[aldo_14]

The exact mechanics of thought only apply to human thought, really (we can't read the minds of other animals, after all), and what human brain action really boils down to is an action of input-process-response; memories are nothing more than particular reinforced neuron connection patterns; you're actually equating the action of thought as being caused by the physical mechanics, without considering if there can be a reproduction of those actions with difference physical mechanics.  Hell, we can already mimic brain neuron activity mechanically, in software; the barriers to AI are more in the issue of conception & design (what is thought?  How do we define it?  How do we specify 'intelligence'?) than lacking the technology.

You've made a vast swathe of assumptions in areas you can't possibly make them for, and you've also kind of evidence exactly my point; the human mind can only imagine within the constraints of the world which it has evolved to live and operate within as the cumulation of billions of years history in that environment.

No actually, you're the one throwing assumptions around. If you claim energy can be alive, then maby you would like to explain how would that work?

Energy is a stream of electrons. How can it store information(memory)? How can it process it? How can it communicate?

While we may very poorly mimic neuron activity in software, the software by itself can't work without hardware.
Sci-F is a combination of science and fiction. Fictional stories and charachter in a scientific enviroment. Or at least uit was supopsed to.

I have given this matter a LOT of though...days....months..obviously far more then you.. My conclusions are simple - energy can't be alive.

Bah..as far as I'm concernd you can belive that Alpha Centauri is made of cheese. What the hell do I care.

Shame you're wrong then, isn't it.  And for such obvious reasons that can be picked up with about 5 minutes of consideration.

Can you explain, state or prove what makes it categorically impossible across the known and unknown universe?   No?  Then it's perfectly fine for science fiction use.  That's the main point; science fiction is not restricted by implausibility but only (and then only when it wishes to be) by impossibility.

Can you define 'life' in universal terms?  I doubt it - no-one else has.

Can you define 'intelligence'?  Nope (the definition of what 'is' intelligence is a long-standing and unresolved issue within AI work).

Can you explain, step-by-step, the actions and mechanics of every event leading to abiogenesis?  No?  Tut-tut.

Can you define every aspect of physics across the entire universe that would prevent what might be termed as 'exotic' life using non-chemical reactions or basis?  Didn't think so.

But you're still happy to make sweeping generalisations about life - or more precisely, what form of life must be absent - across the entire universe?

If you want a method for energy to store information - how about different electron stream frequencies, vibration harmonics or states to contain valued information ala any data stream sent along a telephone or satellite line?  Communication via transfer of said electrons, perhaps, or on an atomic state (perhaps using some form of atomic level transfer; I believe theres some bizarre properties orbiting electrons have that seem to allow instantaneous 'transmission' - aka quantum leaps).  Of course, an energy based lifeform would be composed of interacting electrons, and I believe quantum (and below) physics isn't considered 'finalised', so I doubt you could make any sort of authoritative predictions upon it.  In actuality, our life and intelligence is the result of a series of interactions (which I'd imagine are still to be fully understood) between various atoms, anyways, so all you'd need is some sort of analogue for that.

Not to mention that energy based life is often characterised as plasma-based life; and that is possible.  Apparently, scientists have already created (in 2003) plasma 'cells' capable of communication, growth and even replication (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4174), and suggested that these could arise in a matter of microseconds.  Plasma is, of course, a low intensity gas where the molecules therein are charged.

Of course, this is assuming we 'know' the entire universe.  And the whole point is - we don't. No-one on this planet does.  So I don't have to make any justification with modern science when the whole point is that science is grounded in human perception of the known universe and is still an ongoing investigative process.

Incidentally, we do have perfectly fine neural nets working across software.  The issue has always been training them, because an NN is an inherently black-box and the derivations it makes from the training set can only be determined by use of a test set.  A neuron is actually an incredibly simple proposition; it's purely a function that derives an output value from a number of input values; a neural network is setup by tuning the values used in that derivation (the threshold for activation) until the global output of the NN approximates the expected output for the same input set.  Hence why it's black box. The hardware is rather simple; an input, an output, and a process for the function.  I'm sure you've heard of a Von Neumann machine.

EDIT; of note; people have spent decades considering what is life, without ever getting an agreed and concrete definition.

[karajorma]

I suggest that Trashman takes a look at some of the books on Xenoscience before ruling out the Starborn as a possibility.

People who spend their whole lives thinking about the possibility of alien life and are experts in the field believe that creatures entirely composed of plasma and magnetic fields are possible. I'd suggest What does a martian look like? by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart as a good starting point.

[Nuclear1]

Aldo pretty much summed up everything I had posted, but a lot more eloquently.

[Mefustae]

Aldo pretty much summed up everything I had posted, but a lot more eloquently.

Of course he did, that's what he's here for.

[TrashMan]

Can you explain, state or prove what makes it categorically impossible across the known and unknown universe?   No?  Then it's perfectly fine for science fiction use.  That's the main point; science fiction is not restricted by implausibility but only (and then only when it wishes to be) by impossibility.

AS my statistics professor sez - if you get a chance of a event happening equaling 0, that doesn't mean it's impossible. It only means that the chances of it happening are 0.
Same thing applies here. if hte probability of such a thing happening is so abysmaly low that it makes more sense to belive Santa Claus really exists than that, then it might as well be impossible.

Can you define 'life' in universal terms?  I doubt it - no-one else has.

There is only one definiton of life as made by humans. Earth is a big place, full of extreems and various forms of life, some who are incredibly alien in apperance or abilities - yet they all share some same, basic traits.
But as you say, that is OUR definition and therefore "incorrect". Well, what other definition is there? I would like to hear yours.
Beter yet, let me come up with one..and let's make it borad..so broad that even a rock or mustard falls under a category of living things.
Now prove to me rocks aren't alive.

Guess what? - by your own logic, you can't.

Can you define 'intelligence'?  Nope (the definition of what 'is' intelligence is a long-standing and unresolved issue within AI work).

Inteligence is something that can be observed, but really defined or mesured? - I don't belive we can do that even by humans.
Once you spend a long enought time looking at something, you can generalyl tell if it's intelligent or not.

Can you explain, step-by-step, the actions and mechanics of every event leading to abiogenesis?  No?  Tut-tut.

nope, but I can explain the function of a human body and generally, the mind.

Can you define every aspect of physics across the entire universe that would prevent what might be termed as 'exotic' life using non-chemical reactions or basis?  Didn't think so.

Nope, but I can tell you the basic traits or qualities of specific substances. Energy doesn't show ANY trait of a living being.

But you're still happy to make sweeping generalisations about life - or more precisely, what form of life must be absent - across the entire universe?

Not MUST, but 99.99999999999999999999999998999999999999% WON'T.

If you want a method for energy to store information - how about different electron stream frequencies, vibration harmonics or states to contain valued information ala any data stream sent along a telephone or satellite line?  Communication via transfer of said electrons, perhaps, or on an atomic state (perhaps using some form of atomic level transfer; I believe theres some bizarre properties orbiting electrons have that seem to allow instantaneous 'transmission' - aka quantum leaps).  Of course, an energy based lifeform would be composed of interacting electrons, and I believe quantum (and below) physics isn't considered 'finalised', so I doubt you could make any sort of authoritative predictions upon it. 

You describe things that work on atoms, not electrons by themselves. And even those things are not accurately described.
Increased vibration or frequency results in a higer energy state in an atom, and that energy has to be released if it's not enough to cross into the next energetic state. In other words that information would pass liek a wave trough hte energy cloud without being stored, as there's no where to be stored. And therer's hte question if it could be stored, how to acess it later. Atoms don't jsut release electrons by whim.

In actuality, our life and intelligence is the result of a series of interactions (which I'd imagine are still to be fully understood) between various atoms, anyways, so all you'd need is some sort of analogue for that.

A broad, simplistic and innacurate generalisation.
DIFFERNT atoms, DIFFERENT molecules, DIFFERENT cells, DIFFERENT organs - all of that is needed for a simple creature like a chicken.
We are not made out of energy, as I recall, the Atom consists of far more than just electrons...

[aldo_14]

I note you've failed to give any sort of definitive answer here.  How shocking; one would think I...expected it.

AS my statistics professor sez - if you get a chance of a event happening equaling 0, that doesn't mean it's impossible. It only means that the chances of it happening are 0.
Same thing applies here. if hte probability of such a thing happening is so abysmaly low that it makes more sense to belive Santa Claus really exists than that, then it might as well be impossible.

Your statistics professors should, I belive, also have taught you that you can't predict the outcome of a multi-variable event when you don't know the variables.   Statistics is, of course, based on the analysis of the known data; the fundamental point here is that the overwhelming amount of data in the universe remains unknown.

There is only one definiton of life as made by humans. Earth is a big place, full of extreems and various forms of life, some who are incredibly alien in apperance or abilities - yet they all share some same, basic traits.
But as you say, that is OUR definition and therefore "incorrect". Well, what other definition is there? I would like to hear yours.
Beter yet, let me come up with one..and let's make it borad..so broad that even a rock or mustard falls under a category of living things.
Now prove to me rocks aren't alive.

Guess what? - by your own logic, you can't.

That's absolutely correct; it's impossible to prove or disprove a method of life without resulting to human defined terms formed within the context of our limited known environment, a single planet upon billions.  It is quite possible that if we travel the galaxy in our species future, we will encounter many aliens that we define as unliving and who feel the same about us.  But are the criteria you'd use to judge a rock as unalive behavioural or physical?

Again, you can't assume what is and what is not life based on such a tiny sample data.

The basic traits, as I said, are because of a common ancestor organism (and soforth), ranging from the very first living cells.  The fundamental basis of 'very' alien life is that the defining event that led to these ancestor organisms is entirely different; you have 2 factors of evolution, which you've neglected here - one is that the environment plays a role in determining survival and fitness in natural selection (even the same mutations in an organism would see a different evolutionary outcome if the environment changes).  The second is that the fundamental nature of evolution - life - is based upon a billion year chain of random events (not randomly selected events, of course, but nonetheless the types of mutation that occur to be selected are essentially random).

I would note you've not defined what the 'traits' of life are.  So you've not been able to provide a definition for Earth life, let alone universal life.  I would think it is pretty obvious that, as environment and evolutionary context change, it's inevitable the 'nature' of life would change. 

Inteligence is something that can be observed, but really defined or mesured? - I don't belive we can do that even by humans.
Once you spend a long enought time looking at something, you can generalyl tell if it's intelligent or not.

So no, then, you can't define intelligence. Thus you can't identify the presence of it beyond vague and meaningless terms like 'I just know by looking at it'.

nope, but I can explain the function of a human body and generally, the mind.

That's all good and nice, except basing an arguement for possible forms of life on that would probably exclude the likes of, I dunno, plants or single celled organisms.  Again, the anthrocentric fallacy.

Nope, but I can tell you the basic traits or qualities of specific substances. Energy doesn't show ANY trait of a living being.[/quite]

And energy as a constructor?  Within an area, perhaps, of exotic physics like the cusp of a black hole?  Or are you again talking in the terms of known earth life?  What you've actually tried to do here, which is quite incorrect, is to try and address the possibility of an energy based lifeform, by analysing energy.  That would be a bit like ascribing carbon based life to be impossible because carbon itself is inert.

Not MUST, but 99.99999999999999999999999998999999999999% WON'T.

Any basis for that big number?  No?  Well it's very meaningless then, isn't it.  In any case, you are saying it's possible, and within an infinite universe, by your statistical value there, it thus must exist.

You describe things that work on atoms, not electrons by themselves. And even those things are not accurately described.
Increased vibration or frequency results in a higer energy state in an atom, and that energy has to be released if it's not enough to cross into the next energetic state. In other words that information would pass liek a wave trough hte energy cloud without being stored, as there's no where to be stored. And therer's hte question if it could be stored, how to acess it later. Atoms don't jsut release electrons by whim.

Unless the storage is within the waveform itself, of course.  Like analogue signals.... bouncing back waveforms in a circuit between atoms, perhaps. Apparently it's possible to excite the electrons within an atom to multiple states, for use as data storage (purely theoretical at the moment of course) within a computer.  I believe light has been used for this purpose in experiments.

 Of course, such relativistic physics is really of no consequence because, as I said earlier, we don't know the entire realm of physics, particularly the lowest levels like string theory; the great thing is, I don't even need to know or care about the physics, because of this.  All I need to know is that it's incomplete.

An energy based being doesn't require the absense of atoms anyways (that's why it says 'based' - did I not say that already?); this is largely why I mentioned the experimental concept plasma based life earlier (hey, you ignored that - why?)

In this context, we also have the setting of Freespace; namely that we have a known realm of non-relativistic physics which thus allows a ready made scope for more exotic interactions and possibilities.

A broad, simplistic and innacurate generalisation.
DIFFERNT atoms, DIFFERENT molecules, DIFFERENT cells, DIFFERENT organs - all of that is needed for a simple creature like a chicken.
We are not made out of energy, as I recall, the Atom consists of far more than just electrons...

So in other words, we evolved out of a set of interactions between discrete atoms (eventually forming molecules) which evolved through selection (i.e. forming a viable whole that was not destroyed) into more complex groups of more complex objects and interactions. 

I think there's a term known as carboncentric bias (or similar); basically it means that people are unwilling to even consider the possibility of alterante compositions of life because all they know is their own.  It's similar to the athromorphic bias that sees aliens designed in a way analogous to earth life; basic morphology, bipedal or resembling an animal (usually insectoid), having eyes and a mouth structure, etc.  I think I can see it here; a sort of instant closure to any possibility that would be beyond current human understanding but not beyond the concept of an infinite universe of infinite possibilities.

[TrashMan]

So you admit it!

By your own logic, I can claim whatever I want and allways pull the "there's so much unknown in the univrse, so you might be wrong or there might be a dubios way it can work" "argument".

This is exactly why it's not an argument, becouse humans will never know everything and you can ALLWAYS pull it out. It's kinda like the why question:

God loves you.
Why?
Becouse you are his childern.
Why?
Becosue he created you.
Why?
Becoause he loves you.
Why?

..... continue ad infinitum....

[aldo_14]

So you admit it!

By your own logic, I can claim whatever I want and allways pull the "there's so much unknown in the univrse, so you might be wrong or there might be a dubios way it can work" "argument".

That's why it's not inherently unrealistic, because we have definition of what a realistic expectation is for the rest of the universe, nor anything approaching it.   It's really a rather simple concept; we don't know everything in the universe, ergo we cannot make absolute judgements upon the universe.  So within the realm of an infinite universe which is not fully understood, you can claim anything you want without it being disproveable. 

Guess what?  That was my point.

[Skippy]

Bah,

[Ghostavo]

So you admit it!

By your own logic, I can claim whatever I want and allways pull the "there's so much unknown in the univrse, so you might be wrong or there might be a dubios way it can work" "argument".

This is exactly why it's not an argument, becouse humans will never know everything and you can ALLWAYS pull it out. It's kinda like the why question:

God loves you.
Why?
Becouse you are his childern.
Why?
Becosue he created you.
Why?
Becoause he loves you.
Why?

..... continue ad infinitum....

Except that this isn't about building a theory, or whatever... this is about a game's story, a fiction story, geez...

[TrashMan]

So you admit it!

By your own logic, I can claim whatever I want and allways pull the "there's so much unknown in the univrse, so you might be wrong or there might be a dubios way it can work" "argument".

That's why it's not inherently unrealistic, because we have definition of what a realistic expectation is for the rest of the universe, nor anything approaching it.   It's really a rather simple concept; we don't know everything in the universe, ergo we cannot make absolute judgements upon the universe.  So within the realm of an infinite universe which is not fully understood, you can claim anything you want without it being disproveable. 

Guess what?  That was my point.

No offense, but this is exactly why I think you're whole "argument" is  bull.

It's just a gimmic with which by finding a pseudo-logical "hole" can claim whatever you wish.

Defeinition of life..Well if the only way for you to prove energy is alive is to change the definition of life...two can play the game.
I'll change the definition of scientific method so that it will ALLWAYS counter whatever you say.

We don't know everything. We never will. But we do know enough to make rather accurate assumptions. Untill those assumption are proven wrong, they are correct.

Strange this about definiton is - it is as it is. You don't like it - tough for you. There is a definition of life made by the human race as if something doesn't fall into that category then it doesn't.

[aldo_14]

No offense, but this is exactly why I think you're whole "argument" is  bull.

It's just a gimmic with which by finding a pseudo-logical "hole" can claim whatever you wish.

Defeinition of life..Well if the only way for you to prove energy is alive is to change the definition of life...two can play the game.
I'll change the definition of scientific method so that it will ALLWAYS counter whatever you say.

We don't know everything. We never will. But we do know enough to make rather accurate assumptions. Untill those assumption are proven wrong, they are correct.

Strange this about definiton is - it is as it is. You don't like it - tough for you. There is a definition of life made by the human race as if something doesn't fall into that category then it doesn't.

You don't even have a definition.  That's the whole point.  You keep on mentioning some vague allusion to 'you know what it is', 'you can tell by seeing it', but you've not even given a concrete definition of what is 'alive', or even what the basic tenets of life are, in order to rule out any form of non Earth-originated carbon based life.  All you've done is go 'it's not energy', and say bugger all else. All you've been able to offer is a list of assumptions about how you are right - not why.

Justify why your assumptions are 'accurate' for an entire universe?  Can you?  And again you're missing the point; this is not about likely or unlikely, but possible or impossible.  You say it's impossible, but can't give a reason that actually gives a specific reason that isn't earthcentric and based on hopelessly vague concepts of what is 'living' or 'intelligent' that you can't even define.

Define alive.  Write it down.  What makes something alive.  Define it in a universal context, not just what makes something that evolved in an earth-like environment alive.

[Charismatic]

What came to my attention is this. Isnt it alittle odd that so many systems in Terran and (mostly) Vasudan space are inhabital. In reality very few are in habital, like Earth. All the other 8-9 planets in our system are uninhabital. All these inhabital systems in a area.. interesting. And for those that caught it, yea im unsure how many planets are in our solar system. Its been a long time ok!

[Prophet]

I don't think there are that many habitable planets in FS universe. Habitable, as in Earth. Any planet can have a colony as long as you dumb a air tight dome in there and remember to bring water and food once in a while. But from FS2 I can remember only two planets capable of supporting life; Capella and Cygnys (sp?) prime... Those looked like nice planets, and briefings indicated that they were. I don't remember any other planet mentioned to be Earth like, and I certainly don't remember if there were any of them in the backgrounds.

Thought Vasuda prime could support life (before the Shivans came), you couldn't really put it in the same class as Earth. So go figure...

[TrashMan]

You don't even have a definition.  That's the whole point.  You keep on mentioning some vague allusion to 'you know what it is', 'you can tell by seeing it', but you've not even given a concrete definition of what is 'alive', or even what the basic tenets of life are, in order to rule out any form of non Earth-originated carbon based life.  All you've done is go 'it's not energy', and say bugger all else. All you've been able to offer is a list of assumptions about how you are right - not why.

Justify why your assumptions are 'accurate' for an entire universe?  Can you?  And again you're missing the point; this is not about likely or unlikely, but possible or impossible.  You say it's impossible, but can't give a reason that actually gives a specific reason that isn't earthcentric and based on hopelessly vague concepts of what is 'living' or 'intelligent' that you can't even define.

Define alive.  Write it down.  What makes something alive.  Define it in a universal context, not just what makes something that evolved in an earth-like environment alive.

If we ignore the common traits displayed by all life forms we encountered - such as procreation, consumption, self-awareness ,etc... that still leaves one thing..one that is tied to very meaning of the world LIFE...and that is death..
All life ends with dearth.
Energy cannot die,,so unless you belive in immortal life-froms, energy can't be alive.

Oh..and if it is alive, then it's the most stupid life-form of all. I Havn't sen them complain for using them to power or usless gadgets...

b.t.w. - what IF there is no other life in the universe except on Earth? Is it possible? You must concede that it is.
In that case, all our "asumptions" about life are correct and universal.
So given that you don't know it isn't universal, how can you calim that I'm wrong? :LOL:

EDIT: I fear that byy the end of hte day this will tun out to be a thing of belief.

[aldo_14]

If we ignore the common traits displayed by all life forms we encountered - such as procreation, consumption, self-awareness ,etc... that still leaves one thing..one that is tied to very meaning of the world LIFE...and that is death..
All life ends with dearth.
Energy cannot die,,so unless you belive in immortal life-froms, energy can't be alive.

Oh..and if it is alive, then it's the most stupid life-form of all. I Havn't sen them complain for using them to power or usless gadgets...

b.t.w. - what IF there is no other life in the universe except on Earth? Is it possible? You must concede that it is.
In that case, all our "asumptions" about life are correct and universal.
So given that you don't know it isn't universal, how can you calim that I'm wrong? :LOL:

EDIT: I fear that byy the end of hte day this will tun out to be a thing of belief.

Better, but you're still missing a complete definition of life here (for example, the 'etc').  Firstly, you need it in order to define the converse state of death as well as that of 'unalive'.  You'll note, though, that whilst the possibility remains Earth is the only source of life (although I remember Dawkins making a very strong arguement that is actually rather unlikely), it's not the only possibility.  In actuality, it has no bearing unless it is proven to be, or proves something else to be, impossible; it's just an alternative.

Albeit, you're stretching the idea of an energy based lifeform to again make this strange connotation that automatically all energy is 'alive' as part of that idea.  I presume to try and form a strawman (or maybe you misunderstood some of the analogies of current energy use in demonstrating principles applicable), because it's a rather bizarre notion.  Although you are assuming that any energy based life would be affected by use as a power source, or even notice.

Now, you have some problems here IMO, because you're still not able to define life or it's tenets fully. 

Firstly, self-awareness - how can we know an amoeba, or a snail, or a pigeon, etc is self-aware?  Or even a higher mammal, for that matter.  On the same subject, how can you define what makes someone self-aware, in a manner that restricts it to strict atomic reactions? (to consider non-chemical lifeforms, we need to do so; even if only to remove the atomic basis and restrict to chemical action).

Secondly, consumption.  Again, that's something definable on the basis of the constituent organism; if we go into non-chemical life, we have to consider why that would be considered as impossible; it strikes me that it'd be rather more efficient in actuality, if an organism can absorb energy as a native part of itself.  But again we have the issue of nutrition, which is again a concept developed for chemical/carbo organisms because that's what we study; for a non chemical organism, the issue of what you need to 'ingest' is entirely seperate.  So what we really need here, is an ability to take in energy (in some form) and atoms (of nutritional objects not manufacturable in the body).   But, is that actually necessary if an organism doesn't need it?  Because the need to do so is a product of chemical life; it's a necessity to sustain it, not something which creates it (for a somewhat muddy term).  So, are we alive because we eat, or do we eat because we need to in order to stay alive?

Also, procreation.  Another thorny issue, because what exactly is procreation and what does it entail?  The broadest definition, I guess, would be any form of creating a new organism (because we have non-sexual reporduction like cellular mitosis).  I don't see how that could be considered impossible in an energy-based lifeform, specifically with reference to the plasma-based experiments I mentioned earlier that did exactly that.

You see, what you seem to miss is that I'm not saying there is energy-based life, or that it is possible, just that you can't casually dismiss the notion on the basis of our limited understanding of the universe (which is both incomplete and earth-centric).   You're trying to argue for an absolute, and I'm arguing for a possibility.  The latter is rather a more easy arguement within an infinite and unexplored universe.

 It is actually an issue of philosphy, and has been for a very long time; we can define life in the context of our environment and perception, but whether that is the only form of life possible across an infinite universe is a very fluid and ultimately unanswerable; the real issue of whether other forms of life can exist can only be settled once we have either a) found it or b) explored the entire universe and not found it.

What came to my attention is this. Isnt it alittle odd that so many systems in Terran and (mostly) Vasudan space are inhabital. In reality very few are in habital, like Earth. All the other 8-9 planets in our system are uninhabital. All these inhabital systems in a area.. interesting. And for those that caught it, yea im unsure how many planets are in our solar system. Its been a long time ok!

Not really; as has been mentioned, it's possible to just bung down an atmosphere dome for a small colony, plus it's quite possible the more inhospitable planets are reserved for solely mining purposes.  Or even, if the GTVA is environmentally conscious, to move the more toxic manufacturing and refining operations away from inhabited areas.  Plus we don't know if the GTVA can terraform planets atall; I'd imagine there would be some knowledge in this area, both from the vasudans evolution in an inhospitable desert planet and corresponding need to expand outwards into space, and also from the long period (two, three hundred years?) when the gta/humans had space travel but only within the solar system.

Also, we don't really know how many refugees there were left over from the Great War, TV War and GTI rebellion that needed places to stay.... I guess it's possible that politics (especially from the breakup of the GTA, and also old T-V rivalries) and logistics (maybe not all civvie vessels have inter-system drives, given how expensive it is supposed to be) prevented refugees moving to resettle in the few earth-like planets available.