Could it be possible that there is life in interstellar space,

they would have to be ethereal in nature, of which exist on earth already, that we cannot observe, or are unwilling to attribute to life

>>7932636
>ethereal
Uhh.....

>>7932645
you are ethereal
every thought you have is just some electrical energy, distributed in a certain way
and in your physical brain (as in the rest of your body) it is the pattern which is consistent, not the matter it is made of

>>7932628

Depends what life's to you

>>7932672
You mistaked /sci/ for /x/. Don't worry, just scroll up and click the link.

>>7932689
he is right, much of our perception tunnels our allowance of definition. if you bang a rock, that rock could be considered sentient. that rock transformed the energy in a unique and complex way, no less different than anything we'd attribute to sentient. if that rock is ever influenced by constant stimuli, the consistency of transformation of energy can no way be attributed to sentience any less than a human.

we are harrowed by: what we define a rock, what we define life, and sentience, and etc. some see a tree as an individual lifeform. others say that entire forests are 1 lifeform. it might all sound like new-age bullshit, but by limiting yourself to definition, you limit your comprehension of existence

Well there is no scientific reason why there couldn't be such a thing.

But there is also no reason to assume that there is such a thing.

>>7932698
such a what. such a lifeform? you have to be able to define life in your mind before you can compare against that definition and come to a conclusion.

and please no, "define define" memes

>>7932712
Complex life forms that survive in space. That's what OP talking about I would assume.

I would assume we are talking about multi-cellular organisms or an equivalent of complexity achieved by similar mechanisms.

>>7932726
>I would assume we are talking about multi-cellular organisms
Why?