info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Intelligent Life Could Be Rare
180 views
Skip to first unread message
Quadibloc
May 26, 2016, 9:51:08 AM5/26/16
to
A recent news report concerning the inaugural METI conference held in Puerto Rico
notes that it might be difficult to communicate with alien creatures that are not
humanoid, giving as examples creatures like intelligent spiders, citing one of
the papers given.
Another paper, by Dr. Anna Dornhaus, notes that there is reason to think that the
unusually high intelligence of humans may be the product of sexual selection.
This is not a new idea; Darwin himself advanced it in his sequel to "The Origin
of Species": "The Descent of Man", subtitled ...and Selection in Relation to Sex.
Elaine Morgan's book, "The Descent of Woman" also advanced this possibility in
more detail.
This was just one of the reasons Dr. Dornhaus gave for considering the
possibility that the steps which led to the intelligence level of humans could be
so involved, so rare, that all the habitable planets in the Universe might not be
enough for the process to be repeated.
I agree that this is a possibility; we don't know enough, however, to know how
many different routes to intelligence there are. While a Star Trek universe where
nearly every solar system is taken is unlikely, whether there are hundreds of
civilizations in each galaxy, or we are the only one in the whole Universe is
still very much an unknown in my opinion.
John Savard
notes that it might be difficult to communicate with alien creatures that are not
humanoid, giving as examples creatures like intelligent spiders, citing one of
the papers given.
Another paper, by Dr. Anna Dornhaus, notes that there is reason to think that the
unusually high intelligence of humans may be the product of sexual selection.
This is not a new idea; Darwin himself advanced it in his sequel to "The Origin
of Species": "The Descent of Man", subtitled ...and Selection in Relation to Sex.
Elaine Morgan's book, "The Descent of Woman" also advanced this possibility in
more detail.
This was just one of the reasons Dr. Dornhaus gave for considering the
possibility that the steps which led to the intelligence level of humans could be
so involved, so rare, that all the habitable planets in the Universe might not be
enough for the process to be repeated.
I agree that this is a possibility; we don't know enough, however, to know how
many different routes to intelligence there are. While a Star Trek universe where
nearly every solar system is taken is unlikely, whether there are hundreds of
civilizations in each galaxy, or we are the only one in the whole Universe is
still very much an unknown in my opinion.
John Savard
Stephen Allcroft
May 26, 2016, 11:02:51 AM5/26/16
to
cf Monty Python's Flying Circus, the Universe Song
Peter Trei
May 26, 2016, 11:18:37 AM5/26/16
to
On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 9:51:08 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
[...]
I'm not a Trekkie, but I recall TNG showing that all the rubber-forehead races
(including humans) had a single origin. There weren't too many others (the
'Q'?).
pt
[...]
> I agree that this is a possibility; we don't know enough, however, to know how
> many different routes to intelligence there are. While a Star Trek universe where
> nearly every solar system is taken is unlikely, whether there are hundreds of
> civilizations in each galaxy, or we are the only one in the whole Universe is
> still very much an unknown in my opinion.
How many independently evolved intelligent species are there in Star Trek?
> many different routes to intelligence there are. While a Star Trek universe where
> nearly every solar system is taken is unlikely, whether there are hundreds of
> civilizations in each galaxy, or we are the only one in the whole Universe is
> still very much an unknown in my opinion.
I'm not a Trekkie, but I recall TNG showing that all the rubber-forehead races
(including humans) had a single origin. There weren't too many others (the
'Q'?).
pt
Scott Lurndal
May 26, 2016, 12:27:42 PM5/26/16
to
Anthony Nance
May 26, 2016, 1:53:14 PM5/26/16
to
especially for TNG and Voyager, but a few that come to mind are:
- the Horta
- species of shapeshifters (Odo)
- lizard/reptile species (Gorn?)
- vague memories of insectoid species
- energy-based species (e.g. medusans in the TOS episode with Diana Muldaur)
- and maybe Wesley's nanites?
Tony
patmp...@gmail.com
May 27, 2016, 7:28:28 AM5/27/16
to
I prefer to think that the inhabitants of Earth are exceptionally backward.
Jack_Bohn
May 27, 2016, 11:14:00 AM5/27/16
to
Among the things Anthony Nance wrote:
> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 9:51:08 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> > [...]
> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 9:51:08 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> > [...]
> >> While a Star Trek universe where
> >> nearly every solar system is taken is unlikely, whether there are hundreds of
> >> civilizations in each galaxy, or we are the only one in the whole Universe is
> >> still very much an unknown in my opinion.
> >
> > How many independently evolved intelligent species are there in Star Trek?
> >
> > I'm not a Trekkie, but I recall TNG showing that all the rubber-forehead races
> > (including humans) had a single origin. There weren't too many others (the
> > 'Q'?).
> >
> I agree there weren't many. My ST memories get fuzzier by the day,
> especially for TNG and Voyager, but a few that come to mind are:
[...]
> >> nearly every solar system is taken is unlikely, whether there are hundreds of
> >> civilizations in each galaxy, or we are the only one in the whole Universe is
> >> still very much an unknown in my opinion.
> >
> > How many independently evolved intelligent species are there in Star Trek?
> >
> > I'm not a Trekkie, but I recall TNG showing that all the rubber-forehead races
> > (including humans) had a single origin. There weren't too many others (the
> > 'Q'?).
> >
> I agree there weren't many. My ST memories get fuzzier by the day,
> especially for TNG and Voyager, but a few that come to mind are:
> - lizard/reptile species (Gorn?)
ISTR Voyager's producers intended to have weirder aliens on that show, which seemed strange to me: a dozen light years is --for all practical purposes-- as far from Earth as 10,000. It does make more sense when considering that the Progenitors may not have had galactic reach. There was one episode where the Voyagers encountered a bird-like reptilian race they couldn't communicate with; who were only coming to a planet to either lay eggs or collect their young.
> - vague memories of insectoid species
> - energy-based species (e.g. medusans in the TOS episode with Diana Muldaur)
The Organians evolved from physical beings whose architecture fits the humanoid size and shape, whether they looked exactly like the form they took for our convenience or not. (There was a TNG episode about "John Doe" alien "evolving" into an energy being.)
On the main subject, it seems we are getting a handle on the unknowns of the Drake equation: the fractions of stars with planets, of planets with appropriate conditions for life, where life developed in those conditions. The fraction of life-bearing planets where intelligence arose still has two interpretations: it's only happened once that we've seen, and it's happened in every case we've examined.
--
-Jack
Robert Carnegie
May 27, 2016, 12:01:45 PM5/27/16
to
Gurl pubfr "boyvivba" juvpu v haqrefgbbq nf fhvpvqr
orpnhfr gurl sbhaq vg vzcbffvoyr gb yvir jvgu hf
jvgubhg pnhfvat unez - yvxr puneyvr'k. rira zef
fnetba unq frg nobhg gbeghevat zppbl gb trg ure jnl.
> The Organians evolved from physical beings whose architecture
> fits the humanoid size and shape, whether they looked exactly
> like the form they took for our convenience or not. (There was
> a TNG episode about "John Doe" alien "evolving" into an energy
> being.)
nf va "pngfcnj". gurl qvqa'g hfr vg nal zber rkprcg znlor
nf n zhfrhz.
Anthony Nance
May 27, 2016, 1:21:39 PM5/27/16
to
Jack_Bohn <jackb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Among the things Anthony Nance wrote:
>> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 9:51:08 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> While a Star Trek universe where
>> >> nearly every solar system is taken is unlikely, whether there are hundreds of
>> >> civilizations in each galaxy, or we are the only one in the whole Universe is
>> >> still very much an unknown in my opinion.
>> >
>> > How many independently evolved intelligent species are there in Star Trek?
>> >
>> > I'm not a Trekkie, but I recall TNG showing that all the rubber-forehead races
>> > (including humans) had a single origin. There weren't too many others (the
>> > 'Q'?).
>> >
>> I agree there weren't many. My ST memories get fuzzier by the day,
>> especially for TNG and Voyager, but a few that come to mind are:
> [...]
>> - lizard/reptile species (Gorn?)
>
> ISTR Voyager's producers intended to have weirder aliens on that show, which seemed strange to me: a dozen light years is --for all practical purposes-- as far from Earth as 10,000. It does make more sense when considering that the Progenitors may not have had galactic reach. There was one episode where the Voyagers encountered a bird-like reptilian race they couldn't communicate with; who were only coming to a planet to either lay eggs or collect their young.
>
>> - vague memories of insectoid species
>> - energy-based species (e.g. medusans in the TOS episode with Diana Muldaur)
>
> Coincidently, Muldaur was in two TOS episodes with discorporate intelligence; there was also the episode where Sargon and his group kept their mental energies stored in spheres. They thought they still needed physical instrumentalities, but by the end roamed free. They were pretty explicit about how they were once like us, to the extent that we might have been their lost colony.
>
Aha - I forgot she also was in the "Sargon" episode. Thanks!
> Among the things Anthony Nance wrote:
>> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 9:51:08 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> While a Star Trek universe where
>> >> nearly every solar system is taken is unlikely, whether there are hundreds of
>> >> civilizations in each galaxy, or we are the only one in the whole Universe is
>> >> still very much an unknown in my opinion.
>> >
>> > How many independently evolved intelligent species are there in Star Trek?
>> >
>> > I'm not a Trekkie, but I recall TNG showing that all the rubber-forehead races
>> > (including humans) had a single origin. There weren't too many others (the
>> > 'Q'?).
>> >
>> I agree there weren't many. My ST memories get fuzzier by the day,
>> especially for TNG and Voyager, but a few that come to mind are:
> [...]
>> - lizard/reptile species (Gorn?)
>
> ISTR Voyager's producers intended to have weirder aliens on that show, which seemed strange to me: a dozen light years is --for all practical purposes-- as far from Earth as 10,000. It does make more sense when considering that the Progenitors may not have had galactic reach. There was one episode where the Voyagers encountered a bird-like reptilian race they couldn't communicate with; who were only coming to a planet to either lay eggs or collect their young.
>
>> - vague memories of insectoid species
>> - energy-based species (e.g. medusans in the TOS episode with Diana Muldaur)
>
> Coincidently, Muldaur was in two TOS episodes with discorporate intelligence; there was also the episode where Sargon and his group kept their mental energies stored in spheres. They thought they still needed physical instrumentalities, but by the end roamed free. They were pretty explicit about how they were once like us, to the extent that we might have been their lost colony.
>
- Tony
Quadibloc
May 27, 2016, 1:44:28 PM5/27/16
to
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 9:14:00 AM UTC-6, Jack Bohn wrote:
> (There was a TNG episode about "John Doe" alien "evolving" into an energy being.)
I don't immediately recall which episode you're referring to - but I do know that
> (There was a TNG episode about "John Doe" alien "evolving" into an energy being.)
there was another episode in which the first *human* reached that stage of
evolution.
The character everyone loved to hate during the first season - Wesley Crusher.
John Savard
Alie...@gmail.com
May 27, 2016, 4:01:03 PM5/27/16
to
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 8:14:00 AM UTC-7, Jack Bohn wrote:
(snip)
> On the main subject, it seems we are getting a handle on the unknowns of the
> Drake equation:
There are some variables not accounted for, or probably more properly speaking folded into other variables. I'm thinking of the fraction of ETs that think sufficiently like us to even consider the possibility of life on other worlds, to consider leaving their world/sending space probes out/listening for our RF and other emissions.
We make assumptions like that all the time in SF. ST is often thrown up as an example- why do all rubber-forehead alien races have starships that look like design studies from competitors of the future Boeing that got all of the Starfleet contracts? The most radically different design that I recall is the Vulcan ringship design. If that's so logical, why does *nobody else* use it- instead pretty much everyone goes with one main hull or a split hull and two nacelles?
More to the point, why are there so few ST aliens who don't want contact with outsiders for whatever reason?
Yeah, I know, most SF is just Earth-historical-drama set in space. Still, if the Conspiracy Theorists who claim SF is intended to prepare us to meet our Alien Overlords were right, you'd think there'd be more Starfish aliens in stories.
Mark L. Fergerson
(snip)
> On the main subject, it seems we are getting a handle on the unknowns of the
> Drake equation:
We make assumptions like that all the time in SF. ST is often thrown up as an example- why do all rubber-forehead alien races have starships that look like design studies from competitors of the future Boeing that got all of the Starfleet contracts? The most radically different design that I recall is the Vulcan ringship design. If that's so logical, why does *nobody else* use it- instead pretty much everyone goes with one main hull or a split hull and two nacelles?
More to the point, why are there so few ST aliens who don't want contact with outsiders for whatever reason?
Yeah, I know, most SF is just Earth-historical-drama set in space. Still, if the Conspiracy Theorists who claim SF is intended to prepare us to meet our Alien Overlords were right, you'd think there'd be more Starfish aliens in stories.
Mark L. Fergerson
Don Bruder
May 27, 2016, 4:24:14 PM5/27/16
to
In article <1f9ef570-6de6-417c...@googlegroups.com>,
clobbered with a large dead trout - It's my contention that, with few
exceptions, humanity is dumber than a bag of hammers. Look at the
dipshit that calls itself "Starmaker" (and those who continue replying
to it) for a prime example of rampant stupidity in a so-called
intelligent species.
--
Brought to you by the letter Q and the number .357
Security provided by Horace S. & Dan W.
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> A recent news report concerning the inaugural METI conference held in
> Puerto Rico notes that it might be difficult to communicate with
> alien creatures that are not humanoid, giving as examples creatures
> like intelligent spiders, citing one of the papers given.
Define "intelligent life", please. First one to say "human beings" gets
> A recent news report concerning the inaugural METI conference held in
> Puerto Rico notes that it might be difficult to communicate with
> alien creatures that are not humanoid, giving as examples creatures
> like intelligent spiders, citing one of the papers given.
clobbered with a large dead trout - It's my contention that, with few
exceptions, humanity is dumber than a bag of hammers. Look at the
dipshit that calls itself "Starmaker" (and those who continue replying
to it) for a prime example of rampant stupidity in a so-called
intelligent species.
--
Brought to you by the letter Q and the number .357
Security provided by Horace S. & Dan W.
Don Bruder
May 27, 2016, 4:33:59 PM5/27/16
to
In article <0841588d-7477-4103...@googlegroups.com>,
Explained for the Complete SF Illiterate" type volumes that have
appeared through the years) that question gets handwaved with something
along the lines of "Due to the way the warp field works, a saucer/dish
and two nacelles is the most energy-efficient configuration" - Never
mind that "The Great Bird of the Galaxy" (AKA Gene Roddenberry) just
plain thought that configuration looked cool and insisted that the
modelers build it that way for TOS - turn your attention back to the
fancy handwavium show over here, dammit!
"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 8:14:00 AM UTC-7, Jack Bohn wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > On the main subject, it seems we are getting a handle on the unknowns of
> > the
> > Drake equation:
>
> There are some variables not accounted for, or probably more properly
> speaking folded into other variables. I'm thinking of the fraction of ETs
> that think sufficiently like us to even consider the possibility of life on
> other worlds, to consider leaving their world/sending space probes
> out/listening for our RF and other emissions.
>
> We make assumptions like that all the time in SF. ST is often thrown up as
> an example- why do all rubber-forehead alien races have starships that look
> like design studies from competitors of the future Boeing that got all of
> the Starfleet contracts? The most radically different design that I recall
> is the Vulcan ringship design. If that's so logical, why does *nobody else*
> use it- instead pretty much everyone goes with one main hull or a split
> hull and two nacelles?
As I recall reading somewhere (probably in one of the various "Trek Tech
> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 8:14:00 AM UTC-7, Jack Bohn wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > On the main subject, it seems we are getting a handle on the unknowns of
> > the
> > Drake equation:
>
> There are some variables not accounted for, or probably more properly
> speaking folded into other variables. I'm thinking of the fraction of ETs
> that think sufficiently like us to even consider the possibility of life on
> other worlds, to consider leaving their world/sending space probes
> out/listening for our RF and other emissions.
>
> We make assumptions like that all the time in SF. ST is often thrown up as
> an example- why do all rubber-forehead alien races have starships that look
> like design studies from competitors of the future Boeing that got all of
> the Starfleet contracts? The most radically different design that I recall
> is the Vulcan ringship design. If that's so logical, why does *nobody else*
> use it- instead pretty much everyone goes with one main hull or a split
> hull and two nacelles?
Explained for the Complete SF Illiterate" type volumes that have
appeared through the years) that question gets handwaved with something
along the lines of "Due to the way the warp field works, a saucer/dish
and two nacelles is the most energy-efficient configuration" - Never
mind that "The Great Bird of the Galaxy" (AKA Gene Roddenberry) just
plain thought that configuration looked cool and insisted that the
modelers build it that way for TOS - turn your attention back to the
fancy handwavium show over here, dammit!
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 27, 2016, 4:49:10 PM5/27/16
to
unsympathetic, and usually require a lot of explanation just to make the
reader accept them and let the story move along. So they're just not
going to be as common as "They may not LOOK like us but they think
rather like us". Especially since "us" covers awfully broad ground;
delving into other HUMAN cultures can still have one hitting the
"they're ALIENS" feeling quite often.
Insofar as Star Trek, they've retconned an explanation that the
core-plus-nacelles design is one favored by the physics of the Warp
Drive. Insofar as their aliens, it was stated in TOS more than once that
there were connections between a lot of the humanoid alien species.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
David Johnston
May 27, 2016, 4:53:22 PM5/27/16
to
On 5/27/2016 2:24 PM, Don Bruder wrote:
> In article <1f9ef570-6de6-417c...@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> A recent news report concerning the inaugural METI conference held in
>> Puerto Rico notes that it might be difficult to communicate with
>> alien creatures that are not humanoid, giving as examples creatures
>> like intelligent spiders, citing one of the papers given.
>
>
> Define "intelligent life", please. First one to say "human beings" gets
> clobbered with a large dead trout - It's my contention that, with few
> exceptions, humanity is dumber than a bag of hammers. Look at the
> dipshit that calls itself "Starmaker" (and those who continue replying
> to it) for a prime example of rampant stupidity in a so-called
> intelligent species.
>
A species has to be pretty intelligent for stupidity even to become a
> In article <1f9ef570-6de6-417c...@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> A recent news report concerning the inaugural METI conference held in
>> Puerto Rico notes that it might be difficult to communicate with
>> alien creatures that are not humanoid, giving as examples creatures
>> like intelligent spiders, citing one of the papers given.
>
>
> Define "intelligent life", please. First one to say "human beings" gets
> clobbered with a large dead trout - It's my contention that, with few
> exceptions, humanity is dumber than a bag of hammers. Look at the
> dipshit that calls itself "Starmaker" (and those who continue replying
> to it) for a prime example of rampant stupidity in a so-called
> intelligent species.
>
meaningful concept.
Dimensional Traveler
May 27, 2016, 5:23:13 PM5/27/16
to
someone's forehead costs a lot less than creating and animating a human
sized land living starfish. :)
--
Privacy IS Security
Kevrob
May 27, 2016, 6:00:57 PM5/27/16
to
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 4:24:14 PM UTC-4, Don Bruder wrote:
> In article <1f9ef570-6de6-417c...@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> > A recent news report concerning the inaugural METI conference held in
> > Puerto Rico notes that it might be difficult to communicate with
> > alien creatures that are not humanoid, giving as examples creatures
> > like intelligent spiders, citing one of the papers given.
>
>
> Define "intelligent life", please. First one to say "human beings" gets
> clobbered with a large dead trout - It's my contention that, with few
> exceptions, humanity is dumber than a bag of hammers. Look at the
> dipshit that calls itself "Starmaker" (and those who continue replying
> to it) for a prime example of rampant stupidity in a so-called
> intelligent species.
>
>
One theory is that Stirmacher is dumb like a fox. He plays the
> In article <1f9ef570-6de6-417c...@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> > A recent news report concerning the inaugural METI conference held in
> > Puerto Rico notes that it might be difficult to communicate with
> > alien creatures that are not humanoid, giving as examples creatures
> > like intelligent spiders, citing one of the papers given.
>
>
> Define "intelligent life", please. First one to say "human beings" gets
> clobbered with a large dead trout - It's my contention that, with few
> exceptions, humanity is dumber than a bag of hammers. Look at the
> dipshit that calls itself "Starmaker" (and those who continue replying
> to it) for a prime example of rampant stupidity in a so-called
> intelligent species.
>
>
part of a compleat ijit in order to better troll.
I'd prefer to think his skull is a toolbox, full of the finest
striking implements the Stanley Works can make. It is more
emotionally satisfying. :)
Kevin R
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 27, 2016, 6:29:11 PM5/27/16
to
Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:532b1535-dc43-4779...@googlegroups.com:
> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 4:24:14 PM UTC-4, Don Bruder wrote:
>> In article
>> <1f9ef570-6de6-417c...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > A recent news report concerning the inaugural METI conference
>> > held in Puerto Rico notes that it might be difficult to
>> > communicate with alien creatures that are not humanoid,
>> > giving as examples creatures like intelligent spiders, citing
>> > one of the papers given.
>>
>>
>> Define "intelligent life", please. First one to say "human
>> beings" gets clobbered with a large dead trout - It's my
>> contention that, with few exceptions, humanity is dumber than a
>> bag of hammers. Look at the dipshit that calls itself
>> "Starmaker" (and those who continue replying to it) for a prime
>> example of rampant stupidity in a so-called intelligent
>> species.
>>
>>
>
> One theory is that Stirmacher is dumb like a fox. He plays the
> part of a compleat ijit in order to better troll.
That theory would be more plausible if he were better at trolling.
cleaned out in a little, or a lot, too long.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:532b1535-dc43-4779...@googlegroups.com:
> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 4:24:14 PM UTC-4, Don Bruder wrote:
>> In article
>> <1f9ef570-6de6-417c...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > A recent news report concerning the inaugural METI conference
>> > held in Puerto Rico notes that it might be difficult to
>> > communicate with alien creatures that are not humanoid,
>> > giving as examples creatures like intelligent spiders, citing
>> > one of the papers given.
>>
>>
>> Define "intelligent life", please. First one to say "human
>> beings" gets clobbered with a large dead trout - It's my
>> contention that, with few exceptions, humanity is dumber than a
>> bag of hammers. Look at the dipshit that calls itself
>> "Starmaker" (and those who continue replying to it) for a prime
>> example of rampant stupidity in a so-called intelligent
>> species.
>>
>>
>
> One theory is that Stirmacher is dumb like a fox. He plays the
> part of a compleat ijit in order to better troll.
>
> I'd prefer to think his skull is a toolbox, full of the finest
> striking implements the Stanley Works can make. It is more
> emotionally satisfying. :)
I think of his skull as more of a septic tank that hasn't been
> I'd prefer to think his skull is a toolbox, full of the finest
> striking implements the Stanley Works can make. It is more
> emotionally satisfying. :)
cleaned out in a little, or a lot, too long.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 27, 2016, 6:33:38 PM5/27/16
to
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
news:niabl8$dv5$1...@dont-email.me:
> Especially since "us"
> covers awfully broad ground; delving into other HUMAN cultures
> can still have one hitting the "they're ALIENS" feeling quite
> often.
>
I was just reading the other day about all the many different ways
that humans count on their fingers, which hand they start with, which
finger they start with, apparently at least one culture doesn't just
count each finger as one integer, they use some to denote multipliers
or something.
news:niabl8$dv5$1...@dont-email.me:
> Especially since "us"
> covers awfully broad ground; delving into other HUMAN cultures
> can still have one hitting the "they're ALIENS" feeling quite
> often.
>
that humans count on their fingers, which hand they start with, which
finger they start with, apparently at least one culture doesn't just
count each finger as one integer, they use some to denote multipliers
or something.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 27, 2016, 6:34:18 PM5/27/16
to
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in
news:niadl3$k0r$1...@dont-email.me:
Certainly was the case in the 60s, and the 80s, and more or less
still so today. But not for much longer.
news:niadl3$k0r$1...@dont-email.me:
still so today. But not for much longer.
patmp...@gmail.com
May 27, 2016, 6:53:48 PM5/27/16
to
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 6:29:11 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
> news:532b1535-dc43-4779...@googlegroups.com:
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
> news:532b1535-dc43-4779...@googlegroups.com:
Look at the dipshit that calls itself
> >> "Starmaker" (and those who continue replying to it) for a prime
> >> example of rampant stupidity in a so-called intelligent
> >> species.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > One theory is that Stirmacher is dumb like a fox. He plays the
> > part of a compleat ijit in order to better troll.
>
> That theory would be more plausible if he were better at trolling.
> >
> > I'd prefer to think his skull is a toolbox, full of the finest
> > striking implements the Stanley Works can make. It is more
> > emotionally satisfying. :)
>
> I think of his skull as more of a septic tank that hasn't been
> cleaned out in a little, or a lot, too long.
If you use Google groups, declare his posts to be spam. It takes a while, but it will work.
> >> "Starmaker" (and those who continue replying to it) for a prime
> >> example of rampant stupidity in a so-called intelligent
> >> species.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > One theory is that Stirmacher is dumb like a fox. He plays the
> > part of a compleat ijit in order to better troll.
>
> That theory would be more plausible if he were better at trolling.
> >
> > I'd prefer to think his skull is a toolbox, full of the finest
> > striking implements the Stanley Works can make. It is more
> > emotionally satisfying. :)
>
> I think of his skull as more of a septic tank that hasn't been
> cleaned out in a little, or a lot, too long.
Don Bruder
May 27, 2016, 8:19:37 PM5/27/16
to
In article <niabt4$dv0$1...@dont-email.me>,
Fair enough. But that doesn't define "intelligent life".
Dimensional Traveler
May 27, 2016, 8:37:06 PM5/27/16
to
--
Privacy IS Security
Don Kuenz
May 27, 2016, 9:21:03 PM5/27/16
to
strutted around for the benefit of the gullible Trek Nation,
explaining how every failure was someone else's fault, and
every success was due to his fecund imagination, vast
literary ability, and CEO-level organizational skills. Do I
strike you as vicious in my presentation of these facts?
Yeah, well, just so, gentle reader, just so. I put up with
this crap for the better part of three decades, and now it's
my turn. Do not expect from me a nobility that was not
possessed by the late, great Bird of the Galaxy, who spent
more the a few hours of those years dropping bird-sh*t on
me and my version of "City." - Cordwainer Bird
--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 27, 2016, 9:30:47 PM5/27/16
to
patmp...@gmail.com wrote in
news:8e14cb6f-fabd-40ed...@googlegroups.com:
I like to play with my food.
news:8e14cb6f-fabd-40ed...@googlegroups.com:
Don Bruder
May 27, 2016, 9:54:19 PM5/27/16
to
In article <niap0k$ipq$1...@dont-email.me>,
So much for *ANY* intelligent life on earth, then, I guess...
Alie...@gmail.com
May 27, 2016, 10:55:05 PM5/27/16
to
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:24:14 PM UTC-7, Don Bruder wrote:
> In article <1f9ef570-6de6-417c...@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> > A recent news report concerning the inaugural METI conference held in
> > Puerto Rico notes that it might be difficult to communicate with
> > alien creatures that are not humanoid, giving as examples creatures
> > like intelligent spiders, citing one of the papers given.
>
>
> Define "intelligent life", please. First one to say "human beings" gets
> clobbered with a large dead trout - It's my contention that, with few
> exceptions, humanity is dumber than a bag of hammers.
Agent K said something about individuals can be smart but groups are idiots. Considering that there are about seven billion of us...
> In article <1f9ef570-6de6-417c...@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> > A recent news report concerning the inaugural METI conference held in
> > Puerto Rico notes that it might be difficult to communicate with
> > alien creatures that are not humanoid, giving as examples creatures
> > like intelligent spiders, citing one of the papers given.
>
>
> Define "intelligent life", please. First one to say "human beings" gets
> clobbered with a large dead trout - It's my contention that, with few
> exceptions, humanity is dumber than a bag of hammers.
> Look at the
> dipshit that calls itself "Starmaker" (and those who continue replying
> to it) for a prime example of rampant stupidity in a so-called
> intelligent species.
Mark L. Fergerson
Dimensional Traveler
May 28, 2016, 12:38:36 AM5/28/16
to
--
Privacy IS Security
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 28, 2016, 12:43:30 AM5/28/16
to
Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote in
news:niathd$su9$1...@dont-email.me:
You're apparently not smart enough to realize that you've claimed
to be smart enough to know how stupid people are, thus claiming to
be intelligent life, while claiming there is none on Earth.
Your own actions belie the claim, of course.
news:niathd$su9$1...@dont-email.me:
to be smart enough to know how stupid people are, thus claiming to
be intelligent life, while claiming there is none on Earth.
Your own actions belie the claim, of course.
Juho Julkunen
May 28, 2016, 1:17:45 AM5/28/16
to
In article <XnsA6159E487B4...@69.16.179.43>,
taus...@gmail.com says...
indicating the fingerbones with their thumb.
"Base ten bacause fingers" isn't as natural and obvious an idea as the
current popularity suggests. I'm kind of facinated by the remnants of
other numeral systems. Base 12 (and to some extent 60) is the most
obivious in Western culture, but base 20 pokes up in places, too.
--
Juho Julkunen
taus...@gmail.com says...
>
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
> news:niabl8$dv5$1...@dont-email.me:
>
> > Especially since "us"
> > covers awfully broad ground; delving into other HUMAN cultures
> > can still have one hitting the "they're ALIENS" feeling quite
> > often.
> >
> I was just reading the other day about all the many different ways
> that humans count on their fingers, which hand they start with, which
> finger they start with, apparently at least one culture doesn't just
> count each finger as one integer, they use some to denote multipliers
> or something.
There's a system in some places where people count in base twelve by
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
> news:niabl8$dv5$1...@dont-email.me:
>
> > Especially since "us"
> > covers awfully broad ground; delving into other HUMAN cultures
> > can still have one hitting the "they're ALIENS" feeling quite
> > often.
> >
> I was just reading the other day about all the many different ways
> that humans count on their fingers, which hand they start with, which
> finger they start with, apparently at least one culture doesn't just
> count each finger as one integer, they use some to denote multipliers
> or something.
indicating the fingerbones with their thumb.
"Base ten bacause fingers" isn't as natural and obvious an idea as the
current popularity suggests. I'm kind of facinated by the remnants of
other numeral systems. Base 12 (and to some extent 60) is the most
obivious in Western culture, but base 20 pokes up in places, too.
--
Juho Julkunen
Greg Goss
May 28, 2016, 2:09:46 AM5/28/16
to
Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>obivious in Western culture, but base 20 pokes up in places, too.
http://www.itchyfeetcomic.com/2015/09/tres-childish.html#.V0k195ErKM8
>obivious in Western culture, but base 20 pokes up in places, too.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Greg Goss
May 28, 2016, 2:14:25 AM5/28/16
to
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I think of his skull as more of a septic tank that hasn't been
>cleaned out in a little, or a lot, too long.
If the septic tank and drain field are designed right, it shouldn't
>I think of his skull as more of a septic tank that hasn't been
>cleaned out in a little, or a lot, too long.
NEED to be cleaned out all that often.
I don't think that my parents ever cleaned out the septic tank at the
house I grew up in. Dad rebuilt the drain field in 1965 or 1966, and
I don't remember any other septic tank work before the house was sold
in 1992.
At the next house my mother moved into, we never knew where the septic
tank WAS, other than hand-wavingly "in the back yard." She lived
there from 1992 to 2000. The city assessment for building the sewer
system came between the sale contract and the sale itself, but the
buyers were responsible.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 28, 2016, 3:17:16 AM5/28/16
to
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
news:dqsr9u...@mid.individual.net:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I think of his skull as more of a septic tank that hasn't been
>>cleaned out in a little, or a lot, too long.
>
> If the septic tank and drain field are designed right, it
> shouldn't NEED to be cleaned out all that often.
You'd think that, yeah, but it depends on how much shit you dump into
it.
news:dqsr9u...@mid.individual.net:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I think of his skull as more of a septic tank that hasn't been
>>cleaned out in a little, or a lot, too long.
>
> If the septic tank and drain field are designed right, it
> shouldn't NEED to be cleaned out all that often.
it.
Robert Carnegie
May 28, 2016, 6:03:51 AM5/28/16
to
On Friday, 27 May 2016 21:01:03 UTC+1, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 8:14:00 AM UTC-7, Jack Bohn wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > On the main subject, it seems we are getting a handle on the unknowns of the
> > Drake equation:
>
> There are some variables not accounted for, or probably more properly speaking folded into other variables. I'm thinking of the fraction of ETs that think sufficiently like us to even consider the possibility of life on other worlds, to consider leaving their world/sending space probes out/listening for our RF and other emissions.
>
> We make assumptions like that all the time in SF. ST is often thrown up as an example- why do all rubber-forehead alien races have starships that look like design studies from competitors of the future Boeing that got all of the Starfleet contracts? The most radically different design that I recall is the Vulcan ringship design. If that's so logical, why does *nobody else* use it- instead pretty much everyone goes with one main hull or a split hull and two nacelles?
Spaceship design may be varied for other reasons -
> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 8:14:00 AM UTC-7, Jack Bohn wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > On the main subject, it seems we are getting a handle on the unknowns of the
> > Drake equation:
>
> There are some variables not accounted for, or probably more properly speaking folded into other variables. I'm thinking of the fraction of ETs that think sufficiently like us to even consider the possibility of life on other worlds, to consider leaving their world/sending space probes out/listening for our RF and other emissions.
>
> We make assumptions like that all the time in SF. ST is often thrown up as an example- why do all rubber-forehead alien races have starships that look like design studies from competitors of the future Boeing that got all of the Starfleet contracts? The most radically different design that I recall is the Vulcan ringship design. If that's so logical, why does *nobody else* use it- instead pretty much everyone goes with one main hull or a split hull and two nacelles?
secret drive technology, multiple roles in scientific
or military activity, attitude to personal safety,
corruption in space industry manufacturing.
The Vulcan society that built ring ships is logical
but also corrupt. They took "Live long and prosper"
and ran with it. That's my theory.
I think it's in the novel _The Final Reflection_
where the Earth/Federation Transporter is demonstrated
to visiting Klingons and the Klingons wonder why
it's so much noisier than their own: apparently it's
because of a safety factor that the Klingons didn't
explore in their design, choosing instead that each
important Klingon has a /personal/ Transporter-operator
officer who is intimately involved with their survival.
So maybe the Vulcan ring ship is quite radioactive
and crewed entirely by officers who have logically
decided that they have all the children they need
and so the radiation doesn't matter to them.
Anyway, our own Earth war machines are rather dangerous
to ride in. I think there is an equation that when used,
someone is probably shooting at your plane or ship or
tank anyway, so, being more mobile or agile or alternatively
bomb-proof is a plus even if there's also quite a risk
of blowing up or catching fire or crashing or sinking.
> More to the point, why are there so few ST aliens who
> don't want contact with outsiders for whatever reason?
But I think there are plenty of no-contact aliens.
The Charlie X ones, very early. The Squire of Gothos.
The Organians. The Gorn and the Metrons. The ones
in the mirror=universe episode.
However, if you're a pre-space culture and the
Federation comes visiting, it's better to be friends
with them than not-friends. There's the Prime Directive,
but it's flexible. And if you don't accept the
Federation then the Klingons or the Ferengi may not
take No for an answer.
Adamastor Glace Mortimer
May 28, 2016, 9:25:45 AM5/28/16
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
In article <1f9ef570-6de6-417c...@googlegroups.com>
intelligent creatures with whom we have a difficult time
communicating, and we've evolved right next to them.
Dolphins and other cetaceans are clearly intelligent creatures.
They can conceptualize and communicate. The big difference between
us and them is not our brains, it's our hands. Our definitions of
"intelligent" have a lot to do with what can be put together or
manipulated by hands and fingers. Dolphins are intelligent
creatures, but they are never going to build radio broadcasting
equipment that will reach out to the stars. Doing any electronics
when you're obligated to always be surrounded by salt water is
quite a hurdle to leap.
Likewise, Chimpanzees, with whom we share most of our DNA and which
have some capacity to communicate and are quite bright, do not have
hands that are shaped well enough to build complex things like
radio transmitters. Given enough time Chimpanzees have the
potential to evolve into something that could build such devices.
So there may well be lots of intelligent beings all over the
universe, but we are unlikely to ever have anything to do with
them. We can't even define human intelligence very well.
> Another paper, by Dr. Anna Dornhaus, notes that there is reason to think that the
> unusually high intelligence of humans may be the product of sexual selection.
> This is not a new idea; Darwin himself advanced it in his sequel to "The Origin
> of Species": "The Descent of Man", subtitled ...and Selection in Relation to Sex.
>
> Elaine Morgan's book, "The Descent of Woman" also advanced this possibility in
> more detail.
>
> This was just one of the reasons Dr. Dornhaus gave for considering the
> possibility that the steps which led to the intelligence level of humans could be
> so involved, so rare, that all the habitable planets in the Universe might not be
> enough for the process to be repeated.
>
> I agree that this is a possibility; we don't know enough, however, to know how
> many different routes to intelligence there are. While a Star Trek universe where
> nearly every solar system is taken is unlikely, whether there are hundreds of
> civilizations in each galaxy, or we are the only one in the whole Universe is
> still very much an unknown in my opinion.
I agree. I strongly suspect, however, that microbial life is going
to prove ubiquitous. And from there we'll get larger living things
on some planets, but exact, or close enough, analogues of Homo
sapiens sapiens could be such an unlikely occurrence that we might
well be the only examples in this universe.
And even if we're not the only ones in this universe, the odds of
others so much like us being in THIS galaxy are slim. The odds are
that they'd be in a galaxy billions of light years away, if they
exist. I do not think that we are ever going to communicate with
any creatures from other galaxies. Too bad that we can't even get
along with each other.
Adamastor Glace Mortimer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iEYEAREKAAYFAldJKXAACgkQ1vVH2r/FDv2nGwCfVF2iQCdmlNnwC/wnoqRpVA6A
AAUAoLIZiCcFYu2BJpdiNjgxzXTU2mXh
=E1GT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA512
In article <1f9ef570-6de6-417c...@googlegroups.com>
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> A recent news report concerning the inaugural METI conference held in Puerto Rico
> notes that it might be difficult to communicate with alien creatures that are not
> humanoid, giving as examples creatures like intelligent spiders, citing one of
> the papers given.
No need to go nearly so far. Right here on Earth we have some quite
>
> A recent news report concerning the inaugural METI conference held in Puerto Rico
> notes that it might be difficult to communicate with alien creatures that are not
> humanoid, giving as examples creatures like intelligent spiders, citing one of
> the papers given.
intelligent creatures with whom we have a difficult time
communicating, and we've evolved right next to them.
Dolphins and other cetaceans are clearly intelligent creatures.
They can conceptualize and communicate. The big difference between
us and them is not our brains, it's our hands. Our definitions of
"intelligent" have a lot to do with what can be put together or
manipulated by hands and fingers. Dolphins are intelligent
creatures, but they are never going to build radio broadcasting
equipment that will reach out to the stars. Doing any electronics
when you're obligated to always be surrounded by salt water is
quite a hurdle to leap.
Likewise, Chimpanzees, with whom we share most of our DNA and which
have some capacity to communicate and are quite bright, do not have
hands that are shaped well enough to build complex things like
radio transmitters. Given enough time Chimpanzees have the
potential to evolve into something that could build such devices.
So there may well be lots of intelligent beings all over the
universe, but we are unlikely to ever have anything to do with
them. We can't even define human intelligence very well.
> Another paper, by Dr. Anna Dornhaus, notes that there is reason to think that the
> unusually high intelligence of humans may be the product of sexual selection.
> This is not a new idea; Darwin himself advanced it in his sequel to "The Origin
> of Species": "The Descent of Man", subtitled ...and Selection in Relation to Sex.
>
> Elaine Morgan's book, "The Descent of Woman" also advanced this possibility in
> more detail.
>
> This was just one of the reasons Dr. Dornhaus gave for considering the
> possibility that the steps which led to the intelligence level of humans could be
> so involved, so rare, that all the habitable planets in the Universe might not be
> enough for the process to be repeated.
>
> I agree that this is a possibility; we don't know enough, however, to know how
> many different routes to intelligence there are. While a Star Trek universe where
> nearly every solar system is taken is unlikely, whether there are hundreds of
> civilizations in each galaxy, or we are the only one in the whole Universe is
> still very much an unknown in my opinion.
I agree. I strongly suspect, however, that microbial life is going
to prove ubiquitous. And from there we'll get larger living things
on some planets, but exact, or close enough, analogues of Homo
sapiens sapiens could be such an unlikely occurrence that we might
well be the only examples in this universe.
And even if we're not the only ones in this universe, the odds of
others so much like us being in THIS galaxy are slim. The odds are
that they'd be in a galaxy billions of light years away, if they
exist. I do not think that we are ever going to communicate with
any creatures from other galaxies. Too bad that we can't even get
along with each other.
Adamastor Glace Mortimer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iEYEAREKAAYFAldJKXAACgkQ1vVH2r/FDv2nGwCfVF2iQCdmlNnwC/wnoqRpVA6A
AAUAoLIZiCcFYu2BJpdiNjgxzXTU2mXh
=E1GT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kevrob
May 28, 2016, 1:30:57 PM5/28/16
to
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 3:17:16 AM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
> news:dqsr9u...@mid.individual.net:
>
> > Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I think of his skull as more of a septic tank that hasn't been
> >>cleaned out in a little, or a lot, too long.
> >
> > If the septic tank and drain field are designed right, it
> > shouldn't NEED to be cleaned out all that often.
>
> You'd think that, yeah, but it depends on how much shit you dump into
> it.
>
Houses built too far from sewer lines, before environmental regulations
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
> news:dqsr9u...@mid.individual.net:
>
> > Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I think of his skull as more of a septic tank that hasn't been
> >>cleaned out in a little, or a lot, too long.
> >
> > If the septic tank and drain field are designed right, it
> > shouldn't NEED to be cleaned out all that often.
>
> You'd think that, yeah, but it depends on how much shit you dump into
> it.
>
were tightened up, often had cesspools* rather than septic systems.
Those had to be pumped out, periodically.
Perhaps *m's mind is like unto that more primitive device.
Kevin R
aka "cesspit."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesspool#cite_note-2
Michael F. Stemper
May 28, 2016, 4:05:17 PM5/28/16
to
On 05/27/2016 03:49 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 5/27/16 4:01 PM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>> We make assumptions like that all the time in SF. ST is often thrown
>> up as an example- why do all rubber-forehead alien races have
>> starships that look like design studies from competitors of the future
>> Boeing that got all of the Starfleet contracts? The most radically
>> different design that I recall is the Vulcan ringship design. If
>> that's so logical, why does *nobody else* use it- instead pretty much
>> everyone goes with one main hull or a split hull and two nacelles?
> On 5/27/16 4:01 PM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>> We make assumptions like that all the time in SF. ST is often thrown
>> up as an example- why do all rubber-forehead alien races have
>> starships that look like design studies from competitors of the future
>> Boeing that got all of the Starfleet contracts? The most radically
>> different design that I recall is the Vulcan ringship design. If
>> that's so logical, why does *nobody else* use it- instead pretty much
>> everyone goes with one main hull or a split hull and two nacelles?
>> Still, if the Conspiracy Theorists who claim SF is intended to prepare
>> us to meet our Alien Overlords were right, you'd think there'd be more
>> Starfish aliens in stories.
>> us to meet our Alien Overlords were right, you'd think there'd be more
>> Starfish aliens in stories.
> Starfish Aliens are a pain in the ass to write, tend to be
> unsympathetic, and usually require a lot of explanation just to make the
> reader accept them and let the story move along. So they're just not
> going to be as common as "They may not LOOK like us but they think
> rather like us".
You need to read (or reread) some Poul Anderson, who gave us races
> unsympathetic, and usually require a lot of explanation just to make the
> reader accept them and let the story move along. So they're just not
> going to be as common as "They may not LOOK like us but they think
> rather like us".
such as:
- The Shenna in _Satan's World_, some extremely aggressive (despite
Niven's beliefs) and non-herd-oriented herbivores
- The Ruadrath and the Domrath of Talwin, who had a "time-sharing"
arrangement in _A Circus of Hells_
- The Togru-Kon-Tanakh of "Hiding Place"
- The Didonians of _The Rebel Worlds_
- The Ythrians of "The Problem of Pain"
... to pick only a tiny selection of his alien races, and only taken
from his van Rijn/Falkayn/Flandry stories.
> Especially since "us" covers awfully broad ground;
> delving into other HUMAN cultures can still have one hitting the
> "they're ALIENS" feeling quite often.
Most notable was the split within the Diomedeans in _The Man Who
Counts_, but I recently encountered another in _After Doomsday_.
In the first, the ethnic/cultural divide drove a lot of the action;
in the second, it was a throw-away, sketched with just a few
sentences.
--
Michael F. Stemper
87.3% of all statistics are made up by the person giving them.
Michael F. Stemper
May 28, 2016, 6:01:57 PM5/28/16
to
On 05/28/2016 03:05 PM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 05/27/2016 03:49 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> Starfish Aliens are a pain in the ass to write, tend to be
>> unsympathetic, and usually require a lot of explanation just to make the
>> reader accept them and let the story move along. So they're just not
>> going to be as common as "They may not LOOK like us but they think
>> rather like us".
>
> You need to read (or reread) some Poul Anderson, who gave us races
> such as:
> - The Shenna in _Satan's World_, some extremely aggressive (despite
> Niven's beliefs) and non-herd-oriented herbivores
> - The Ruadrath and the Domrath of Talwin, who had a "time-sharing"
> arrangement in _A Circus of Hells_
> - The Togru-Kon-Tanakh of "Hiding Place"
> - The Didonians of _The Rebel Worlds_
> - The Ythrians of "The Problem of Pain"
Or, closer to your tastes: the Palainians and the Cahuitans (the
> On 05/27/2016 03:49 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> Starfish Aliens are a pain in the ass to write, tend to be
>> unsympathetic, and usually require a lot of explanation just to make the
>> reader accept them and let the story move along. So they're just not
>> going to be as common as "They may not LOOK like us but they think
>> rather like us".
>
> You need to read (or reread) some Poul Anderson, who gave us races
> such as:
> - The Shenna in _Satan's World_, some extremely aggressive (despite
> Niven's beliefs) and non-herd-oriented herbivores
> - The Ruadrath and the Domrath of Talwin, who had a "time-sharing"
> arrangement in _A Circus of Hells_
> - The Togru-Kon-Tanakh of "Hiding Place"
> - The Didonians of _The Rebel Worlds_
> - The Ythrians of "The Problem of Pain"
latter from _The Vortex Blaster_). Neither of them were "rubber
mask aliens".
--
Michael F. Stemper
There's no "me" in "team". There's no "us" in "team", either.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 28, 2016, 6:48:23 PM5/28/16
to
Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:77398468-eb97-40c1...@googlegroups.com:
Or perhaps he's just mentally ill and too stupid to cover it.
news:77398468-eb97-40c1...@googlegroups.com:
Alie...@gmail.com
May 28, 2016, 10:16:57 PM5/28/16
to
JWC once famously (apocryphally?) demanded of his stable of writers to write about aliens that don't think like humans, but nonetheless as well as humans. Is that possible? Most of our thinking is driven by preservation of self, family, and tribe, more or less in that order. Like all Earthly lifeforms we are driven by the profit motive (at least in terms of eating more than we poop, in order to maintain existence). Part of that requires practicing predation on other lifeforms for sustenance, and avoiding being predated upon.
The only kind of SFnal aliens that I can think of that might be exempt from any part of that is Hogan's Giants who evolved on a world without predators (something that seems extremely unlikely to me, but anyway).
Other examples of aliens predisposed not to think like us because of some fundamental difference?
Mark L. Fergerson
David Johnston
May 28, 2016, 11:09:16 PM5/28/16
to
different from human beings. Inherently they have something in common
with us because we use advanced tools. Bats may be different from
birds, but ultimately they gotta flap. Campbell wasn't asking for
incomprehensible, just not quite the same.
>
> The only kind of SFnal aliens that I can think of that might be
> exempt from any part of that is Hogan's Giants who evolved on a world
> without predators (something that seems extremely unlikely to me, but
> anyway).
>
> Other examples of aliens predisposed not to think like us because of
> some fundamental difference?
Jophur from the Uplift setting. Although once again...advanced tool
users and therefore with some significant similarities, the fact that
they have biologically modular intelligences means they have some
different perceptions of questions of self-preservation and identity.
Titus G
May 29, 2016, 1:01:19 AM5/29/16
to
On 29/05/16 14:16, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
snip
The Presger, a race so alien that it communicates with human like
species through a Translator, a human constructed for that purpose.
Misunderstanding is the norm for the majority of interaction though the
Translator does seem to grasp concepts better. Appears in Ann Leckie's
Ancillary Trilogy.
The Dwellers in Banks' The Algebraist.
snip
> They did seem to think rather similarly to humans.
>
> JWC once famously (apocryphally?) demanded of his stable of writers
> to write about aliens that don't think like humans, but nonetheless
> as well as humans. Is that possible? Most of our thinking is driven
> by preservation of self, family, and tribe, more or less in that
> order. Like all Earthly lifeforms we are driven by the profit motive
> (at least in terms of eating more than we poop, in order to maintain
> existence). Part of that requires practicing predation on other
> lifeforms for sustenance, and avoiding being predated upon.
>
> The only kind of SFnal aliens that I can think of that might be
> exempt from any part of that is Hogan's Giants who evolved on a world
> without predators (something that seems extremely unlikely to me, but
> anyway).
>
> Other examples of aliens predisposed not to think like us because of
> some fundamental difference?
My recent favourites are:
>
> JWC once famously (apocryphally?) demanded of his stable of writers
> to write about aliens that don't think like humans, but nonetheless
> as well as humans. Is that possible? Most of our thinking is driven
> by preservation of self, family, and tribe, more or less in that
> order. Like all Earthly lifeforms we are driven by the profit motive
> (at least in terms of eating more than we poop, in order to maintain
> existence). Part of that requires practicing predation on other
> lifeforms for sustenance, and avoiding being predated upon.
>
> The only kind of SFnal aliens that I can think of that might be
> exempt from any part of that is Hogan's Giants who evolved on a world
> without predators (something that seems extremely unlikely to me, but
> anyway).
>
> Other examples of aliens predisposed not to think like us because of
> some fundamental difference?
The Presger, a race so alien that it communicates with human like
species through a Translator, a human constructed for that purpose.
Misunderstanding is the norm for the majority of interaction though the
Translator does seem to grasp concepts better. Appears in Ann Leckie's
Ancillary Trilogy.
The Dwellers in Banks' The Algebraist.
Robert Carnegie
May 29, 2016, 8:40:34 AM5/29/16
to
On Sunday, 29 May 2016 04:09:16 UTC+1, David Johnston wrote:
> It's not reasonable to expect advanced tool using species to be utterly
> different from human beings. Inherently they have something in common
> with us because we use advanced tools.
Something in common with Tim Allen... I think your claim
> It's not reasonable to expect advanced tool using species to be utterly
> different from human beings. Inherently they have something in common
> with us because we use advanced tools.
needs at least the word "social", which is another big part
of human nature.
I suppose that individuals may need someone (i.e. Tim Allen)
to show them how to use the tools.
In the case of species whose ancestors are programmed
to eat their sexual partners, or their parents, or both...
would that perhaps have to cease to be the case? At least
for long enough for the consumees to pass on their
knowledge about tools... unless you get that by eating
their brain.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 29, 2016, 10:30:16 AM5/29/16
to
incomprehensible. They were the incarnation of "intellects too alien for
man to comprehend". Palainians and Cahuitans were pretty straightforward
to understand. They had some odd quirks, but leaving aside the
"fourth-dimensional" aspect of their physical being, there didn't seem
anything in their minds that didn't have a reasonable parallel, and
understandable one, with one or another human behavior.
In other words, their MINDS mostly worked in a comprehensible fashion,
and so really weren't that alien at all. Odd, but we meet plenty of odd
human beings, too. Same for the Cahuitans, whose major
"incomprehensibility" was that they were physically so peculiar that it
took a while to recognize and communicate with them. But once you COULD
communicate with them, hey, they were pretty easily understood.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Brian M. Scott
May 29, 2016, 12:21:45 PM5/29/16
to
On Sun, 29 May 2016 17:01:14 +1200, Titus G
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote
in<news:nidsrv$uqt$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> My recent favourites are:
> The Presger, a race so alien that it communicates with
> human like species through a Translator, a human
> constructed for that purpose. Misunderstanding is the
> norm for the majority of interaction though the
> Translator does seem to grasp concepts better. Appears
> in Ann Leckie's Ancillary Trilogy.
The Translator is responsible for some of the funniest
passages in the entire trilogy. We never really get a
sense of the Presger, and after we meet the Translator,
it’s very clear why: the Translator is already pretty alien
and clearly has a very hard time understanding either
Presger or human.
> The Dwellers in Banks' The Algebraist.
Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote
in<news:nidsrv$uqt$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> My recent favourites are:
> The Presger, a race so alien that it communicates with
> human like species through a Translator, a human
> constructed for that purpose. Misunderstanding is the
> norm for the majority of interaction though the
> Translator does seem to grasp concepts better. Appears
> in Ann Leckie's Ancillary Trilogy.
passages in the entire trilogy. We never really get a
sense of the Presger, and after we meet the Translator,
it’s very clear why: the Translator is already pretty alien
and clearly has a very hard time understanding either
Presger or human.
> The Dwellers in Banks' The Algebraist.
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
Brian M. Scott
May 29, 2016, 12:25:49 PM5/29/16
to
On Sun, 29 May 2016 10:30:13 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
in<news:nieu6n$1lu$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
> On 5/28/16 6:01 PM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
[...]
>> Or, closer to your tastes: the Palainians and the
>> Cahuitans (the latter from _The Vortex Blaster_).
>> Neither of them were "rubber mask aliens".
> I always viewed true "starfish aliens" as being
> essentially incomprehensible. They were the incarnation
> of "intellects too alien for man to comprehend".
> Palainians and Cahuitans were pretty straightforward to
> understand. They had some odd quirks, but leaving aside
> the "fourth-dimensional" aspect of their physical being,
> there didn't seem anything in their minds that didn't
> have a reasonable parallel, and understandable one, with
> one or another human behavior.
> In other words, their MINDS mostly worked in a
> comprehensible fashion, and so really weren't that alien
> at all. Odd, but we meet plenty of odd human beings,
> too. Same for the Cahuitans, whose major
> "incomprehensibility" was that they were physically so
> peculiar that it took a while to recognize and
> communicate with them. But once you COULD communicate
> with them, hey, they were pretty easily understood.
What about Janet Kagan’s sprookjes from _Hellspark_?
(Though her real forte, I think, was human cultural
variety.)
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
in<news:nieu6n$1lu$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
> On 5/28/16 6:01 PM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> Or, closer to your tastes: the Palainians and the
>> Cahuitans (the latter from _The Vortex Blaster_).
>> Neither of them were "rubber mask aliens".
> I always viewed true "starfish aliens" as being
> essentially incomprehensible. They were the incarnation
> of "intellects too alien for man to comprehend".
> Palainians and Cahuitans were pretty straightforward to
> understand. They had some odd quirks, but leaving aside
> the "fourth-dimensional" aspect of their physical being,
> there didn't seem anything in their minds that didn't
> have a reasonable parallel, and understandable one, with
> one or another human behavior.
> In other words, their MINDS mostly worked in a
> comprehensible fashion, and so really weren't that alien
> at all. Odd, but we meet plenty of odd human beings,
> too. Same for the Cahuitans, whose major
> "incomprehensibility" was that they were physically so
> peculiar that it took a while to recognize and
> communicate with them. But once you COULD communicate
> with them, hey, they were pretty easily understood.
(Though her real forte, I think, was human cultural
variety.)
David Johnston
May 29, 2016, 12:56:16 PM5/29/16
to
alien" is indistinguishable from "animal". Just ask the dolphins.
Cryptoengineer
May 29, 2016, 1:31:54 PM5/29/16
to
David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote in
news:nif6oh$du$1...@dont-email.me:
For alien aliens, try the Eastern block
Solaris - Stanislaw Lem (The original Russian filming maintains the
'alieness' of the original - I haven't seen the Western remake)
Fiasco - also Lem - What if you can't even recognize the alien as the
alien when its right in front of you?
Roadside Picnic - Bros. Strugatsky. Later filmed as 'Stalker', one of
the most intellectually scary movies I've seen. Aliens have briefly
come and gone, paying us no attention, as if they'd had a picnic. The
items they left behind are .... strange.
pt
news:nif6oh$du$1...@dont-email.me:
Solaris - Stanislaw Lem (The original Russian filming maintains the
'alieness' of the original - I haven't seen the Western remake)
Fiasco - also Lem - What if you can't even recognize the alien as the
alien when its right in front of you?
Roadside Picnic - Bros. Strugatsky. Later filmed as 'Stalker', one of
the most intellectually scary movies I've seen. Aliens have briefly
come and gone, paying us no attention, as if they'd had a picnic. The
items they left behind are .... strange.
pt
Juho Julkunen
May 29, 2016, 4:21:40 PM5/29/16
to
In article <XnsA61789A4DE...@216.166.97.131>,
treif...@gmail.com says...
> For alien aliens, try the Eastern block
>
> Solaris - Stanislaw Lem (The original Russian filming maintains the
> 'alieness' of the original - I haven't seen the Western remake)
The Astronauts, his first SF novel. It's not terribly good overall, but
I was struck by the portrayal of an alien environment.
Rendezvous with Rama, which I read soon afterwards, suffered by
comparison.
--
Juho Julkunen
treif...@gmail.com says...
> For alien aliens, try the Eastern block
>
> Solaris - Stanislaw Lem (The original Russian filming maintains the
> 'alieness' of the original - I haven't seen the Western remake)
I was struck by the portrayal of an alien environment.
Rendezvous with Rama, which I read soon afterwards, suffered by
comparison.
--
Juho Julkunen
Michael F. Stemper
May 30, 2016, 1:12:58 PM5/30/16
to
On 05/29/2016 09:30 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 5/28/16 6:01 PM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> Or, closer to your tastes: the Palainians and the Cahuitans (the
>> latter from _The Vortex Blaster_). Neither of them were "rubber
>> mask aliens".
> I always viewed true "starfish aliens" as being essentially
> incomprehensible. They were the incarnation of "intellects too alien for
> man to comprehend".
Okay, so a good deal of territory between "rubber mask" and "starfish",
> On 5/28/16 6:01 PM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> Or, closer to your tastes: the Palainians and the Cahuitans (the
>> latter from _The Vortex Blaster_). Neither of them were "rubber
>> mask aliens".
> I always viewed true "starfish aliens" as being essentially
> incomprehensible. They were the incarnation of "intellects too alien for
> man to comprehend".
apparently.
> Palainians and Cahuitans were pretty straightforward
> to understand. They had some odd quirks, but leaving aside the
> "fourth-dimensional" aspect of their physical being, there didn't seem
> anything in their minds that didn't have a reasonable parallel, and
> understandable one, with one or another human behavior.
Cahuitans had to put their nests on the surfaces of regular solids?
I think not.
--
Michael F. Stemper
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him talk like Mr. Ed
by rubbing peanut butter on his gums.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 31, 2016, 8:05:27 AM5/31/16
to
On 5/30/16 1:12 PM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 05/29/2016 09:30 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> On 5/28/16 6:01 PM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>
>>> Or, closer to your tastes: the Palainians and the Cahuitans (the
>>> latter from _The Vortex Blaster_). Neither of them were "rubber
>>> mask aliens".
>
>> I always viewed true "starfish aliens" as being essentially
>> incomprehensible. They were the incarnation of "intellects too alien for
>> man to comprehend".
>
> Okay, so a good deal of territory between "rubber mask" and "starfish",
> apparently.
>
>> Palainians and Cahuitans were pretty straightforward
>> to understand. They had some odd quirks, but leaving aside the
>> "fourth-dimensional" aspect of their physical being, there didn't seem
>> anything in their minds that didn't have a reasonable parallel, and
>> understandable one, with one or another human behavior.
>
> We understand dexitroboping and emfozzing? We understand *why* the
> Cahuitans had to put their nests on the surfaces of regular solids?
> I think not.
>
>
There's "understand as in people" and "understand technical details of
> On 05/29/2016 09:30 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> On 5/28/16 6:01 PM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>
>>> Or, closer to your tastes: the Palainians and the Cahuitans (the
>>> latter from _The Vortex Blaster_). Neither of them were "rubber
>>> mask aliens".
>
>> I always viewed true "starfish aliens" as being essentially
>> incomprehensible. They were the incarnation of "intellects too alien for
>> man to comprehend".
>
> Okay, so a good deal of territory between "rubber mask" and "starfish",
> apparently.
>
>> Palainians and Cahuitans were pretty straightforward
>> to understand. They had some odd quirks, but leaving aside the
>> "fourth-dimensional" aspect of their physical being, there didn't seem
>> anything in their minds that didn't have a reasonable parallel, and
>> understandable one, with one or another human behavior.
>
> We understand dexitroboping and emfozzing? We understand *why* the
> Cahuitans had to put their nests on the surfaces of regular solids?
> I think not.
>
>
the people's construction". I don't consider the latter required for the
former. As we're not 4th-dimensional, knowing/understanding the details
of either of those Palainian terms isn't ever likely to be important for
us; knowing the one is related to reproduction and the other to (iirc)
food prep is sufficient. Similarly, knowing WHY the Cahuitans had to (or
chose to) do their reproduction that way isn't nearly so important as
understanding that the vortices were incubators. I can still understand
both species AS PEOPLE. As opposed to, for instance, H.P. Lovecraft's
alien beings, many of whom are explicitly stated to have motives and
desires utterly beyond human ability to understand.
David Johnston
May 31, 2016, 10:14:38 AM5/31/16
to
critters are quite comprehensible in their behaviour for the most part.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 31, 2016, 10:31:02 AM5/31/16
to
was correct, you couldn't "show". Or if you could, you'd drive your
audience mad, and madmen in shuttered institutions buy few books.
Though in a sense I agree with you; I don't think that it is POSSIBLE
to have an "intelligence beyond human ability to understand". You could
have intelligences much BEYOND our ability to MATCH, but if said
intelligence bothered to communicate with you, it could make itself
understood.
Brian M. Scott
May 31, 2016, 11:34:01 AM5/31/16
to
On Tue, 31 May 2016 10:30:57 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
in<news:nik771$ogm$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> Though in a sense I agree with you; I don't think that it
> is POSSIBLE to have an "intelligence beyond human
> ability to understand". You could have intelligences
> much BEYOND our ability to MATCH, but if said
> intelligence bothered to communicate with you, it could
> make itself understood.
Leckie’s Presger only just barely manage -- sort of.
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
in<news:nik771$ogm$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> Though in a sense I agree with you; I don't think that it
> is POSSIBLE to have an "intelligence beyond human
> ability to understand". You could have intelligences
> much BEYOND our ability to MATCH, but if said
> intelligence bothered to communicate with you, it could
> make itself understood.
Robert Carnegie
May 31, 2016, 11:50:36 AM5/31/16
to
in the laboratory maze - the one that doesn't give them
electric shocks. But it's not quite a conversation.
Likewise, a super-intelligence may have insights that
it can't explain to us because we just won't understand.
I'm making myself uncomfortable because this sounds
like apologetics - making excuses for the gods being
capricious selfish jerks. So, they're not capricious,
they have ineffable motivations. But, look, do you
want to let them get away with "it's ineffable"?
Well, I don't!
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 31, 2016, 1:00:24 PM5/31/16
to
not sure it's applicable. I don't think intelligence, as human beings
generally use the term, is a complete continuous spectrum from Zero to
Infinity. There's some characteristics that an intelligent (sapient)
entity will have that mere sentient beings won't have. One that I'm
fairly sure would be necessary, though not sufficient, is enough
abstractive and cognitive capability to recognize oneself in a
representation (mirror is the most common).
I think even a hyperintelligent being talking to us would be having a
vastly more meaningful, and vastly less "inscrutable" or "ineffable",
conversation than the rat being zapped. You can't describe things in
metaphor to a rat. A hyperintelligent being could draw parallels, use
complex descriptions and so on, which would allow a human to grasp their
basic motives even if the human could not comprehend, in immediate
detail, the complexities thereof. I'm not sure a rat even understands
the concept of "motive".
David Johnston
May 31, 2016, 2:01:29 PM5/31/16
to
conversation, even with each other.
>
> Likewise, a super-intelligence may have insights that
> it can't explain to us because we just won't understand.
>
> I'm making myself uncomfortable because this sounds
> like apologetics - making excuses for the gods being
> capricious selfish jerks. So, they're not capricious,
> they have ineffable motivations. But, look, do you
> want to let them get away with "it's ineffable"?
> Well, I don't!
>
doesn't mean that their goals are even remotely beneficial to us of
course. The inhabitants of the Amazonian rainforest may not even
remotely understand the economics underlying deforestation (even the
human hunter-gatherers might not), but even if they understood it, they
still wouldn't be in favour of it.
But there's a big difference between not understanding an "alien"
because it's weird, and not understanding an "alien" because it's better
(drastically more intelligent or at least knows more stuff). =
Alie...@gmail.com
May 31, 2016, 2:15:28 PM5/31/16
to
We're getting closer to what I now believe I was talking about. ;>)
HPL's critters did indeed have inhuman motives and desires despite what their acolytes claimed was their desire to eat us- human motivations etc. were categorized by Maslow:
https://ideasuk.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/maslow.jpg
Now, if you're immortal, the bottom layer is pretty much irrelevant to you, no? Doesn't that also kinda topple the whole pyramid?
Mark L. Fergerson
David Johnston
May 31, 2016, 3:13:09 PM5/31/16
to
but at that point you've gone beyond mere "starfish alien" and into
"ignores all the puny constraints of reality". They're actually less
realistic than the facial appliance aliens.
Robert Carnegie
May 31, 2016, 3:48:53 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 19:01:29 UTC+1, David Johnston wrote:
> On 5/31/2016 9:50 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 15:31:02 UTC+1, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> >> Though in a sense I agree with you; I don't think that it is POSSIBLE
> >> to have an "intelligence beyond human ability to understand". You could
> >> have intelligences much BEYOND our ability to MATCH, but if said
> >> intelligence bothered to communicate with you, it could make itself
> >> understood.
> >
> > Like we can tell rats which path we want them to take
> > in the laboratory maze - the one that doesn't give them
> > electric shocks. But it's not quite a conversation.
>
> Since after all rats don't really have the capacity to hold a
> conversation, even with each other.
Rats laugh - but at a frequency too high for the human ear.
> On 5/31/2016 9:50 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 15:31:02 UTC+1, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> >> Though in a sense I agree with you; I don't think that it is POSSIBLE
> >> to have an "intelligence beyond human ability to understand". You could
> >> have intelligences much BEYOND our ability to MATCH, but if said
> >> intelligence bothered to communicate with you, it could make itself
> >> understood.
> >
> > Like we can tell rats which path we want them to take
> > in the laboratory maze - the one that doesn't give them
> > electric shocks. But it's not quite a conversation.
>
> Since after all rats don't really have the capacity to hold a
> conversation, even with each other.
But I think scientists have not yet discovered what sort
of jokes the rats are telling each other.
I suspect they aren't very sophisticated ones.
Robert Bannister
Jun 2, 2016, 2:21:37 AM6/2/16
to
doesn't have to be a spoken language. Do we understand those super fast
colour changes squid go through?
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Robert Bannister
Jun 2, 2016, 2:22:41 AM6/2/16
to
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Jun 2, 2016, 7:59:19 AM6/2/16
to
we are missing right now. But still, that wouldn't make them inscrutable
or ineffable; just needing a translator.
0 new messages