How do we know and define what life is when the only life that

>>8766203
>Or am I missing something huge here?
Words don't have any innate meaning.

Science is missing something huge by limiting the definition of 'Life' to only those things that are carbon based. This is one of the big mistakes of Science and needs to broaden its definition to include all of the Natural processes that exist as Natural Forces........
Life is not about maintaining a genetic past but rather preserving its Future Alteration.
This must include a non carbon based definition

>>8766218
Makes sense but what do you mean by preserver its future alteration? Are you just talking abut surviving

>>8766217
/thread, actually

>>8766229
>>8766229
Change - Life is all about change. It doesn't stay the same; constant state of flux. Dynamic. Life is not just about 'carbon' but all things.

>>8766244
Doesn't that broaden what life is a fuck ton? Couldn't you argue that planets are alive because of there constant change?

>>8766252
Yes! Nothing to argue about. Reality!
Life is about energy and its transference as well as its potential....... all forces moving, shifting, interacting like a giant kaleidoscope of infinite Reality. Always reinventing itself.

>>8766266
trippy yo

Humanity thinks of itself as having been present when the organic world originated:
what was there to be percieved by sight & touch when this event took place?
What of it can be reduced to figures & numbers?
What 'Laws' are revealed in the interaction of motions?
Humanity tries desperately to arrange all of these events as something accessible to its senses: sight touch, etc and views it as 'motion' - Humanity wants to find formulas and comparisons so as to simplify the tremendous quantity of not only human existience but of the entire universe.

Reduction of 'Life' to a level that of Human Senses and Mathematical Formulae. It is a matter then of logistix of Human experiences under Man's own supposition that he has deluded himself into believing he is an eternal witness to all things........ There is a difference between organic & inorganic but it is all still a part of Life and both its definition and Existence.

Change all is Change - not Universal Law.

Life pretty much has to be carbon based because of its properties. For life you need to form large complex structures that are easily made and highly stable. Carbon's ability to bond with itself and form very stable bonds with lots of other types of atoms make it ideal. Most elements are metals, which is a problem, and lots of other elements Can't readily bond with themselves or form stable bonds with lots of other atoms and itself.

There have been certain small scale lifeforms that could function with some carbon replaced with silicon. Those bonds are very instable at room temperture, so letting them live would require them to live in a relatively warm environment. Correct me if I am wrong, it has been a while since I heard this come around. But I believe we wouldn't reconize other forms of 'life' as life.

>>8766309
>>8766333
No. Humanity needs a new definition of Life that includes all things exerting a Force. Not simply based on carbon. To limiting, too one dimensional and to exclusively easy to ignore the rest of what ever exists across the Universe.

>>8766364
You're either retarded or trying to use some retarded semantics.

Are you saying there is no difference between a person and a rock?

>>8766364
fuck off

>>8766381
Great argument

>>8766377
you're saying that a person and a piece of carbon are the same. So you're saying a person is the same as a rock. Humans are made of minerals not just carbon - iron is in all of us. some life formas on Earth have blood that is based on copper. So we don't know what all is out there in Universe that humanity will try to arrogantly categorize as 'life' or 'not life'.

At one point people thought they were 'spirit' and that put them above other carbon life. Many people still believe this bullshit.

But still many people like you think all there is to 'Life' is something carbon with red blood or green leafs.......

Grow up and expand your horizon - fucking brainwashed idiots.

Because of how carbon is naturally, specifically its electrons, it's the best option for life. Silicon could be possible.

That said, I'm not sure we do know and define what life is. We can't even agree on whether viruses are alive or not.

>>8766217
Best post

>>8766203
>Life pretty much has to be carbon based because of its properties. For life you need to form large complex structures that are easily made and highly stable. Carbon's ability to bond with itself and form very stable bonds with lots of other types of atoms make it ideal. Most elements are metals, which is a problem, and lots of other elements Can't readily bond with themselves or form stable bonds with lots of other atoms and itself.
He's right you know

>CTRL+F astrobiology or exobiology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobiology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry

>>8766534
But that is implying that we are aware of all the elements in the universe, correct?

Well I suppose that if we are bringing unknown elements into the equation this will just lead down a whole new rabbit hole

File: C3vjGZIUcAATdjP.jpg (50KB, 624x330px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 624x330px

>>8766203
>what life is

It's simple : the cell is alive and the elementary brick of life. No cell = no life.

>>8766747
Unknown elements would not be stable enough to exist naturally.

>>8766786

We know every natural element now.

>>8766774
I'm not asking what life is, I'm asking if how we currently define it today still holds up

>>8766836

It's the only way to definite it because, as you said, it's the only example of life we know.

That's why we search organic (carbon based) life or brick of life on Mars.

It's not the only reason : Some say there may be a life based on silicon. Earth has a ton of silicium (a lot more than carbon) but life chose carbon instead.

>>8766858
>Some say there may be a life based on silicon

Silicon is difficult because you need complex polymers for life and it's thermodynamically very downhill to just make sand instead.

Also you seem to be accidentally using a name on this anonymous board, might want to fix that.

>>8766858
If the creation of life is really as random as were led to believe couldn't you just argue that life chose carbon just because?

>>8766888

Life chose carbon because it's the only element can do what it needs to do. The variety of chemistry that carbon can do (with other heteroatoms) is more than the rest of the periodic table combined.

File: 21b09905649753204155065d6a2a1969.jpg (106KB, 650x433px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 650x433px

>>8766858
>life based on silicon
>what are diatoms

>>8767022
>diatoms
Just the cell wall. It's like you would say we are a calcium based life because of our bones.

>>8766429
You are truly the most enlighted of us all anon