Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #487263 > unrolled thread

OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like

Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written

Contents

  OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> - 2018-02-25 19:57 -0800
    Re: OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> - 2018-02-26 10:06 +0000
      Re: OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like Panthera Tigris Altaica <northerntiger@outlook.com> - 2018-02-26 07:42 -0800
        Re: OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-02-26 22:26 -0500
          Re: OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-02-26 21:44 -0800
            Re: Re: OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2018-02-27 20:53 -0600
          Re: OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like Panthera Tigris Altaica <northerntiger@outlook.com> - 2018-02-27 14:35 -0800
            Re: OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-02-27 21:55 -0500
              Re: OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-02-27 21:46 -0800
                Re: OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-02-28 08:27 -0700
              Re: OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-02-27 21:49 -0800
              Re: OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like Panthera Tigris Altaica <northerntiger@outlook.com> - 2018-02-28 07:46 -0800
                Re: OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2018-02-28 11:55 -0800
                Re: OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-02-28 22:19 -0500
                  Re: OT suspected - Here�s what aliens probably look like Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2018-03-01 16:37 +1300
        Re: OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> - 2018-02-27 15:29 -0600
          Re: OT suspected - Here's what aliens probably look like D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-02-28 06:56 +0000
            Re: OT suspected - Here's what aliens probably look like ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2018-02-28 07:18 +0000
              Re: OT suspected - Here's what aliens probably look like D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-02-28 14:53 +0000
            Re: OT suspected - Here's what aliens probably look like Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2018-02-28 00:23 -0800
              Re: OT suspected - Here's what aliens probably look like Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2018-02-28 13:42 +0100
              Re: OT suspected - Here's what aliens probably look like D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-02-28 14:54 +0000
          Re: OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> - 2018-02-28 10:33 -0800
            Re: OT suspected - Here's what aliens probably look like nance@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) - 2018-03-01 14:07 +0000
      Re: OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> - 2018-02-26 10:17 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#487263 — OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like

Here’s what aliens probably look like
By Susannah Cahalan February 24, 2018 | 3:32pm | Updated

The film "Arrival" was about understanding aliens. We already may have 
hints. Paramount Pictures
MORE ON:
ALIENS
Hollywood gets gigantic terrifying aliens all wrong
Scientists figure out a new way to hunt for aliens
Top secret airline that flies into Area 51 is hiring
Everything we learned about (probable) aliens in 2017

We are on the cusp of discovering new technologies that “will take us 
even farther as we explore the planets and the stars” — and lead us 
closer to making contact with alien life, writes Michio Kaku in “The 
Future of Humanity.”

We know that one out of every five stars in the Milky Way galaxy has an 
Earth-like planet orbiting it — which means that there are more than 20 
billion Earth-like planets in our galaxy, according to Kaku. Though 
there are other conditions necessary to creating life (there must be a 
Jupiter-sized neighbor to keep asteroids and debris out of the planet’s 
path and the Earth-like planet requires a moon to stabilize it), there 
seems to be plenty of options out there for life to exist.

The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute, thanks in 
part to funding from Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, devotes 42 
high-powered telescopes to scanning a million stars to listen for alien 
communication.

Last year astronomers sent out a signal from the Norwegian city of 
Tromsø, containing electronic music and information on geometry and 
binary numbers, hoping it will reach ET ears.

Dr. Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute told Kaku that he believes we 
will make contact before 2025, though he upped that number by 10 years 
in a recent article for science magazine The Nautilus.

“I’ve bet a cup of coffee to any and all that by 2035 we’ll have 
evidence of ET,” Shostak wrote. “I’m optimistic by nature — as a 
scientist, you have to be . . . I feel that we’re on the cusp of 
learning something truly revolutionary.”

But what would ETs look like once we finally meet them?

To find out, Kaku interviewed experts in exobiology, a field that 
studies what life might be like in distant worlds with different 
ecosystems. Based on his research, Kaku decided that intelligent alien 
life would have three necessary features:

The aliens, like humans, would have stereo vision, which allows eyes to 
compare images and track distance — a necessary feature in predators, 
who hunt and track their prey. “In all likelihood, intelligent aliens in 
space will have descended from predators that hunted for their food,” 
Kaku writes. “This does not necessarily mean that they will be 
aggressive, but it does mean that their ancestors long ago might have 
been predators. We may be well served to be cautious.”

The aliens would have some form of opposable thumbs or grasping 
appendages, necessary for hunting prey and creating tools (which they 
would have to do to be sophisticated enough to make contact).
They would also need to have language. “In order to hand down and 
accumulate essential information from generation to generation, some 
form of language is crucial,” Kaku writes.

In addition, Kaku theorizes that many alien civilizations will exist on 
ice-covered moons (like Jupiter’s moon Europa or Saturn’s moon 
Enceladus), where life would exist completely underwater. So how would 
an aquatic species become truly intelligent beings?

Kaku takes this thought experiment back to Earth. The one Earth-bound 
underwater animal that nearly fits all the above criteria — stereo 
vision, graspable appendages — is the octopus, he writes. The 
cephalopod, which has survived on Earth for at least 165 million years, 
only lacks language.

On a different planet, however, cephalopods could easily develop 
language — in fact, if conditions changed drastically on Earth, Kaku 
says it could even happen here, too.

“On a distant planet under different conditions, one can imagine that an 
octopus-like creature could develop a language of chirps and whistles so 
it could hunt in packs,” Kaku writes. “One could even imagine that at 
some point in the distant future, evolutionary pressures on Earth could 
force the octopus to develop intelligence. So an intelligent race of 
octopods is certainly a possibility.”

So that’s what we can expect? An intelligent race of octopods, like in 
the movie “Arrival”?

Shudder.

Michio Kaku also writes about mining asteroids for billions of dollars.

FILED UNDER ALIENS ,  LIFE ,  SPACE
SHARE THIS ARTICLE:
FacebookTwitterGoogleEmailCopy


https://nypost.com/2018/02/24/heres-what-aliens-probably-look-like/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#487271

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 19:57:35 -0800, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>The aliens, like humans

"We have one example of intelligent life (not counting cetaceans,
elephants, corvids, cephalopods etc) so we're going to generalise from
that example!"

Sheesh. They need to interview a more interesting class of scientists.

	Cheers - Jaimie
-- 
"What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
simulations involving a sledgehammer and a common laboratory frog,
we can assume it will be pretty bad."                 - Dave Barry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#487277

On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 5:06:29 AM UTC-5, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 19:57:35 -0800, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >The aliens, like humans
> 
> "We have one example of intelligent life (not counting cetaceans,
> elephants, corvids, cephalopods etc) so we're going to generalise from
> that example!"
> 
> Sheesh. They need to interview a more interesting class of scientists.
> 
> 	Cheers - Jaimie
> -- 
> "What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
> simulations involving a sledgehammer and a common laboratory frog,
> we can assume it will be pretty bad."                 - Dave Barry

None of those have hands. Corvids might be able to use their beaks and their feet, but without true hands they'll have serious problems. The article actually mentioned cephalopods, which have even bigger disadvantages than do corvids. First, being under water will be a significant handicap to the development of, among other things, chemistry (and its sidekick metallurgy) and electricity (and its sidekicks electromagnetic fields). Second, they don't have hands either, and tentacles are notably clumsier. Elephants and cetaceans are simply out of the running; an elephant's trunk is just one, very clumsy, tentacle, making them even worse off than cephalopods, and cetaceans don't even have that. No hands equals no hope of developing anything even close to a technical civilisation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#487310 — Re: OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 07:42:20 -0800 (PST), Panthera Tigris Altaica
<northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 5:06:29 AM UTC-5, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 19:57:35 -0800, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >The aliens, like humans
>> 
>> "We have one example of intelligent life (not counting cetaceans,
>> elephants, corvids, cephalopods etc) so we're going to generalise from
>> that example!"
>> 
>> Sheesh. They need to interview a more interesting class of scientists.
>> 
>> 	Cheers - Jaimie
>> -- 
>> "What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
>> simulations involving a sledgehammer and a common laboratory frog,
>> we can assume it will be pretty bad."                 - Dave Barry
>
>None of those have hands. Corvids might be able to use their beaks and their feet, but without true hands they'll have serious problems. The article actually mentioned cephalopods, which have even bigger disadvantages than do corvids. First, being under water will be a significant handicap to the development of, among other things, chemistry (and its sidekick metallurgy) and electricity (and its sidekicks electromagnetic fields). Second, they don't have hands either, and tentacles are notably clumsier. Elephants and cetaceans are simply out of the running; an elephant's trunk is just one, very clumsy, tentacle, making them even worse off than cephalopods, and cetaceans don't even have that. No hands equals no hope of developing anything even close to a technical civilisation.

Watch an elephant use that trunk.  It is both immensely powerful and
very precise.  It is not nearly as clumsy as you believe.  

As for cephalopods and water, octopi have to get wet periodically but
they are quite capable of moving around on land.  Other molluscs do
fine on land so there's no reason that a non-aquatic cephalopod could
not exist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#487321

On 2/26/2018 7:26 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 07:42:20 -0800 (PST), Panthera Tigris Altaica
> <northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 5:06:29 AM UTC-5, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 19:57:35 -0800, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The aliens, like humans
>>>
>>> "We have one example of intelligent life (not counting cetaceans,
>>> elephants, corvids, cephalopods etc) so we're going to generalise from
>>> that example!"
>>>
>>> Sheesh. They need to interview a more interesting class of scientists.
>>>
>>> 	Cheers - Jaimie
>>> -- 
>>> "What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
>>> simulations involving a sledgehammer and a common laboratory frog,
>>> we can assume it will be pretty bad."                 - Dave Barry
>>
>> None of those have hands. Corvids might be able to use their beaks and their feet, but without true hands they'll have serious problems. The article actually mentioned cephalopods, which have even bigger disadvantages than do corvids. First, being under water will be a significant handicap to the development of, among other things, chemistry (and its sidekick metallurgy) and electricity (and its sidekicks electromagnetic fields). Second, they don't have hands either, and tentacles are notably clumsier. Elephants and cetaceans are simply out of the running; an elephant's trunk is just one, very clumsy, tentacle, making them even worse off than cephalopods, and cetaceans don't even have that. No hands equals no hope of developing anything even close to a technical civilisation.
> 
> Watch an elephant use that trunk.  It is both immensely powerful and
> very precise.  It is not nearly as clumsy as you believe.
> 
> As for cephalopods and water, octopi have to get wet periodically but
> they are quite capable of moving around on land.  Other molluscs do
> fine on land so there's no reason that a non-aquatic cephalopod could
> not exist.
> 
Octopi are scary smart.  They have been observed to open screw top jars, 
eat the shell fish inside, put the pieces back in the jar and close it 
again.

-- 
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation 
instinct are running screaming.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#487346

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote in
news:p72r6o$utk$2@dont-email.me: 

> On 2/26/2018 7:26 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 07:42:20 -0800 (PST), Panthera Tigris Altaica
>> <northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 5:06:29 AM UTC-5, Jaimie Vandenbergh
>>> wrote: 
>>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 19:57:35 -0800, a425couple
>>>> <a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote: 
>>>>
>>>>> The aliens, like humans
>>>>
>>>> "We have one example of intelligent life (not counting cetaceans,
>>>> elephants, corvids, cephalopods etc) so we're going to generalise
>>>> from that example!"
>>>>
>>>> Sheesh. They need to interview a more interesting class of
>>>> scientists. 
>>>>
>>>>      Cheers - Jaimie -- 
>>>> "What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
>>>> simulations involving a sledgehammer and a common laboratory frog,
>>>> we can assume it will be pretty bad."                 - Dave Barry 
>>>
>>> None of those have hands. Corvids might be able to use their beaks
>>> and their feet, but without true hands they'll have serious
>>> problems. The article actually mentioned cephalopods, which have
>>> even bigger disadvantages than do corvids. First, being under water
>>> will be a significant handicap to the development of, among other
>>> things, chemistry (and its sidekick metallurgy) and electricity (and
>>> its sidekicks electromagnetic fields). Second, they don't have hands
>>> either, and tentacles are notably clumsier. Elephants and cetaceans
>>> are simply out of the running; an elephant's trunk is just one, very
>>> clumsy, tentacle, making them even worse off than cephalopods, and
>>> cetaceans don't even have that. No hands equals no hope of
>>> developing anything even close to a technical civilisation. 
>> 
>> Watch an elephant use that trunk.  It is both immensely powerful and
>> very precise.  It is not nearly as clumsy as you believe.
>> 
>> As for cephalopods and water, octopi have to get wet periodically but
>> they are quite capable of moving around on land.  Other molluscs do
>> fine on land so there's no reason that a non-aquatic cephalopod could
>> not exist.
>> 
> Octopi are scary smart.  They have been observed to open screw top
> jars, eat the shell fish inside, put the pieces back in the jar and
> close it again.

There are other things about octopi and squids which make it difficult.
They are short lived - well under five years. Also, they breed once,
and then die, which makes it difficult to pass on learning. While some
squids school, octopi do not, which makes society difficult.

pt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#487342

On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 10:26:16 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 07:42:20 -0800 (PST), Panthera Tigris Altaica
> <northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 5:06:29 AM UTC-5, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> >> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 19:57:35 -0800, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >The aliens, like humans
> >> 
> >> "We have one example of intelligent life (not counting cetaceans,
> >> elephants, corvids, cephalopods etc) so we're going to generalise from
> >> that example!"
> >> 
> >> Sheesh. They need to interview a more interesting class of scientists.
> >> 
> >> 	Cheers - Jaimie
> >> -- 
> >> "What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
> >> simulations involving a sledgehammer and a common laboratory frog,
> >> we can assume it will be pretty bad."                 - Dave Barry
> >
> >None of those have hands. Corvids might be able to use their beaks and their feet, but without true hands they'll have serious problems. The article actually mentioned cephalopods, which have even bigger disadvantages than do corvids. First, being under water will be a significant handicap to the development of, among other things, chemistry (and its sidekick metallurgy) and electricity (and its sidekicks electromagnetic fields). Second, they don't have hands either, and tentacles are notably clumsier. Elephants and cetaceans are simply out of the running; an elephant's trunk is just one, very clumsy, tentacle, making them even worse off than cephalopods, and cetaceans don't even have that. No hands equals no hope of developing anything even close to a technical civilisation.
> 
> Watch an elephant use that trunk.  It is both immensely powerful and
> very precise.  It is not nearly as clumsy as you believe.  

It's still just _one_ thing. A considerable number of tools work best with two. Also, trunks/tentacles cannot have the equivalent of an opposable thumb. This particular failing was explored in Niven and Pournelle's _Footfall_. Worse, there is no internal skeleton in the trunk, making it instantly less capable as a load-bearing member. Finally, one major limitation of the trunk, which makes it worse than a cephalopods' tentacles, would be that it's on the elephant's _head_. There will be problems due to the limitations of the neck muscles and bones.

> 
> As for cephalopods and water, octopi have to get wet periodically but
> they are quite capable of moving around on land.  Other molluscs do
> fine on land so there's no reason that a non-aquatic cephalopod could
> not exist.

They would still have tentacles, not hands. They'd be better than an elephant's trunk, but still would lack opposable thumbs. And, like trunks, still would not have internal skeletons.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#487347 — Re: OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like

On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:35:37 -0800 (PST), Panthera Tigris Altaica
<northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 10:26:16 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 07:42:20 -0800 (PST), Panthera Tigris Altaica
>> <northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 5:06:29 AM UTC-5, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 19:57:35 -0800, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >The aliens, like humans
>> >> 
>> >> "We have one example of intelligent life (not counting cetaceans,
>> >> elephants, corvids, cephalopods etc) so we're going to generalise from
>> >> that example!"
>> >> 
>> >> Sheesh. They need to interview a more interesting class of scientists.
>> >> 
>> >> 	Cheers - Jaimie
>> >> -- 
>> >> "What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
>> >> simulations involving a sledgehammer and a common laboratory frog,
>> >> we can assume it will be pretty bad."                 - Dave Barry
>> >
>> >None of those have hands. Corvids might be able to use their beaks and their feet, but without true hands they'll have serious problems. The article actually mentioned cephalopods, which have even bigger disadvantages than do corvids. First, being under water will be a significant handicap to the development of, among other things, chemistry (and its sidekick metallurgy) and electricity (and its sidekicks electromagnetic fields). Second, they don't have hands either, and tentacles are notably clumsier. Elephants and cetaceans are simply out of the running; an elephant's trunk is just one, very clumsy, tentacle, making them even worse off than cephalopods, and cetaceans don't even have that. No hands equals no hope of developing anything even close to a technical civilisation.
>> 
>> Watch an elephant use that trunk.  It is both immensely powerful and
>> very precise.  It is not nearly as clumsy as you believe.  
>
>It's still just _one_ thing. A considerable number of tools work best with two. Also, trunks/tentacles cannot have the equivalent of an opposable thumb. This particular failing was explored in Niven and Pournelle's _Footfall_. Worse, there is no internal skeleton in the trunk, making it instantly less capable as a load-bearing member. Finally, one major limitation of the trunk, which makes it worse than a cephalopods' tentacles, would be that it's on the elephant's _head_. There will be problems due to the limitations of the neck muscles and bones.
>
>> 
>> As for cephalopods and water, octopi have to get wet periodically but
>> they are quite capable of moving around on land.  Other molluscs do
>> fine on land so there's no reason that a non-aquatic cephalopod could
>> not exist.
>
>They would still have tentacles, not hands. They'd be better than an elephant's trunk, but still would lack opposable thumbs. And, like trunks, still would not have internal skeletons.

Lemme guess.  You've never actually seen an elephant up close and
personal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#487353

Aside from that objection: any limitations of Terrestrial elephants 
might be ameliorated in an alien elephant-like creature.

As well, the five fingers of either of my hands cannot exert as much 
force as an elephant's trunk, so I wouldn't worry too much about "the 
limitations of head and neck muscles".

However, I do have trouble imagining an Elephantine _watchmaker_.

Still in all, an alien civilization could get far enough before that 
issue arose to be able to find workarounds; it's not as if today's 
microprocessors are made by the nimble-fingered descendants of those 
who used to string core memories for us.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#487372 — Re: OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>Aside from that objection: any limitations of Terrestrial elephants 
>might be ameliorated in an alien elephant-like creature.
>
>As well, the five fingers of either of my hands cannot exert as much 
>force as an elephant's trunk, so I wouldn't worry too much about "the 
>limitations of head and neck muscles".
>
>However, I do have trouble imagining an Elephantine _watchmaker_.
>
>Still in all, an alien civilization could get far enough before that 
>issue arose to be able to find workarounds; it's not as if today's 
>microprocessors are made by the nimble-fingered descendants of those 
>who used to string core memories for us.

One thing that people never think of is the value of joints in knowing
where your fingers are.  Close your eyes and touch your index
fingertips together.  You can do that because your brain has learned
to integrate the angle of the many joints involved to have a pretty
good idea where each fingertip is.  An octopus has good eyes and a big
brain just to keep track of where its arms are.  Without joints, you
have much less idea of where things are.

I think Niven's mini-elephants had reasonable opposability.
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#487354

Made by them _by hand_, that is. I haven't forgotten where TSMC and Samsung are located.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#487373

On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:55:43 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:35:37 -0800 (PST), Panthera Tigris Altaica
> <northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 10:26:16 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 07:42:20 -0800 (PST), Panthera Tigris Altaica
> >> <northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 5:06:29 AM UTC-5, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 19:57:35 -0800, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> >The aliens, like humans
> >> >> 
> >> >> "We have one example of intelligent life (not counting cetaceans,
> >> >> elephants, corvids, cephalopods etc) so we're going to generalise from
> >> >> that example!"
> >> >> 
> >> >> Sheesh. They need to interview a more interesting class of scientists.
> >> >> 
> >> >> 	Cheers - Jaimie
> >> >> -- 
> >> >> "What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
> >> >> simulations involving a sledgehammer and a common laboratory frog,
> >> >> we can assume it will be pretty bad."                 - Dave Barry
> >> >
> >> >None of those have hands. Corvids might be able to use their beaks and their feet, but without true hands they'll have serious problems. The article actually mentioned cephalopods, which have even bigger disadvantages than do corvids. First, being under water will be a significant handicap to the development of, among other things, chemistry (and its sidekick metallurgy) and electricity (and its sidekicks electromagnetic fields). Second, they don't have hands either, and tentacles are notably clumsier. Elephants and cetaceans are simply out of the running; an elephant's trunk is just one, very clumsy, tentacle, making them even worse off than cephalopods, and cetaceans don't even have that. No hands equals no hope of developing anything even close to a technical civilisation.
> >> 
> >> Watch an elephant use that trunk.  It is both immensely powerful and
> >> very precise.  It is not nearly as clumsy as you believe.  
> >
> >It's still just _one_ thing. A considerable number of tools work best with two. Also, trunks/tentacles cannot have the equivalent of an opposable thumb. This particular failing was explored in Niven and Pournelle's _Footfall_. Worse, there is no internal skeleton in the trunk, making it instantly less capable as a load-bearing member. Finally, one major limitation of the trunk, which makes it worse than a cephalopods' tentacles, would be that it's on the elephant's _head_. There will be problems due to the limitations of the neck muscles and bones.
> >
> >> 
> >> As for cephalopods and water, octopi have to get wet periodically but
> >> they are quite capable of moving around on land.  Other molluscs do
> >> fine on land so there's no reason that a non-aquatic cephalopod could
> >> not exist.
> >
> >They would still have tentacles, not hands. They'd be better than an elephant's trunk, but still would lack opposable thumbs. And, like trunks, still would not have internal skeletons.
> 
> Lemme guess.  You've never actually seen an elephant up close and
> personal.

Actually, yes I have. Please note the posting handle. Think where I might work to have inspired that handle. Think what other animals might be present at such locations. You have failed to address my points: elephants have but one trunk, which makes many operations difficult. There are no bones in the trunk, making other operations difficult. Trunks lack opposable thumbs (see 'no bones') making still more operations difficult. Trunks are on the elephant's head, resulting in limitations due to the neck.

Elephants can do a lot of things with their trunks, but are seriously limited. There is a _reason_ why Niven and Pournelle in _Footfall_ had the Snouts have trunks which branched, and even then there were problems, which became a plot point.

Cephalopods, with their _multiple_ tentacles, have problems, serious ones, but are better placed than elephants. Lifeforms which lack hands are at a serious disadvantage when creating a technical civilization. It's that simple.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#487389

On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 10:46:32 AM UTC-5, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:55:43 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:35:37 -0800 (PST), Panthera Tigris Altaica
> > <northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 10:26:16 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 07:42:20 -0800 (PST), Panthera Tigris Altaica
> > >> <northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> >On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 5:06:29 AM UTC-5, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> > >> >> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 19:57:35 -0800, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> >The aliens, like humans
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> "We have one example of intelligent life (not counting cetaceans,
> > >> >> elephants, corvids, cephalopods etc) so we're going to generalise from
> > >> >> that example!"
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> Sheesh. They need to interview a more interesting class of scientists.
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> 	Cheers - Jaimie
> > >> >> -- 
> > >> >> "What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
> > >> >> simulations involving a sledgehammer and a common laboratory frog,
> > >> >> we can assume it will be pretty bad."                 - Dave Barry
> > >> >
> > >> >None of those have hands. Corvids might be able to use their beaks and their feet, but without true hands they'll have serious problems. The article actually mentioned cephalopods, which have even bigger disadvantages than do corvids. First, being under water will be a significant handicap to the development of, among other things, chemistry (and its sidekick metallurgy) and electricity (and its sidekicks electromagnetic fields). Second, they don't have hands either, and tentacles are notably clumsier. Elephants and cetaceans are simply out of the running; an elephant's trunk is just one, very clumsy, tentacle, making them even worse off than cephalopods, and cetaceans don't even have that. No hands equals no hope of developing anything even close to a technical civilisation.
> > >> 
> > >> Watch an elephant use that trunk.  It is both immensely powerful and
> > >> very precise.  It is not nearly as clumsy as you believe.  
> > >
> > >It's still just _one_ thing. A considerable number of tools work best with two. Also, trunks/tentacles cannot have the equivalent of an opposable thumb. This particular failing was explored in Niven and Pournelle's _Footfall_. Worse, there is no internal skeleton in the trunk, making it instantly less capable as a load-bearing member. Finally, one major limitation of the trunk, which makes it worse than a cephalopods' tentacles, would be that it's on the elephant's _head_. There will be problems due to the limitations of the neck muscles and bones.
> > >
> > >> 
> > >> As for cephalopods and water, octopi have to get wet periodically but
> > >> they are quite capable of moving around on land.  Other molluscs do
> > >> fine on land so there's no reason that a non-aquatic cephalopod could
> > >> not exist.
> > >
> > >They would still have tentacles, not hands. They'd be better than an elephant's trunk, but still would lack opposable thumbs. And, like trunks, still would not have internal skeletons.
> > 
> > Lemme guess.  You've never actually seen an elephant up close and
> > personal.
> 
> Actually, yes I have. Please note the posting handle. Think where I might work to have inspired that handle. Think what other animals might be present at such locations. You have failed to address my points: elephants have but one trunk, which makes many operations difficult. There are no bones in the trunk, making other operations difficult. Trunks lack opposable thumbs (see 'no bones') making still more operations difficult. Trunks are on the elephant's head, resulting in limitations due to the neck.
> 
> Elephants can do a lot of things with their trunks, but are seriously limited. There is a _reason_ why Niven and Pournelle in _Footfall_ had the Snouts have trunks which branched, and even then there were problems, which became a plot point.
> 
> Cephalopods, with their _multiple_ tentacles, have problems, serious ones, but are better placed than elephants. Lifeforms which lack hands are at a serious disadvantage when creating a technical civilization. It's that simple.

ObSF: "Second Dawn" by Clarke.

William Hyde

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#487420 — Re: OT suspected - Here’s what aliens probably look like

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 07:46:25 -0800 (PST), Panthera Tigris Altaica
<northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 9:55:43 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:35:37 -0800 (PST), Panthera Tigris Altaica
>> <northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 10:26:16 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 07:42:20 -0800 (PST), Panthera Tigris Altaica
>> >> <northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 5:06:29 AM UTC-5, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 19:57:35 -0800, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> >The aliens, like humans
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> "We have one example of intelligent life (not counting cetaceans,
>> >> >> elephants, corvids, cephalopods etc) so we're going to generalise from
>> >> >> that example!"
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Sheesh. They need to interview a more interesting class of scientists.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> 	Cheers - Jaimie
>> >> >> -- 
>> >> >> "What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
>> >> >> simulations involving a sledgehammer and a common laboratory frog,
>> >> >> we can assume it will be pretty bad."                 - Dave Barry
>> >> >
>> >> >None of those have hands. Corvids might be able to use their beaks and their feet, but without true hands they'll have serious problems. The article actually mentioned cephalopods, which have even bigger disadvantages than do corvids. First, being under water will be a significant handicap to the development of, among other things, chemistry (and its sidekick metallurgy) and electricity (and its sidekicks electromagnetic fields). Second, they don't have hands either, and tentacles are notably clumsier. Elephants and cetaceans are simply out of the running; an elephant's trunk is just one, very clumsy, tentacle, making them even worse off than cephalopods, and cetaceans don't even have that. No hands equals no hope of developing anything even close to a technical civilisation.
>> >> 
>> >> Watch an elephant use that trunk.  It is both immensely powerful and
>> >> very precise.  It is not nearly as clumsy as you believe.  
>> >
>> >It's still just _one_ thing. A considerable number of tools work best with two. Also, trunks/tentacles cannot have the equivalent of an opposable thumb. This particular failing was explored in Niven and Pournelle's _Footfall_. Worse, there is no internal skeleton in the trunk, making it instantly less capable as a load-bearing member. Finally, one major limitation of the trunk, which makes it worse than a cephalopods' tentacles, would be that it's on the elephant's _head_. There will be problems due to the limitations of the neck muscles and bones.
>> >
>> >> 
>> >> As for cephalopods and water, octopi have to get wet periodically but
>> >> they are quite capable of moving around on land.  Other molluscs do
>> >> fine on land so there's no reason that a non-aquatic cephalopod could
>> >> not exist.
>> >
>> >They would still have tentacles, not hands. They'd be better than an elephant's trunk, but still would lack opposable thumbs. And, like trunks, still would not have internal skeletons.
>> 
>> Lemme guess.  You've never actually seen an elephant up close and
>> personal.
>
>Actually, yes I have. Please note the posting handle. Think where I might work to have inspired that handle.

A library?

Sorry, but on the Internet nobody knows you're a dog.

> Think what other animals might be present at such locations. You have failed to address my points: elephants have but one trunk, which makes many operations difficult. There are no bones in the trunk, making other operations difficult. Trunks lack opposable thumbs (see 'no bones') making still more operations difficult. Trunks are on the elephant's head, resulting in limitations due to the neck.
>
>Elephants can do a lot of things with their trunks, but are seriously limited. There is a _reason_ why Niven and Pournelle in _Footfall_ had the Snouts have trunks which branched, and even then there were problems, which became a plot point.
>
>Cephalopods, with their _multiple_ tentacles, have problems, serious ones, but are better placed than elephants. Lifeforms which lack hands are at a serious disadvantage when creating a technical civilization. It's that simple.

One can equally argue that human articulation has many limitations.
You make far too big a deal about thumbs as specific organs without
apparently understanding why they are useful.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#487422 — Re: OT suspected - Here�s what aliens probably look like

On 01/03/18 16:19, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 07:46:25 -0800 (PST), Panthera Tigris Altaica 
> <northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:

snip

>> Think what other animals might be present at such locations. You
>> have failed to address my points: elephants have but one trunk,
>> which makes many operations difficult. There are no bones in the
>> trunk, making other operations difficult. Trunks lack opposable
>> thumbs (see 'no bones') making still more operations difficult.
>> Trunks are on the elephant's head, resulting in limitations due to
>> the neck.
>> 
>> Elephants can do a lot of things with their trunks, but are
>> seriously limited.

snip

> One can equally argue that human articulation has many limitations. 
> You make far too big a deal about thumbs as specific organs without 
> apparently understanding why they are useful.

Yes. Thumbs are almost useless when picking one's trunk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#487339

On 2018-02-26 09:42, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 5:06:29 AM UTC-5, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 19:57:35 -0800, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The aliens, like humans
>>
>> "We have one example of intelligent life (not counting cetaceans,
>> elephants, corvids, cephalopods etc) so we're going to generalise from
>> that example!"
>>
>> Sheesh. They need to interview a more interesting class of scientists.

> None of those have hands. Corvids might be able to use their beaks and their feet, but without true hands they'll have serious problems. The article actually mentioned cephalopods, which have even bigger disadvantages than do corvids. First, being under water will be a significant handicap to the development of, among other things, chemistry (and its sidekick metallurgy) and electricity (and its sidekicks electromagnetic fields). Second, they don't have hands either, and tentacles are notably clumsier. Elephants and cetaceans are simply out of the running; an elephant's trunk is just one, very clumsy, tentacle, making them even worse off than cephalopods, and cetaceans don't even have that. No hands equals no hope of developing anything even close to a technical civilisation.

ObSFW:

The issues of hands-free intelligent life are examined in some of the
Known Space works, most pertinently in "The Handicapped".

-- 
Michael F. Stemper
This post contains greater than 95% post-consumer bytes by weight.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#487358 — Re: OT suspected - Here's what aliens probably look like

Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2018-02-26 09:42, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
>> On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 5:06:29 AM UTC-5, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 19:57:35 -0800, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The aliens, like humans
>>>
>>> "We have one example of intelligent life (not counting cetaceans,
>>> elephants, corvids, cephalopods etc) so we're going to generalise from
>>> that example!"
>>>
>>> Sheesh. They need to interview a more interesting class of scientists.
>
>> None of those have hands. Corvids might be able to use their beaks and
>> their feet, but without true hands they'll have serious problems. The
>> article actually mentioned cephalopods, which have even bigger disadvantages
>> than do corvids. First, being under water will be a significant handicap
>> to the development of, among other things, chemistry (and its sidekick
>> metallurgy) and electricity (and its sidekicks electromagnetic fields).
>> Second, they don't have hands either, and tentacles are notably clumsier.
>> Elephants and cetaceans are simply out of the running; an elephant's trunk
>> is just one, very clumsy, tentacle, making them even worse off than
>> cephalopods, and cetaceans don't even have that. No hands equals no hope
>> of developing anything even close to a technical civilisation.
>
> ObSFW:
>
> The issues of hands-free intelligent life are examined in some of the
> Known Space works, most pertinently in "The Handicapped".
>

Speaking of the Niven's Grogs, there's Pard from _The Healer_ (Wilson).
Pard's only mobility is derived from using gravity to drop from a cave
ceiling.
    Pard's a small sentient parasitic blob that waits on a cave ceiling
for a host. When a suitable host passes underneath, he drops on the
host's head and transfers his consciousness into the host to form a
symbiotic mind.
    Pard, of course, requires a human host. But there's a slim to none
chance of finding humans on other planets.

Thank you,

--
Don

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#487359 — Re: OT suspected - Here's what aliens probably look like

In article <20180227a@crcomp.net>, D B Davis  <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
>
>Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2018-02-26 09:42, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 5:06:29 AM UTC-5, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 19:57:35 -0800, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The aliens, like humans
>>>>
>>>> "We have one example of intelligent life (not counting cetaceans,
>>>> elephants, corvids, cephalopods etc) so we're going to generalise from
>>>> that example!"
>>>>
>>>> Sheesh. They need to interview a more interesting class of scientists.
>>
>>> None of those have hands. Corvids might be able to use their beaks and
>>> their feet, but without true hands they'll have serious problems. The
>>> article actually mentioned cephalopods, which have even bigger disadvantages
>>> than do corvids. First, being under water will be a significant handicap
>>> to the development of, among other things, chemistry (and its sidekick
>>> metallurgy) and electricity (and its sidekicks electromagnetic fields).
>>> Second, they don't have hands either, and tentacles are notably clumsier.
>>> Elephants and cetaceans are simply out of the running; an elephant's trunk
>>> is just one, very clumsy, tentacle, making them even worse off than
>>> cephalopods, and cetaceans don't even have that. No hands equals no hope
>>> of developing anything even close to a technical civilisation.
>>
>> ObSFW:
>>
>> The issues of hands-free intelligent life are examined in some of the
>> Known Space works, most pertinently in "The Handicapped".
>>
>
>Speaking of the Niven's Grogs, there's Pard from _The Healer_ (Wilson).
>Pard's only mobility is derived from using gravity to drop from a cave
>ceiling.
>    Pard's a small sentient parasitic blob that waits on a cave ceiling
>for a host. When a suitable host passes underneath, he drops on the
>host's head and transfers his consciousness into the host to form a
>symbiotic mind.
>    Pard, of course, requires a human host. But there's a slim to none
>chance of finding humans on other planets.
>

Is it established that Part requires a human host?  It's been an extremely
long time since I read those, but maybe dropping off on a non-human host
happens and we just don't hear about it because other hosts don't have
the brain and manipulators to run the pard program at sentient communicating
level?

-- 
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#487368 — Re: OT suspected - Here's what aliens probably look like

Ted Nolan <tednolan> <ted@loft.tnolan.com> wrote:
> In article <20180227a@crcomp.net>, D B Davis  <g@crcomp.net> wrote:

<snip>

>>
>>Speaking of the Niven's Grogs, there's Pard from _The Healer_ (Wilson).
>>Pard's only mobility is derived from using gravity to drop from a cave
>>ceiling.
>>    Pard's a small sentient parasitic blob that waits on a cave ceiling
>>for a host. When a suitable host passes underneath, he drops on the
>>host's head and transfers his consciousness into the host to form a
>>symbiotic mind.
>>    Pard, of course, requires a human host. But there's a slim to none
>>chance of finding humans on other planets.
>>
>
> Is it established that Part requires a human host?  It's been an extremely
> long time since I read those, but maybe dropping off on a non-human host
> happens and we just don't hear about it because other hosts don't have
> the brain and manipulators to run the pard program at sentient communicating
> level?

You're absolutely correct. Although Pard nearly always kills intelligent
hosts his prey is not limited to humans.

Thank you,

--
Don

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#487362 — Re: OT suspected - Here's what aliens probably look like

On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 06:56:32 UTC, D B Davis  wrote:
> Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2018-02-26 09:42, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
> >> On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 5:06:29 AM UTC-5, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 19:57:35 -0800, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The aliens, like humans
> >>>
> >>> "We have one example of intelligent life (not counting cetaceans,
> >>> elephants, corvids, cephalopods etc) so we're going to generalise from
> >>> that example!"
> >>>
> >>> Sheesh. They need to interview a more interesting class of scientists.
> >
> >> None of those have hands. Corvids might be able to use their beaks and
> >> their feet, but without true hands they'll have serious problems. The
> >> article actually mentioned cephalopods, which have even bigger disadvantages
> >> than do corvids. First, being under water will be a significant handicap
> >> to the development of, among other things, chemistry (and its sidekick
> >> metallurgy) and electricity (and its sidekicks electromagnetic fields).
> >> Second, they don't have hands either, and tentacles are notably clumsier.
> >> Elephants and cetaceans are simply out of the running; an elephant's trunk
> >> is just one, very clumsy, tentacle, making them even worse off than
> >> cephalopods, and cetaceans don't even have that. No hands equals no hope
> >> of developing anything even close to a technical civilisation.
> >
> > ObSFW:
> >
> > The issues of hands-free intelligent life are examined in some of the
> > Known Space works, most pertinently in "The Handicapped".
> >
> 
> Speaking of the Niven's Grogs, there's Pard from _The Healer_ (Wilson).
> Pard's only mobility is derived from using gravity to drop from a cave
> ceiling.
>     Pard's a small sentient parasitic blob that waits on a cave ceiling
> for a host. When a suitable host passes underneath, he drops on the
> host's head and transfers his consciousness into the host to form a
> symbiotic mind.
>     Pard, of course, requires a human host. But there's a slim to none
> chance of finding humans on other planets.

Is it established how Pard got up on the ceiling in the first place?

There are ones in Star Trek that can fly around.  They look like
undercooked omelettes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written

csiph-web