The Abstract Xenomorph Intelligence(Long)
Johnny T.
Here is what I have so far:
First the list of life defining characteristics:
1. Life acquires energy and uses it
2. Life evolves over time
3. Life reproduces
4. Life reacts to its environment
5. Life is cell based
Now my list:
1. Intelligence arises in F, G, and K class, main sequence star
systems
These stars last long enough for complex (multi-cellular)
life to arise anything much brighter than these and they would blow up
after a relatively short time span. M class stars are so dim that
for a useful amount of energy to reach the planet it would have to be very
close to the star, so close that planets are not likely to be able to form
there.
2. The star must have heavy elements in it.
The star must be at least second generation with
elements heavier than helium. It is my strong opinion that intelligence
based entirely in hydrogen and helium is not possible.
3. Intelligence can arise in multi-star systems only if the companion stars are very close (within less than one AU) together or a good distance apart (probably over 15 AU at least).
4. The planet must have protection from cosmic hazards.
It has been theorized that if we did not have the
gas giants deflecting millions of asteroids we would be bombarded by large
comets and asteroids every few thousand years instead of every few million.
Collision with a large asteroid is responsible for at least one mass extinction
on our planet. I doubt life could take that kind of pounding every
few thousand years. Of course you don't necessarily need gas giants,
another orbiting star would work just as well. Also, if life is going
to take place on the planets surface, I think it will need protection from
harmful cosmic rays. A combination of atmosphere and magnetic field
accomplishes this on Earth, it might be a requirement on other world.
5. If life is going to emerge on the surface of the planet I believe the world most have a moderate rotation speed. If the planet were tide locked or turned very slowly one side would bake and the other would freeze. This would cause all atmospheric gases to freeze or boil off into space. I doubt life could evolve to the point of intelligence under such conditions.
6. The planet must have liquid water.
Like Carl Sagan, I am a water chauvinist.
All
life on Earth requires liquid water. It has many properties that
are good for facilitating chemical reactions. Limiting life to water
isn't that big of a deal. Hydrogen is the most common element by
far and oxygen is also one of the most common substances in the universe
(much less common than hydrogen but still abundant).
7. Life is carbon based.
A few weeks ago I posted a message asking if silicon
based life is possible. After considering the reactions required
the temperatures involved are just to extreme. Large silicon molecules
require a high temperature to form and and a low temperature to remain
stable. This extreme is hard to find. Further evidence that
silicon life is not possible is life on Earth. Silicon is one of
the most common elements on the Earth's surface and yet no silicon based
life has every been found.
8. Intelligent life will be multi-cellular.
A single celled organism just isn't complex enough
for intelligence to emerge.
9. All life has a genetic code molecule of some kind.
10. All life will have an up side and a down side do to gravity.
11. Intelligent life capable of making technology must be able to move. This movement will cause the alien to be symmetrical in some way, it will either have a left a a right side or be roughly spherical to make movement less tasking on the brain and more energy efficient.
12. It will most likely have a front and a back side do to movement unless it is built like a sea urchin or a starfish.
13. Intelligent life capable of creating technology at TL1 will have fine manipulators of some kind (i.e. hands).
14. Intelligent life capable of creating technology will most likely be social beings. Sharing ideas is much more efficient for producing technology and this requires a social group.
15. Intelligent life, since it will be social will develop a language capable of conveying complex ideas. I imagine a written language will also emerge unless the xenomorphs in question have perfect memory of unlimited capacity.
16. It will have sensory organs of some kind. Chemical sensors are very common on Earth. Hearing would also be a good bet. Detecting electromagnetic radiation, likewise, is a good bet. The most common sense of all will probably be a sense of touch, without this you would survive very long as you couldn't feel pain. These organs will probably be close to the creatures brain to increase reaction time.
17. All intelligent life will have a large brain in proportion to its body size. Besides just receiving and interpreting information the brain of an intelligent creature would also be capable of doing other things such as logical inference and reasoning as well as retaining memories.
18. Intelligent life will evolve from a predator. On Earth predators are almost always smarter than their prey. For instance, cats are noticeably smarter than mice, and wolves are smarter than the elk they prey on. The predator/prey relationship is a universal characteristic of any ecosystem on Earth and I guarantee it will be the same on other planets. This is my most controversial idea, I think.
That's it for now, I know I forgot a few things so please point them out to me.
Sincerely,
Johnny T.
"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle
a question without debating it." -- Joseph Joubert.
Luke Campbell
> Over the past few weeks I have been assembling a list of the
> attributes that all intelligent life in the galaxy would possess, a
> universal template that will make aliens easier to design. This list
> is by no means complete and I invite you to nit-pick my ideas and tell
> me if there is anything I missed or that should be taken away. For
> the list I have made one assumption. This assumption is that for
> these aliens to be considered intelligent they must be capable of
> manufacturing technology of at least TL1. Linking intelligence with
> technology is not my intent but intelligence is such a difficult thing
> to define exactly that I feel it necessary.
This rather destroys any consideration of intelligent dolphin or whale
like lifeforms, or even intelligent octopus like critters (they can use
tools, but it is hard to smelt bronze when you cannot build a fire for
all of the water around you).
> Now my list:
>
> 1. Intelligence arises in F, G, and K class, main sequence star
> systems
> These stars last long enough for complex (multi-cellular) life to
> arise anything much brighter than these and they would blow up after a
> relatively short time span. M class stars are so dim that for a
> useful amount of energy to reach the planet it would have to be very
> close to the star, so close that planets are not likely to be able to
> form there.
It depends on how close to the star planets get. A very close orbit may
permit life around an M class star. As an example of just such an
orbit, several supermassive gas giants have recently been discovered in
very close orbits around their primaries (much closer than mercury to
the sun). Admittedly, none of the stars in these examples are class M,
but if this thing happens around class M stars as well, we could see
life bearing planets (or at least moons) develop there.
I am in perfect agreement about the class A and hotter stars. Life
around exotics like neutron stars would be too wierd to even begin to
speculate about.
> 4. The planet must have protection from cosmic hazards.
> It has been theorized that if we did not have the gas giants
> deflecting millions of asteroids we would be bombarded by large comets
> and asteroids every few thousand years instead of every few million.
> Collision with a large asteroid is responsible for at least one mass
> extinction on our planet. I doubt life could take that kind of
> pounding every few thousand years. Of course you don't necessarily
> need gas giants, another orbiting star would work just as well. Also,
> if life is going to take place on the planets surface, I think it will
> need protection from harmful cosmic rays. A combination of atmosphere
> and magnetic field accomplishes this on Earth, it might be a
> requirement on other world.
A couple points. There is still considerable scientific debate about
the nature of the K-T extinction (the one that the popular press
portrays as having been caused by an asteroid or comet collision). It
is true that a large extra-planetary body, probably around 20 km or so
in diameter, struck the Yucatan peninsula so near to the K-T boundary as
to be indistinguishable on a geological time scale, of this there is no
doubt, but there is no consensus among those working in the field of
dinosaur paleontology that this finished off the dinosaurs. For
example, many extra-palnetary bodies of about the size as the K-T event
asteroid or comet have struck the earth in the past and were not
responsible for any observed mass extinctions. Further, the K-T event
had very little effect on cold blooded, air breathing vertebrates or
small warm blooded vertebrates. Even if the K-T event was caused by a
comet or asteroid impact, the implication this would have is that the
megafauna on a hypothetical world which is regularly struck by asteroids
would either be non-existent, cold blooded, or adapted to the hardship
imposed by climate altering asteroid strikes.
> 5. If life is going to emerge on the surface of the planet I believe
> the world most have a moderate rotation speed. If the planet were
> tide locked or turned very slowly one side would bake and the other
> would freeze. This would cause all atmospheric gases to freeze or
> boil off into space. I doubt life could evolve to the point of
> intelligence under such conditions.
A tide locked world could very well have sufficient heat transfer to the
cold side to prevent oxygen, nitrogen, methane, and the like from
freezing out, in fact, i would be very surprized if these gases did
freeze out. The hot side would reach an equilibrium temperature with
the incoming radiation from the sun which would depend on its distance
from the sun. I see no reason why this would cause the gas to
automatically boil off into space, especially if the hot side had a
temperate climate. The major problem will involve the trapping of water
on the cold side of the planet. Extensive glaciation on the cold side
could cause rivers of ice to flow into the twilight area and melt,
forming seas. Without water to lubricate the continental plates at
subduction boundaries, though, there may not be plate tectonics, which
may lead to the loss of all surface water.
> 6. The planet must have liquid water.
> Like Carl Sagan, I am a water chauvinist. All life on Earth
> requires liquid water. It has many properties that are good for
> facilitating chemical reactions. Limiting life to water isn't that
> big of a deal. Hydrogen is the most common element by far and oxygen
> is also one of the most common substances in the universe (much less
> common than hydrogen but still abundant).
Ammonia and hydrogen fluoride can form hydrogen bonds much like water.
I see no a priori reason why these fluids could not be used as a solvent
for life.
> 8. Intelligent life will be multi-cellular.
> A single celled organism just isn't complex enough for
> intelligence to emerge.
Not on our planet, anyway. It is still conceivable, though, that
cellular life is only one way to maintain great complexity. Certainly
intelligent life will have a great many internal structures and tissues,
but segmenting the life form up with billions of cellular walls may not
be the only way to achieve this.
> 9. All life has a genetic code molecule of some kind.
How would it reproduce otherwise?
> 10. All life will have an up side and a down side do to gravity.
I tried to think of a counter example to this, but all I can come up
with are some single celled organisms and a few simple lifeforms like
rotifers and comb jellies.
> 11. Intelligent life capable of making technology must be able to
> move. This movement will cause the alien to be symmetrical in some
> way, it will either have a left a a right side or be roughly spherical
> to make movement less tasking on the brain and more energy efficient.
It could possibly be amorphous, something like and amoeba or slime
mold. In fact, you might get a colonial organism (something like a
polyp or man-o-war, or the aforementioned slime mold) where
communication between the individual organisms was sophisticated enough
to give rise to intelligent thought. The individual animals in teh
colonial organism might be rather loosely attached and form a sort of
amorphous structure.
> 15. Intelligent life, since it will be social will develop a language
> capable of conveying complex ideas. I imagine a written language will
> also emerge unless the xenomorphs in question have perfect memory of
> unlimited capacity.
It may be that the intelligent life form has a good grasp of social
situations and a good enough memory and understanding to make tools and
structures, but lacks sufficient ability for abstraction to develop a
language, or maybe just a written language, or maybe just a concept of
abstract rules for ordering the universe (science, mathematics) and
their applications (engineering). [The latter concept I often thought
would make an interesting gaming universe. Humans are the only
intelligent species that could abstract enough to develop, or
understand, science and mathematics. Thus, although there may be other
races out there who are more aggressive, individually powerful,
prolific, organized, and adaptable, they cannot reach the stars without
humans and there will always be a place for humans - they are the only
ones who can be engineers. The Non-Human Intelligent Life Forms
(NHILFs) could probably build a spaceship or gauss gun with the
engineering specs, a little bit of instruction, and rote knowledge, but
they would never invent any on their own.]
> 16. It will have sensory organs of some kind. Chemical sensors are
> very common on Earth. Hearing would also be a good bet. Detecting
> electromagnetic radiation, likewise, is a good bet. The most common
> sense of all will probably be a sense of touch, without this you would
> survive very long as you couldn't feel pain. These organs will
> probably be close to the creatures brain to increase reaction time.
I don't think there is any earthly life that doesnt have sensory
structures. Even bacteria are capable of reacting to chemicals and
light. (Note I am not including viruses and prions as life, here).
> 17. All intelligent life will have a large brain in proportion to its
> body size. Besides just receiving and interpreting information the
> brain of an intelligent creature would also be capable of doing other
> things such as logical inference and reasoning as well as retaining
> memories.
A very large NHILF might not need an extraordinarily large brain in
relation to its body size. It might well have a brain much larger than
that of a human, and the equivalent of a cerebral cortex much larger
than that of a human, without the brain mass/body mass ratio being
larger than that of a human. Think elephants, orcas, and physeters.
> 18. Intelligent life will evolve from a predator. On Earth predators
> are almost always smarter than their prey. For instance, cats are
> noticeably smarter than mice, and wolves are smarter than the elk they
> prey on. The predator/prey relationship is a universal characteristic
> of any ecosystem on Earth and I guarantee it will be the same on other
> planets. This is my most controversial idea, I think.
A big negative on this one. Pythons are not smarter than antelope, yet
pythons eat antelope. Crocodiles are not smarter than zebras, yet
unknown multitudes of zebras fall to crocs at waterholes every year.
Goannas happily track down, dig up, chase down, and devour rats. Komodo
monitors eat wild boar. (Although the last three are very intelligent
for reptiles, the more intelligent mammals, many of which they prey on,
still have them beat by a fair bit. The pythons are just plain stupid,
even for reptiles.) Early humans were common prey for the giant cats.
Even today, anyone walking in jungles with tigers or going for a stroll
in one of Africa's natural parks after sunset is just asking to be cat
food.
Elephants are highly intelligent, and are usually rated with the
primates in terms of intelligence on all counts. The same is true of
parrots. Neither of these makes much (if any) use of meat in their
diet.
The gorilla and the orangutan are entirely herbivorous. Other than
ourselves, the orangutan is very likely the most mechanically adept of
the primates and the best at mechanical reasoning, and is at least on
par with chimps who do hunt for food.
Think about it. Dogs are pretty dumb. They may be able to remember
tricks and have a good grasp of social situations, but try taking a dog
for a walk on a leash and watch it not realize that going on the other
side of a telephone pole from you is not going to get it anywhere. The
wild dogs, then, do not need great reasoning ability to kill deer or
antelope, just pack cohesion and bloody minded tenacity.
You really have to get away from the idea that just because something
looks sharp and alert that it is smart. Wolves look smart. They seem
smart. There is something about them that we think is smart.
Nevertheless, they really are not smarter in any measurable sense than
the animals they eat. For every time wolves are observed to act in
coordination to drive their prey towards the other wolves laying in
wait, there are many more times when the wolves flush their prey and
chase it in another direction from their packmates. The same is true of
lions.
Cats may be smarter than mice (which are really dumb) but they are not
noticably smarter than rats or jays, both of which fall to cats on a
regualr basis. The corvids (crow family) are quite a bit more
intelligent than the raptors (hawks and owls), yet, as I have witnessed
with my own eyes, the smaller corvids are eaten by raptors (in this case
a scrub jay that was nailed by a young accipitor, probably a Cooper's
hawk).
Why should they be? All they have to do is detect something (which
requires good sensors and well developed parts of the brain dedicated to
interpereting the sensors), chase it down (which might require a well
developed portion of the brain dedicated to motor reflexes) and kill it
(ditto). None of this requires reasoning ability. While organization
and reasoning might help them ambush prey or cut off a member of the
herd, the same organization and reasoning could be used by prey to avoid
predators.
Luke
StevenA201
>unless it is built like a sea urchin or a starfish.
In other words, it will have a front and a back side... unless it doesn't.
>15. I imagine a written language will also emerge...
Humans were intelligent for hundreds of millennia without writing. Vast
amounts of information were transmitted orally. It really worked. In fact, I
imagine writing might turn out to be the exception, rather than the rule.
But technology does depend on writing. Because of the general scale of Earth
history, I fully expect that if we ever find intelligence, the first ten
examples might all be stone-age types.
ObGURPS: Randomly assigning TL to newly-discovered aliens, I roll 3d6-10.
Technology is rare.
>18. Intelligent life will evolve from a predator.
I quite disagree. Pithecanthropus and his ilk were probably not predators, but
scavengers. I imagine intelligent life will evolve from a species under
tremendous stress. Perhaps herbivores are rather less lkely than other
ecological niches.
Jonathan Benn
cannot evolve. I'd rather like to think that life can appear just about
anywhere. Not only does it make for really interesting aliens, but it
also allows the characters to explore a wider range of worlds and
cultures.
Furthermore, while your ideas sound interesting enough, and as based on
science as they are, they're still just theories. We really have NO IDEA
of what is and isn't possible. It's nice to theorize about what allows
life to evolve, but science not only requires a sound method, but also
loads of information from different sources. Right now, we have only one
source: Earth. As such, any theories we have are automatically biased
towards how life evolved here! And even here, scientists have been
shocked before by the tenacity of life.
For example, until very recently, it was though that organisms couldn't
live in the stomach. With a PH varying from about 1 to 3, the stomach is
very acidic, and no scientist believed life could live there. Old wive's
tales, right? That is until an australian scientist proved to the world
that ulcers are caused by an acid-resistant bacteria living in the
stomach!
Here's another one: it was thought that there was no life at the bottom
of the ocean, but recent exploration has shown that there are entire
ECOSYSTEMS centered around sulfur-producing geo-thermal vents. Not only
bacteria, but many different species of multi-cellular animals too, all
living under extremely high pressure, in complete darkness, and without
oxygen.
For all we know, Earth is a fluke, and life is sulfur-based (rather
than oxygen-based) everywhere else in our galaxy. The point is that we
really don't know.
Johnny T.
will probably be proven wrong. Normally, I make up whatever alien I please for my
sci-fi campaigns, the more exotic the better, but in a few weeks I am beginning a
hard science campaign and I wanted my aliens to seem as real and believable as
possible. My list was based on two things, life on Earth and the laws of physics.
I agree whole-heartedly, the tenacity and adaptability of life is great and I think
life in the universe is abundant. I was too hasty saying that it is a universal
template. What I am really trying to put together is the list of the most likely
traits for intelligent life. There might be intelligent life on the surface of
neutron stars, and other exotic locales but I think that life elsewhere is more
likely. The list is not anywhere near finished and just in the limited feedback I
have received I have made several changes.
Sincerely,
Johnny T.
"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question
without debating it."
cra...@hotmail.com
"Johnny T." <John...@avenew.com> wrote:
>
> --------------656432EAC9572FFF539A5D3A
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
> First the list of life defining characteristics:
>
> 1. Life acquires energy and uses it
> 2. Life evolves over time
> 3. Life reproduces
> 4. Life reacts to its environment
> 5. Life is cell based
I'm going to dispute 5 for reasons below.
>
> Now my list:
>
> 1. Intelligence arises in F, G, and K class, main sequence star
> systems
>
> These stars last long enough for complex (multi-cellular) life to
> arise anything much brighter than these and they would blow up after a
> relatively short time span. M class stars are so dim that for a
> useful amount of energy to reach the planet it would have to be
> very close to the star, so close that planets are not likely to be
> able to form there.
I'd agree with you for "terrestrial life that we normally
think of", but there are quite clearly critters on
Earth who couldn't give a damn about sunlight and are in
fact completely independent of sunlight for life. Deep
sea vents biomes are the classic example. Its all driven
by chemical and geothermal energy. The moon of a gas giant
orbiting an M-class star could be riven with tides
like Europa and Io to generate the necessary geothermal
energy. If the right chemicals are there as well, the
right conditions are in place for life to survive, nevermind
the lack of good sunlight.
>
> 2. The star must have heavy elements in it.
Yup.
>
> 3. Intelligence can arise in multi-star systems only if the companion
> stars are very close (within less than one AU) together or a good
> distance apart (probably over 15 AU at least).
To be a little more general, planets have stable orbits
to ~1/3 the separation between their primary and its
companion(s). I suppose you could have a terrestrial
planet 1 AU from a Sol-type star with a companion star
in a 3-4 AU orbit, perhaps less for a smaller star.
>
> 4. The planet must have protection from cosmic hazards.
Yup. Though I found it interesting the Earth is estimated
to have taken 25 times the number of impacts that Luna has
and we still managed to survive the crawl out of the
primordial ooze.
>
> 5. If life is going to emerge on the surface of the planet I believe
> the world most have a moderate rotation speed. If the planet were
> tide locked or turned very slowly one side would bake and the other
> would freeze. This would cause all atmospheric gases to freeze or
> boil off into space.
No: convection. Hot air on the lit side would expand. The only
place to go is out to the dark side (and up). The rising hot
air would draw in cold air from the dark side. This would
cool the surface of the hot side and warm the far side.
>
> 7. Life is carbon based.
> A few weeks ago I posted a message asking if silicon based life is
> possible. After considering the reactions required the temperatures
> involved are just to extreme. Large silicon molecules require a high
> temperature to form and and a low temperature to remain stable. This
> extreme is hard to find. Further evidence that silicon life is not
> possible is life on Earth. Silicon is one of the most common elements
> on the Earth's surface and yet no silicon based life has every been
> found.
Silicones are an interesting half-way point. They form
long chains at reasonable temperatures. However, I think
the lack of versatility of silicon is discouraging in
this respect. A lot of silicones have carbon-based side
groups that give them their varying properties, so you
still end up with partly carbon-based life.
Though...(I said I'd bring up a complaint about your
multi-cellular life)
>
> 8. Intelligent life will be multi-cellular.
> A single celled organism just isn't complex enough for
> intelligence to emerge.
What does a robot constitute? Single cell or multi?
> 1. Life acquires energy and uses it
Fits robots.
> 2. Life evolves over time
That 2120 model was better than last year's...
> 3. Life reproduces
Classifying robot sexuality would be difficult if
it robots didn't "birth" their own kids like von
Neumann machines. What does a factory constitute, a
female? Does that mean the mobile robots who drop
by to deliver their design schematics (perhaps
tweaked and improved over a six pack of oil with some
friends) are all male? What happens if two robots
get together and decide each other has useful features
for "next year's model"? Where do managerial/master
computers who combine or add features from several
robots fit in? Fertility specialists?
In any case, I think adequately advanced robots who
can build more robots qualify as being able to
reproduce.
> 4. Life reacts to its environment
Fits robots.
> 5. Life is cell based
Not necessarily applicable to robots, nanobots excepted.
However, robots could (theoretically) do everything else.
Of course, their initial evolution didn't involve
primordial ooze, but sufficiently advanced robots could
easily qualify as life and sentient life at that.
>
> 9. All life has a genetic code molecule of some kind.
DNA, pendant methyl groups on polyethylene, or digital
on CD-ROM? :)
>
> 10. All life will have an up side and a down side do to gravity.
Nope. Not necessarily robots. And what about races that
engineered themselves for dwelling in zero-gee?
> 11. Intelligent life capable of making technology must be able to
> move.
You know, when the revolution comes and the AI master computers
read this, you better run for cover. They might not like being
considered unintelligent life.
What if the life is sessile for part of its life, or part
of the species (one gender?) is sessile?
> 18. Intelligent life will evolve from a predator. On Earth predators
> are almost always smarter than their prey. For instance, cats are
> noticeably smarter than mice, and wolves are smarter than the elk they
> prey on. The predator/prey relationship is a universal characteristic
> of any ecosystem on Earth and I guarantee it will be the same on other
> planets. This is my most controversial idea, I think.
I dunno. What if intelligent life evolved from herbivores
trying to avoid predators? It's certainly a survival trait
to be smart enough to elude the critters that want to eat
you.
--
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
EARTH FIRST! We'll strip mine the other planets later.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
pat mccurry
4. Also, if life is going to take place on the planets surface, I think it will need protection from harmful cosmic rays. A combination of atmosphere and magnetic field accomplishes this on Earth, it might be a requirement on other world.
What about a massive underground cavern system with an ecosystem based on non-photosynthetic primary producers?
6. The planet must have liquid water.
Like Carl Sagan, I am a water chauvinist. All life on Earth requires liquid water. It has many properties that are good for facilitating chemical reactions. Limiting life to water isn't that big of a deal. Hydrogen is the most common element by far and oxygen is also one of the most common substances in the universe (much less common than hydrogen but still abundant).
Water may be almost required but I haven't heard any plausible explanations for why Earth is so wet while every other body (europa excluded) is so dry. Even Jupiter has been found to have 1/10th the predicted water vapor in its atmosphere. Life may have to make do with other substances.
11. Intelligent life capable of making technology must be able to move. This movement will cause the alien to be symmetrical in some way, it will either have a left a a right side or be roughly spherical to make movement less tasking on the brain and more energy efficient.
They may have life stages that are immoble or free floating and assymetrical. (Medusae and polyps)
15. Intelligent life, since it will be social will develop a language capable of conveying complex ideas. I imagine a written language will also emerge unless the xenomorphs in question have perfect memory of unlimited capacity.
I can argue that a language will lead to intelligence or that they cannot truly exist independently.
16. It will have sensory organs of some kind. Chemical sensors are very common on Earth. Hearing would also be a good bet. Detecting electromagnetic radiation, likewise, is a good bet. The most common sense of all will probably be a sense of touch, without this you would survive very long as you couldn't feel pain. These organs will probably be close to the creatures brain to increase reaction time.
Hearing is a form of touch. It has been suggested that the brain itself grew from organs designed to interpret smell data exclusively.
17. All intelligent life will have a large brain in proportion to its body size. Besides just receiving and interpreting information the brain of an intelligent creature would also be capable of doing other things such as logical inference and reasoning as well as retaining memories.
Far more important than general brain size is cortex area. Dolphins have brains larger than humans' but fewer wrinkles in the frontal lobes than us. Efficiency is also important. Our neurons aren't making nearly as many connections as they could. I've even heard that after birth we generally lose 100s of thousands of potential connection sights. Evolution might be less sloppy with Tiny the extratestrial shrew.
18. Intelligent life will evolve from a predator. On Earth predators are almost always smarter than their prey. For instance, cats are noticeably smarter than mice, and wolves are smarter than the elk they prey on. The predator/prey relationship is a universal characteristic of any ecosystem on Earth and I guarantee it will be the same on other planets. This is my most controversial idea, I think.
Humans are opportunistic omnivores. Our ancestors only hunted large game after we developed weapons like atlatls and bows. Primates are either herbivores or omnivores. Elephants are herbivores. OK, I'll give you dolphins.
Juergen Hubert
Regarding intelligence: I would definietly reccommend reading Susan
Blackmore's "The Meme Machine" to help understand human intelligence
(and what "intelligence" in general might be). In her view, human
intelligence started when the first hominids started to imitate - and
the ability to imitate was a genuine genetic advantage. Since then, the
drive to mate with the best imitators has remained (which neatly
explains the sex life of certain politicians...), but the process of
imitation has undergone an evolution of its own (language->primitive
writing->phonetic alphabets->prining
press->radio->television->computers&internet->who knows what will come
next) that isn't neccessarily for the benefit of the genes (honestly, do
you belive your participation on Usenet will increase YOUR chances of
spreading your genes?)...
- Juergen Hubert
Johnny T.
Nis Haller Baggesen
> >12. It will most likely have a front and a back side do to movement
> >unless it is built like a sea urchin or a starfish.
>
> In other words, it will have a front and a back side... unless it doesn't.
>
> >15. I imagine a written language will also emerge...
>
> Humans were intelligent for hundreds of millennia without writing. Vast
> amounts of information were transmitted orally. It really worked. In fact, I
> imagine writing might turn out to be the exception, rather than the rule.
>
> But technology does depend on writing. Because of the general scale of Earth
> history, I fully expect that if we ever find intelligence, the first ten
> examples might all be stone-age types.
>
> ObGURPS: Randomly assigning TL to newly-discovered aliens, I roll 3d6-10.
> Technology is rare.
>
OTOH we might only find them if they have actually developed technology, since we
might then be able to discover radio-emissions etc.
Nis
UIrik Långström
news:38A4D7B2...@avenew.com...
<snip intro>
> First the list of life defining characteristics:
>
> 1. Life acquires energy and uses it
> 2. Life evolves over time
> 3. Life reproduces
> 4. Life reacts to its environment
These work I guess. I think there is a lot of redundancy between them, and I
think 3 should be Life has the ability to reproduce.
> 5. Life is cell based
What does this mean? That all life must have cells similar to ours, or just
that there must be some smallest building block, or that it must be
something to keep your innards inside? I guess there must be something that
says this is one thing and this is another, but this isn't that big of a
deal.
<snip astronomy, what's so fun about oogling a bunch of rocks and gasballs
anyway>
>
> 4. The planet must have protection from cosmic hazards.
That is hazards that are dangerous to the life that evolved on the planet.
Isn't this sort of like saying that the chicken came first, the egg second.
Like someone else pointed out a great many species have actually survived
mass-extinctions. If the surface was constantly bombarded by ionizing
radiation maybe we would have more stable genes and special stuff in our
cells to combat the ions, or the early life picked up tiny pieces of
magnetite to give them a strong enough magnetic field to repell the worst of
it. This could later evolve into something we would consider telekinesis
(Imagine a first contact scenario where the first question is: /Why do you
keep running into things?/). TL 1 production would consist of moulding
iron-rich plants into whatever. The civilization discovers electricity
before fire.
> 5. If life is going to emerge on the surface of the planet <snip>
AFAIK it didn't on earth. It evolved under the surface of the oceans.
>
> 6. The planet must have liquid water.
> 7. Life is carbon based.
How about a large rock with lots of metals and whatnot drifting through
space. All that *dangerous* cosmic radiation as well as natural radioactives
causes electrical currents to develop in the rock, eventually odds has it
that one of the currents can actually replicate itself and becomes the
anology for the first organism capable of photosynthesis. TL 1 production
could be some sort of capacitor to stun food. First contact: Humans discover
a planetsize meteroid in deep space, which is compsed almost entierly of
superconductors. Naturally a new goldrush begins. The planet is stripmined,
but suddenly all electronics fail. The inhabitants of the planet have
finally discovered space, and tries to repell the invaders.
>
> 8. Intelligent life will be multi-cellular.
How about the DNA, is that complex enough for you. How about an
exo-DNA-strand getting lost somehow in the single cell, and this cell lives
in a very rapidly changeing enviroment. Instead of being a waste of
resources, this strand actually manages to make changes to the genecode of
itself taking advantage of the new resources. TL 1 production would be
bioengineering. First contact: After discovering several new ecosystems and
each of these are completely immune to each other, humans no longer uses
biohazard suits when exploring. Imagine their surprise when they not only
contract a disease, but also mutate into a chemical factory capable of
turning human food into alien sustenance.
How about coral or something like that, not strictly multi-cellular but
carrying signals to each other, like in Isaac Asimovs novel Nemesis or Sid
Meier's Alpha Centauri.
Or multi-multi-cellular, like an anthill or termitehive. The ants running
like electrons through the tunnels...nah, probably chemicals, hormones and
so on. TL 1 production means growing into a special useful shape.
Or maybe multi-multi-multi-cellular. Several anthills.
Or multi-multi...
>
> 9. All life has a genetic code molecule of some kind.
Drop the molecule part and I'm with you. Still it is not that much different
from: "3. Life reproduces".
>
> 10. All life will have an up side and a down side do to gravity.
How about a ringshaped lifeform that moves by shifting a central weight
forward, like a bicycle wheel with muscles instead of spokes (those metal
rods between the hub and the circumference, at least I think they're called
spokes, I usually call them ekrar). The hub is pulled forward creating an
imbalance making the wheel roll forward.
But I think that would be very exotic and not the norm.
>
> 11. Intelligent life capable of making technology must be able to
> move. <snip>
A carnivorous plant captures animals by grabbing them with long tendrils.
Time goes by and animals develop carapace and plants develops intelligence.
Plants grab rocks and bash animals to death despite carapace. Later trade
means that they are able to get things from far away.
But again I think you are basicly right, and argue just because I cant
resist a challange.
<snip>
> 13. Intelligent life capable of creating technology at TL1 will have
> fine manipulators of some kind (i.e. hands).
Well, yeah.
>
> 14. Intelligent life capable of creating technology will most likely be
> social beings. Sharing ideas is much more efficient for producing
> technology and this requires a social group.
Or they could be very intelligent, or simply have a long time to study or be
more creative.
Actually I think it's the other way around: Social beings are more likely to
be intelligent.
> 16. It will have sensory organs of some kind. Chemical sensors are
> very common on Earth. Hearing would also be a good bet. Detecting
> electromagnetic radiation, likewise, is a good bet. The most common
> sense of all will probably be a sense of touch, without this you would
> survive very long as you couldn't feel pain.
Yeah, but I suspect the most common sense would be Detect Food, closely
followed by Detect Danger and only then Detect Suroundings. You can survive
without pain, but try not eating for a while and see how you feel. Of
course, I'm talking about all life, not just intelligent life, which will
probably have all these and more: Detect Self, Detect Other Persons Wish and
a backup or two. All the senses will also probably overlap.
>These organs will probably
> be close to the creatures brain to increase reaction time.
Surely you mean decrease reaction time? Or why not simply wait longer?
<snip>
> Sincerely,
>
> Johnny T.
>
> "It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a
> question without debating it." -- Joseph Joubert.
>
Very true.
You said earlier that you are a waterchauvinist, well, in case you havent
noticed it, I am a lifeist. I think, based on absolutely no evidence at all,
that life is very common.
---
Ulrik Långström
perg...@my-deja.com
>
> Regarding intelligence: I would definietly reccommend reading Susan
> Blackmore's "The Meme Machine" to help understand human intelligence
> (and what "intelligence" in general might be). In her view, human
> intelligence started when the first hominids started to imitate - and
> the ability to imitate was a genuine genetic advantage. Since then,
the
> drive to mate with the best imitators has remained (which neatly
> explains the sex life of certain politicians...), but the process of
> imitation has undergone an evolution of its own (language->primitive
> writing->phonetic alphabets->prining
> press->radio->television->computers&internet->who knows what will come
> next) that isn't neccessarily for the benefit of the genes (honestly,
do
> you belive your participation on Usenet will increase YOUR chances of
> spreading your genes?)...
Depends on if you are in a Roleplaying forum or one like
Alt.Sex.hookup.RT (I don't know if that really exists, but I know there
are one's like that) as far as that book goes, it looks like an
interesting one, could you give more info on where to find it? The
publisher maybe?
> - Juergen Hubert
>
--
Babylon