|
Post by QuantumCrab of '18 on Nov 24, 2017 20:35:06 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 Really? Would it be possible?
|
|
|
Post by mitobox on Nov 24, 2017 20:43:35 GMT
sorry . However I still think animals without hands can form tribes Really? Would it be possible? For a given definition of “tribe,” I think dolphin pods and insect colonies might count.
|
|
|
Post by serialkiller🌴 on Nov 24, 2017 20:58:05 GMT
sorry . However I still think animals without hands can form tribes Really? Would it be possible? I think animals like parrots could possibly form tribes . They can use tools with their beaks and they can be very intelligent . Not only that , but they could have advanced forms of communication . Also animals with fine tentacles could be very good at making tools
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Nov 24, 2017 21:52:20 GMT
Really? Would it be possible? For a given definition of “tribe,” I think dolphin pods and insect colonies might count. (However, I looked it up, and all definitions of culture contain the word "human" or "people" at least once, so let's just ignore that part)source: Google dictionary So yeah, ant colonies do count.
|
|
|
Post by QuantumCrab of '18 on Nov 24, 2017 22:13:31 GMT
Really? Would it be possible? I think animals like parrots could possibly form tribes . They can use tools with their beaks and they can be very intelligent . Not only that , but they could have advanced forms of communication . Also animals with fine tentacles could be very good at making tools As I said earlier, repeatedly, rule 1 does not mean human-like hands. I meant it in terms of something that can do as described.
|
|
|
Post by serialkiller🌴 on Nov 24, 2017 22:21:17 GMT
I think animals like parrots could possibly form tribes . They can use tools with their beaks and they can be very intelligent . Not only that , but they could have advanced forms of communication . Also animals with fine tentacles could be very good at making tools As I said earlier, repeatedly, rule 1 does not mean human-like hands. I meant it in terms of something that can do as described. so would beaks count as those ?
|
|
|
Post by StealthStyleL on Nov 24, 2017 22:50:43 GMT
I agree with Aquos and Omicron about Rule 2. A creature being strong does not mean that it cannot develop sapience; it is not a limiting factor. Yes, humans evolved to take advantage of brains over brawn, but there is no technical reason that a species could not eventually evolve both. They don't cross each other out.
I also agree with what Omicron said about about Rule 3. I don't think size would prevent sapience from developing. It might be immensely energy hungry, but again they don't neccesarily cancel out.
In lieu with this, I'd like to propose a new rule. Sapients must be at least partially meat-eaters. To sustain a brain with that much energy requires one to eat meat, which supplies more energy and nutrients than other food sources. And before anyone points out vegetarians, they aren't sapient, they have the benefit of modern science to allow them to supplement their diets healthily. Evolving in a time of prehistory wouldn't have this luxury. They would probably become weak and die.
|
|
|
Post by QuantumCrab of '18 on Nov 24, 2017 23:22:11 GMT
I agree with Aquos and Omicron about Rule 2. A creature being strong does not mean that it cannot develop sapience; it is not a limiting factor. Yes, humans evolved to take advantage of brains over brawn, but there is no technical reason that a species could not eventually evolve both. They don't cross each other out. I also agree with what Omicron said about about Rule 3. I don't think size would prevent sapience from developing. It might be immensely energy hungry, but again they don't neccesarily cancel out. In lieu with this, I'd like to propose a new rule. Sapients must be at least partially meat-eaters. To sustain a brain with that much energy requires one to eat meat, which supplies more energy and nutrients than other food sources. And before anyone points out vegetarians, they aren't sapient, they have the benefit of modern science to allow them to supplement their diets healthily. Evolving in a time of prehistory wouldn't have this luxury. They would probably become weak and die. How about this? Rule 2 - A sapient creature that is relatively immense in either size or strength (or both) must have a way of consuming enough energy to sustain itself. Which leads me onto the new rule 3 - Sapients must have a diet containing meat to a certain degree in order to sustain their highly advanced brain.
|
|
|
Post by serialkiller🌴 on Nov 24, 2017 23:55:47 GMT
I agree with Aquos and Omicron about Rule 2. A creature being strong does not mean that it cannot develop sapience; it is not a limiting factor. Yes, humans evolved to take advantage of brains over brawn, but there is no technical reason that a species could not eventually evolve both. They don't cross each other out. I also agree with what Omicron said about about Rule 3. I don't think size would prevent sapience from developing. It might be immensely energy hungry, but again they don't neccesarily cancel out. In lieu with this, I'd like to propose a new rule. Sapients must be at least partially meat-eaters. To sustain a brain with that much energy requires one to eat meat, which supplies more energy and nutrients than other food sources. And before anyone points out vegetarians, they aren't sapient, they have the benefit of modern science to allow them to supplement their diets healthily. Evolving in a time of prehistory wouldn't have this luxury. They would probably become weak and die. How about this? Rule 2 - A sapient creature that is relatively immense in either size or strength (or both) must have a way of consuming enough energy to sustain itself. Which leads me onto the new rule 3 - Sapients must have a diet containing meat to a certain degree in order to sustain their highly advanced brain. that new rule doesn't make any sense , ever heard of vegans or vegetarians ?
|
|
|
Post by blackink on Nov 24, 2017 23:59:34 GMT
I have certain doubts about 3, apex carnivorous didn't become sapient since musculature was preferential. Human predeccesors on the other hand are believed to be scavengers, not hunters, and a important food source was bone marrow rather than meat, which instead of protein, is mostly composed of fat (same as the brain), which could happen to be available in alien flora (maybe climate encourages storage of energy).
So i would say that point 3 is: Diet must contain an important amount of fatty acids (which is also available in some kind of seeds), rather than abide by rule of omnivore/carnivore.
Edit: Btw, isn't rule 2 kinda redundant? I mean all creatures, either sapient or not must be capable of procuring sustainment, otherwise they wouldn't have a chance to grow, even less to reproduce.
|
|
|
Post by QuantumCrab of '18 on Nov 25, 2017 0:29:48 GMT
How about this? Rule 2 - A sapient creature that is relatively immense in either size or strength (or both) must have a way of consuming enough energy to sustain itself. Which leads me onto the new rule 3 - Sapients must have a diet containing meat to a certain degree in order to sustain their highly advanced brain. that new rule doesn't make any sense , ever heard of vegans or vegetarians ? Didn't you hear Stealth saying "they have the benefit of modern science to allow them to supplement their diets healthily. Evolving in a time of prehistory wouldn't have this luxury. They would probably become weak and die."
|
|
|
Post by serialkiller🌴 on Nov 25, 2017 8:37:57 GMT
that new rule doesn't make any sense , ever heard of vegans or vegetarians ? Didn't you hear Stealth saying "they have the benefit of modern science to allow them to supplement their diets healthily. Evolving in a time of prehistory wouldn't have this luxury. They would probably become weak and die." that's only for humans and earth. A different animal and different planet could make this entirely possible . The fact that vegans exist just proves that meat is not necessary .
|
|
|
Post by February Steam of Foushoo on Nov 25, 2017 9:08:08 GMT
Didn't you hear Stealth saying "they have the benefit of modern science to allow them to supplement their diets healthily. Evolving in a time of prehistory wouldn't have this luxury. They would probably become weak and die." that's only for humans and earth. A different animal and different planet could make this entirely possible . The fact that vegans exist just proves that meat is not necessary . I think the problem is(and correct me if I'm wrong) is that plants simply do not contain enough energy and nutrients in them to sustain the amount of these to feed an adequately intelligent being. If we are talking about vegans and vegitarians there is nothing that exists(atleast in our world) that can a) supplement various vitamins in meat that don't exist in such concentration as in meat or can b) feed that large amount of energy that an adequately sapient brain requires. Modern vegetarians and vegans take supplements but you can get a pretty sick brain without them. Though I do understand your point of that we're talking about entirely different worlds with possibly entirely different kingdoms, I'd think what ever would feed that would be pretty similar to meat.
|
|
|
Post by QuantumCrab of '18 on Nov 25, 2017 9:16:21 GMT
Due to my evidently lacking knowledge on the subjects arising here, I'm going to leave it up to you guys to duke it out...
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Nov 25, 2017 10:39:26 GMT
Due to my evidently lacking knowledge on the subjects arising here, I'm going to leave it up to you guys to duke it out... I don't think anyone can be "knowledgeable" on a topic like this, as it's all merely speculation.
|
|
|
Post by QuantumCrab of '18 on Nov 25, 2017 11:50:57 GMT
Due to my evidently lacking knowledge on the subjects arising here, I'm going to leave it up to you guys to duke it out... I don't think anyone can be "knowledgeable" on a topic like this, as it's all merely speculation. I mean the topics that are brought up to justify the arguments.
|
|
|
Post by QuantumCrab of '18 on Jan 11, 2018 21:15:56 GMT
Alright, after much contemplation (and procrastination), I have come up with a better food rule.
Rule: In order to compensate for high levels of intelligence, a creature usually lacks pure muscle strength and size (compared to other animals). If this is not the case, there must be a logical explanation as to where this creature gets its energy from.
If this gets positive feedback, then I will replace the old one. Also, I would like to remind people that these rules are not supposed to be definite, but to be a set of rules that every realistic sapient should follow.
|
|
|
Post by rhulyon on Feb 19, 2018 11:51:24 GMT
I think an important part to achieve sapience is that the species must be weaker than the others species so it is forced to cooperate and use tactics in order to hunt creatures that feed on them. My point is that contrary of what spore did, a sappient get to the top of the chain food by transforming thru evolution into a bioweapon.
|
|
|
Post by QuantumCrab of '18 on Feb 20, 2018 12:14:06 GMT
Very interesting idea! I probably never would have thought of that... As soon as I wake up tomorrow I will add that point!
|
|
|
Post by xolorhusd on Feb 20, 2018 21:43:11 GMT
My first post here, actually just made an account to comment on this post. Some of the limiting factors that are being suggested I have trouble agreeing with. As we see with Elephants, being one of the most intelligent animals, as well as having very developed emotional, and social responses, could very well be a close contender for a sapient entity. As you mentioned 'hands' don't actually mean hands, but manipulators, and their trunks are just that. Elephants have been shown to cooperate to complete tasks, as well as use and develop tools. What I am getting at is, the largest land mammal (of our time) is also an herbivore, yet has developed through evolutionary pressures, very 'human like' behavior, that I would say is near enough sufficient to constitute sapience if not just below that. Looking forward to replies though x3
|
|