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

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #459365 > unrolled thread

Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This

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

Contents

  Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-12-10 11:57 -0800
    Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-10 20:37 +0000
      Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-12-10 14:08 -0800
        Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2016-12-10 18:04 -0600
          Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This mcdowell_ag@sky.com - 2016-12-11 00:18 -0800
          Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-12 09:27 -0800
    Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2016-12-11 08:01 -0800
      Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-11 22:41 +0000
        Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-12-11 18:36 -0800
          Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-12 03:02 +0000
            Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2016-12-12 04:38 -0700
      Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2016-12-12 09:59 +0800
        Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-12 03:02 +0000
          Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This "a425couple" <a425couple@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-12 15:31 -0800
            Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-12-12 16:00 -0800
            Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 22:40 -0500
              Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2016-12-13 04:01 +0000
                Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2016-12-13 06:55 -0600
              Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-13 04:02 +0000
                Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2016-12-13 08:13 -0700
                  Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-13 16:26 +0000
                    Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-13 12:06 -0800
                      Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2016-12-13 21:21 -0600
                        Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 21:53 -0600
                          Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2016-12-13 22:29 -0700
                          Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2016-12-14 15:07 -0600
                        Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-14 04:10 +0000
                          Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 07:09 -0800
                          Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-12-14 07:27 -0800
                            Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-14 15:50 +0000
                            Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) - 2016-12-15 01:18 +0000
                              Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-12-15 16:42 -0800
                                Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) - 2016-12-16 05:48 +0000
                              Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2016-12-17 06:47 -0800
                                Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-17 18:58 +0000
                                  Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2016-12-17 16:16 -0800
                                    Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2016-12-17 19:25 -0600
                        Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2016-12-14 00:33 -0800
                          Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> - 2016-12-14 09:37 -0800
                            Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Paul Arthur <junk+usenet@flowerysong.com> - 2016-12-14 18:49 +0000
                            Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-15 01:36 +0000
                            Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 06:00 -0700
                              Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-15 13:36 +0000
                              Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> - 2016-12-15 10:09 -0800
                        Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Anthony Frost <Vulch@vulch.org> - 2016-12-14 08:04 +0000
                          Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> - 2016-12-14 09:51 -0800
                            Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-14 10:40 -0800
                              Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-12-14 13:46 -0500
                                Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2016-12-14 18:57 +0000
                                Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-14 11:43 -0800
                              Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-15 01:34 +0000
                          Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2016-12-14 15:09 -0600
                            Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This David Johnston <Davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-14 15:00 -0700
                              Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2016-12-14 17:37 -0800
                        Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-12-14 07:23 -0500
              Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-12-13 09:48 -0800
            Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-12-13 03:18 +0000
        Re: Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 22:54 -0600

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#459365 — Why We Imagine Aliens Look Like This

This article

http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/54262/20161210/scientific-reasons-why-people-convinced-octopuses-exact-description-aliens.htm

was inspired by the science-fiction movie Arrival, which, according to a review of it that I read, is a good and serious science-fiction movie, something we need more of.

Anyways, though, the article raised a question to which I think I have an answer.

In a lot of science fiction, aliens end up looking exactly like humans - or like humans with a few trivial differences.

What is the next step up from that?

Imagining what an intelligent life form that evolved completely independently from us is *hard*.

So what is the obvious shortcut to take?

Well, if we don't assume that all the steps evolution took in getting to *us* will be exactly repeated on another world... but we're not up to re-imagining a whole new development of life from the beginning...

why not imagine that only a *few* of those steps are repeated?

So we get lizard aliens - they're very common.

Maybe starfish aliens! Or octopus aliens, as noted in the article I referenced above.

John Savard

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#459371

In article <109cfe5e-4e59-4d90-a390-7c3f0c12e46f@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>This article
>
>http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/54262/20161210/scientific-reasons-why-people-convinced-octopuses-exact-description-aliens.htm
>
>was inspired by the science-fiction movie Arrival, which, according to a
>review of it that I read, is a good and serious science-fiction movie,
>something we need more of.
>
>Anyways, though, the article raised a question to which I think I have
>an answer.
>
>In a lot of science fiction, aliens end up looking exactly like humans -
>or like humans with a few trivial differences.
>
>What is the next step up from that?
>
>Imagining what an intelligent life form that evolved completely
>independently from us is *hard*.
>
>So what is the obvious shortcut to take?
>
>Well, if we don't assume that all the steps evolution took in getting to
>*us* will be exactly repeated on another world... but we're not up to
>re-imagining a whole new development of life from the beginning...
>
>why not imagine that only a *few* of those steps are repeated?
>
>So we get lizard aliens - they're very common.
>
>Maybe starfish aliens! Or octopus aliens, as noted in the article I
>referenced above.

I have a set of starfish aliens on a work on my back burner.
They're nice guys.

But the answer to your question is: CGI.  CGI and motion-capture.
Beats the hell out of humans (or animals) in suits.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

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

#459377

On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 3:45:03 PM UTC-5, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <109cfe5e-4e59-4d90-a390-7c3f0c12e46f@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >This article
> >
> >http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/54262/20161210/scientific-reasons-why-people-convinced-octopuses-exact-description-aliens.htm
> >
> >was inspired by the science-fiction movie Arrival, which, according to a
> >review of it that I read, is a good and serious science-fiction movie,
> >something we need more of.
> >
> >Anyways, though, the article raised a question to which I think I have
> >an answer.
> >
> >In a lot of science fiction, aliens end up looking exactly like humans -
> >or like humans with a few trivial differences.
> >
> >What is the next step up from that?
> >
> >Imagining what an intelligent life form that evolved completely
> >independently from us is *hard*.
> >
> >So what is the obvious shortcut to take?
> >
> >Well, if we don't assume that all the steps evolution took in getting to
> >*us* will be exactly repeated on another world... but we're not up to
> >re-imagining a whole new development of life from the beginning...
> >
> >why not imagine that only a *few* of those steps are repeated?
> >
> >So we get lizard aliens - they're very common.
> >
> >Maybe starfish aliens! Or octopus aliens, as noted in the article I
> >referenced above.
> 
> I have a set of starfish aliens on a work on my back burner.
> They're nice guys.
> 
> But the answer to your question is: CGI.  CGI and motion-capture.
> Beats the hell out of humans (or animals) in suits.
> 
>

Starfish aliens?

H.P. Lovecraft's "the Mountains of Madness"  had Elder Things with
starfish-like appendages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_the_Mountains_of_Madness

First time I encountered starfish aliens: the Justice League of
America debuted in 1960, defeating "Starro the Conqueror."

http://www.comics.org/issue/15487/cover/4/

Though I probably first read that as a reprint in
JLA #39, an 80-page Giant from 1965.

http://www.comics.org/issue/19584/cover/4/

There's a TV Tropes page for our Sea Stars from the Stars:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StarfishAliens

Julie Schwartz, the JLA's editor, sold ATMoM to ASTOUNDING
back in his Solar Sales service days.

Kevin R

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

#459383

Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:185d850c-a9b9-4e7a-8a1c-158d1d4b5b35@googlegroups.com: 

> On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 3:45:03 PM UTC-5, Dorothy J Heydt
> wrote: 
>> In article <109cfe5e-4e59-4d90-a390-7c3f0c12e46f@googlegroups.com>,
>> Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >This article
>> >
>> >http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/54262/20161210/scientific-
>> >reasons-why-people-convinced-octopuses-exact-description-aliens.htm 
>> >
>> >was inspired by the science-fiction movie Arrival, which, according
>> >to a review of it that I read, is a good and serious science-fiction
>> >movie, something we need more of.
>> >
>> >Anyways, though, the article raised a question to which I think I
>> >have an answer.
>> >
>> >In a lot of science fiction, aliens end up looking exactly like
>> >humans - or like humans with a few trivial differences.
>> >
>> >What is the next step up from that?
>> >
>> >Imagining what an intelligent life form that evolved completely
>> >independently from us is *hard*.
>> >
>> >So what is the obvious shortcut to take?
>> >
>> >Well, if we don't assume that all the steps evolution took in
>> >getting to *us* will be exactly repeated on another world... but
>> >we're not up to re-imagining a whole new development of life from
>> >the beginning... 
>> >
>> >why not imagine that only a *few* of those steps are repeated?
>> >
>> >So we get lizard aliens - they're very common.
>> >
>> >Maybe starfish aliens! Or octopus aliens, as noted in the article I
>> >referenced above.
>> 
>> I have a set of starfish aliens on a work on my back burner.
>> They're nice guys.
>> 
>> But the answer to your question is: CGI.  CGI and motion-capture.
>> Beats the hell out of humans (or animals) in suits.
>> 
>>
> 
> Starfish aliens?
> 
> H.P. Lovecraft's "the Mountains of Madness"  had Elder Things with
> starfish-like appendages.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_the_Mountains_of_Madness
> 
> First time I encountered starfish aliens: the Justice League of
> America debuted in 1960, defeating "Starro the Conqueror."
> 
> http://www.comics.org/issue/15487/cover/4/
> 
> Though I probably first read that as a reprint in
> JLA #39, an 80-page Giant from 1965.
> 
> http://www.comics.org/issue/19584/cover/4/
> 
> There's a TV Tropes page for our Sea Stars from the Stars:
> 
> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StarfishAliens
> 
> Julie Schwartz, the JLA's editor, sold ATMoM to ASTOUNDING
> back in his Solar Sales service days.
> 
> Kevin R

Creating aliens which have different body plans isn't difficult
in writing, and realizing them visually has become a lot easier
with CGI.

But making and depiciting an intelligent creature which *thinks*
differently than a human is a lot harder. Hal Clement famously
had fantastically shaped aliens who talked 'like Calvin Coolidge'.

The alien(s) in Stanislaw Lem's novels were truely alien, but
that makes them hard to empathize with.

'Arrival' (a movie I highly reoccomend) does a pretty good job, 
but their alien thought patterns are informed, not shown.

pt

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

#459411

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 12:04:34 AM UTC, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote in
> news:185d850c-a9b9-4e7a-8a1c-158d1d4b5b35@googlegroups.com: 
> 
> > On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 3:45:03 PM UTC-5, Dorothy J Heydt
> > wrote: 
> >> In article <109cfe5e-4e59-4d90-a390-7c3f0c12e46f@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> >This article
> >> >
> >> >http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/54262/20161210/scientific-
> >> >reasons-why-people-convinced-octopuses-exact-description-aliens.htm 
> >> >
> >> >was inspired by the science-fiction movie Arrival, which, according
> >> >to a review of it that I read, is a good and serious science-fiction
> >> >movie, something we need more of.
> >> >
> >> >Anyways, though, the article raised a question to which I think I
> >> >have an answer.
> >> >
> >> >In a lot of science fiction, aliens end up looking exactly like
> >> >humans - or like humans with a few trivial differences.
> >> >
> >> >What is the next step up from that?
> >> >
> >> >Imagining what an intelligent life form that evolved completely
> >> >independently from us is *hard*.
> >> >
> >> >So what is the obvious shortcut to take?
> >> >
> >> >Well, if we don't assume that all the steps evolution took in
> >> >getting to *us* will be exactly repeated on another world... but
> >> >we're not up to re-imagining a whole new development of life from
> >> >the beginning... 
> >> >
> >> >why not imagine that only a *few* of those steps are repeated?
> >> >
> >> >So we get lizard aliens - they're very common.
> >> >
> >> >Maybe starfish aliens! Or octopus aliens, as noted in the article I
> >> >referenced above.
> >> 
> >> I have a set of starfish aliens on a work on my back burner.
> >> They're nice guys.
> >> 
> >> But the answer to your question is: CGI.  CGI and motion-capture.
> >> Beats the hell out of humans (or animals) in suits.
> >> 
> >>
> > 
> > Starfish aliens?
> > 
> > H.P. Lovecraft's "the Mountains of Madness"  had Elder Things with
> > starfish-like appendages.
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_the_Mountains_of_Madness
> > 
> > First time I encountered starfish aliens: the Justice League of
> > America debuted in 1960, defeating "Starro the Conqueror."
> > 
> > http://www.comics.org/issue/15487/cover/4/
> > 
> > Though I probably first read that as a reprint in
> > JLA #39, an 80-page Giant from 1965.
> > 
> > http://www.comics.org/issue/19584/cover/4/
> > 
> > There's a TV Tropes page for our Sea Stars from the Stars:
> > 
> > http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StarfishAliens
> > 
> > Julie Schwartz, the JLA's editor, sold ATMoM to ASTOUNDING
> > back in his Solar Sales service days.
> > 
> > Kevin R
> 
> Creating aliens which have different body plans isn't difficult
> in writing, and realizing them visually has become a lot easier
> with CGI.
> 
> But making and depiciting an intelligent creature which *thinks*
> differently than a human is a lot harder. Hal Clement famously
> had fantastically shaped aliens who talked 'like Calvin Coolidge'.
> 
> The alien(s) in Stanislaw Lem's novels were truely alien, but
> that makes them hard to empathize with.
> 
> 'Arrival' (a movie I highly reoccomend) does a pretty good job, 
> but their alien thought patterns are informed, not shown.
> 
> pt

Recent criticisms of the foundations of economics have claimed that it is not representative of real human behaviour. (E.g. the curiously non-PC named https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-autistic_economics) This raises the possibility that it might be no less representative of alien behaviour.

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

#459498

On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 6:04:34 PM UTC-6, Cryptoengineer wrote:

> But making and depiciting an intelligent creature which *thinks*
> differently than a human is a lot harder. Hal Clement famously
> had fantastically shaped aliens who talked 'like Calvin Coolidge'.

Of course, one of the better attempts was Weinbaum's take back in the 30s, Tweel in "A Martian Oddyssey". 

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweel_%28A_Martian_Odyssey%29>


Brian

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

#459422

On Saturday, 10 December 2016 19:58:01 UTC, Quadibloc  wrote:
> This article
> 
> http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/54262/20161210/scientific-reasons-why-people-convinced-octopuses-exact-description-aliens.htm
> 
> was inspired by the science-fiction movie Arrival, which, according to a review of it that I read, is a good and serious science-fiction movie, something we need more of.
> 
> Anyways, though, the article raised a question to which I think I have an answer.
> 
> In a lot of science fiction, aliens end up looking exactly like humans - or like humans with a few trivial differences.
> 
> What is the next step up from that?
> 
> Imagining what an intelligent life form that evolved completely independently from us is *hard*.
> 
> So what is the obvious shortcut to take?
> 
> Well, if we don't assume that all the steps evolution took in getting to *us* will be exactly repeated on another world... but we're not up to re-imagining a whole new development of life from the beginning...
> 
> why not imagine that only a *few* of those steps are repeated?
> 
> So we get lizard aliens - they're very common.
> 
> Maybe starfish aliens! Or octopus aliens, as noted in the article I referenced above.
> 
> John Savard

If we are considering aliens with brains bigger than
animals seem to need - why do they have them?

It may bē a matter of relative, not absolute size,
since a large body also seems to require a larger brain;
nerve cells and muscles in proportion, perhaps.
A heavy brain may not be a complex brain.  Conversely,
there are move very clever birds - and others that 
don't seem to learn how to use one leg and then the 
other (admittedly not their main thing), so they hop.

One idea is that you need a complex brain to be a 
tool user.  Then you also need a way to manipulate 
tools - the word refers to hands, but tentacles 
are another possibility.  Or the mouths.  These 
features are to be expected.

Another real idea is that you need to be a smart 
social animal to keep track of relationships within
a community.  So you could have any body shape,
but your society might not build its own spaceships.

Then again, you could get another species to do 
your manual work.  We do that, even without mind 
control powers, which are another often seen use 
of a large brain - often ridiculously large.

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

#459447

In article <3616460a-d704-4b49-85c7-cd1b7b025dfc@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>If we are considering aliens with brains bigger than
>animals seem to need - why do they have them?

Why do humans have brains much bigger than animals seem to need?

A primatologist interviewed for the making-of of _Walking with
Cavemen_ said it began with being a social primate, needing to
keep track of who's in your troop, and who their friends and
enemies are, and what's their rank compared to yours.

Another factor, I think, was becoming bipedal, and having your
hands free to do stuff with.  This will select for bigger brains
that can think of more stuff to do with their hands.

After that it snowballs, as slightly smarter primates have an
advantage over slightly less smart primates, including but not
limited to lying and cheating.  Heinlein's _Tramp Royale_ tells a
tale of some monkeys (in Hong Kong? I forget) whom Ginny observed
cheating other monkeys out of food items.  She was indignant; he
commented, "In a few years they're going to have to let them
vote."

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

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

#459458

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 3:45:05 PM UTC-7, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <3616460a-d704-4b49-85c7-cd1b7b025dfc@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

> >If we are considering aliens with brains bigger than
> >animals seem to need - why do they have them?

> Why do humans have brains much bigger than animals seem to need?

> A primatologist interviewed for the making-of of _Walking with
> Cavemen_ said it began with being a social primate, needing to
> keep track of who's in your troop, and who their friends and
> enemies are, and what's their rank compared to yours.

I've noted that Elaine Morgan's "The Descent of Woman" advances an interesting 
hypothesis in this direction: the huge brains of human beings become as easily 
explained as the tail of the peacock or the antlers of the Irish Elk.

John Savard

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

#459462

In article <2538dfa1-4575-48ac-827c-729fa19c15e4@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 3:45:05 PM UTC-7, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <3616460a-d704-4b49-85c7-cd1b7b025dfc@googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> >If we are considering aliens with brains bigger than
>> >animals seem to need - why do they have them?
>
>> Why do humans have brains much bigger than animals seem to need?
>
>> A primatologist interviewed for the making-of of _Walking with
>> Cavemen_ said it began with being a social primate, needing to
>> keep track of who's in your troop, and who their friends and
>> enemies are, and what's their rank compared to yours.
>
>I've noted that Elaine Morgan's "The Descent of Woman" advances an interesting 
>hypothesis in this direction: the huge brains of human beings become as easily 
>explained as the tail of the peacock or the antlers of the Irish Elk.

Possible ... though the organ used by primates to flaunt their
fertility, since they have neither antlers nor tails, is (alas)
the membrum virile.

Consider the ultimate version of this behavior, the mandrill,
whose membra are colored bright red and blue ... and so's his
face.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

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

#459479

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>>I've noted that Elaine Morgan's "The Descent of Woman" advances an interesting 
>>hypothesis in this direction: the huge brains of human beings become as easily 
>>explained as the tail of the peacock or the antlers of the Irish Elk.
>
>Possible ... though the organ used by primates to flaunt their
>fertility, since they have neither antlers nor tails, is (alas)
>the membrum virile.
>
>Consider the ultimate version of this behavior, the mandrill,
>whose membra are colored bright red and blue ... and so's his
>face.

"come up and see my etchings", or any number of rock star groupies.

Women seem wired to appreciate art, poetry and wordplay.  I can see
that as pushing higher brain functions if its stable over evolutionary
periods.  

Of course, as Quadi's examples prove, characteristics that are stable
over evolutionary periods may not be all that practical in the rest of
the organism's life.
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

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

#459456

On 12/12/16 12:01 am, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 December 2016 19:58:01 UTC, Quadibloc  wrote:
>> This article
>>
>> http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/54262/20161210/scientific-reasons-why-people-convinced-octopuses-exact-description-aliens.htm
>>
>> was inspired by the science-fiction movie Arrival, which, according to a review of it that I read, is a good and serious science-fiction movie, something we need more of.
>>
>> Anyways, though, the article raised a question to which I think I have an answer.
>>
>> In a lot of science fiction, aliens end up looking exactly like humans - or like humans with a few trivial differences.
>>
>> What is the next step up from that?
>>
>> Imagining what an intelligent life form that evolved completely independently from us is *hard*.
>>
>> So what is the obvious shortcut to take?
>>
>> Well, if we don't assume that all the steps evolution took in getting to *us* will be exactly repeated on another world... but we're not up to re-imagining a whole new development of life from the beginning...
>>
>> why not imagine that only a *few* of those steps are repeated?
>>
>> So we get lizard aliens - they're very common.
>>
>> Maybe starfish aliens! Or octopus aliens, as noted in the article I referenced above.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> If we are considering aliens with brains bigger than
> animals seem to need - why do they have them?
>
> It may bē a matter of relative, not absolute size,
> since a large body also seems to require a larger brain;
> nerve cells and muscles in proportion, perhaps.
> A heavy brain may not be a complex brain.  Conversely,
> there are move very clever birds - and others that
> don't seem to learn how to use one leg and then the
> other (admittedly not their main thing), so they hop.
>
> One idea is that you need a complex brain to be a
> tool user.  Then you also need a way to manipulate
> tools - the word refers to hands, but tentacles
> are another possibility.  Or the mouths.  These
> features are to be expected.

And yet, a number of birds use tools and some of the corvidae are 
capable of carrying out a number of complex tasks like raising water 
levels to catch a floating worm by dropping stones in.

<http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(09)01455-9?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982209014559%3Fshowall%3Dtrue&cc=y=>

or
http://tinyurl.com/zczqbf3
-- 
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

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

#459463

In article <eb6ejbFr9njU1@mid.individual.net>,
Robert Bannister  <robban@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>On 12/12/16 12:01 am, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Saturday, 10 December 2016 19:58:01 UTC, Quadibloc  wrote:
>>> This article
>>>
>>>
>http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/54262/20161210/scientific-reasons-why-people-convinced-octopuses-exact-description-aliens.htm
>>>
>>> was inspired by the science-fiction movie Arrival, which, according
>to a review of it that I read, is a good and serious science-fiction
>movie, something we need more of.
>>>
>>> Anyways, though, the article raised a question to which I think I
>have an answer.
>>>
>>> In a lot of science fiction, aliens end up looking exactly like
>humans - or like humans with a few trivial differences.
>>>
>>> What is the next step up from that?
>>>
>>> Imagining what an intelligent life form that evolved completely
>independently from us is *hard*.
>>>
>>> So what is the obvious shortcut to take?
>>>
>>> Well, if we don't assume that all the steps evolution took in getting
>to *us* will be exactly repeated on another world... but we're not up to
>re-imagining a whole new development of life from the beginning...
>>>
>>> why not imagine that only a *few* of those steps are repeated?
>>>
>>> So we get lizard aliens - they're very common.
>>>
>>> Maybe starfish aliens! Or octopus aliens, as noted in the article I
>referenced above.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>
>> If we are considering aliens with brains bigger than
>> animals seem to need - why do they have them?
>>
>> It may bē a matter of relative, not absolute size,
>> since a large body also seems to require a larger brain;
>> nerve cells and muscles in proportion, perhaps.
>> A heavy brain may not be a complex brain.  Conversely,
>> there are move very clever birds - and others that
>> don't seem to learn how to use one leg and then the
>> other (admittedly not their main thing), so they hop.
>>
>> One idea is that you need a complex brain to be a
>> tool user.  Then you also need a way to manipulate
>> tools - the word refers to hands, but tentacles
>> are another possibility.  Or the mouths.  These
>> features are to be expected.
>
>And yet, a number of birds use tools and some of the corvidae are 
>capable of carrying out a number of complex tasks like raising water 
>levels to catch a floating worm by dropping stones in.

And corvidae are smart, as birds go.  Another smart variety of
birds are parrots.  

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

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

#459538

"Dorothy J Heydt" <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote in message...
> Robert Bannister  <robban@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>  Quadibloc  wrote:
>>>> was inspired by the science-fiction movie Arrival, which, according
>>to a review of it that I read, is a good and serious science-fiction
>>movie, something we need more of.
>>>>
>>>> Anyways, though, the article raised a question to which I think I
>>have an answer.
>>>> In a lot of science fiction, aliens end up looking exactly like
>>humans - or like humans with a few trivial differences.
>>>> What is the next step up from that?
>>>>
>>>> Imagining what an intelligent life form that evolved completely
>>independently from us is *hard*.

Yes.  Hard. 

>>>> So what is the obvious shortcut to take?
>>>> Well, if we don't assume that all the steps evolution took in getting
>>to *us* will be exactly repeated on another world... but we're not up to
>>re-imagining a whole new development of life from the beginning...
>>>> why not imagine that only a *few* of those steps are repeated?
>>>>
>>>> So we get lizard aliens - they're very common.
>>>> Maybe starfish aliens! Or octopus aliens, as noted in the article I
>>referenced above.
>>>
>>> ---A heavy brain may not be a complex brain.  Conversely,
>>> there are move very clever birds - and others that
>>> don't seem to learn how to use one leg and then the
>>> other (admittedly not their main thing), so they hop.
>>> One idea is that you need a complex brain to be a
>>> tool user.  Then you also need a way to manipulate
>>> tools - the word refers to hands, but tentacles
>>> are another possibility.  Or the mouths.  These
>>> features are to be expected.
>>
>>And yet, a number of birds use tools and some of the corvidae are 
>>capable of carrying out a number of complex tasks like raising water 
>>levels to catch a floating worm by dropping stones in.
> 
> And corvidae are smart, as birds go.  Another smart variety of
> birds are parrots.  

It is probably a lack of imagination on my part, but I am 
having trouble envisioning a starfish alien, or a octopus alien, 
or a bird alien mining metal ore, smelting it, and pounding 
it between hammer and anvil  to purify it. 
And written records would seem slower with them. 

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

#459542

On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 4:32:23 PM UTC-7, a425couple wrote:

> It is probably a lack of imagination on my part, but I am 
> having trouble envisioning a starfish alien, or a octopus alien, 
> or a bird alien mining metal ore, smelting it, and pounding 
> it between hammer and anvil  to purify it. 
> And written records would seem slower with them.

They might need to use longer handles... human beings do things beyond the 
ability of their muscles by using tools to get more leverage, so such aliens 
could just have to go a few steps further.

John Savard

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

#459563

In article <o2nc1q013t7@news3.newsguy.com>, 
a425couple@hotmail.com says...
> 
> "Dorothy J Heydt" <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote in message...
> > Robert Bannister  <robban@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> >> Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>>  Quadibloc  wrote:
> >>>> was inspired by the science-fiction movie Arrival, which, according
> >>to a review of it that I read, is a good and serious science-fiction
> >>movie, something we need more of.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyways, though, the article raised a question to which I think I
> >>have an answer.
> >>>> In a lot of science fiction, aliens end up looking exactly like
> >>humans - or like humans with a few trivial differences.
> >>>> What is the next step up from that?
> >>>>
> >>>> Imagining what an intelligent life form that evolved completely
> >>independently from us is *hard*.
> 
> Yes.  Hard. 
> 
> >>>> So what is the obvious shortcut to take?
> >>>> Well, if we don't assume that all the steps evolution took in getting
> >>to *us* will be exactly repeated on another world... but we're not up to
> >>re-imagining a whole new development of life from the beginning...
> >>>> why not imagine that only a *few* of those steps are repeated?
> >>>>
> >>>> So we get lizard aliens - they're very common.
> >>>> Maybe starfish aliens! Or octopus aliens, as noted in the article I
> >>referenced above.
> >>>
> >>> ---A heavy brain may not be a complex brain.  Conversely,
> >>> there are move very clever birds - and others that
> >>> don't seem to learn how to use one leg and then the
> >>> other (admittedly not their main thing), so they hop.
> >>> One idea is that you need a complex brain to be a
> >>> tool user.  Then you also need a way to manipulate
> >>> tools - the word refers to hands, but tentacles
> >>> are another possibility.  Or the mouths.  These
> >>> features are to be expected.
> >>
> >>And yet, a number of birds use tools and some of the corvidae are 
> >>capable of carrying out a number of complex tasks like raising water 
> >>levels to catch a floating worm by dropping stones in.
> > 
> > And corvidae are smart, as birds go.  Another smart variety of
> > birds are parrots.  
> 
> It is probably a lack of imagination on my part, but I am 
> having trouble envisioning a starfish alien, or a octopus alien, 
> or a bird alien mining metal ore, smelting it, and pounding 
> it between hammer and anvil  to purify it. 
> And written records would seem slower with them. 

Consider that "bird" covers a lot of territory.  
Allosaurus was, for certain values, a bird.  I 
don't think that anything built along those 
lines is going to have much trouble swinging a 
hammer.

As for molluscs, I suspect that a half-ton squid 
or 600 pound octopus would have little trouble 
out-hammering a human.  And they make their own 
ink.

Starfish are another story--they don't have a 
central nervous system and do not appear to be 
particularly bright.

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

#459570

In article <MPG.32b937a2e9eebf0c98a7be@news.eternal-september.org>,
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <o2nc1q013t7@news3.newsguy.com>, 
>a425couple@hotmail.com says...
>> 
>> "Dorothy J Heydt" <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote in message...
>> > Robert Bannister  <robban@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> >> Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >>>  Quadibloc  wrote:
>> >>>> was inspired by the science-fiction movie Arrival, which, according
>> >>to a review of it that I read, is a good and serious science-fiction
>> >>movie, something we need more of.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Anyways, though, the article raised a question to which I think I
>> >>have an answer.
>> >>>> In a lot of science fiction, aliens end up looking exactly like
>> >>humans - or like humans with a few trivial differences.
>> >>>> What is the next step up from that?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Imagining what an intelligent life form that evolved completely
>> >>independently from us is *hard*.
>> 
>> Yes.  Hard. 
>> 
>> >>>> So what is the obvious shortcut to take?
>> >>>> Well, if we don't assume that all the steps evolution took in getting
>> >>to *us* will be exactly repeated on another world... but we're not up to
>> >>re-imagining a whole new development of life from the beginning...
>> >>>> why not imagine that only a *few* of those steps are repeated?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So we get lizard aliens - they're very common.
>> >>>> Maybe starfish aliens! Or octopus aliens, as noted in the article I
>> >>referenced above.
>> >>>
>> >>> ---A heavy brain may not be a complex brain.  Conversely,
>> >>> there are move very clever birds - and others that
>> >>> don't seem to learn how to use one leg and then the
>> >>> other (admittedly not their main thing), so they hop.
>> >>> One idea is that you need a complex brain to be a
>> >>> tool user.  Then you also need a way to manipulate
>> >>> tools - the word refers to hands, but tentacles
>> >>> are another possibility.  Or the mouths.  These
>> >>> features are to be expected.
>> >>
>> >>And yet, a number of birds use tools and some of the corvidae are 
>> >>capable of carrying out a number of complex tasks like raising water 
>> >>levels to catch a floating worm by dropping stones in.
>> > 
>> > And corvidae are smart, as birds go.  Another smart variety of
>> > birds are parrots.  
>> 
>> It is probably a lack of imagination on my part, but I am 
>> having trouble envisioning a starfish alien, or a octopus alien, 
>> or a bird alien mining metal ore, smelting it, and pounding 
>> it between hammer and anvil  to purify it. 
>> And written records would seem slower with them. 
>
>Consider that "bird" covers a lot of territory.  
>Allosaurus was, for certain values, a bird.  I 
>don't think that anything built along those 
>lines is going to have much trouble swinging a 
>hammer.
>
>As for molluscs, I suspect that a half-ton squid 
>or 600 pound octopus would have little trouble 
>out-hammering a human.  And they make their own 
>ink.
>
>Starfish are another story--they don't have a 
>central nervous system and do not appear to be 
>particularly bright.
>

Puny Earth creature!  How dare you speak thus of Starro The Conqueror!
-- 
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

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

#459594

On 2016-12-13, Ted Nolan <tednolan> <ted@loft.tnolan.com> wrote:
> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Starfish are another story--they don't have a 
>>central nervous system and do not appear to be particularly bright.
>
> Puny Earth creature!  How dare you speak thus of Starro The Conqueror!

{sfx: facehug}

Dave, enter the Justice League of America, stages left and up
-- 
\/David	DeLaney	posting	thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that	grows the flower
It's not the clock that	slows the hour 	The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is	all it takes to	make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE	HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd	- net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

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

#459571

In article <MPG.32b937a2e9eebf0c98a7be@news.eternal-september.org>,
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <o2nc1q013t7@news3.newsguy.com>, 
>a425couple@hotmail.com says...
>> 
>> "Dorothy J Heydt" <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote in message...
>> > Robert Bannister  <robban@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> >> Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >>>  Quadibloc  wrote:
>> >>>> was inspired by the science-fiction movie Arrival, which, according
>> >>to a review of it that I read, is a good and serious science-fiction
>> >>movie, something we need more of.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Anyways, though, the article raised a question to which I think I
>> >>have an answer.
>> >>>> In a lot of science fiction, aliens end up looking exactly like
>> >>humans - or like humans with a few trivial differences.
>> >>>> What is the next step up from that?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Imagining what an intelligent life form that evolved completely
>> >>independently from us is *hard*.
>> 
>> Yes.  Hard. 
>> 
>> >>>> So what is the obvious shortcut to take?
>> >>>> Well, if we don't assume that all the steps evolution took in getting
>> >>to *us* will be exactly repeated on another world... but we're not up to
>> >>re-imagining a whole new development of life from the beginning...
>> >>>> why not imagine that only a *few* of those steps are repeated?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So we get lizard aliens - they're very common.
>> >>>> Maybe starfish aliens! Or octopus aliens, as noted in the article I
>> >>referenced above.
>> >>>
>> >>> ---A heavy brain may not be a complex brain.  Conversely,
>> >>> there are move very clever birds - and others that
>> >>> don't seem to learn how to use one leg and then the
>> >>> other (admittedly not their main thing), so they hop.
>> >>> One idea is that you need a complex brain to be a
>> >>> tool user.  Then you also need a way to manipulate
>> >>> tools - the word refers to hands, but tentacles
>> >>> are another possibility.  Or the mouths.  These
>> >>> features are to be expected.
>> >>
>> >>And yet, a number of birds use tools and some of the corvidae are 
>> >>capable of carrying out a number of complex tasks like raising water 
>> >>levels to catch a floating worm by dropping stones in.
>> > 
>> > And corvidae are smart, as birds go.  Another smart variety of
>> > birds are parrots.  
>> 
>> It is probably a lack of imagination on my part, but I am 
>> having trouble envisioning a starfish alien, or a octopus alien, 
>> or a bird alien mining metal ore, smelting it, and pounding 
>> it between hammer and anvil  to purify it. 
>> And written records would seem slower with them. 
>
>Consider that "bird" covers a lot of territory.  
>Allosaurus was, for certain values, a bird.  I 
>don't think that anything built along those 
>lines is going to have much trouble swinging a 
>hammer.

A T-rex, on the other hand, would have serious difficulty in
hitting anything with it.
>
>As for molluscs, I suspect that a half-ton squid 
>or 600 pound octopus would have little trouble 
>out-hammering a human.  And they make their own 
>ink.
>
>Starfish are another story--they don't have a 
>central nervous system and do not appear to be 
>particularly bright.

Well, that's our starfish.  Something else with a pentameric body
plan could have plenty of brains where our starfish keep their
extrudible stomachs.
>

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

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

#459604

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>In article <o2nc1q013t7@news3.newsguy.com>, 

>>Starfish are another story--they don't have a 
>>central nervous system and do not appear to be 
>>particularly bright.
>
>Well, that's our starfish.  Something else with a pentameric body
>plan could have plenty of brains where our starfish keep their
>extrudible stomachs.

Instead of extrudable, how about linkable.  Niven's Gw'oth.
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web