Alien, I mean really Alien.

[Parasite]

Originally posted by Randallw:
What sort of real Aliens are there in Fiction. ... What I want to read of is real Aliens.

Please try Jack L. Chalker's "Well of Souls" books. There is a planet sectioned off. Each section has it's own race of aliens. They are alien and act alien. He was my favorite author for a long time because of the alien viewpoints he creates.

JLC's web page

[ March 25, 2004, 15:57: Message edited by: Parasite ]

[Loser]

The platypus sits well as a mammal, as it has mammaries. It's not a 'placental' mammal, it is instead a 'monotreme', and is only one of three known species of monotremes.

hmm... shouldn't talk science without a spellcheck, but I will anyway.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by dogscoff:

quote:

---

Animal, Plant, or Fungi

I'm pretty sure there are a number of microscopic squidgies that fit into none of the above, kind of the way a duck billed platypus doesn't sit happily as either mammal, bird or reptile. I think amoebas and protozoa are somewhere between fungus and animal, for instance. Bacteria and virii might be others. It's a long time since i had to know these things...

---

They are constantly tinkering with the system, but currently (I think) there are five 'kingdoms'.

Animals, Plants, Fungi, Prokaryotes, and Protists

Yes, the Last two are microscopic organisms only.

[Fyron]

Actually... I think the consensus amongst the biological community is that there are at least 7 kingdoms now, one of which is halobacterium. The stuff that lives in moisture on top of really high salt content salt flats and such.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Loser:
The platypus sits well as a mammal, as it has mammaries. It's not a 'placental' mammal, it is instead a 'monotreme', and is only one of three known species of monotremes.

hmm... shouldn't talk science without a spellcheck, but I will anyway.

I thought it was only two known species of monotremes? The platypus and the echidna are the only known survivors of this primitive class of mammals. Are there multiple species of either? I thought each was unique? Barring some 'great discovery' in a hidden pocket of Australian wilderness, all other monotremes are apparently extinct.

And the platypus does not have mammaries, which is one of the characteristics that makes it a monotreme. It simply 'sweats' milk out on its belly and the baby laps it up. The distinct mammary gland comes later with 'true' mammals.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Randallw:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PvK:


Aliens from another evolutionary history might think in extremely different ways.

PvK

I may be getting OT, but I started this thread so I get to bring up new stuff.
Does anyone know of the dicovery where fossils from a billion years were found. Now we are one "form" in so far as we have a Skeletal system AND a backbone AND symetry (2 arms, 2 legs, 1 on each side). I am no expert so I will say in my example there are 5 forms of animal still living, we mammals and 4 others (such as worms, with no backbone or skeleton etc). Anyway in the example I mentioned there were 20 "forms" of animal found. Thats the 5 current ones, and 15 "types" that are extinct. basically 1 billion years ago there were 20 possible templates for the creatures that would occupy the earth but 15 got covered with a landslide and only the other 5 survived (I am simplifying this a lot, and my numbers might be wrong, but I am trying to point out something). So what if instead of the 5 that survived, 5 others survived. The earth might be populated by animals with no backbone and 3 legs and a head with an extendable mouth.

---

You need to get the details and 'unsimplify' so we can figure out what is being said. I gather that some very old fossils showed variant types of animals but the details would be important. Were some of them NOT symmetrical?

[PvK]

Randallw, have you seen some of the ocean-bottom life forms that have been discovered fairly recently using submersibles? (The Blue Planet series has a spectacular episode on them, for example.) Lots of ancient and bizarre stuff there.

PvK

[PvK]

Originally posted by dogscoff:

quote:

---

but I wouldn't call their thoughts "totally alien". They're very easy to relate to - not very far from human thoughts and emotions in many ways, even if there are differences

The only reason that their behaviour doesn't seem "totally alien" to us is that we are used to it. We understand (or think we do) the way animals think because we have studied them and/ or domesticated them and/or try to interpret their behaviour using our human behaviour as a template. If we landed on an alien planet and saw a bunch of creatures with the exact same behaviour, intelligence and level of communication as dolphins we would spend decades trying to communicate with them because we would think there was a chance they were sentient.

---

I guess I don't understand your definitions of terms very well. We seem to mean very different things when we each say "totally alien." One one level, sure, anything from this planet is not totally alien. On another, I can relate to and recognize in myself many of the behaviours exhibited by animals.

I don't really follow your example of alien dolphin-like animals, either. Of course scientists would study the heck out of any alien life form. Scientists study dolphins, too.

Other scientists do preposterous things like tell a dog not to eat food, then leave it alone with the food, and get excited to discover that the dog will go eat the food when humans aren't looking. This German study made the BBC world news a year or two ago. Meanwhile, non-scientists who know dogs generally know this anyway. What that demonstrates to me is that many scientists, like when I studied cognitive science a bit a decade ago, are severely confused about animal intelligence.

quote:

---

not very far from human thoughts and emotions

As I said, there are similarities but they will occur almost everywhere we find life. Any life form on any planet that needs to learn the value of running away will develop fear- or something very similar to fear. Parallel evolution.

Any life form that benefits from living ina society will evolve bonds with others within its society- friendship, love, comradeship, pack mentality- call it what you will.

...

---

Well the difference is that these animals evolved on the same planet we did, in the same environment, with the same kinds of conditions and competitors, and from common ancient ancestors.

Humans, animals, fish, reptiles, insects, all have eyes, brains, spines, nervous systems, mouths, digestive tracts, limbs for locomotion, sexual reproduction, etc.

Not all environments require running away. Not all ecologies involve predation. Not all imaginible life forms even have "societies". Not all societies need have the same elements, even if human ones, or human and animal ones, tend to.

Yes there are some situations that seem like they would exist or need to exist in most environments. But even life on this planet shows that there are many solutions to most problems.

PvK

[ March 25, 2004, 17:56: Message edited by: PvK ]

[PvK]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PvK:

Aliens from another evolutionary history might think in extremely different ways.

PvK

I disagree with that. Both the evolutionary part and the different ways. Well, not that they may think differently, but the type of different. A gas being from the gas giant Gafefaf would percieve it's environment differently, it's environment would shape it's reactions and thought processes, but it would still need social behavior, or it would die out.

---

If you say so. You haven't defined "social behavior" though, and I would think that "social behavior" could still be extremely different. Defining "social behavior" as an extremely broad term just gives it plenty of room for extremely different types of behavior within that term.

Meanwhile, on the gas planet Ugwahuk, perhaps the intelligent life there acts like a planetary gestalt, with no individuals, just a flow of life an consciousness spread throughout the Ugwahsphere. That probably defies any definition of "social behavior".

And it would need emotions, to give it reasons to do things. It would need thought processes, to process information. And it would need instincts, to tell it what to do when the others failed or wouldn't be fast enough.

Robots don't need emotions to have reasons to do things. Neither, presumably do plants. The German scientists who were surprised the dog knew about sneaking an illicit bite to eat would probably try to tell you that animals don't have emotions. Of course, he's a close-minded fool, but still. I have a hard time seeing exactly what you're saying, and why I would think it'd contradict "extremely different thinking".

And all the things you can think of that it might have can be done with a human brain.

quote:

---

An imagination challenge?

Ok, so suppose an alien race has interchangable brains. Maybe they converse by sharing grey matter, mixing it around and forming new individual consciousnesses as their fancy strikes them. Can humans do that?

But, what about trees? They have no brain. True, but they have counterparts for those things, which can be simulated by a human brain. Maybe not fully, but I addressed that in a previous post.

---

So you are saying that you are disagreeing that trees think in extremely different ways from humans?

PvK

[se5a]

oh man...
this discussion looks like its getting to the "if a tree falls in a forrest"
stage...

heh

the buggers in enders game I thoguht were quite well done. and I think they mentiond annother race that after meeting the humans just all decided to die.