Editing Talk:2462: NASA Award

Jump to: navigation, search
Ambox notice.png Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 6: Line 6:
 
Ironically, while many of us are still holding out for visible space fauna, practically every test we've constructed to check for the biochemical ''signs'' of life has returned positive results. Even as far back as the Viking landers, we've been sending out probes & conducting tests, designed to detect trace compositions ''only known to form via biological processes'', & over & over we find those traces right where one would expect. From otherwise inexplicably high methane production, to complex sugars forming around a distant star, it often appears that the universe may be ''teeming'' with life, & we simply haven't collected it somewhere so observable as a petri dish, yet. As near as I can tell, the only reason we haven't declared "extraterrestrial life confirmed" is because we keep raising the bar for proving it. At this rate, I feel like we could discover martian sunflowers & honeybees, & somehow there would still be some question of "Yeah, but are they really truly technically & inarguably ''alive'', exactly? What is life, anyway?" ... So far, I'm not aware of many chemical tests performed to check for signs of life in space which ''didn't'' detect signs of life?  
 
Ironically, while many of us are still holding out for visible space fauna, practically every test we've constructed to check for the biochemical ''signs'' of life has returned positive results. Even as far back as the Viking landers, we've been sending out probes & conducting tests, designed to detect trace compositions ''only known to form via biological processes'', & over & over we find those traces right where one would expect. From otherwise inexplicably high methane production, to complex sugars forming around a distant star, it often appears that the universe may be ''teeming'' with life, & we simply haven't collected it somewhere so observable as a petri dish, yet. As near as I can tell, the only reason we haven't declared "extraterrestrial life confirmed" is because we keep raising the bar for proving it. At this rate, I feel like we could discover martian sunflowers & honeybees, & somehow there would still be some question of "Yeah, but are they really truly technically & inarguably ''alive'', exactly? What is life, anyway?" ... So far, I'm not aware of many chemical tests performed to check for signs of life in space which ''didn't'' detect signs of life?  
 
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 08:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 08:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
βˆ’
:The ultimate test for life is if it tries to prove that you are alive. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 
  
 
Ponytail gives a rock as a prize, but tells Hairy that from an angle it can look like a Nobel. She is using the same semantics when people look at Mars photos and recognize structures or figures in oddly shape rocks. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.131|162.158.158.131]] 09:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 
Ponytail gives a rock as a prize, but tells Hairy that from an angle it can look like a Nobel. She is using the same semantics when people look at Mars photos and recognize structures or figures in oddly shape rocks. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.131|162.158.158.131]] 09:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Line 13: Line 12:
 
When I was a kid I thought Mount Rushmore was a natural formation. Actually, I'm ashamed to admit how old I was when I realized it _wasn't_ one. Now I know that I can blame "Pareidolia." [[User:Gbisaga|Gbisaga]] ([[User talk:Gbisaga|talk]]) 13:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 
When I was a kid I thought Mount Rushmore was a natural formation. Actually, I'm ashamed to admit how old I was when I realized it _wasn't_ one. Now I know that I can blame "Pareidolia." [[User:Gbisaga|Gbisaga]] ([[User talk:Gbisaga|talk]]) 13:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 
:That actually sounds like the OPPOSITE of pareidolia, whatever one would call such a thing. (The interwebs suggest it might be a form of prosopagnosia, or "face blindness", whereby you would fail to see the obvious familiar face(s) as something familiar...)[[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 16:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 
:That actually sounds like the OPPOSITE of pareidolia, whatever one would call such a thing. (The interwebs suggest it might be a form of prosopagnosia, or "face blindness", whereby you would fail to see the obvious familiar face(s) as something familiar...)[[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 16:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
βˆ’
::No, face blindness would be something completely different. What happened is that Gbisaga was aware of pareidolia (despite not knowing the word for it) and based on that knowledge was suspicious even to cases which were not result of pareidolia. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 
  
 
Someone should update the description to include the recent "discovery" of mushrooms on mars.
 
Someone should update the description to include the recent "discovery" of mushrooms on mars.

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)