Your phrasing and writing style are a little erratic, so perhaps that's why you're not getting a good response elsewhere. You might do more editing before you post if you'd like to get taken more seriously. But I think the questions are reasonable ones.

Neither of your questions can be fully answered. Until we've seen a bunch of kinds of life, it will be hard to generalize. It's like trying to theorize about languages in general if you've only ever heard one. It's a lot easier to think about if you have a bunch of examples.

Regarding the first bit, I understand that's a topic of quite a bit of disagreement. Early AI pursued a brain-in-a-jar approach, implying that physicality was irrelevant. Others differ. If you dig up the great documentary "Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control" you can see robot scientist Rodney Brooks talking about how intelligence and embodiment are very much related. (Since he went on to found iRobot, he's clearly no slouch.) I haven't kept up, but I'm sure there's a lot of interesting work that's still being done in this area.

Regarding the different bases for life, again, we can't say. There's been a lot of speculation of other ways life could be, but we've only got one kind to look at so far, and it's pretty hard to just go and check out a few thousand other planets to see what has cropped up.