174-175: Got milk?

[Mr.Tucker]

DAMMIT!!! I miss three days on the forum, and this conversation happens without me!

To add some late opinions to the evolutionary quagmire: on needs to remember that while we think the mammals at the time of the dinosaurs were placental (evolving during the Cretaceous), we don't actually have any proof of that. The first placental fossils date to immediately after the K-T boundary, and molecular clock studies show that modern placental (not stem ones) date to the early Paleogene. Seems more like a radiation occupying vacant niches than a hostile takeover.

As to why the mammals survived better (well, some of them), most paleobiologists actually point to burrows: non-avian dinos did not seem to burrow. The smaller ones relied on their high speed (dinosaurs were quick on two legs, compared to the mammals) to evade predators, but that wouldn't help them evade massive heatwaves and climate change. Mammals at the time were burrowers, and most likely had metabolisms that allowed them to enter states of torpor to conserve energy and oxygen. Thus making them better at "bunkering" during the fallout of an asteroid impact.

The intelligence of dinosaurs and mammals evolved in parallel. These are, after all, two competing sister branches of the most evolved animals on Earth. On average, for a given size, dinosaurs do not seem to have been any less intelligent than mammals. Dinosaurs were extraordinarily successful, having survived two large extinctions on their own. They also managed to outcompete both early mammals and late synapsids. To me, the fact that mammals rule the world now seems like a fluke. The wheel is ever turning, and there is no reason to suspect that their descendants would not rise to domination once more given another high-order extinction event.

I would caution against using "time to maturity" in comparisons between birds and mammals. While exhibiting outwardly similar levels of intelligence, birds have a pretty different brain structure (for instance, they don't have a proper neocortex). Essentially it is a case of "convergent evolution" applied to behaviours rather than physical structures (something which is extraordinarily interesting on it's own). They way in which they learn seems to be quite different compared to mammals (ultra-high bandwidth early stage, followed by life-long medium bandwidth in birds vs high bandwidth in early and mid life that then slowly petters off for mammals; yes, elderly birds seem to show very little difference in learning speed compared to younger mature birds). In the world of neuropsychology, the general modern consensus is that sentience is an emergent phenomenon. As such, it may take very different forms to what we are accustomed to (see Peter Watt's "Blindsight").

As part of a challenge, I've undertaken a hobby worldbuilding project to try and flesh out a civilisation that would follow a complete and sudden extinction of the human species. As such I had to choose an animal that would be most likely to succeed us in intelligence. I chose a pachyderm, because, after much reading, it seems to me like they are the only order of mammals (no, I won't choose another ape ), alive today that combine both (scarily) high intelligence, and tool manipulation (don't sell that trunk short; it's a pretty broken attribute, given its size, flexibility, strength, and dexterity with its fingers). My main stumbling block at the moment is trying to plausibly determine what set of conditions would lead them to become truly intelligent (since intelligence is beneficial enough that there isn't really a single set of circumstance that would lead to it appearing; any animal and niche can benefit from it; it's probably a matter of energy with a tipping point somewhere).

Funny addendums:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUAT9XrFSN0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMLY3L5_c2w
https://www.dana.org/article/bird-brain ... ompliment/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9WoBPSvJ04&t=334s

[GeoModder]

As part of a challenge, I've undertaken a hobby worldbuilding project to try and flesh out a civilisation that would follow a complete and sudden extinction of the human species. As such I had to choose an animal that would be most likely to succeed us in intelligence. I chose a pachyderm, because, after much reading, it seems to me like they are the only order of mammals (no, I won't choose another ape ), alive today that combine both (scarily) high intelligence, and tool manipulation (don't sell that trunk short; it's a pretty broken attribute, given its size, flexibility, strength, and dexterity with its fingers). My main stumbling block at the moment is trying to plausibly determine what set of conditions would lead them to become truly intelligent (since intelligence is beneficial enough that there isn't really a single set of circumstance that would lead to it appearing; any animal and niche can benefit from it; it's probably a matter of energy with a tipping point somewhere).

You must have liked "Footfall" by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle.

[Arioch]

I chose a pachyderm, because, after much reading, it seems to me like they are the only order of mammals (no, I won't choose another ape ), alive today that combine both (scarily) high intelligence, and tool manipulation (don't sell that trunk short; it's a pretty broken attribute, given its size, flexibility, strength, and dexterity with its fingers). My main stumbling block at the moment is trying to plausibly determine what set of conditions would lead them to become truly intelligent (since intelligence is beneficial enough that there isn't really a single set of circumstance that would lead to it appearing; any animal and niche can benefit from it; it's probably a matter of energy with a tipping point somewhere).

Even if the trunk developed "digits" and became very dextrous, it's very difficult to do any serious work with only one manipulator. I'm reminded of this every time I injure one of my hands. You really need to be able to hold the item you're working on and the tool you're working with; there are no bench clamps in the stone age. I think the trunk would have to split in two, and probably fairly high up the base. Which, not accidentally, more or less describes the Fithp from Footfall.

A split-trunk adaptation would probably require some sort of freak mutation. But having "hands" to work with may itself be a trigger for the path to sentience.

[gaerzi]

Talking of sentience to describe human-like intellect is a misnomer (popularized by Star Trek I believe); properly sentience is the ability to sense one's environment and react to it, which is actually a rather low bar to clear. Even people who aren't hippies are starting to acknowledge that, for example, plants are sentient too.

"Sapience" is a better word I think, since it's the one who used to describe our species (homo sapiens sapiens): the ability to acquire and transmit abstract knowledge.

[Arioch]

Talking of sentience to describe human-like intellect is a misnomer (popularized by Star Trek I believe); properly sentience is the ability to sense one's environment and react to it, which is actually a rather low bar to clear. Even people who aren't hippies are starting to acknowledge that, for example, plants are sentient too.

"Sapience" is a better word I think, since it's the one who used to describe our species (homo sapiens sapiens): the ability to acquire and transmit abstract knowledge.

"Sapience" just means intelligence, and a being (such as an AI) can very intelligent without being "self-aware" or having "free will", or the various hard-to-define characteristics which separate humans from AI or other animals. Which is why science fiction literature uses the term "sentience" instead, presumably because of the element of "experiencing subjectively". It's not a perfect term, as befitting a subject which no one knows exactly how to define, but it's what we have.

Amusingly, there's even a scholarly paper on the subject: https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handl ... 6789/25749

(And it's science fiction literature as a whole, not merely Star Trek. I don't know who was the first author to use the term, but the use goes back to the 1920's at least.)

[boldilocks]

Perhaps the best way to describe a human-like intellect is
"Would you, as a european or american, feel comfortable cutting this being up and eating it"

[dragoongfa]

Perhaps the best way to describe a human-like intellect is
"Would you, as a european or american, feel comfortable cutting this being up and eating it"

Alright, I know this is meant to highlight the double standard of 'not being able to kill what you eat' that exists in the west. It's just that it ain't that hard to kill something once you get past the squeamishness of the first time. My grandmother, bless her soul, made sure to kick it out of me by having me kill a chicken that we would have a dinner for. Felt sad for an hour and then happily ate it.

[Arioch]

Perhaps the best way to describe a human-like intellect is
"Would you, as a european or american, feel comfortable cutting this being up and eating it"

There are plenty of Europeans and Americans who aren't comfortable cutting up and eating any animal, so I don't think that definition works.

[boldilocks]

Perhaps the best way to describe a human-like intellect is
"Would you, as a european or american, feel comfortable cutting this being up and eating it"

Alright, I know this is meant to highlight the double standard of 'not being able to kill what you eat' that exists in the west. It's just that it ain't that hard to kill something once you get past the squeamishness of the first time. My grandmother, bless her soul, made sure to kick it out of me by having me kill a chicken that we would have a dinner for. Felt sad for an hour and then happily ate it.

The most I ever killed in order to eat was fish.

[orion1836]

Perhaps the best way to describe a human-like intellect is
"Would you, as a european or american, feel comfortable cutting this being up and eating it"

A: How hungry am I?

[Ithekro]

"Carrot juice is murder"?

[sunphoenix]

Yeah, honestly, if I had to kill a cow and 'clean' the carcass and prepare the meat... I too would likely not eat a hamburger.

But... that said, if I had to to live? To survive... depends upon how hungry I get. Could I do it... eventually I think I could... but I would not enjoy it.

And for the record ~ No. I'm not a vegetarian, nor a Vegan.. I eat meat with gusto and enjoyment... but the mess of actually preparing a meat food... just not something I've been exposed to.

Could I learn or enjoy just eating plants? I'd be willing to make a try at it... the only plant I don't really like is spinach.. when its boiled ...but I think steamed would be fine so its probably a texture thing. Boiled spinach seems slimy to me. Don't like that.

[boldilocks]

Alex: "Wow, how do I explain this, do loroi have domesticated animals?"
Beryl: "Well, we call them males..."

[Arioch]

People can get used to almost anything, if they have to.

[boldilocks]

People can get used to almost anything, if they have to.

I don't think that will ever stop surprising me. Well, maybe one day.

[Mr.Tucker]

You must have liked "Footfall" by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle.

I...kinda liked it when I was young, but it was pretty ponderous reading. As I got older I liked it less and less. The subplots about cheating hearts and loose pants made me cringe many a times, as well as the somewhat self-aggrandizing view of authors (no, the president would not call on such people in case of alien contact). Seems too...pulpy. Like a vehicle to explore some wondrous technology concepts (which are pretty rock solid and awesome), that tends to leave the characters in a weird state of seeming a bit cardboardish.

WRT the Flithp (not gonna try to spell it right ), the novel is another let down:
1) They are complete and utter morons. I do not like authors that try to make that as a reason as to why they just don't steamroll us. Yes, their society is different...but why? Why did it evolve like that? How did their biology make them like that? Yes, their technology is not their own, but with their level of demonstrated acumen, I'm surprised they ever got anything safely off the ground, reverse engineering or not.
2) If they are aliens, why do they look like elephants? Copying an earth animal with no reasonable explanation is also a bit of a cop.
The starting animal from which my critter would evolved from are the African Forest Elephant. Essentially similar body plan, but more gracile, while similar in height.

I arrived at pachyderms because I did a lot of reading on high-intelligence animals,and chose them (HERE on earth, not in space, where starfish aliens are more likely the norm) because they had both high intelligence, a very rudimentary culture, and the ability for tool manipulation (something that dolphins, for instance do not have; birds might, but with severe limitations). Incidentally, I also found out many small details that make for interesting consequences for a culture. For instance, while elephants seems slow and ponderous, they are, in fact, quite impulsive and emotional, with a clear divide among the sexes. Differently from apes, they are also a keystone species in their environment despite not having technology. All should have an impact on their evolution.

Even if the trunk developed "digits" and became very dextrous, it's very difficult to do any serious work with only one manipulator. I'm reminded of this every time I injure one of my hands. You really need to be able to hold the item you're working on and the tool you're working with; there are no bench clamps in the stone age.

I think that's a bit of bias. When we use our arms, generally one is an anchoring point, and another a combination of manipulator and secondary anchor point. When a human uses a single arm, he has to use a stiff segmented member as bot a manipulator and primary anchor point. Elephants, OTOH, can rely on the flexibility of their trunk (and I can envision it becoming somewhat longer as the animal matures, so as not to hamper their mobility while young; it takes years for them to fully master the hundreds of muscles in their trunks) to allow them to wrap around an item and provide an anchor point while still keeping their "hand" (the end that presents the digits, which should also become longer) free to do manipulation. Their bodies are also better suited to it than ours, given that we become "unbalanced" with one arm, whereas theirs is firmly anchored, with the item right in front of their eyes (and incidentally near the ground if needs be). Some biomechanical things I ponder:
1) Longer and more lithe with shorter digits, or shorter, stronger, with longer digits? (for the moment, I've settled on the first)
2) How much taper? (not that much I'd say)
3) 3 symmetrical, identical digits (in which case, handedness would ensue, as some pachyderms would prefer to pinch with the one on the right, while other would be "left-handed"; elephants already show handedness in the direction they curl their trunks) or two stumpier and one longer?
Thus one becomes an expert in trunks...

[Arioch]

I think that's a bit of bias. When we use our arms, generally one is an anchoring point, and another a combination of manipulator and secondary anchor point. When a human uses a single arm, he has to use a stiff segmented member as bot a manipulator and primary anchor point. Elephants, OTOH, can rely on the flexibility of their trunk (and I can envision it becoming somewhat longer as the animal matures, so as not to hamper their mobility while young; it takes years for them to fully master the hundreds of muscles in their trunks) to allow them to wrap around an item and provide an anchor point while still keeping their "hand" (the end that presents the digits, which should also become longer) free to do manipulation. Their bodies are also better suited to it than ours, given that we become "unbalanced" with one arm, whereas theirs is firmly anchored, with the item right in front of their eyes (and incidentally near the ground if needs be).

I think there's a limited amount of "fine manipulation" you can do with the body of a trunk or tentacle. If you need fine manipulation on two objects at once, as is the case with much tool use (such as knapping flint), I think it would be significant handicap to skill if you have to wrap one of the objects farther up the same trunk.

[Mr.Tucker]

I think there's a limited amount of "fine manipulation" you can do with the body of a trunk or tentacle. If you need fine manipulation on two objects at once, as is the case with much tool use (such as knapping flint), I think it would be significant handicap to skill if you have to wrap one of the objects farther up the same trunk.

Well, they DO have front legs to press on to something (as they already do when breaking fallen branches: https://www.ardeaprints.com/african-ele ... 61909.html ) if needs be.
With stone tools in particular, there is one crucial observation to make: in hominins, they evolved to butcher meat easily. Elephants, OTOH, are herbivores (though I could flex that into more specialised fruit eaters or very selective herbivores). I would expect their stone tools to be more primitive for longer before reaching ground stone technology. Alternatively, there is no reason one can not use a static hammerstone and strike the working piece onto it. This might even lead to an earlier adoption of grinding techniques (which become common in the Neolithic in humans, mostly because it is such a break in kinematics from earlier techniques).

[DCR]

Perhaps the best way to describe a human-like intellect is
"Would you, as a european or american, feel comfortable cutting this being up and eating it"

There are plenty of Europeans and Americans who aren't comfortable cutting up and eating any animal, so I don't think that definition works.

I like Mordin's Rule.

[boldilocks]

Perhaps the best way to describe a human-like intellect is
"Would you, as a european or american, feel comfortable cutting this being up and eating it"

There are plenty of Europeans and Americans who aren't comfortable cutting up and eating any animal, so I don't think that definition works.

I like Mordin's Rule.

Look's like human meat is largely back on the menu, boys!