A really cool TED talk on how to find alien life on other worlds remotely

This amazingly interesting TED talk starts out with Christoph Adami's research into artificial life. He then get's tapped by NASA to take his work and use it for analyzing probe data for "biomarker" signatures. Really cool:

www.ted.com...

a reply to: dfnj2015

Thank you for this..

Very interesting. It shouldn’t be very difficult to build an equation that determines the likelihood of a “life signature” considering we already have sensors in place that detect specific elements on other astronomical bodies.

It would make it a lot more feasible to have a focal point for probes in regards to what planet/moon we should be really looking at if our goal is to descover life. Far more accurate than simply “look, it’s in the Goldilock zone”

originally posted by: dfnj2015
This amazingly interesting TED talk starts out with Christoph Adami's research into artificial life. He then get's tapped by NASA to take his work and use it for analyzing probe data for "biomarker" signatures. Really cool:

www.ted.com...

Well that was a really cool TED talk. His approach from a tech standpoint was pretty cool. He did a great job getting his ideas across and actually showing them in a manner most would be able to understand.

Thanks!

originally posted by: Ghost147
considering we already have sensors in place that detect specific elements on other astronomical bodies.

no we don't.
...

secondly, we're not going to find other life forms as long as we think we are the ones defining what life is.
all we can really do is look for things "like us". its all we can imagine.

That Martian meteorite that he says is heavily disputed today is a little misleading. Originally, they said that the particles on the rock were way too small to hold dna or something similar, therefore it could not be a single celled organism. Everyone agreed but since then there have been cells of similar size found here on earth that hold dna. They came up with some other reason why it couldn't be bacteria but I can't remember what it was. They don't want to find life, especially JPL. They have fought and smashed down every possible lead to the possibility of life from this meteorite to Viking life test that passed portions of the test and other things like airbrushing pictures.

originally posted by: odzeandennz

secondly, we're not going to find other life forms as long as we think we are the ones defining what life is.
all we can really do is look for things "like us". its all we can imagine.

Have you even watched the video ? Because that's exactly what the guy is talking about : how to recognize life that wouldn't look and act like life on our planet.

Personally, I have kind of a working definition for life : it is something that interacts with its environment in a strategic manner. So, a rock is not life because it doesn't interact with its environment in any strategic manner, while a tree is life because it does indeed interact with its environment in a strategic manner : its leaves try to reach for the sun, its roots try to reach for nourishing elements in the ground, etc.. According to this definition and what the guy says in the video, life doesn't act at random, because if everything is random, then all outcomes happen at an equal rate(the guy in the video gave the example of an alphabet to illustrate this). But if all possible outcomes don't happen at an equal rate, then it means that the thing that is being observed acts in a strategic manner.

Someone could say "but a robot made by humans could look like it interacts with its environment in a strategic manner", to which I would reply that a robot follows its programming, which means that in reality its strategy is just delayed human strategy. And it is at this point that AI enters the arena...

originally posted by: gosseyn
...
Someone could say "but a robot made by humans could look like it interacts with its environment in a strategic manner", to which I would reply that a robot follows its programming, which means that in reality its strategy is just delayed human strategy. And it is at this point that AI enters the arena...

And a tree just follows its genetic programming.

The classic definition of life includes things like response to stimuli, metabolism, growth, reproduction.

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: gosseyn
...
Someone could say "but a robot made by humans could look like it interacts with its environment in a strategic manner", to which I would reply that a robot follows its programming, which means that in reality its strategy is just delayed human strategy. And it is at this point that AI enters the arena...

And a tree just follows its genetic programming.

The classic definition of life includes things like response to stimuli, metabolism, growth, reproduction.

The question that is asked here is how would we recognize something "alive" if it doesn't act and function the same way life acts and functions on earth. Thus "stimuli, metabolism, growth, reproduction", and any other "classic" characteristic as you said, is not enough.