Dave, On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:39 PM, david <[email protected]> wrote: > Dan said: > I don't know, Dave. I think there are observations being made that non-DNA > based lifeforms are possible: "Synthetic biologists have discovered that six > other molecules can could store genetic information and pass it on. A host of > alternative nucleic acids have been made in labs over the years, but no one > has made them work like DNA. Until now, everyone thought we were limited to > RNA and DNA. ...The finding is a proof of principle that life needn't be > based on DNA and RNA." > > > dmb says: > Hmmm. This certainly would defy the assertion that life MUST be based on DNA > or the idea that non-DNA forms of life are impossible. But there is one major > problem, Dan. I didn't says that it's impossible and I don't think it's > impossible either. In fact, I said it was a plausible idea. "It seems to me > that non-DNA life forms would be greeted as an exciting discovery. Sci-Fi > writers and real scientists have been dreaming about it for a while." BUT > these alternative life forms are still just speculations, abstract patterns > that lots of people desperately want to see it - but nobody ever has. People > are looking for such a fact, even trying to conjure it up, and they still > can't find it.
Dan: Yes, and I agree. My point was more along the lines of the static filter preventing Phaedrus from seeing the flashing green sun. It would appear to me that any new discovery--like the green sun or life based on XNA--would be filtered out. I think that static filter blindness might arise in the looking even if we don't recognize it as happening, even if we're actively looking for something we want to see. Wanting to see something--even trying to see it--and being told it exists are not to be taken as the same. I may want to see little green fairies dancing in the moonlight--I might go out night after night searching for them--but no matter how I look I doubt I'll ever see it. I'm not saying it's impossible but pretty unlikely. On the other hand, seeing something like the flash of a green sun is a verifiable experience that anyone told to see will experience even if they have never witnessed such an event before. That's not to say it is an objectively verifiable experience, however. There is a nuance here that is easily overlooked. >dmb: > If such an alternative life form appeared from the sky or was created in a > lab, I think the news would be on the front page of every paper in the world, > etc.. > > To say there is presently no empirical evidence is very different from saying > that it's impossible. I'm only saying that there is no known evidence. > > And the point of this was originally aimed at Ian, who claimed that the MOQ > should include these alternative life forms. Since no such thing exists (as > far as we know), I thought it was rather silly to insist on their inclusion > in the MOQ's levels. Dan: Again, I agree. It would be like including all speculative phenomena in the MOQ, which since it is pure empiricism makes no sense. > >dmb: > Don't the levels just divide what's in an ideal encyclopedia, rather than > carving up a pre-exisiting physical universe? I mean, isn't there a subtle > switch back into scientific objectivity in these assertions about what may or > may not exist in the unobserved universe? I think so. Dan: Well, yes, that's what I was trying to tease out with my reference to the static filter that prevents us from seeing that which we aren't familiar with. Aren't all new scientific discoveries the unobserved made known? We see references to 'new' species being discovered--sometimes in the plain light of day--but are they really new? How would we know if they've never been observed before? Aren't we dealing instead with multiple definitions of 'new'? Thank you, Dan http://www.danglover.com Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
