Assuming multi-cellular life exists elsewhere in the universe, what do you think it looks like?

[Kharakov]

Crystalline.

That supposed to mean something?

I'm assuming a molten lava of the raw minerals needed to assemble the Si life form. The life form will assemble crystal-like patterns of the raw material through complementary magnetic field manipulation (with Nd, Fe, Y, B, etc.) and electrical charge manipulation (with Si, P, Fe, Ni, etc.). Sometimes an error in manipulation will result in greater ability to reproduce, sometimes it will not.

Perhaps a whole planet size hunk of the raw materials with an orbit close to a star, and a pole pointing directly away from the star (so that the planet has a permanent dark side, yet is not tidally locked). The star side of the planet permanently molten, with a nice "cool" side for mineral formation, and a nice intermediary zone in which various elements interact. With a nice large surface area for initial crystal-like formation, and an ocean of molten minerals to form the life forms, and the constant energy from the star to power the life forms...

 

[DBT]

I'd assume that as a minimum, a central information processor/brain/nervous system, senses and a body with a means of locomotion is essential. The scale, shape, form and configuration of their bodies, though, would most probably be vast.

 

[Jokodo]

I think that they would probably look even more different from us than this.

Given all of the variety here one planet, how can you even imagine what else is probable?

Great topic by the way

Well I guess the diversity of life would likely be just as wide-spread as it is here, and there would be some interesting creatures. I guess the idea, though, is that much of the life that comes into existence does so because of the physical conditions that surround it. In other words, we are a result of the environment. Given that, a similar environment would likely produce very similar results. We can also expect that most life that exists on another planet is going to be very aesthetically appealing.

Similar environments plus similar initial conditions are likely to produce similar results. But it is a chaotic system, so small differences at one stage produce different input conditions for the next step, and thus very different initial conditions, and thus likely very different results, a few hundred million years down the line. A little twist in the general architecture and developmental potentials of what was to become the first amphibians might have locked many roads of future evolution for the tetrapods, and opened up many others unimagined even if the external conditions from the Devonian to today had been the same. Unless we're talking about very similarities, of the type: "animals that evade predators primarily by fleeing rather than fighting will tend to prioritise agility over robustness", or "top predators and species with species with strong defensive mechanisms are more likely to follow k-selection strategy", but those don't tell you what the animals will look like.

 

[Jarhyn]

Things with endo skeletons will have smooth sleek bodies. Things with exoskeletons will look bug like. Things that run all the time will have long legs. Things that go into holes will have pointed forward anatomy. Mouths will probably be at the forward facing end because of utility for attack, and eyes nearby, and that conflagration will place a 'brain' not far behind. Things that fly will probably have some manner of wing. Things that need warmth will have some manner of fur or feather, and detection organs will probably be close to the location that data is processed. Number of eyes, antennae vs nostrils, primary mode of communication, beaks vs jaws vs proboscis vs whatever... That's all TBD.

 

[Kharakov]

I'd assume that as a minimum, a central information processor/brain/nervous system, senses and a body with a means of locomotion is essential. The scale, shape, form and configuration of their bodies, though, would most probably be vast.

I mentioned a planetary sized Si based life form (similar to what I posted above) about a week ago, that electromagnetically accelerated scouts out of itself to explore the universe. Silicon Jesus...

Noone mentioned space based life forms- life forms that are made out of space. Probably be the hottest yoga instructors ever.

 

[Kharakov]

Trovants (growing stones) article on WhenOnEarth, via Neatorama, via The Presurfer.

I, for one, welcome our new Silicon overlords.

All joking aside, here is something else that may be formed or found on a Si planet (crystalline memory):

Phase change memory lets a single bit act as different logic gates (from Ars Technica).

 

[J842P]

Well I guess the diversity of life would likely be just as wide-spread as it is here, and there would be some interesting creatures. I guess the idea, though, is that much of the life that comes into existence does so because of the physical conditions that surround it. In other words, we are a result of the environment. Given that, a similar environment would likely produce very similar results. We can also expect that most life that exists on another planet is going to be very aesthetically appealing.

Similar environments plus similar initial conditions are likely to produce similar results. But it is a chaotic system, so small differences at one stage produce different input conditions for the next step, and thus very different initial conditions, and thus likely very different results, a few hundred million years down the line. A little twist in the general architecture and developmental potentials of what was to become the first amphibians might have locked many roads of future evolution for the tetrapods, and opened up many others unimagined even if the external conditions from the Devonian to today had been the same. Unless we're talking about very similarities, of the type: "animals that evade predators primarily by fleeing rather than fighting will tend to prioritise agility over robustness", or "top predators and species with species with strong defensive mechanisms are more likely to follow k-selection strategy", but those don't tell you what the animals will look like.

Exactly right.

 

[dystopian]

I'd assume that as a minimum, a central information processor/brain/nervous system, senses and a body with a means of locomotion is essential. The scale, shape, form and configuration of their bodies, though, would most probably be vast.

Actually, the only thing that'd strictly be necessary on that list is senses.

Why does it need a central information processor/brain? It could have a distributed system that accomplishes the same thing. The nervous system we know functions in specific ways; there's no reason to assume it couldn't work in a radically different way for another intelligent creature. Locomotion is not all that necessary either, there are certainly alternatives to be thought of.

That said, I would *expect* the trend to be towards configurations involving some variation of the list you gave.

 

[DBT]

I'd assume that as a minimum, a central information processor/brain/nervous system, senses and a body with a means of locomotion is essential. The scale, shape, form and configuration of their bodies, though, would most probably be vast.

Actually, the only thing that'd strictly be necessary on that list is senses.

Why does it need a central information processor/brain? It could have a distributed system that accomplishes the same thing. The nervous system we know functions in specific ways; there's no reason to assume it couldn't work in a radically different way for another intelligent creature. Locomotion is not all that necessary either, there are certainly alternatives to be thought of.

That said, I would *expect* the trend to be towards configurations involving some variation of the list you gave.

Senses alone do not provide a sensory representation of one's environment. It is not the senses that enable vision, hearing, sense of smell, etc, but the brain. Sure, a central nervous system without a brain can respond reflexively, but this means an absence of intelligence. Anyhow, the presence of ''senses'' implies far more than just reflex action/nerve response.

 

[dystopian]

Senses alone do not provide a sensory representation of one's environment. It is not the senses that enable vision, hearing, sense of smell, etc, but the brain. Sure, a central nervous system without a brain can respond reflexively, but this means an absence of intelligence.

You don't actually know this to be universally true. There really is no reason for thinking that intelligence can't arise without a central brain other than "we don't see it here on earth"; and even that statement is actually kind of questionable. If you can't imagine evolution taking a path where intelligence is the end result of a diffusion of cells throughout an entire creature's structure operating in tandem; or rather than one central brain structure having a distributed network of minor brains none of which are a 'central processor' and vital to the whole; then I would argue you don't have a lot of imagination.

 

[Bomb#20]

Perhaps a whole planet size hunk of the raw materials with an orbit close to a star, and a pole pointing directly away from the star (so that the planet has a permanent dark side, yet is not tidally locked).

That would require the axis of rotation itself to change direction over the course of each orbit, to stay pointed directly away from the star regardless of which side of the star the planet is currently on. Axes of rotation don't do that. Planets are gyroscopes.

 

[DBT]

Senses alone do not provide a sensory representation of one's environment. It is not the senses that enable vision, hearing, sense of smell, etc, but the brain. Sure, a central nervous system without a brain can respond reflexively, but this means an absence of intelligence.

You don't actually know this to be universally true.

There is no known form of consciousness that forms without the information processing activity of a brain. That it is the brain and not the senses that generates and forms conscious experience is not even questioned. The evidence for brain centred consciousness is overwhelming.

There really is no reason for thinking that intelligence can't arise without a central brain other than "we don't see it here on earth"; and even that statement is actually kind of questionable. If you can't imagine evolution taking a path where intelligence is the end result of a diffusion of cells throughout an entire creature's structure operating in tandem; or rather than one central brain structure having a distributed network of minor brains none of which are a 'central processor' and vital to the whole; then I would argue you don't have a lot of imagination.

Maybe so, in some freaky Alien way, but that's pure speculation. There are no examples of apparent conscious behaviour to be found on Earth that does not involve the presence activity of a complex brain.

Given the sheer complexity of the brain, and its information processing ability, how would it be possible for a simple organism to form consciousness: a virtual 'mental' representation of itself and its environment? There are limitations that are determined by physical principals.

then I would argue you don't have a lot of imagination.

It's not just a matter of imagination, but a consideration of how the World actually works in terms of physics. You can imagine witches flying on broomsticks, but given the laws of physics, is it actually possible....that is the question.

 

[Kharakov]

Perhaps a whole planet size hunk of the raw materials with an orbit close to a star, and a pole pointing directly away from the star (so that the planet has a permanent dark side, yet is not tidally locked).

That would require the axis of rotation itself to change direction over the course of each orbit, to stay pointed directly away from the star regardless of which side of the star the planet is currently on. Axes of rotation don't do that. Planets are gyroscopes.

Yeah, that makes sense. Quick thought before I shop for food: frame dragging moon?

And if a planet has a permanent dark side, it is tidally locked- what I wanted was rotation with tidal lock.

 

[skepticalbip]

That would require the axis of rotation itself to change direction over the course of each orbit, to stay pointed directly away from the star regardless of which side of the star the planet is currently on. Axes of rotation don't do that. Planets are gyroscopes.

Yeah, that makes sense. Quick thought before I shop for food: frame dragging moon?

And if a planet has a permanent dark side, it is tidally locked- what I wanted was rotation with tidal lock.

"frame dragging moon" confuses me. No idea what you mean.

A tidal locked planet necessarily has rotation but, by defination, the period of rotation has to equal its period of revolution.

 

[Kharakov]

Yeah, that makes sense. Quick thought before I shop for food: frame dragging moon?

And if a planet has a permanent dark side, it is tidally locked- what I wanted was rotation with tidal lock.

"frame dragging moon" confuses me. No idea what you mean.

A tidal locked planet necessarily has rotation but, by defination, the period of rotation has to equal its period of revolution.

Same face towards orbited body. What I'm thinking of is probably impossible, but I'll try to describe it anyway.

Say that the moon's orbit around a planet is in a plane parallel to the gravitational field of the star the planet orbits around.

Would the tidal acceleration due to the moon be enough to tidally lock a planet that has an axis of rotation that is perpendicular to the planet's orbit around the star?

The planet's north pole points away from the star
The planet's equator is aligned with its orbit
The moon's orbit takes it over the planet's poles
The moon traces out an ellipse that is parallel to the planet's orbit and perpendicular to the planet's rotation

 

[Jarhyn]

As far as I know nothing prevents a tidally locked planet from having a spin perpendicular to the orbital path, though it is unlikely to have an orbital plane of a moon which passes over a tidally locked parent body's poles; planet-moon systems, if I understand properly, originate from a group of mass with an initial spin, which generally is reflected in any children (moons, planets) which are generated when the mass solidifies. So when you have a cloud of shit that's going to produce a planet, the groups it spawns reflect that larger spin, in aggregate. It's why our planets all orbit the same direction, for the most part, and why near celestial bodies all have the same spin mostly, and why moons in the system all orbit on that same plane as well. There's always going to be some turbulence, where things get churned up locally (so some systems resolve a little skewed), so while it is possible that a planet could have a moon orbiting in the plane of a tidally locked planet's orbit, it is unlikely, as the initial force would beed to be very strange for the cloud that became planet-moon. Or perhaps the moon would be a capture.

 

[Kharakov]

Yeah. The idea seems pretty far fetched- it would require a perfect storm of factors in order to occur.

Even then... I think it skirts the edge of the designed design philosophy- it might be too far fetched, although one can always use a variant of the "infinite time, infinite space, infinite possibilities, so it could have occurred" argument to design the design of the planet.

 

[barbos]

As far as I know nothing prevents a tidally locked planet from having a spin perpendicular to the orbital path, though it is unlikely to have an orbital plane of a moon which passes over a tidally locked parent body's poles; planet-moon systems

I don't quite understand what you mean by "perpendicular to the orbital path" (is it 90 degrees axial tilt, Uranus like?), but can assure you that tidally locked means sun/star does not move if seen from the planet. And that's eventual fate of any close enough planet, regardless of their initial state.
Unless of course the planet is absolutely spherically symmetric and rigid, and even then it will lock eventually due general relativity caused frame dragging.

 

[Jarhyn]

I know most tidally locked planets have a spin as well. I assumed he was asking about that. However he also wanted to know about having a moon orbiting a tidally locked planet with a spin, but orbiting it on the same plane as the planet orbited the star, such that the moon would pass over the poles of the planet.. From my understanding of things, it's possible, but unlikely.

 

[skepticalbip]

I know most tidally locked planets have a spin as well. I assumed he was asking about that. However he also wanted to know about having a moon orbiting a tidally locked planet with a spin, but orbiting it on the same plane as the planet orbited the star, such that the moon would pass over the poles of the planet.. From my understanding of things, it's possible, but unlikely.

I don't see that it is possible if I understand your description correctly.

Essentially your description seems to mean that you could have a tidally locked planet with its axis of rotation in the plane of its orbital plane. Gyroscopes can't work that way.

Although you can certainly have a planet with its axis of rotation in its orbital plane, it would not be tidally locked.