FA+
Shop
404
Views
Views
10
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Traditional) / Miscellaneous
Species Alien (Other)
Size 591 x 729
File Size 815.5 kB
Report this content
★
More from not-fun
![[inhuman] all about Herapods](http://d.furaffinity.net/art/not-fun/1409441234/1409441234.not-fun_alien-herapod.png "Click to change the View")
[inhuman] all about Herapods
one of my favourite things about aliens is coming up with ways in which our conventional ideas of 'intelligent species' can and should be challeneged.
and as such, i present the gas-giant invertebrates who communicate through farts and flashing colours: the herapods!
http://inhuman-comic.com/aboutherapods.php
and as such, i present the gas-giant invertebrates who communicate through farts and flashing colours: the herapods!
http://inhuman-comic.com/aboutherapods.php
Category Artwork (Traditional) / Miscellaneous
Species Alien (Other)
Size 591 x 729px
File Size 815.5 kB
Huh I see. You said grasp each other and then I just kept going with the idea. :p
Not necessarily conflict, but some sort of problem solving would be necessary. Though, intelligence could emerge by chance rather than evolving by selection... Dogs arguably didn't evolve spots, though I guess humans blselected for spots after the fact.
Not necessarily conflict, but some sort of problem solving would be necessary. Though, intelligence could emerge by chance rather than evolving by selection... Dogs arguably didn't evolve spots, though I guess humans blselected for spots after the fact.
dogs are a sad example of eugenics in action these days. unless you're trying to talk about how two species can develop a symbiotic relationship, or how controlled breeding exaggerates certain characteristics, dogs really shouldn't be the go-to example of evolution.
studies in psychology generally point to times where we're NOT in conflict as times of intellectual and psychological growth. you don't see kids who are struggling to get a solid meal developing at the same rate as kids who get enough to eat. you don't see our species developing real technology until after we'd stopped becoming hunter/gatherers and began to farm and store our food. stability begets development just as much as conflict and strife. they just develop a species towards different ends.
studies in psychology generally point to times where we're NOT in conflict as times of intellectual and psychological growth. you don't see kids who are struggling to get a solid meal developing at the same rate as kids who get enough to eat. you don't see our species developing real technology until after we'd stopped becoming hunter/gatherers and began to farm and store our food. stability begets development just as much as conflict and strife. they just develop a species towards different ends.
Hmm. We are using somewhat different definitions of the ideas involved here; I would say human history is filled with conflict even in times of peace. What's strictly necessary for evolution is that different individuals have different success, in a way that's causally connected with the traits. So to evolve intelligence, intelligence does have to be useful for something.
Of course, intelligence accomplishes many things which aren't necessarily useful. Art is a commonly used example, though art is probably useful for attracting a potential mate I guess. So maybe altruism would have to be the example. Mathematics? The complexity of language? Or deep satisfaction. Seems like we could be pretty functionally competent without feeling satisfied. The point is, not all traits that *result* from evolution are directly selected for.
Spots on dogs are a good example. Dogs come from an aggressive branch of the family tree. It turns out that the hormonal changes necessary for them to calm down also influence the coloration patterns of their fur; domestication causes a wider variety of colors and patterns to emerge, even though domestication probably is only initially selecting for "safe around humans" or "easy to get along with". (I'm picturing this as natural evolution - dogs living near humans and slowly integrating in to human habits, able to get fed by humans more often if they're trustworthy and helpful. But that's only one theory; obviously some experts believe dogs were more deliberately bred from the beginning of the process.) In modern times of course there's dedicated attention to breeding based on fur patterns, but that's not what I'm trying to refer to.
Another example of this phenomenon is domesticated songbirds. I don't remember the species involved, but some domestic songbirds were domesticated recently enough that there's some record of what happened... they were initially caged and bred for their pretty songs, but the songs were fixed pieces, apparently instinctual. However, breeding them in captivity prevented the natural selection which would have normally kept the instinctual song in place. The birds no longer had to actually attract each other in order to mate (or use calls to warn about predators etc.), so a mutation to the singing genes wouldn't be corrected. This eventually led to them forgetting their set song. At that point, they were fully capable of learning songs whistled to them, which is a complex trait which never had to be selected for. They had always been smart enough to learn, but previously just didn't have the same type of conscious control over their singing.
So there is a theory that human language may be like this. The idea is that the move from trees to grassland, i.e. the switch to upright posture, freed our forearms from previous use in instinctual gaits and allowed sign language to emerge.
Unfortunately the above spiel is a mix of articles I read a long time ago and conversations with my college professors; I can't find a good link.
But in any case, clearly it's possible to imagine the scenario of intelligence evolving due to peace and lack of evolutionary selection, and some experts apparently agree with this idea. But it must work with the resources it's given; the brain must already be present and capable, and that has to happen for a reason.
So the question I'm asking probably has an obvious answer: what did the Herapod brain evolve to do? The way they are described made it tempting to imagine they had never needed their brain in the least, except for the near-automatic actions of drifting and breathing/filtering. But these guys have an ability to suddenly accelerate when need be, they have beaks for manipulating, and they have eyes. So they must encounter some sort of challenge in their lives... or at least their ancestors did. So I mean, grabbing asteroids must be useful sometimes, there must be some reason to steer in different directions, that sort of thing. At some point in the past individual survival had to depend on some form of intelligence.
So yeah... jumping to predators as a reason for this was unnecessary. Hopefully I'm being a bit clearer with my ideas now. I feel like you and I have 'talked past' each other a couple times in the past (years ago, on your blog). I always agree with you when I'm just reading what you write but then we seem to disagree when there's an actual exchange. So, sorry for being wordy, just trying to see whether we can agree on this.
Of course, intelligence accomplishes many things which aren't necessarily useful. Art is a commonly used example, though art is probably useful for attracting a potential mate I guess. So maybe altruism would have to be the example. Mathematics? The complexity of language? Or deep satisfaction. Seems like we could be pretty functionally competent without feeling satisfied. The point is, not all traits that *result* from evolution are directly selected for.
Spots on dogs are a good example. Dogs come from an aggressive branch of the family tree. It turns out that the hormonal changes necessary for them to calm down also influence the coloration patterns of their fur; domestication causes a wider variety of colors and patterns to emerge, even though domestication probably is only initially selecting for "safe around humans" or "easy to get along with". (I'm picturing this as natural evolution - dogs living near humans and slowly integrating in to human habits, able to get fed by humans more often if they're trustworthy and helpful. But that's only one theory; obviously some experts believe dogs were more deliberately bred from the beginning of the process.) In modern times of course there's dedicated attention to breeding based on fur patterns, but that's not what I'm trying to refer to.
Another example of this phenomenon is domesticated songbirds. I don't remember the species involved, but some domestic songbirds were domesticated recently enough that there's some record of what happened... they were initially caged and bred for their pretty songs, but the songs were fixed pieces, apparently instinctual. However, breeding them in captivity prevented the natural selection which would have normally kept the instinctual song in place. The birds no longer had to actually attract each other in order to mate (or use calls to warn about predators etc.), so a mutation to the singing genes wouldn't be corrected. This eventually led to them forgetting their set song. At that point, they were fully capable of learning songs whistled to them, which is a complex trait which never had to be selected for. They had always been smart enough to learn, but previously just didn't have the same type of conscious control over their singing.
So there is a theory that human language may be like this. The idea is that the move from trees to grassland, i.e. the switch to upright posture, freed our forearms from previous use in instinctual gaits and allowed sign language to emerge.
Unfortunately the above spiel is a mix of articles I read a long time ago and conversations with my college professors; I can't find a good link.
But in any case, clearly it's possible to imagine the scenario of intelligence evolving due to peace and lack of evolutionary selection, and some experts apparently agree with this idea. But it must work with the resources it's given; the brain must already be present and capable, and that has to happen for a reason.
So the question I'm asking probably has an obvious answer: what did the Herapod brain evolve to do? The way they are described made it tempting to imagine they had never needed their brain in the least, except for the near-automatic actions of drifting and breathing/filtering. But these guys have an ability to suddenly accelerate when need be, they have beaks for manipulating, and they have eyes. So they must encounter some sort of challenge in their lives... or at least their ancestors did. So I mean, grabbing asteroids must be useful sometimes, there must be some reason to steer in different directions, that sort of thing. At some point in the past individual survival had to depend on some form of intelligence.
So yeah... jumping to predators as a reason for this was unnecessary. Hopefully I'm being a bit clearer with my ideas now. I feel like you and I have 'talked past' each other a couple times in the past (years ago, on your blog). I always agree with you when I'm just reading what you write but then we seem to disagree when there's an actual exchange. So, sorry for being wordy, just trying to see whether we can agree on this.
Conventional ideas of X-Rays are always a hoot. I love it when it dons on some sci-fi noob scrub console peasant fahgit-tree just how long it would take for us to even figure out how to talk to something from a completely different evolutionary tree. Or rock. Or shrub.
Also, communicating through farts? Their speeches must be explosive!
Also, communicating through farts? Their speeches must be explosive!
Comments