Thread: Which came first the Silicon or the Carbon?

Silicon has very similar valency to Carbon, so much so that Silicon
life forms are entirely possible.
Baudrillard hypothesised that we are part of a simulacrum, - a copy of
a copy that is unique in its own right.

The question is, did Carbon create Silicon or vice versa, or is this all
part of one big cycle?

Research Nucleosynthesis. It says that all atoms are constructing by fusion reactions in stars.

You'll find your answers there.

And Carbon and Silicon are very different from one another.

What if we went under the assumption that nothing existed
outside of conciousness and that eventually computers would
simulate life and that those simulations would be detailed enough
in history and scope to rival human history.

Information wise, all of conciousness ,that we know of, probably
amounts to a few terabytes, is all.

edit. I'm refering to the amount of processed information, not
the possibilities.

Originally Posted by thequ1ck

Silicon has very similar valency to Carbon, so much so that Silicon
life forms are entirely possible.
Baudrillard hypothesised that we are part of a simulacrum, - a copy of
a copy that is unique in its own right.

You are making two entirely separate points here, and confusing the issue by placing them in juxtaposition.
Yes, silicon based lifeforms are remotely plausible, but that has no connection with the notion that life is a simulation within a giant computer (silicon chips).

Originally Posted by thequ1ck

The question is, did Carbon create Silicon or vice versa, or is this all part of one big cycle?

Carbon precedes silicon in nucleosynthesis, but you appear to be asking did carbon based life precede silicon based life or vice versa.

Google for the works of Cairns-Smith, who postulates that life (a replicating genetic structure) began as process involving clay minerals (whose backbone is complex silica sheets) onto which organic molecules, the precursors of DNA, became attached.
Also examine the later work of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, who have speculations involving intelligent intervention in the origin of organic life on Earth.

Oh, I didin't realize that was the implication of this post.

Si based life forms are likely not possible due to the limited nature of catenating Si bonds versus that of C. Long story short, trees don't have the cleavage rocks do.

Cairns-Smith would not agree.
Essentially, the idea is that the first organisms were "naked replicators" - rather than cells. A search for the most suitable candidates for naked replicators appears to strongly suggest clay minerals as the most likely players. Other carbon-based alternatives based on carbon compounds appear to be unattractive by comparison.
The crystals grow using conventional crystal growth processes, and divide when mechanical stress causes them to break into pieces.

Information is replicated across the layers of crystals during crystal growth. This information forms the heritable information of the crystals, and acts as the basis for genetic evolution.

Physical aspects of the crystal act as the phenotype, and cause selection to choose between the genotypes

Source:http://originoflife.net/crystals/index.html

Yes, you're right and I appologise for the 'wooley thinking'.

There are several implications here, one that organic life is
actually the creation of Silicon processing, man made or other.
It's all a bit Matrix style and too easy to fall into a circular argument.
(Silicon creates Carbon)

Another is that we are the ghosts in the silicon machine.
That Silicon life-forms, initiated by humans are far more capable of
extending the thousands of years into the future and impacting
the universe enormously. We are simply the precursors to
silicon life.
(Carbon creates Silicon)



[quote="Ophiolite"]You are making two entirely separate points here, and confusing the issue by placing them in juxtaposition.

If I say Marshall McLuhan does it have any resonances for you in this context of silicon versus carbon?

It didn't but then I'd never heard of the guy. Having read a little about
his work now (with thanks for pointing me in this direction), I don't
think it's really relevent to the concept I'm trying to get accross.

The identification of media as a force for social change is maybe a little
too pragmatic for me (hence why I posted in philosophy).

My point is if the 'weight' of conciousness as defined by the 'bulk' of
information processed, continues to grow at the rate of the last thousand
years, then we can expect to have a very diverse and more than likely,
Silicon based conciousnesses on earth within the next few millenium.

This is a phenomenal rate of progress and one cannot help but wonder
if it is due to the next chrystalline stage of Carbon or Silicon.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

If I say Marshall McLuhan does it have any resonances for you in this context of silicon versus carbon?

Sorry. I was being very vague. McCluhan's thesis is best summed up in the phrase The medium is the message.

I wondered if, by focusing on the medium - silicon versus carbon - we were not losing sight of the message - the character of life itself. Just a thought.

And what is the character of life if not metaphor through medium's?

The question is though, are we an echo of another medium , is
it an echo of us or are we a simple harmonic?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Sorry. I was being very vague. McCluhan's thesis is best summed up in the phrase The medium is the message.

I wondered if, by focusing on the medium - silicon versus carbon - we were not losing sight of the message - the character of life itself. Just a thought.

Sorry new did not see date please delete

Originally Posted by thequ1ck

Silicon has very similar valency to Carbon, so much so that Silicon
life forms are entirely possible.

People say this occasionally but, sadly, it ain't true. There are all sorts of reasons why silicon does not have the flexibility of forming the range of compounds that carbon does. It is remotely possible that life could develop around on chemistry that is not carbon-based, but there would not be a single element replacing carbon, rather a complex of different elements playing different roles.

The Carbon if you're referencing the alphabet.

Possibly both of them originate from a common matter

Well, I suppose they are both the results of a series of fusion reactions that start with hydrogen...