|
Post by QuantumCrab of '18 on Nov 23, 2017 21:51:29 GMT
The Fundamental Laws of Sapience (By QuantumCrab)The main issue with a lot of made up sapient creatures is that they tend to be unrealistic, unless their goal is to be silly/tongue-in-cheek. As a reference, I have decided to compile a list of rules that distinguish between what intelligent creatures could exist, and which couldn't exist. Feel free to suggest below what you believe another rule should be, and I will decide on whether it is correct. You may also argue against my rules preferably with evidence to back it up. You may post what ever you like, as long as it correlates to either the rules or the thread.The rules of sapience: Rule #1 - They must have evolved digits attached to the end of their limbs (don't have to be human-like hands, eg. talons, tentacles, trunks, anything else starting with T) that are strong, yet delicate enough to construct things, such as buildings, items, etc.
Rule #2 - Sapients generally must be small and relatively weak to conserve energy for their advanced brains. If they are indeed stronger and larger than usual sapient standards (around couple of metres tall), then they must have a way of consuming such large quantities of energy.
Rule #3 (contributed by February Steam of Foushoo ) - All sapient creatures must be social for increased chances of survival, eg. strength in numbers, as well as passing down knowledge.
Rule #4 (contributed by rhulyon ) - To further evolve, sapient creatures must work together to overcome the dangers of their environment. This is usually a side effect to larger brains and weaker bodies. rhulyon
(More rules coming soon)
|
|
|
Post by serialkiller🌴 on Nov 23, 2017 22:59:56 GMT
I'm not sure about the hands though . Some birds are very intelligent and can use tools , with the right technique they could probably even produce tools . Also what about things like tentacles ? I think there are quite some alternatives for hands .
|
|
|
Post by QuantumCrab of '18 on Nov 23, 2017 23:02:14 GMT
I'm not sure about the hands though . Some birds are very intelligent and can use tools , with the right technique they could probably even produce tools . Also what about things like tentacles ? I think there are quite some alternatives for hands . They don't have to be human hands, only something that can do as described.
|
|
|
Post by February Steam of Foushoo on Nov 24, 2017 2:32:13 GMT
Must have at least some habits of social behavior. Sapience does not make much sense if your species doesn't have much need to express information to others around them.
|
|
|
Post by QuantumCrab of '18 on Nov 24, 2017 3:36:13 GMT
Must have at least some habits of social behavior. Sapience does not make much sense if your species doesn't have much need to express information to others around them. So things like language? Visible emotions?
|
|
|
Post by February Steam of Foushoo on Nov 24, 2017 4:04:52 GMT
certainly not anything like language or visible emotion is necessary. By social behavior I mean relations of organisms beyond direct parent-child relationships. Most animals are on their own when they are born or are cared for by their parents before they can survive on their own. Sapience can only evolve(from my understanding) from those organisms who work together with others of their species. Wolves for example have a system of looping alpha males and lesser males who hunt for the group.
|
|
|
Post by QuantumCrab of '18 on Nov 24, 2017 4:44:29 GMT
But I mean in terms of organisms beginning to think about the world and act based upon past knowledge as well as being able to coordinate complex strategies through language. These rules only apply to creatures in tribal-like societies and onward.
|
|
|
Post by February Steam of Foushoo on Nov 24, 2017 5:00:41 GMT
But I mean in terms of organisms beginning to think about the world and act based upon past knowledge as well as being able to coordinate complex strategies through language. These rules only apply to creatures in tribal-like societies and onward. I'm sorry. I'm not sure where you're getting at. wolves are not tribal societies. The reason why sapient organisms(like humans) began to be able to retain, communicate, and spread info is because of social dynamics that educated member organisms to what the rest of the group needed. In other words, hermit creatures can't exist as sapient organisms.
|
|
|
Post by QuantumCrab of '18 on Nov 24, 2017 5:44:54 GMT
I agree, but I wasn't talking about wolves. I was talking about humans and fictional sapients.
So, instead of specifically language or emotion, you mean they need to be social?
|
|
|
Post by February Steam of Foushoo on Nov 24, 2017 5:51:08 GMT
I agree, but I wasn't talking about wolves. I was talking about humans and fictional sapients. So, instead of specifically language or emotion, you mean they need to be social? Yes. essentially not hermit beings. I used wolves to describe a primitive form of sapience that could lead to actual sapience if they fit other details(like hands).
|
|
|
Post by February Steam of Foushoo on Nov 24, 2017 5:59:20 GMT
I'm not sure about the hands though . Some birds are very intelligent and can use tools , with the right technique they could probably even produce tools . Also what about things like tentacles ? I think there are quite some alternatives for hands . They don't have to be human hands, only something that can do as described. That's one of those problems with talking about sapience when we real have only one sure example(humans). things without hands(like octopi and birds) without the intricate ability of movement hands provide, Though perhaps being able to make simple tools, I can't be sure they would be able to develop to be a human-level of sapience. Maybe I'm just nit-picking though.
|
|
|
Post by QuantumCrab of '18 on Nov 24, 2017 6:13:15 GMT
They don't have to be human hands, only something that can do as described. That's one of those problems with talking about sapience when we real have only one sure example(humans). things without hands(like octopi and birds) without the intricate ability of movement hands provide, Though perhaps being able to make simple tools, I can't be sure they would be able to develop to be a human-level of sapience. Maybe I'm just nit-picking though. Well, thats another rule on the list!
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Nov 24, 2017 11:57:04 GMT
I kind of feel like these are the laws to reach "human-like" sapience. What I mean, is that sapient creatures that can't craft things (for example), would probably still be able to make communities or something.
Second of all, rule #2 is, false. Human's might not have been the strongest animals, but they were the ones with the most endurance (seriously, there were hunting tactics which consisted of just chasing an animal until it dropped dead from exhaustion), and the ones that had the most energy "to spare", or so to speak. (as walking on 2 legs is very energy-efficient.) This meant that it should probably be replaced with something along the lines of "It shouldn't consume all its energy". An apex predator, for example could probably gain sapience too, as he'll have enough energy to spare to support a big brain.
On to rule #3: probably just probability speaking, but, while it's not very probable, a massive, intelligent creature could probably technically exist. The same applies to rule #4
(also, requesting evidence for a discussion like this might not be the best idea, as, unless we find aliens or something, the only evidence that can be used is "pro-human").
|
|
|
Post by lordclassyus on Nov 24, 2017 12:33:05 GMT
Octopuses are one of the most intelligent animals on earth and they seem to do fine with tentacles. I don't think it would be too weird or unrealistic for an alien species to use tentacles instead of traditional limbs.
|
|
|
Post by QuantumCrab of '18 on Nov 24, 2017 12:52:45 GMT
I kind of feel like these are the laws to reach "human-like" sapience. What I mean, is that sapient creatures that can't craft things (for example), would probably still be able to make communities or something. Second of all, rule #2 is, false. Human's might not have been the strongest animals, but they were the ones with the most endurance (seriously, there were hunting tactics which consisted of just chasing an animal until it dropped dead from exhaustion), and the ones that had the most energy "to spare", or so to speak. (as walking on 2 legs is very energy-efficient.) This meant that it should probably be replaced with something along the lines of "It shouldn't consume all its energy". An apex predator, for example could probably gain sapience too, as he'll have enough energy to spare to support a big brain. On to rule #3: probably just probability speaking, but, while it's not very probable, a massive, intelligent creature could probably technically exist. The same applies to rule #4 (also, requesting evidence for a discussion like this might not be the best idea, as, unless we find aliens or something, the only evidence that can be used is "pro-human"). So rule 2 is false, yet you agree that humans were not the strongest of animals? In the rule itself, I mean that humans cannot be extremely smart, extremely strong, and extremely anything else. Because of the ecological niche that humans fit into (or any other sapient), they focus on evolving intelligence. Second of all, I stand by rule 3. Something large in terms of elephant size or onwards cannot have a brain full of knowledge to act upon (the very definition of sapience). Elephants, my example, have larger brains than humans, yet they lack the efficiency and intelligence of a human brain. This is not say elephants are dumb, just not suited to that ecological niche. (also, I requested evidence just to back up what people are saying. For example, the November dust of Foushoo gave the example of wolves in one of his suggestions. As long as it relates, it can be counted as evidence.)
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Nov 24, 2017 15:09:39 GMT
yet you agree that humans were not the strongest of animals? In the rule itself, I mean that humans cannot be extremely smart, extremely strong, and extremely anything but smart. Because of the ecological niche that humans fit into (or any other sapient), they focus on evolving intelligence. But... a very strong animal =/=an "overpowered" animal. Strength doesn't determine a lot in the animal world. Also, it isn't really an exact measurement, as, for example, the crocodile has very strong jaws. Should it therefore be a "strong animal"? (also, I still stand by my point: Humans are extremely enduring, and therefore "extremely anything but smart") Second of all, I stand by rule 3. Something large in terms of elephant size or onwards cannot have a brain full of knowledge to act upon (the very definition of sapience). Elephants, my example, have larger brains than humans, yet they lack the efficiency and intelligence of a human brain. This is not say elephants are dumb, just not suited to that ecological niche. Still, just because it probably won't happen doesn't mean it can't happen. The "intelligence" of a creature is, if I remember correctly, determined by relative size of the brain. Therefore, while elephants may have a large brain, relatively speaking, it's pretty small. Last of all, the argument about how all your arguments specifically apply to people still stands.
|
|
|
Post by Aquos on Nov 24, 2017 17:03:35 GMT
I also disagree with rule 2. I think that if an already extremely strong apex predator starts using 'smarter' hunting strategies and hunting in groups, it could develop sapience.
Edit: also, I think I thought of a new rule. A sapient species must be curious. You can't really advance much if you don't ask to yourself 'how could I do this?' or 'why does this happen?'.
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Nov 24, 2017 20:07:02 GMT
Edit: also, I think I thought of a new rule. A sapient species must be curious. You can't really advance much if you don't ask to yourself 'how could I do this?' or 'why does this happen?'. But wouldn't that respond more to some kind of "laws of intelligence"? A creature might be "aware", but just not curious enough to advance from a technological standpoint EDIT: For example, take the Neanderthals. They weren't very curious and/or intelligent (which ended up being their downfall), but they were "sapient"
|
|
|
Post by QuantumCrab of '18 on Nov 24, 2017 20:15:07 GMT
Alright.
*inhale* *exhale*
Some seem to be a bit confused over what this thread is trying to achieve. No, I am not making rules to define intelligent creatures. No, I am not making rules to define technologically advanced societies. I am making rules to determine what creatures should be able to form societies and begin making simple structures/tools. In other words, tribes.
|
|
|
Post by serialkiller🌴 on Nov 24, 2017 20:31:45 GMT
Alright. *inhale* *exhale* Some seem to be a bit confused over what this thread is trying to achieve. No, I am not making rules to define intelligent creatures. No, I am not making rules to define technologically advanced societies. I am making rules to determine what creatures should be able to form societies and begin making simple structures/tools. In other words, tribes. sorry . However I still think animals without hands can form tribes
|
|