# Tuesday, January 09, 2007
« How to know if no one is reading your bl... | Main | If there is a vanity mirror behind the d... »

I've just watched a show on Discovery (yay, annual leave :-) about life being elsewhere in the solar system (europa's seas) or elsewhere in the universe, and the search thereof.

I was happily digesting a sandwitch and Tooheys when a silvery senior figure from NASA tried to quell the discussion in saying that single cellular life would be a significant find.  Speculation followed from the usual sources, with counter arguments from again, usual sources.

Please people!  enough.

Once you start a back-and-forth on semantics of proof (not to mention some very poor web design there guys!) you are already on the wrong path.

Bill Bryson concluded that life doesn't want to be much.  No social commentary intended, just his noting that of all living creatures, only one species has been so motivated to write books about living species.  The rest are just content to be moss, plants and etc.

Are Bryson and our aforementioned NASA silvery senior on the right path?  Maybe.  In either case, consider if "life" were substituted with "a mere inevitable chemical reaction"; if so Bryson should be careful to attribute "want", and our silvery senior should be careful when attributing "life" to it also.

Jon Kabat-Zinn noted that our subspecies name of Homo sapiens sapiens is no mistake, sapiens derives from the latin sapere, to taste but also to know.  The word sapient derives here also- meaning wise and insightfil, but isn't in wide use in present day English - maybe there is less call for it these days? :-)  But seriously, the use of sapiens sapiens implies a meta awareness.  Man who knows and knows that he knows as Kabat-Zinn puts it. 

And this is exactly where the wheel comes off the cart for the extraterrestrial life argument.  Where can the term life be defined outside the realm of subjective experience?  To be alive and not know it renders me unable to describe life.  If we sustain that line of reasoning one step further, any concept dependant on a definition and description of life, be it religion or God, can only itself be described in the context of a subjective description.

While ever discussion of these matters is bound by shifting semantics of language, you will find me perched on an esky at the sideline tossing my empties into the skirmish.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 9:29:28 AM (AUS Eastern Daylight Time, UTC+11:00)
Life is often characterised by a reduction in entropy. Increase in entropy is a universal law of physics and chemistry, yet it seems to be temporarily violated in living systems. I don't care if it's living or not, but if there is something else advanced enough to build complex nanostructures then we should find out about it. It will inevitably be able to learn, grow, destroy, create and it is in our neighbourhood. The fact that it may not be obviously sentient from our perspective would tell us a lot about the human condition.
Robbie
Thursday, January 11, 2007 3:06:09 PM (AUS Eastern Daylight Time, UTC+11:00)
Well said Robbie, and nicely scientific too :D


Now think about this: If the world didn't suck, we'd all fly off it into space! :)
Friday, January 12, 2007 1:34:45 PM (AUS Eastern Daylight Time, UTC+11:00)
hehe - you said suck
weedoman
Monday, January 15, 2007 1:49:01 PM (AUS Eastern Daylight Time, UTC+11:00)
Of course the word 'is' reflects a cultural divergence between those who have the linguistic capability of expressing the structural argument therein and those who are content with the subjective reality of a piece of moss. Furthermore, any man (or woman) claiming to be a homo sapien must be aware of the language semantics of another homo sapien independent of gender, sexual orientation or age or religion or race. We should therefore arrive at the conclusion that any man (or woman) can enter into this debate without .... aaaaahh
Stan
Monday, January 15, 2007 4:50:13 PM (AUS Eastern Daylight Time, UTC+11:00)
hehe - he said homo
weedoman
Comments are closed.