[quote]It seems as though most people are answering the question of the meaning of life, with the processes of life itself?[/quote] I think that is the Key difference. We define our own lives, not by living, growing, and reproducing, but by our experiences and roles in society. While a yeast only lives to grow and reproduce, Humans beleive that their life has meaning; probably a result of our advanced intelligence and socialization (compared to other organisms) Humans think tha
denyasis
I thought it was ok. I'm not a huge beatles fan, but I did think that the movie was very well done. The montage for "Let it Be" was totally amazing. Supposedly most of the music was sung on the stage, so it is really the actors singing, not lip syncing. I thought that was pretty impressive in a day and age where some musicians lip sync thier live concerts. There was one scene (the circus) that totally confused me (perhaps I needed to be on LSD, lol), but I really didn't get it's purpose
A) I can't tell, but is Lego Selling that thing? Cause I want one B) I wish I had time for legos. They are soo sweet! I had a bunch of the old school space ones. Like when they were just called "Space" (I think that was it - the old white ones)
Dyspotic; Stay safe. I hope your home lasts the fires. All of us here will keep you and everyone else in California in our thoughts and prayers. [quote]would you consider Data from star treck to be alive? ever see Bicentennial Man?[/quote] No clue. If they could reproduce (ie build an offspring or copy), I would suppose so. If you think about it, I think insect colonies like ants only have a few sexually active members of the colony right? I guess this could be analogu
[quote](viruses, for example)[/quote] Viruses arn't alive as they don't fufill 3 of those requirements. They can't grow, reproduce or metabolize on their own. They have to hijack a cell's machinery to do it. Also if something doesn't die naturally (no aging) that doesn't mean it will never die. It can still take critical damage. With out the ability to ensure the survival of its species, its ultimately doomed. Also with reaction to stimuli, its implied that it can react to either in
[quote]so i'm still curious about ammonia[/quote] I read the article. It mentioned some of my concerns. The oxidation cycle didn't occur to me (and it should have), but it does make sense. The ammonia and Nitrogen dioxide atmospheres make the most sense and I could see that working with a planet that has liquid ammonia. The one problem mentioned is the Cold temperatures. That would reduce reactivity and solubility. Also, if its that cold out there, I would wonder if enough solar radiati
[quote]so to make this more general, one factor is a liquid solvent of some sort[/quote] Just for clarification, carbons in water are not dissolved. It more of a suspension. There are some exceptions, and some of these execptions can be rather important in biology and medicine (alcohols, lipid, etc). For the most part, our organics are hydrophobic. Liquid Water is a very unique molecule. The current belief is that its presence was essential for life to form. This is mainly due
I read some onesnote about needed a significant human population for gene diversity and I though of an idea. Why send everyone at once? In terms of logistics (and history), we could send a boat load of colonists (with specializations in construction, farming etc) with the materials to jump start the colony. Once its up and running another ship would arrive with more colonists and supplies. Earth could send out say 10 ships, 1 every two years, after the colony ship. It would take some of the prob
Unfortunately, there's not a lot of info beyond speculation on how life developes in other planets from scratch or even this one (if you subscribe to Evolution). Some key experiments have been: -The discovery of self assembling lipid bilayers (simple cell membranes) under certian conditions that may have been similar to early earth. -The discovery/presence of prions on Earth. Essentially really simple self replicating amino acid chains (not complex enough to be a protein) -T
[quote]the brain is powered by chemicals. but the cells communicate with electric.[/quote] The brain is power by chemicals, that is true. The cells do not communicate with "electric". Nerve cells communicate via neurotransmitters, more chemicals. The electrical pulses simply occur across 1 cell from dendrite to axon(or do I have that in reverse? Sorry sleep medicine kicking in). Essentially it works like this: 1-Nerve cell recieve a stimulus (a chemical) 2-The chemical bind
I think too little is known about the brain to really say anything for certian. When I was thnking about it today, I noticed something about the Brain/Size theroy. I think it can only apply to similar animals. You see, a fly's and and an Elephant's brains might not be even comparable even in ther terms of organization and functionality. Dytopic brought up a good point with his Eye examples. The needs of the organisms would dictate how its brain would function. For example, most insects
[quote]so i have to say that my above reasoning appears to blow your point to kingdom come?[/quote] I think the problem with both our arguements is that we can't do a Direct Apples to Apples comparison: [quote]There would be a definite increase in complexity from making that tiny insect body functional compared to making an elephant body functional, but there is no way in a million years i could believe the corresponding increase in brain size could justify that![/quote] <b
While we are on biology; Titan would be a nice place, but it does lack an easy way to get food for the colonists. If we were to make an artifical ecosystem, we'd have to import everything (the plants, animals, fertilizer, etc) for quite some time until enough biomass is present that the system would be somewhat self sufficient, which could take years, if it happens all. If, say we are looking for a "perfect" planet outside our solar system, obviously we would want one with a li
[quote]What i am trying to troobleshoot is the idea that brain size relative to body size denotes intelligence?[/quote] Try breaking it down to smaller parts. [quote]It seems to me that a body such as the body of a mouse or the body of an elephant would both have similar processing power requirements to run?[/quote] That might not be necesarily so. I don't know much about intelligence (don't have much of my own to begin with <img src="smiles/Tongue.gif" border=0 align=
[quote] I don’t get that remark at all. It must mean a person driving a truck is much more stupid than a person driving a car, because the truck is much bigger in comparison to the persons brain![/quote] Semi's are inherently more difficult to control (hence higher standards to be licensed for CDL) There are more blind spots. The Semi itself is also more cumbersome. It requires more effort on the driver's part to control the Truck than it does a car. Now I'm not implying that a truck dr
[quote]ps: any of you have even a passing familiarity with neurological psychology, cognitive science, i.e. "brain studies", or am i the most qualified participant on the subject? i'm certainly no expert, but i know a lot (of what other people have said) about how the brain works.[/quote] Perhaps it would help, we we stated some of our credentials. Nothing to revealing, Just so we have an idea where the other is comming from: I'm DenYaSis: -Studied Forensic Chemistry in Col
Back to adaptablility. There is a limit to the adaptability of the human. Different G's present a series of problems that are very difficult to over come by adapttation. Adaptation only works in the sense that the body can already make/do the things it is required to do. Its the same as working out, the body makes more muscle, not a new type of muscle. There's a limit to the stress you can place on the organs in terms of gravity, especially the heart. Sure there will be adaptat
it looks like there's not much easily available research on the subject (prolonged exposure to high G, rather than relatively short durations). I think you kinda generally answered you own question here: low G is another issue entirely. muscles tend to atrophe without word; astronauts on long missions have to exercise or face dangerous conditions when they return to constant life in full G Going from Earth (1G)
perhaps our colony would be in the air Ahh ala Cloud Ctiy. I would dare say that could be very possible. Since we'd be using water to gernerate O2, We'd have tons of H2 available. Since the atmospshere doesn't have any O2, There would be a reduced fire hazard risk. Given that the difference in density from Methane to Hydrogen is greater than the different between Hydrongen and our Earth atmosphere, is would be likely that we could create a floating city.
since the mantle is liquid water, it must be somewhat warmer than the surface Not necesarrily so. Water is a very interesting chemical in that solid is less dense than the liquid (ice floats). This means that you can turn Ice into water by adding pressure to it (Keeping the temperature constant - below freezing). Ice skates work on this principle. The weight of the human is transfered via a small surface area (the blade) to the ice, turning it to water.
very true, I did forget about that. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but that would make It Easier to build using the strut/footings as we'de need fewer and they wouldn't have to be as extensive? I guess the other hard part would be insulating the structure. I mean we would want amibent temp to be around 68-72 and possibly warmer if we are growing food, etc. I think heating up our colony would be pretty expensive in terms of energy and we wouldn't want to lose any of that to the atmosphere.
I like the titan Idea. Well let's see if we can figure out, what at minimum, we need for a self sustaining colony: Energy - As is a usable power source, whether it be solar, or we bring it with us. I'd assume, since its so cold, that Solar wouldn't produce much power. We'd probably have to brin our own power source. Using electrolysis to produce O2 and burning the methane would work, Barley: 4H2O +CH4 -> 4H2 + 2O2 + CH4 --> CO2 + 2H2O + 4H2 P - R 0-4(-241.83) = 967.
Dytopic and Millertime are right, its not really possible to compare Genetic code to Computer code in terms of analogy; althogh the comparison is pretty cool. For one, Computer code is mathematical; logic based, if you will. Everything done on a computer is a mathematical function (atleast as far as the computer sees it).The code (with no errors!) is all that matters for a result to be acheived. DNA controls via cehemistry. It functions in both terms of the actual code (Which can be pre
Well yes and no. Scientifically, computer code is entirely different from genetic code. Computer code must be compiled into executable which cannot be reverse compiled back to the source with any ease. Genetic information can. Infact, while Computer code must be read and processed to function, DNA can directly intereact wiht proteins and cofactors without transcription or translation. DNA is the equivelent of source code for the human. We have it all mapped - Ie on paper. We ar
If I were to look at it from a developmental method, I would see the notions of combating aging would fall into general phases as our medical science increases. As our knowledge of genetics and specifically, cell signalling, increases, I could see medicines ( a good analogy would be to liken them to steroids) that would increase the lafe span of a person significantly, but also have major drawbacks including effectiveness, toxicity ( an interesting irony, lol), cancer and other deadly s