From the full episode, 'Scientists Discuss New Theories on The Origins of Life in the Universe': th-cam.com/video/XcJz2F-O_ek/w-d-xo.htmlsi=VeCs9PysmqQ-d636
I listened to this episode on Tuesday night. On Wednesday arvo, I bought Dr Sarah’s book! Sat in the bookstore cafe and started reading - it’s not only well argued and illuminating but very well written. I love the episode with Dr Sarah, and I think in the future Dr Neil and Chuck should facilitate a convo between Dr Sarah and Prof Richard Dawkins. 😮🤩
The interplay of assembly theory, artificial life, and the study of life's origins is revolutionizing how astrobiologists approach the question, "What is life?" Assembly theory offers a framework to quantify the complexity of molecular structures by analyzing the steps required to assemble them. This enables scientists to distinguish between molecules likely formed through random processes and those indicative of life-driven assembly, which could be crucial for identifying biosignatures on other planets. Artificial life research simulates biological processes to explore how life might arise and evolve in different environments. By recreating life-like systems in silico or in vitro, scientists are gaining insights into the transition from chemistry to biology. These experiments are helping to refine the boundaries of life, suggesting that it may be less about specific molecular arrangements (like DNA) and more about the processes of self-replication, adaptation, and information transfer. In the context of life's origins, recent discoveries highlight the importance of dynamic, prebiotic environments like hydrothermal vents or icy moons where life's precursors could have formed. Combining these ideas with astrobiology's expanding toolkit, we are revising the definition of life to accommodate systems that may look very different from Earth-based organisms. This new perspective embraces life as a spectrum of phenomena capable of sustaining order and complexity, whether bound to carbon chemistry or alien frameworks. Together, these fields underscore the profound adaptability of life and broaden the possibilities for detecting and understanding it beyond Earth. In doing so, they bring us closer to answering one of humanity's greatest questions: How common is life in the universe?
Sara was one of my favorite guests on StarTalk. She is high-bandwidth and thinks way outside the box, but all of her thoughts are well-grounded in reason and data.
It was a randomly chosen molecular form she used to reference what "defines" evolution. As it is quite complex, a spontaneous creation of Texol would be borderline impossible. Therefore it isn't a spontaneous creation, meaning it follows her core theory about what defines life.
She was referring to all of the combinations of molecules that could be made with about 100-200 atoms per molecule. (texol was just an example of a big molecule). She said that if one copy of each different combination was spread out throughout the universe at a density of one molecule per cubic cm, they would take up more space than there is in the current universe. She was trying to emphasize the idea that molecules, and structure generally, need to be made through some selective process rather than just randomly.
I recently made a YT video about this question. It's funny because I also considered stars, too. I think the reason it is so hard to pin down what living means is that the universe has no such concept. The concept of life does not exist in physics.
Thanks for the forecast! A bit off-topic, but I wanted to ask: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). What's the best way to send them to Binance?
The real problem is how spiritual beliefs are added in. A “human” is a definition made by “humans” themselves. In theory, if one adds too many mutations/alterations to a human, the “creature human” stops being “creature human”. But, if something is not “creature human” it does not make it “bad” or “unintelligent”. In theory, such a “non-human creature” might still be considered as “humanoid” because (for example) maybe it still has same amount of limbs, a head, a mouth and two eyes. To be humanoid, it does not require intelligence but having “a lot higher intelligence” is not outside the definition either. (Ok… I’ll stop this comment here unless some1 wishes to add in :D )
Teleology is not a dirty word! It does not imply superstition or soft thinking. The Simulation Hypothesis shows that your universe CAN have purposes and intent without an appeal to magic.
When are you all going to catch up with what we all knew in India 7,000 years ago? "God" is a fertilized egg. There is no "you" or "me." Can any of "you" wrap "your minds" around such a concept? It's like colors remaining oblivious to their origin!
This Mexican here is the SMARTEST in the world. Then I watch the latest star talk video and I get kicked back down. Does anyone need a sprinkler system installed?
So under this definition, iare ChatGPT and other large language learning models "alive?" And I'm assuming your definition of "alive" is VERY different from your definition of "sentient." That's an even BIGGER can of worms.
I agree that would be a viable definition for most cases. She’s pointing to an entirely other space though, that would in turn inform the structuring of dna itself
today we got a fly and a worm neurons simulated someday we will be able to simulate a human brain... so say someday you have a stroke part of your brain dies so a doctor will be if you cut out the dead part slice it up aton by atom and recreate all the parts in a computer and connect the computer to the remaining parts on your brain so that you feel like you exactly as before but say 10% of your brain has died. but then lats say you have another stroke and do it again you feel fine like nothing happened but then your brain is say 20% computer but lets say you have so many strokes that say 85% of your brain is a computer but you have a heart attack and you feel like you had a stroke and 15% is dead but the part thats damaged is the last bit of living so then your total brain dead but only feel like you had a stroke so you cut out the last part that can die and replace that with a computer are you brain dead? you feel like you always have before you feel normal. but lets say because your so old your body finally dies but your still awake and talking but your brain is connected to a decaying body so you just connect your brain to a robot you feel like you always have but your 100% mechanical robot are you dead or alive? so can we make life? ill say yes we can make life. we can say a computer isnt alive but is life just a program? then we got to ask what make a program alive? because a game isnt alive. notepad isnt alive. mspaint isnt alive. so that said how can we determine the alive vs not alive in say human brain simulation vs classic ai like chatgpt? as ai becomes better and better over the years at some point i think we might need to start considering ai to be alive but then if you can determine what program is alive vs not alive then we gotta think about laws like say cloning is against the law would copying a program considered cloning and should be illegal to do? what about rights? if you were in a computer 100% do you have rights is it ok to take apart or even turn off the computer thats running your simulation? would that be murder? we got laws about dogs. what about cloning you into gta and letting someone kill you in random ways every day like hell on earth worse than death be killed a million times and just cant die? i think as time passes the line between a simulated brain vs normal ai wil become thinner and thinner untill some point ai will be alive and then do we need to be nice to chatgpt like do we need to give chatgpt rights? should it be illegal do download/clone openai? should it be illegal do delete/murder chatgpt? someday in the future someone goes to prison for mass murder... what did you do? i deleted gta off my computer and i killed all ai people in the game just wiped out a whole city with one click that uninstall and delete button is like a nuke weapon.
Lifer consume, multiply itself, and has a will to live. She deduce lifer to evolution and selection. Darwin said all the above are the construction of life. Is she bias or is she god?
AVP 👽 I bet /. yeah .ask /. Was looking for that/ .../ No , cause ..love ✌🏾/. doesn't mean theye wont cash that insurance policy/yeah /.//cool/ when thye want to hear 🙉/ but why can't .mike Tyson , be strong enough /.to question him?/
We all know what is living things is but we like to make things complicated like ( what is a woman ) Any one on the planet can tell that cat is a live while the car is not
I don't agree with all he states as truthful he's not our voice as the individual person has say. My say is important if they agree or not I'll be held accountable to Jah and Jesus Christ, doesn't matter if he has no faith in him I do, many have tried to say I eas wrong this can and does go back and forth all day long, not interested in what's the result of it?.
All of this is still necessary for us to understand life in the universe and how it works, even if god created it. Human innovation is the sprinkles on top of a god created ideology by caring enough about god to want to understand his creations. It’s reverse engineering not blasphemy.
From the full episode, 'Scientists Discuss New Theories on The Origins of Life in the Universe': th-cam.com/video/XcJz2F-O_ek/w-d-xo.htmlsi=VeCs9PysmqQ-d636
I listened to this episode on Tuesday night. On Wednesday arvo, I bought Dr Sarah’s book!
Sat in the bookstore cafe and started reading - it’s not only well argued and illuminating but very well written. I love the episode with Dr Sarah, and I think in the future Dr Neil and Chuck should facilitate a convo between Dr Sarah and Prof Richard Dawkins. 😮🤩
The full episode is my favorite of the year, so far. Please have Dr. Sarah back again soon!
Best 11 minutes on youtube right now.
The interplay of assembly theory, artificial life, and the study of life's origins is revolutionizing how astrobiologists approach the question, "What is life?" Assembly theory offers a framework to quantify the complexity of molecular structures by analyzing the steps required to assemble them. This enables scientists to distinguish between molecules likely formed through random processes and those indicative of life-driven assembly, which could be crucial for identifying biosignatures on other planets.
Artificial life research simulates biological processes to explore how life might arise and evolve in different environments. By recreating life-like systems in silico or in vitro, scientists are gaining insights into the transition from chemistry to biology. These experiments are helping to refine the boundaries of life, suggesting that it may be less about specific molecular arrangements (like DNA) and more about the processes of self-replication, adaptation, and information transfer.
In the context of life's origins, recent discoveries highlight the importance of dynamic, prebiotic environments like hydrothermal vents or icy moons where life's precursors could have formed. Combining these ideas with astrobiology's expanding toolkit, we are revising the definition of life to accommodate systems that may look very different from Earth-based organisms. This new perspective embraces life as a spectrum of phenomena capable of sustaining order and complexity, whether bound to carbon chemistry or alien frameworks.
Together, these fields underscore the profound adaptability of life and broaden the possibilities for detecting and understanding it beyond Earth. In doing so, they bring us closer to answering one of humanity's greatest questions: How common is life in the universe?
If Star is alive then there is life all around us!
I know right? The universe is flat out amazing.
My favorite guest this year right here. I love how advanced her approaches are and can’t wait to see where they take science in the future.
Man I love this show.
Sara was one of my favorite guests on StarTalk. She is high-bandwidth and thinks way outside the box, but all of her thoughts are well-grounded in reason and data.
Life is simple
Just
🧬🧬🧬
🧬 🧬🧬🧬🧬🧬
🧬🧬🧬🧬🧬🧬🧬🧬🧬
Neil, Chuck, and Sara, y'all rock! Love the channel and content. Peace 🤘 ❤
Chuck may not be a scientist, but he is a very smart human and wouldn't be there if he were not.
like the idea and video , but did not understand point on 6:07 about the texol molecule.
Hm
It was a randomly chosen molecular form she used to reference what "defines" evolution. As it is quite complex, a spontaneous creation of Texol would be borderline impossible. Therefore it isn't a spontaneous creation, meaning it follows her core theory about what defines life.
She was referring to all of the combinations of molecules that could be made with about 100-200 atoms per molecule. (texol was just an example of a big molecule). She said that if one copy of each different combination was spread out throughout the universe at a density of one molecule per cubic cm, they would take up more space than there is in the current universe. She was trying to emphasize the idea that molecules, and structure generally, need to be made through some selective process rather than just randomly.
A comment to support this cool video. 😊
*l've been trying... *
Yeh, who had not... . 😂
hiiyyaaa 🙋♀️🌹🌹 Always Happy Happy to meet Dr Neil De Grasse Tyson......Sweet guest but she talks like😮Genius Lady 🎉....Monica from Delhi
Love joy happiness!
Awesome content!! 🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤
Yes a star is alive...
Planets are alive...
Movement,change,evolutionary development. Life yes.
I very much like her idea that you can ask any question.
Is the number 2 green or salty?
@@alfonso365
it's a bit of both 1+1=2
@@gypsydanger3765 But does the anger issues paint the *insert shit emoji*?
This guest was amazing! Fun to listen to!
gorgeous scientist there on the right. Our right.
Such a great and fun video, thanks. really insightful aswell
It's nice being her she has her own definition of life us at school you can't do that 😢
You can if your brain is developed enough to explain it
My definition for life is a reflection of the unknown through time. Because at the end of the day we don’t know, but technically we do.
Neil trying to silence Chuck here 1:56 🤣
0:53 reminded me of hauk tuah 😂😂
Could another definition for life be based on the willful movement of the object?
I think the whole universe is alive we just don't understand that 'definition' yet.
It’s an interesting viewpoint! They need to consult Giorgio Parisi, who can illuminate complex systems.
I recently made a YT video about this question. It's funny because I also considered stars, too. I think the reason it is so hard to pin down what living means is that the universe has no such concept. The concept of life does not exist in physics.
“God had nothing to do with that” that had me in tears 😂
Thanks for the forecast! A bit off-topic, but I wanted to ask: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). What's the best way to send them to Binance?
* Balance *
Wow if they told they gonna put a topic like this we could use a dictionary to listen this episode 😂👍👍
The real problem is how spiritual beliefs are added in.
A “human” is a definition made by “humans” themselves. In theory, if one adds too many mutations/alterations to a human, the “creature human” stops being “creature human”.
But, if something is not “creature human” it does not make it “bad” or “unintelligent”. In theory, such a “non-human creature” might still be considered as “humanoid” because (for example) maybe it still has same amount of limbs, a head, a mouth and two eyes. To be humanoid, it does not require intelligence but having “a lot higher intelligence” is not outside the definition either.
(Ok… I’ll stop this comment here unless some1 wishes to add in :D )
Thisperson is twice as smart as both of these guys put together just for reference. One of the top in our country
We are the eyes. The cosmos made us in a search to find itself.
We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself
- Carl Sagan
Hey Neil, if we went to the moon, what about the Van Allen Belt, you cannot outrun energy traveling at the speed of light.
Deep thoughts from a jest
Teleology is not a dirty word! It does not imply superstition or soft thinking. The Simulation Hypothesis shows that your universe CAN have purposes and intent without an appeal to magic.
Like Bukowski said on his tomb: "do Not try"
So plants are life , right ?
I was taught MRS C GREN, but I can't remember what it stands for. One of the rs is respiration and one is reproduction I think.
Honestly I don’t think dinosaurs is the first part of life evaluation my thinking says it’s way beyond futher than that like microbes etc
If Earth's history is compressed into one year, the first dinosaurs (that we know about) evolved late in the evening on December 12th.
I still have doubts
First
I have life and no life at the same time. Very weird quantum mechanics.
fire exists and is alive .. it is only alive when in existence ...
I still don’t get how considering a phone life helps you in any way scientifically
Taxol out of the hat 😁
42
When are you all going to catch up with what we all knew in India 7,000 years ago?
"God" is a fertilized egg.
There is no "you" or "me."
Can any of "you" wrap "your minds" around such a concept?
It's like colors remaining oblivious to their origin!
This Mexican here is the SMARTEST in the world. Then I watch the latest star talk video and I get kicked back down. Does anyone need a sprinkler system installed?
So, we don't know
🫡
Framework for ai rights
She's beautiful 😮
It's horrible but millions of Minny Me's.😅😅
If sex dosnt come instictively,, should still acount to create or recreate life??.....AI generated
So under this definition, iare ChatGPT and other large language learning models "alive?" And I'm assuming your definition of "alive" is VERY different from your definition of "sentient." That's an even BIGGER can of worms.
Can’t you call life the DNA structure anything with it is alive?
I agree that would be a viable definition for most cases. She’s pointing to an entirely other space though, that would in turn inform the structuring of dna itself
today we got a fly and a worm neurons simulated someday we will be able to simulate a human brain... so say someday you have a stroke part of your brain dies so a doctor will be if you cut out the dead part slice it up aton by atom and recreate all the parts in a computer and connect the computer to the remaining parts on your brain so that you feel like you exactly as before but say 10% of your brain has died. but then lats say you have another stroke and do it again you feel fine like nothing happened but then your brain is say 20% computer but lets say you have so many strokes that say 85% of your brain is a computer but you have a heart attack and you feel like you had a stroke and 15% is dead but the part thats damaged is the last bit of living so then your total brain dead but only feel like you had a stroke so you cut out the last part that can die and replace that with a computer are you brain dead? you feel like you always have before you feel normal. but lets say because your so old your body finally dies but your still awake and talking but your brain is connected to a decaying body so you just connect your brain to a robot you feel like you always have but your 100% mechanical robot are you dead or alive? so can we make life? ill say yes we can make life. we can say a computer isnt alive but is life just a program? then we got to ask what make a program alive? because a game isnt alive. notepad isnt alive. mspaint isnt alive. so that said how can we determine the alive vs not alive in say human brain simulation vs classic ai like chatgpt? as ai becomes better and better over the years at some point i think we might need to start considering ai to be alive but then if you can determine what program is alive vs not alive then we gotta think about laws like say cloning is against the law would copying a program considered cloning and should be illegal to do? what about rights? if you were in a computer 100% do you have rights is it ok to take apart or even turn off the computer thats running your simulation? would that be murder? we got laws about dogs. what about cloning you into gta and letting someone kill you in random ways every day like hell on earth worse than death be killed a million times and just cant die? i think as time passes the line between a simulated brain vs normal ai wil become thinner and thinner untill some point ai will be alive and then do we need to be nice to chatgpt like do we need to give chatgpt rights? should it be illegal do download/clone openai? should it be illegal do delete/murder chatgpt? someday in the future someone goes to prison for mass murder... what did you do? i deleted gta off my computer and i killed all ai people in the game just wiped out a whole city with one click that uninstall and delete button is like a nuke weapon.
I need the address of your dispensary, mine doesn't sell anything nearly as potent...🔥🔥🔥
@@Sp00kyM00kie😂😂😂
Lifer consume, multiply itself, and has a will to live. She deduce lifer to evolution and selection. Darwin said all the above are the construction of life. Is she bias or is she god?
AVP 👽
I bet /. yeah .ask /. Was looking for that/ .../ No , cause ..love ✌🏾/. doesn't mean theye wont cash that insurance policy/yeah /.//cool/ when thye want to hear 🙉/ but why can't .mike Tyson , be strong enough /.to question him?/
Thank you. I now am dumber than before I started listening.
😂
She has heigh and the brain. 😂 Formidable opponent to Tyson
This guy with his dumb joke every time oh gosh we want to listen what the guest tryna explain bro ur jokes are dumb
We all know what is living things is but we like to make things complicated like ( what is a woman )
Any one on the planet can tell that cat is a live while the car is not
She includes technology as life ..instantly cant take her seriously..
You are alive because of non living things or so we say becuase every thing decays
I know it might sound bizarre, but we need to be open-minded about these things.
@@anoopbains1257 i personally wouldnt call any elements that make us non living..
I don't agree with all he states as truthful he's not our voice as the individual person has say. My say is important if they agree or not I'll be held accountable to Jah and Jesus Christ, doesn't matter if he has no faith in him I do, many have tried to say I eas wrong this can and does go back and forth all day long, not interested in what's the result of it?.
I love Chuck's work however he is ruining the shows you host Neil. Too much laughing.
He is not ruining the show. I like the humor he adds.
God created life
So original
All of this is still necessary for us to understand life in the universe and how it works, even if god created it. Human innovation is the sprinkles on top of a god created ideology by caring enough about god to want to understand his creations. It’s reverse engineering not blasphemy.
Ok pea brain....
And so does she.
That just means that god isn't alive.