Archive for janeiro 24th, 2012

O Robot Curiosity Vai a Marte Procurar a Vida Que Cientistas Tentam Definir da Terra. Assista o Debate!

terça-feira, janeiro 24th, 2012

O debate, com nossa participação, continua acontecendo em:


O projeto mais ambicioso da NASA, de 2,5 billions de dolares, foi lançado: o robot denominado Curiosity será levado ao solo de Marte para procurar Vida. Porem existe um problema, semelhante ao que aconteceu outro dia com a Dilma.

Dilma Roussef telefonou altas horas da noite para o agente secreto 000 e disse:

– “Arrume a mala correndo e pegue o primeiro avião para Londres. Sua missão: procurar êsse ou essa porcaria que chamam de Vladzolin”
– “Ok, chefe, é pra já…”
Desembarcando em Londres o agente liga para a Dilma:
– “Chefe, agora me lembrei que esquecí de perguntar quem é ou o que é Vladzolin…?”
– “Ora, eu já nem entendo o que é a minha vida, vou lá saber o que é isso? Procure Vladzolin e pronto!”

Coitado do agente 000 !

Foi um pedido do departamento cientifico que tinha decifrado manuscritos antigos dizendo que os magos resolveram todos os problemas da Vida e ganharam todas as guerras usando vladzolin, mas em nenhum lugar se explica o que é isso.

O problema do Curiosity é parecido: mandaram êle a Marte procurar por Vida mas não lhe explicaram o que é Vida. Porque podemos ter uma idéia do que é a vida terrestre mas quando pensamos astronomicamente ficamos confusos. Enquanto o Curiosity está lá desembarcando, cientistas e pensadores aqui estão correndo contra o tempo debatendo o que é vida para encontrar uma definição e avisar o Curiosity.

Senão, daqui a cinquenta anos vai ter uma cena esquisita em Marte. No solo desconhecido do silencioso planeta um robot se arrasta gritando: “Ei…alguem aqui? Alguem pode me explicar o que é Vida? Meus deuses que me criaram me disseram que minha missão é encontrar a Vida. Por favor, me ajudem!”

Coitado, pobre Curiosity…

E é isto que mais interessa agora a nós, da Matrix/DNA , que está testando seu conceito sôbre o que é Vida, e vem bem a calhar o artigo de Carl Zimmer no Science20.Com, que está fomentando um debate nos comentários postados: êle fala da história e evolução da busca por uma definição da Vida. Abaixo vai o link para quem quiser ler e assistir o desenrolar do debate, e um comentário que enviei para participar.

Can Science Define Life In Three Words?
By Carl Zimmer | January 11th 2012 08:31 PM


Curiosity rover: Will it know life if it finds it? Courtesy: NASA


Meu Comentário:

Louis Morelli: 16/01/2012

Curiosity will search for biological life. But it could be equipped for searching non-biological life also, in places at Mars’ surface that there is not liquid state for chemical reactions. And we can make these equipments.

How Nature created life? There was – at 10 billion years ago – a unique kind of astronomical body resulted from the aggregation of primordial atoms. This body was being transformed by a physical force that came from the spectrum of light, and we call this law as “life’s cycles”. The life’s cycle makes that a body has transformations of shapes, then, the seven principal shapes were planets, pulsar, quasar, comet, supernova, red giant, black hole. The Universe was populated by these shapes. The next step is the same that human beings created the familiar system, by symbioses. Seven shapes aligned in the same sequence of a body under life’s cycle, then Nature got a system.
I designed this system and discovered that it has all life’s processes in a mechanic way.

But this system was created only with the solid and gaseous state of matter, where there is no organic chemistry. Attacked by entropy and fragmented in its bits-information, if these bits fall in a place where there is the liquid state, they reproduces the astronomic system in a biological fashion. It is nanotechnology, that’s the explanation of microbial life.
I am alone testing this model because nobody, neither me, can believe in it. But, it was made 30 years ago, and the following scientific discoveries matches with its previsions. Then I am looking for scientific data, and collecting thousands of evidences.

If the secret behind life’s origins lies in this model, there is no way to define life, as postulated by Gödel’s theorem: no one can define a system from inside the system. We are inside a cosmological system that seems alive.

I have extracted the circuit of both systems – biological and astronomical – and discovered that it has the same configuration of nucleotides. It means that astronomical systems have DNA also, or in another words: every natural system has a Matrix/DNA. Then, Curiosity shall be equipped with a template of this model of Matrix for to search for life that does not use organic chemistry.


Comentários importantes:


T’omm J’Onzz

Lt. Commander Data: What about fire?
Doctor Beverly Crusher: Fire?
Lt. Commander Data: Yes. It consumes fuel to produce energy, it grows, it creates offspring. By your definition, is it alive? Doctor Beverly Crusher: Fire is a chemical reaction. You could use the same argument for growing crystals, but obviously we don’t consider them alive.

— Star Trek: The Next Generation; “Quality of Life”


and what about a person or animal or plant where the reproductive system is defective and it cannot self-replicate? is that being not alive?

and the end of that scene from STNG:

Lt. Commander Data: I am curious as to what transpired between the moment when I was nothing more than an assemblage of parts in Dr. Soong’s laboratory, and the next moment, when I became alive. What is it that endowed me with life? Doctor Beverly Crusher: I remember Wesley asking me a similar question when he was little, and I tried desperately to give him an answer. But everything I said sounded inadequate. Then I realized that scientists and philosophers have been grappling with that question for centuries without coming to any conclusion.
Lt. Commander Data: Are you saying the question cannot be answered?
Doctor Beverly Crusher: No – I think I’m saying that we struggle all our lives to answer it, that it’s the struggle that is important. That’s what helps us to define our place in the universe.
#1.1 – Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:14 PM EST


John Mack

Data in STTNG was alive because he was conscious. It is that single property that separates life from non-life. Even the smallest one-celled creatures are conscious of their environment and react to it. Ever watch an amoeba encounter an object and decide whether to eat it or not? How does it know? How does a paramecium decide to travel one way or another? Plants are responsive to their environment, perhaps even to the point of perceiving emotions.

There is no way to comprehend what life is without understanding consciousness. It is the key to understanding everything. Where does it come from? When does it start? What causes it to end, or does it ever do either? Are our physical bodies just some temporary manifestation of an individual consciousness that is shed when we “die”? How can people dream up stuff that has never existed before?



As to the question of what is life, I don’t think there is an easy answer. Take for example a virus. Is it alive or not. Is a virus alive only when infecting a cell and not alive if frozen in a lab? If an organic RNA or DNA virus is alive, what about a complex computer virus? At present, human embryos can be frozen for extended amounts of time. While frozen, they do not grow, take in nutrients, or excrete, is a frozen embryo alive?

I think that life as we know it, is a self replicating group of molecules with the capacity to evolve. The evolution part eliminates fire and crystals.)
#1.14 – Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:24 PM EST


John Mack, your definition of “consciousness” seems overly broad to me. You argue that an amoeba should be considered conscious because it senses and responds to it’s environment. However, amoeba are not self-aware, which is generally considered to be one of the hallmarks of consciousness.

Plants also sense and respond to their environments, as several people have described above. Their phototropism gives them the ability to “sense” the sunlight and move toward it, but this is not really the result of consciousness on the part of the plant. It is related to photosynthetic rates and water retention within the cells. Plants are certainly alive, but are they conscious? If you agree that they are, perhaps you might be Buddhist or Jainist in your philosophical outlook.

But back to animals and consciousness… one of the key tests of consciousness in animals is whether or not they recognize themselves in a mirror. Elephants and dolphins always do. Cats and dogs, not so much. They mostly respond to the image in the mirror as if it were another animal that might represent either a threat or a playmate. With elephants and dolphins repeated tests have been done with tags or colored pieces of paper attached to the animals shoulder, or whatever, and when they see themselves in the mirror, they almost immediately take action to remove the tag, “Oh, what’s that on my shoulder?” The concept of ‘my shoulder’ and a recognizable response to it being the important marker in the test. Again, dogs and cats don’t respond the same way.

Now then, all that said, I wouldn’t argue that my wonderful pets are completely unconscious beings, they are simply just not fully self-conscious, which brings us to DATA, on Star Trek. The interesting case with Data, and all other science fiction cyborgs, or cybernetic organisms, for that matter, including the Terminator, is that they are self-conscious. They are a marvelous (and of course fictional) combination of a self-aware computer “brain” and some form of techbical/biological body construct, often with supposedly living skin and flesh supported by a metallic skeleton. But are they alive?

This is the question. Data seems to believe himself to be alive. He certainly is self-conscious. Is he capable of self-replicating? Maybe not on his own, or even in tandem with a possible Dadette partner, but given an army of clones of himself, enough to build a factory in order to construct and program more, then we might say that he was capable of self-replication. Interesting ideas…

Other things to consider… an automobile consumes fuel, excretes exhaust, and moves on it’s own power, but I think we’d all agree that a car is not alive. (Yet)

So to respond to Skip’s challenge:

Metabolizing, reproducing & evolving.

Does that cover it?


Why not a more scientific definition of life as “a continuous chemical reaction that started and continuously branches off more like chemical reactions.”

After all, you cannot get life from something that is dead. So, somewhere on this planet life (the chemical reaction) started and has been going on ever since. And, life is not spontaneous generation…so there was one point long long ago that life began, caused by something, and so far, we have no evidence that life ever started again in another place or time in the past…so life is continuous from when life first began and everything on this planet stems from the first instance of life…when the chemical reaction began.

Kind of makes you become philosophical…of why life does not just emerge out of nothing if it did so once in the past…why did it only happen once on this planet? Since life does not just spontaneously generate when you have CHNOPS together (Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus, and Sulfur) as the late Carl Sagan demonstrated in his Cosmos show…what energy was added that assembled life and began that continuous chemical reaction?

Resposta da Matrix: Primeiro, lembre que não concordamos com o conceito usual de “Vida”. Trocamos esta palavra por “sistema biológico” O primeiro sisttema no Universo surgiu com algo sendo invadido pela luz. os sistemas biológicos surgiram com a Matrix no estado astronomico trazida pela luz e invadindo os atomos da Terra. Reações quimicas organicas foram possíveis pela primeira vez porque aqui havia mais um estado da matéria, o liquido.


So, somewhere on this planet life (the chemical reaction) started and has been going on ever since. And, life is not spontaneous generation…

I’m with you on this, although your definition is hardly one that would catch-on lol.

I’m not sure exactly why people have no problem with the idea of other things always having existed, in one form or another, but not life….

I think that life (ie the seeds of life) are just another intrinsic property of the Universe, developed through natural processes like how gold comes out of supernovas, or iron is produced in the center of a star. It just takes that right combination of factors to ‘create’ it.

Matrix: Grande! Êste guy captou o cerne da coisa!

And – much like alchemists of old trying to create gold from lead…. trying to recreate life from its initial elements isn’t easy either.
#2.7 – Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:32 AM EST


Louis Morelli

I think that life (ie the seeds of life) are just another intrinsic property of the Universe, developed through natural processes like how gold comes out of supernovas, or iron is produced in the center of a star. It just takes that rightcombination of factors to ‘create’ it.

This is the most rational thought in my opinion. No appeals
to supernatural, neither the easy position of emergences from random. But, you
must convey that the state of the world as described by currently astronomic
theory moments before beginning the first chemical reactions that triggered
life does not explain the forces and process in that chemical reactions. It is
not like iron is produced in the center of a star. And once produced, iron does
not follow the any properties in the course of life. This is the problem at the center of Stanley/Miller
experiment: why those amino acids do not performs the next step to proteins and
so on?

To me is clear that in the primordial soup there was
something else, something as a hidden variable. But it must came from the state
of the world before that. What is this thing that our modern knowledge cannot
see in the Cosmos?

As naturalist philosopher interested in natural systems I
was in Amazon jungle applying the method of comparative anatomy between living
and non-0living systems, then, the astronomic systems were forced into my
exercise. For to fit the initial conditions for having a living system, the
astronomic and atomic theoretical models need some improvement, and trying it,
suddenly the creator of life showed his face. It is all about natural forces
but the world is more complex than we think it is. Maybe the new theoretical models
are not right or no complete, but it is very good food for thought.



I think the answer lies in cladistics. That is by determining the respective characteristics that are not shared between life and non-life. For example, fire has some characteristics of life, but does not have or pass on a genetic code. It does not evolve. It is a physical phenomenon. The same holds with crystallization. In contrast, a virus has a genetic code and does evolve


#33 – Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:38 PM EST

Membranas Vesiculares Fechadas: Nova evidência para Matrix/DNA Theory

terça-feira, janeiro 24th, 2012

O texto abaixo me fêz perceber que o aparecimento de vesiculas nas origens da Vida foi mera reprodução do “aparecimento” da aureóla de poeira estelar contendo um vórtice nas origens da galáxia. É o que chamam de “horizonte de eventos”. O tema suscita muitas questões, inclusive filosóficas e deixo-o aqui registrado para voltar quando o tempo permitir. O texto abaixo é de um post-comentário no artigo:

Can Science Define Life In Three Words?


Thor Russell ..
Thor Russell | 01/21/12 | 21:49 PM

OK I can’t pass up that kind of a challenge …Firstly what do you classify as life? Presumably a prion isn’t, a cellular virus is, what about a computer virus that can modify its own code?
Its not known how life began, but a definition of life must give sensible answers to different proposed processes. One I personally find interesting (compared to the replicator starting first) is that the boundary came first “closed, membrane vesicles” as they are called.

I can’t remember the steps in detail unfortunately but lets go with what i have, and you tell me exactly when chemistry becomes life.
1. The vesicles are essentially stable bubbles, made up of a phospholipid bilayer. These can form naturally, grow naturally in the right environment divide into two because of surface tension effects I think. Now as I said I don’t think it makes sense to make a binary on/off decision about what is life, because unless it starts suddenly it makes sense to describe the steps in terms of a progression. I would not call these vesicles alive, but label them as the beginning of a potential process from which it could start.

2. Vesicles that are porous enough to let long thin molecules through are more successful than those that don’t, because those molecules clump together when inside to give structure. These vesicles out-compete the other type. Alive or not?

3. Sometimes crystal-like molecules that can grow by themselves are assimilated into the vesicle. These provide more consistent structure than just random molecules. Vesicles that let these ones through specifically are more successful than those that just let anything through. The crystals and vesicles are now dependent on each other for their successful proliferation. This is looking a lot like “independent spontaneous cooperation” now isn’t it? Surely if you insist on this definition and a binary yes/no for life then this system is now alive.

However the system described is also clearly less life-like than a complete living cell with DNA. I argue that a clear yes/no answer for what is life is not possible or desirable and that your particular definition while definitely useful and thought provoking does not always give the correct answer.