic questions, there will always be room for religion, I think. Only, it wont be the empty ritualistic religion as we know it today, which is essentially a projection of life on earth as we know it (complete with great sex and so forth, as we muslims are reminded often by our detractors). Rather this religion is a much more profound one which essentially represents the Great Unknown in space and time that will always lie outside the boundary of our scientific knowledge. And the key actionable item for us is to keep on extending this boundary. That is why we were created, or so we believe.

To: tahmed321, Urstruly, anarayan, shajar
Now we are in an area where I feel more comfortable discussing due to having little background in chemistry, biochemistry and microbiology. First of all, I will disagree with the separation of life from matter. The chemical basis of the functions of all aspects of life is beyond doubt, though many of them we have not yet fully comprehended. All the medicines, drugs and even spiritual healing like meditation, prayers or cognition work through chemical basis. Once chemistry in every step of life and living is not denied, the matter can not be excluded from any discussion of chemistry. Chemistry is the understanding of the properties of matter. So life is a manifestation of matter in a very organized, synchronized, collaborative, complex and not yet totally understood way of a chemical based machines that was in the making for the last 3 billion or so years.
A car is still a car when its transmission fails and junked because its parts can be used to make other cars work. A life fails at death but eyes, heart, liver and with further development in surgery and overcoming the rejection by immune system, are usable living parts after death for transplantation. This is possible because part of the machines or matter is deemed useful and alive enough to work as living parts of the machine.
The question really boils down to that a car does not yearn to make its copies but computer viruses and viruses do just as other forms of life; not only making copies but also making sure that the copies survive until they are capable of reproducing. Just like computer viruses, it is built into the machines. Why do machines evolved to do this proliferation of self?
This is a famous turning point for philosophers of purposeful design and therefore a designer. However, a self propelled and selfish machine does not need a designer; it creates and modifies design to optimize its survival, ability to reproduce and various techniques to maximize the survival of copies. But why?
Water flows downstream for a reason, called gravity. Same thing if explained in terms of chemistry would be called entropy. Decreasing the entropy (usually mean disorderliness fir laymen) or lowering of energy is thermodynamically spontaneous process. This is exactly what happens when crystals start to grow on their own. The growth of a particular shape of crystal by water or other chemicals/ molecules is a matter of energetics and not design/ designer. They are just obeying the laws of nature to live in a most comfortable lowest possible energy state. Energetics is the reason for oxygen to behave as biradical triplet (sort of teo joined free radicals) than behaving a doubly bonded singlet state drawn in science books; living as biradical is more comfortable for oxygen.
Similarly the properties of carbon predate the life on earth. One of the properties leads to destruction of organic (carbon based or living) molecules in time most commonly due to the reaction with oxygen called oxidation. It means there will be a lifetime for organic based machine – life. Machines have to develop design to overcome this property of carbon in many ways. One is to keep replacing the dead chemicals/ cells with the help of feeding sources of energy and basic material for replacement and other is reproduction. In terms of thermodynamics or energetics, none of these is uphill battle, once machine is working properly.
The property to reproduce in a selfish way requires certain patents or specialties (such as optimal microenvironment in vivo) so that the proliferation is controlled by the machine and not in vitro. The DNA is just a chemical without that microenvironment of viscosity, density, salinity, pH, polarity etc to make DNA work in desirable and optimum way – basically providing the right activation energy for the preferred transformation. The energetics at every step from day one to death can not be over looked. The conditions within allow the chemistry to take place desirably without breaking any laws of energetics or nature.
More we understand chemistry of bodily functions, more we understand life. What is non-material part (if any) of life will remain mystery because of unavailability of techniques to measure/ analyze it on scientific basis. Non-scientific basis is very subjective and world could only be born into believing only one universally acceptable answer.
The discussion between qualitative and quantitative differences of human DNA from other primates is more appropriate in creation versus evolution debate. Here, it is more appropriate to understand (I think we have not yet identified those genes clearly) the human genes responsible for larger brain memory than primates. I believe that somewhere in the distant past, the memory of certain primates started increasing slowly and continued for a long time before it started making a visible difference, something like memorizing scenes, skills and moving scenes. Once this happens, memory increase accelerated until enough memory space was available to store data about acquired skills, intelligence and wisdom (sort of artificial intelligence). Rest is human history of last half a million to today. Really the difference between other primates and us is in brain ability setting in motion a fast track evolution and perhaps genes associated with it. The fast track evolution of mind related activities has left primates so far behind that for many it difficult and sometime insulting to relate humans to primate in a world where even a rich or a tribe tries to distance as much as possible from poor and other tribes.

Urstruly,

``The life itself and the its matter form through which it exhibits itself must be considered two separate entities.``

I think so too. Wish we knew more on this.

We go back to the anceint belief that the universe comprises two things - matter and mind.


regs,

shajar #56 Qualitative differences between living things would, (to my mind at least), require something much more fundamental than the number of genes. These would require the absence of genes altogether in other living things, and a totally different mechanism instead for their design and development.
Interesting about the potato having a larger number of chromosomes than a human - I assume that the total number of genes in a potato is much less though than in a human (the latter being estimated at between 30,000 and 150,000, per my quick google search on Nature magazine). In other words, while the potato has more chapters, the total number of pages required to create us humans (who are definitely superior to potatoes, or so we think) is much greater.

I think the discussion below by urstruly, anarayan, sameerJB raise some fascinating issues:
First: What is life? Is a virus (which I understand lacks even a cell nucleus, and is essentially a glorified protein in many ways) a living creature as urstruly says? It can reproduce, but by hijacking the DNA of its host; and it can be killed. So perhaps a virus is a kind of a terrorist ``mini me``. If a prosthetic arm responds to a man`s nerve cell commands (as I believe is being done experimentally nowadays), and (as no doubt will be the case) looks and feels like a human arm, is that robot arm now a living part of the man? Is the famous ``Turing Test`` for life (namely, that a computer can be considered to have become a living being when it can carry on a conversation with a human from behind a curtain without the human being able to tell whether it is a human or a computer he is talking to) a valid test? (and indeed we will then probably have our first living computer over the next couple of decades per current projections). Closer home, is Chowk (or the internet) a ``brain`` a new kind of a living entity that is made up of many interacting living individuals in the same way a human brain is a living entity that is made up of many interacting nerve cells?
I dont have answers to this, other than the way urstruly put it: we need to broaden our definition of life. Not for nothing is the earth called the ``living planet``.
Second: Can intelligence be created from non-intelligence? The answer is simple (as science has indicated) and incredibly complex (if one questions the assumptions that science is based on). Take your pick.
Third: SameerJB raises the question of psychopaths (like OBL) using the vast destructive power of modern societies to attack these societies themselves. I think this is a far bigger potential danger to the existence of mankind than people realize. About 3-4 years ago, Bill Joy (the former VP of Sun Microsystems, and a leader in the development of cutting edge technologies) made a speech on the subject that received much attention at the time, but has been strangely forgotten now that some of what he predicted at the time seems to be coming true. Indeed, a half-century ago Toynbee made a similar prediction, which in a nutshell was: Mankind`s technological prowess now vastly exceeds its emotional maturity. This is a recipe for a disaster. He was thinking of nuclear weapons. We can only pray for tremendous good fortune for our human race to make it safely through these critical times. Since the odds seem against it: we have primitive emotions and hatreds that were harmless (and probably beneficial) in stone age societies and in our animal past, but which now can translate into mass destruction. And beyond that are the unintended consequences for the environment and so forth that we have no clue about (the first nuclear test in the US was delayed, I understand, due to fears that it could start a chain reaction that would ignite the world`s atmosphere - the scientists were not very sure, so we basically got lucky that time).
On this cheery note, I end my two bits on some of the points raised in the discussion below.

tahmed32 #50 ``That we are different from animals only in quantitative terms, not qualitative``
on genetic terms, that is not completely true. there are qualitative differences.

infact, the exact no. of genes has not yet been discerned.
as for chromosomes, potatoes have more than humans!

anarayan

I agree with your logic. That was exactly my point. The life itself and the its matter form through which it exhibits itself must be considered two separate entities. When life ``leaves`` its matter form the matter becomes dead like all the matter in the universe - so a question arises where did that life come from in the first place. Extended this logic further we must concentrate our efforts to understand this phenomenon by observing the viruses - since a virus is the simplest non-cellular organism that exists on the cusp of lifeless matter and alive matter. It can be crystallized like matter and remain live. But it can also be ``killed`` i.e. its ``life`` component can be separated from it.

Hameed, Sameer, urstruly,


My 5 cents:

Here`s a point most people seem to be overlooking in this discussion:

--------------------------------------------------------
``DNA drives life on Earth. But DNA itself is not ``alive``. To replicate itself DNA requires a complex and specialized environment that is provided within living cells.``

Key phrase: ****DNA IS NOT ALIVE****

Everybody seems to be assuming DNA = life. But DNA is NOT life. DNA is just a `floppy disk` for life. Something useful to store information.

So, before we think of finding life in outer space we should find out what we mean by `life`.

What IS this intelligent, mysterious thing called `life` that so cleverly uses DNA to propagate itself???
-----------------------------------------------------------

Clearly this is a subject that needs to be dealt with at high (abstract) levels first. Since we hardly have any low-level data about it.

Since we have little idea what life is...can we define `life` by its qualities???

Some people say life is a manifestation of intelligence.

To that I would add...life has a sense of ``I-ness``...a sense of identity.
Which came first - intelligence or identity ??? Does one produce the other automatically???

The simplest cell `knows` it boundaries, its needs, its enemies...ITSELF.

-------------------------------------------

Say a programmer writes a clever program that plays chess. Does the program have intelligence ?

It does, in a sense...and it doesn`t in another sense...since the intelligence of the program is simply the extended intelligence of the programmer...the creator.

So intelligence can create further intelligence...no big deal in that.


THE KEY question is:
****Can intelligence be created out of Non-intelligence? ****


Any ideas anyone???

tahmed321: The vastness of the universe as a big empty space dotted here and there with stars and stars having their own federation of planets. This fact is usually not internalized by seeing the beautiful sky filled with stars and having 100 billion stars in the universe. It is a situation similar to seeing matter and understanding, in terms of mass, that it is really an empty space dotted very sparcely with very tiny or condensed mass of nuclei of atoms because electrons really do not have comparable mass (1/1875th of a proton).
Once that fact is well understood about very great distances between stars than the diameters or weight of the stars, the exploding dead star matter does not really spread all over the universe but mostly sucked in by the neighboring stars with their gravity. Therefore the wealth of carbon and other elements on earth has been pretty much the same as at the time of earth formation from some other exploding star and matter created as a result of big bang. By the time life came to earth, by any mean, earth was technically complete of its share of elements and except for later addition of small amount from meteorites and comets which were part of our federation (solar system) anyway.
So when we talk about discovering life in other places in the universe, we are really talking about knowing its existance rather than seeing it, meeting/ interacting it or finding ET. Nearest star outside solar system is more than 3 light years away. A person posting on chowk from alpha centuri will reach the server in october 20005 earliest of travelling through space at the speed of light. So really contact with anybody outside the solar system is just a dream or fiction right now. We will need many fold increase in the speed than the speed of light unless talking about folding hypotheses/ theories of time and space. All we want to know is that if life exists anywhere else.
It is not easy to define in one sentence what constitute life and where to draw the line. Urstruly does have valid philosophical reasons to include artifically intelligence based machines as well as part natural life-part machine as in transpalnts of artificial organs.
I have not read Pinker`s book but I do agree completely with you that except for accidental death, natural death can be and being delayed more and more until is is no different than conquering death. This is going to be achieved in more than one way. One is to have access to your own cloned spare organs, particularly the ones who fail more often. Then more and more artificial permanent organ transplants who understand the chemical signals the way nervous system works. Once human brain is made compatible to over the counter overhaul kits in communication, one can screw and unscrew parts with screw drivers, preferably Philips (?). Can you imagine a couple shopping for legs, penis, breasts, lips and so on. Hmmmmm what will be left of Miss World beauty contests. All one need will be a functioning brain which could also be serviced and taught in a hurry than regular schooling. Just attach electrodes and transfer 30 gegabytes of information within 15 minutes. Too bad none of us will be around by the time humanity will reach this stage. At the same time the danger of something going wrong leading to decimation of human race is also possible. Imagine once it becomes very easy to produce deadly viruses causing epidemics and some OBL type persons getting their hands on it. Except for the tightly held core technologies, rest will as they do now, will keep leaking to everybody interested in it. Right now the leakage leading to creating bootlegging material (such as CDs, DVDs and some medicines) is limited, but in genetic engineering this is the real danger, once OBL types start playing with it.

Urstruly #49 Drumz, do not believe this poster who calls himself Urstruly. He is a Klingon in reality. He was disgracefully discharged from the Imperial Starfleet eons ago. He now tries to avenge himself by misleading starfleet recruits like you into thinking that flying saucers do not exist.
As for Urstruly, or should I say Urstruly of Uranus, you can run but you cannot hide from our flying saucers.

Drumz

The guy who wrote post #44 is lying. He is no alien. And if he has already probed you while you were asleep, then that wasn`t a probe either ok? Just don`t beleive anything, anyone says to you especially the strangers who wanna give you a candy ok.