science fiction turning into science fact

I re-wrote my article "are we alone", hoping that Chris can manage to sqeeze
at least some of it into our latest mag. I was a bit disapointed that the
only follow-up I got last time was one personal e-mail about some of the
more bizare personal details (now snipped).

Perhaps this somewhat more rational re-write will provoke some debate this
time here on-list, for those of us who don't get the mag or attend the pub
:-) What are *your* opinions?

So you enjoy SF - but how much of these strange things do you expect to see
happen in real life? Fantasy is just that, but some science fiction may one
day be science fact. The original definition of science fiction was,
broadly, to take reality, add a few small science based assumptions and
develop a story around them.

Many well-thought-out science fiction futures are reasonable
extrapolations. Many of the things described in Science Fiction are
becoming science fact. We have indeed walked on the moon, even if not
during most of your life-times! Mobile phones, computers and such grow more
and more powerful. Ideas behind fusion power are talked about seriously. The
science behind a method of extending the life of our cells (a major part of
an immortality treatment) may now have been discovered. Our understanding of
genetics is becoming good enough to treat cancers and genetic abnormalities.
The ethics of cloning is under serious discussion, as it is now a matter of
medicine rather than science.

Is the idea of mankind travelling to the stars possible, and if so what will
we find out there? The scale of the Universe is huge. If you follow B5,
which I do, you will see an example of a reasonably well-thought out future.
For those who do not, there are quite a few alien races (maybe 20?) who are
named by humans after the real Earth name for their stars. An examination
of where the stars Minbar, Centarii etc cetera, are located will reveal
that they only occupy a tiny fraction of the galaxy (a Known Space region).
The older races are refered to having gone to the galactic Rim, which is a
great deal futher away.

If there are aliens, and intelligent life is a common part of the way the
Universe is made, then we are by no means a First One. For life, you need
the elements found on our planet. That means that you need a
second-generation sun (ie one formed out of the remenants of previous suns
that has gone nova). But these ingredients formed several billions of years
before the solar system. Therefore, there could well be aliens with a
head-start of billions of years on us. If they *are* out there, then most
likely, they have been so for quite a while.

The galaxy contains hundreds of millions of stars, and is only one out of a
vast number of galaxies. This is something difficult to come to grip with.
If there are aliens out there, where are they? Don't they want to explore?
Even if there are many of them, that does not cover the vast scale of
things: space is *big*. So, is faster-than-light travel theoretically
possible? We don't know yet. If there are lots of them, are we in a zoo
until we "grow up", and that is what UFOs are? Are we being watched over by
some galactic federation?

Many of the UFO reports are dismissed as ravings of loons. Why is that? A
good scientist looks at the facts and tries to make the best hypothesis.
Flexibility of outlook is therfore required, as well as a lack of naive
taking on board of all stories. The point when a well-documented alien
arrives and chats on the White House lawn might well shake up a few people.

History is a snap-shot of the existance of the Earth. Maybe interstellar
travel will always be slow and too difficult for much traffic. If aliens
exist, maybe they have been through our solar system long ago. If they are
long-gone, then perhaps they would have left us something. Like, for
instance some huge sculpture of a face, plus some pyramids on Mars, where it
would not be damaged by weather or wind!

If you believe in God, why did he build the Unverse so damn big if it was
meant for just us! If there is no purpose to the Universe, and we are the
only intelligent life, that seems an incredible fluke. Soon, the debating
society will be putting on "Do Aliens Exist". What side are you going to
debate?


Jenny Gould

---
jenny@

"Share and Enjoy"
-Marketing Division, Sirius Cybernetics Corporation

(The above opinions do not represent a policy statement for or on behalf of
One Chip Solutions)

In article <E0xxBlH-0005wT-00@>, Jenny Gould <jenny@> wrote:
[...]
[...]

I have seen the calculations on numbers of stars, numbers of planets, number
of life-bearing planets, numbers of intelligent-life-bearing-planets and so
on, and I feel that there is one part that I find hard to believe.

I suspect that intelligence is rare. Far rarer than these people give
credit for. Humans are descended from a little creature rather like a
bushbaby, that was the start of the primate line some fifty million years
ago. We can assume that our little bushbaby wasn't any brighter than most
of the other mammals of the time - and probably no brighter than some of the
lizards that it replaced. Yet of all these descended species, only one
developed intelligence to an extent where technology became possible.

My personal favourite theory for why is this: the human brain did not evolve
for survival reasons. My belief is that the human brain is a sex toy: an
organ used in secondary sex displays, like the peacock's tail. To put it
simply, I suspect that apes evolved bigger brains so they could chat up
girls, not so they could kill bigger animals. The peacock's tail is
actually contra-survival, as it is ungainly and likely to attract the
attention of predators. But no peacock will find a peahen without one, so
they all have one. Because the peacock with the biggest tail gets to make
little peacocks, all peacocks end up with unfeasably large tails. I suspect
that something similar happened with human brains.

If this theory is true, and our bloated intellects only coincidentally
turned out to be useful for anything more intellectual than chat-up lines,
then the likelihood of life becoming intelligent is actually pretty remote.
Almost all land animals seem to have an intelligence of about the same level
- about that of a domestic dog or cat. Pigs are a bit more, and sheep are a
bit less - but essentially nothing compares with us.

If this is a norm for the Galaxy, then the answer to "where are they" is
"munching grass contentedly."


Anyway, that's my theory.


Simon

---
"This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind" -Ecclesiastes 4:16

simon@ | Not affiliated to any religion
simon@ | Not affiliated to any politics
H (+44/0)1784 431998 | Not affiliated to any ideology
W (+44/0)1784 434568 (GMT/BST) | What does that make me?

"I have been asked to point out, as if you couldn't guess, that my rantings
are not the opinions of One Chip Solutions. So now you know, don't you..?"

A frighteningly likely hypothesis.
And given the modern success of high-intellect males (aka nerds) I suspect that
we're in the process of breeding it out again.
Even when an intelligent male gathers enough money to become attractive to the
opposite sex, what does he do? Promptly marries a bimbo with big tits.
We're going to end up as a race of vacuous film stars and pop musicians.
Think of dolphins.
They seem to have sorted it out.
They've developed enough intelligence to be happy, without doing anything
stupid, like inventing "Ice Warriors".
Less intelligent as individuals, more intelligent as a species.

Dominic.

"Time flies when you don't know what you're doing."

Dominic Thomas said:
Doesn't "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" assume this? :-)

Hell, let's face it, we'd never have invented science fiction if we'd
followed the dolphin's examples!

---

Nick Waterman. Network Consultant / Sysadmin - LEOnet
Beating tomorrow's technology into submission.
nick-sig@ Team *AMIGA*!
A person is just about as big as the things that make them angry.

Previously, Dominic Thomas wrote....
Thats the fault of society. Kids are taught to shun intelligent kids from
an early age, so the "nerds" (see - an example of prejudice(sp?)) are
prevented from gaining those important social skills needed.

Chris

---

chris@ #include <stddisclaimer.h> http://www.instituteofcorrection.org.uk/

"So this is really me? A no-style gimbo with teeth druids could use as a
place of worship" - Duaine Dibley (Red Dwarf - "Back to Reality")

iF THE HUMAN BRAIN ONLY EVOLVED to attract women,
what are the evolutionary survival traits in humans? Our teeth are blunt.
Our upright stance exposes the most vital organs to attack. Our skin is
soft, our hair/fur doesn't cover (most of) us enough for warmth and
protection.Our arms/legs are too long for best leverage in use of strength
The opposable thumb is probably the most useful
physical evolutionary trait we have as it allows us to grip and use
tools to affect our environment. Tool use is however only useful if you
know what you are doing with the tool.
As an evolutionary trait, Ug the caveman who didn't work out how
to sharpen that piece of flint didn't survive his encounter with Arg, the clever caveman who had. Therefore clever Arg bred.Ug didn't.
I am not denying that humanity is the most sexual species,
being the only one which mates for recreation not procreation,
In proportion to the rest of the body the human male organ is the largest
available, being something like 1/20 of bodyweight if my memory of that GCSE textbook is correct. We are also one of a very few species
without a penile bone to assist in that type of reproductive method.
However, intelligence must have been a survival trait initially, (in my
humble opinion) as the rest of the human design is just too
generalised to be seriously useful without intelligence to back it up.

----------
From: Chris Turner
Sent: 27 January 1998 16:00
To: c=GB;a=ATTmail;p=MAFF400;o=MAFF;ou1=SMTP;dda:RFC-822=chat(a)ifis.org.uk;
Subject: Re: Evolution (Was: science fiction turning into science fact)

Previously, Dominic Thomas wrote....
Thats the fault of society. Kids are taught to shun intelligent kids from
an early age, so the "nerds" (see - an example of prejudice(sp?)) are
prevented from gaining those important social skills needed.

Chris

---

chris@ #include <stddisclaimer.h> http://www.instituteofcorrection.org.uk/

"So this is really me? A no-style gimbo with teeth druids could use as a
place of worship" - Duaine Dibley (Red Dwarf - "Back to Reality")

On Tuesday, January 27, 1998 5:06 PM, Lyth Chris
[SMTP:Chris.C.Lyth@] wrote:
skin
Not true. This is also the case with the dolphins.

Gordan

Gordan Bobic said:
And several (er, several "other"?) species of ape, most notably the
chimpanzee who often feel it's quite appropriate to hold orgies in
front of the public at london zoo.

... but where did the science fiction stop in this thread?

---

Nick Waterman. Network Consultant / Sysadmin - LEOnet
Beating tomorrow's technology into submission.
nick-sig@ Team *AMIGA*!
I'll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure.

Hmm. I'm about 12 stone. 1/20th of 12 stone is 8lb.
Bloody Hell.
That's news.
I was also under the impression that human females were the only females with
any interest in sex other than for procreation. Most males of most species seem
happy to do it pretty much anytime, and with anything. I've heard of neutered
cats shagging items of furniture, not to mention the traditional dog&leg
scenario.

Dominic.

"'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool,
than to speak and remove all doubt." [Abraham Lincoln ?]

I'm a historian, not a mathematician. Plus I was trying to remember a couple of paragraphs from a boring book I last even looked at more than 10 years ago. That's my evcuse and I'm sticking to it.

...............................................................................
clyth@
In relativity, matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter
how to move. The Heart of Gold told space to get knotted...
D. Adams Life, The Universe and Everything

----------
From: Dominic Thomas
Sent: 28 January 1998 10:46
To: c=GB;a=ATTmail;p=MAFF400;o=MAFF;ou1=SMTP;dda:RFC-822=chat(a)ifis.org.uk;
Subject: RE: Evolution (Was: science fiction turning into science fact)
Hmm. I'm about 12 stone. 1/20th of 12 stone is 8lb.
Bloody Hell.
That's news.
I was also under the impression that human females were the only females with
any interest in sex other than for procreation. Most males of most species seem
happy to do it pretty much anytime, and with anything. I've heard of neutered
cats shagging items of furniture, not to mention the traditional dog&leg
scenario.

Dominic.

"'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool,
than to speak and remove all doubt." [Abraham Lincoln ?]

[Brain is equivalent to peacocks tail snipped]
Oh dear someone else has bought into the human's are the pinacle of
evolution myth.
Less blunt than sheep, more blunt than a wolfs. Your point?
You just don't know how to stand. Watch a martial arts flick sometime.
Stand side on to your oponent, in a slight crouch. Keep the arm
closest to your oponent low to protect your kidneys and the other high
to protect your head. Very little is is visable. The lower centre
of gravity will allow you to "bounce" rugby tackle type attacks.
But can be toughned up to the extent that it can turn aside a steel
blade.
Lizards have to sit in the sun in order to keep their body temperature
high enough to enable them to actually move around. Besides which,
most of us, have more than enough hair to survive in the majority
of climates. You must have seen the pictures in National Geographic,
of humans wearing nothing more than necklaces, and maybe a cloth
for decency sake (mainly for the viewers back home than for the
tribesfolk).
And yet, I"ve seen people use those arms/legs to smash concrete and
break iron bars. A man can outsprint a racing car or a horse over
short distances. Humans are also fairly good climbers.
Not true. Ants use tools - other ants bodies. Blackbirds use stones
to crack snail shells. Birds of many types are quite happy to stick
twigs in holes pull out things that interest them (mainly food).
There is a species of monkey of in South America that a particular type
of leave as a sponge. There is an insect (can't remember it's name
off the top of my head) that uses a leaf as a fishing line in an ants
nests. The world is full of creatures that we would not consider smart
that use tools.
Thats one view. Humans intellegence is a useful trait. But it is
not the sole reason for our success as a species. Just about every
single one of our technological achievements, has been done first
in nature.

Adaptability is the reason that humans do so well. We are capable of
living in almost any environment on this planet. And we've been
doing so for quite some time.
[penis waving snipped]
I have to say I'd disagree. As a human I'd feel relatively safe in a
conflict, without weapons, with a creature of say half my weight. I'd
prefer not to, but thats just my intellegence speaking.

In terms of combat capabilities without intellegence, take a look at
the occurance of the beserk warrior throughout the cultures of the
world. Beserkers fight without regard for intellegence or personal
saftey and are suprisingly effective.

14 swimmers recently kicked a shark to death after it had mauled one
of their numbers.. Your not going to tell me that it was intellegence
that allowed them to kill it. In all likely hood that was shear frenzy.
A shark is a designed killing machine, yet your humble human stomped all
over it's butt.

Later,

---

Adam Hattrell, Support, Cimio Ltd. adam@

"But can be toughned up to the extent that it can turn aside a steel
blade."
I don't believe this is quite true - else why do we have armour. Martial
arts relay on turning the momentum of the blow so it never impacts the
skins. Bruce Lee was asked what the best defense against a man with a knife
he gave too answers [1] run away [2] use a gun.

"Our upright stance exposes the most vital organs to attack."
This is 50/50:
Upright is good for using tools and spotting a predator on the
African grasslands, it's far better to avoid the attack in the
first place. But it gives us backache - an evolutionary
side effect we can't remove (fossil million of year old show
back problems). It also good for staying cool as there less surface
area exposed to the sun.

"Not true. Ants use tools - other ants bodies."
Ant's don't use tools, a tools is something manufactured for a task -
we make tools and then use them - so do some apes. Picking up a stone
and using it to break an egg doesn't count - taking a branch, stripping
it of leafs and then using it to probe for ants (chimpenezes do this)
is tool use.

In my opionin (lots of ifs and buts here):
We have sonm traits that probably put us on top - to form abstract
concepts and then communicate then. Its one thing to say "here's dinner".
It's another to say "We better form a team to catch today meal".

To able to take a situation and imagine you do something and guess on
the outcome. i.e. If I say this, Fred will do that
and that will cause Jane to do something else etc... Only humans can think
in the 3rd person like this and it is a skill we need to practice as
the young can't do very well.

Daniel

=====================================================================

Nortel Ltd, E-Mail : celano@
140 greenway,
Harlow Business Park, TEL : (01279) 405316
Harlow,
Essex.
CM19 5QD FAX : (01279) 405070

=====================================================================

Daniel Celano said
a team to catch today meal".



The three stages of evolution,

1. What is for dinner
2. When is dinner
3. Are there any good restaurants nearby.

Courtesy of D. Adams.

Dave B

I thought it was
1. How shall we eat?
2. Why do we eat?
3. Where shall we have lunch?

...............................................................................
clyth@
In relativity, matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter
how to move. The Heart of Gold told space to get knotted...
D. Adams Life, The Universe and Everything

----------
From: Dave Barlow
Sent: 28 January 1998 14:10
To: c=GB;a=ATTmail;p=MAFF400;o=MAFF;ou1=SMTP;dda:RFC-822=chat(a)ifis.org.uk;
Subject: Re: Evolution

Daniel Celano said
a team to catch today meal".



The three stages of evolution,

1. What is for dinner
2. When is dinner
3. Are there any good restaurants nearby.

Courtesy of D. Adams.

Dave B

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Lyth Chris wrote:
I agree.


*---------------------------------------------*
| IVE SEEN THE FU *---------------------------*
| S T |
| R U |
| UCER STI DNA ER |
*-----------------*

O _____________
/ \ /3
o / X BAD \ / 3
< Fish X 3
. \__ TRIP / \ 3
/____________/ \3

Chris said and Pringlespanion agreed,
Give us some slack lads, artistic license and all that. I think we need to
issue some funny meters around here.

Dave "sheesh" Barlow

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Dave Barlow wrote:
Hey, mangling the words of the master is a crime...

*---------------------------------------------*
| IVE SEEN THE FU *---------------------------*
| S T |
| R U |
| UCER STI DNA ER |
*-----------------*

O _____________
/ \ /3
o / X BAD \ / 3
< Fish X 3
. \__ TRIP / \ 3
/____________/ \3

I agree completely with what is said below by ben.
...............................................................................
clyth@
In relativity, matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter
how to move. The Heart of Gold told space to get knotted...
D. Adams Life, The Universe and Everything

----------
From: Pringlespanion
Sent: 29 January 1998 17:11
To: c=GB;a=ATTmail;p=MAFF400;o=MAFF;ou1=SMTP;dda:RFC-822=chat(a)ifis.org.uk;
Subject: Re: Evolution

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Dave Barlow wrote:
Hey, mangling the words of the master is a crime...

*---------------------------------------------*
| IVE SEEN THE FU *---------------------------*
| S T |
| R U |
| UCER STI DNA ER |
*-----------------*

O _____________
/ \ /3
o / X BAD \ / 3
< Fish X 3
. \__ TRIP / \ 3
/____________/ \3

In article <"/GUID:E88821FECB97D111BB5D000000000001*"@MHS>, Lyth Chris <Chris.C.Lyth@> wrote:
[.sig chopped]
You are both very sad.
| "Star Wars is adolescent nonsense; Close Encounters is obscurantist
| drivel; Star Trek can turn your brains to puree of bat guano; and the
| greatest science fiction series of all time is Doctor Who! And I'll
| take you all on, one-by-one or all in a bunch to back it up!"
| -- Harlan Ellison




Simon

---
"This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind" -Ecclesiastes 4:16

simon@ | Not affiliated to any religion
simon@ | Not affiliated to any politics
H (+44/0)1784 431998 | Not affiliated to any ideology
W (+44/0)1784 434568 (GMT/BST) | What does that make me?

"I have been asked to point out, as if you couldn't guess, that my rantings
are not the opinions of One Chip Solutions. So now you know, don't you..?"

Depends what you exactly what you mean. The exact demonstration I was
thinking of, involved someone sticking the wrong end of a spear into
a shaolin monks throat (the painfull bit just below the adams apple)
and various other parts of his anatomy. These were sharp blades, you
saw them used to slice up water melons and lumps of wood just before
hand.

We have armour, for the simple reason that it's easier. A shaolin monk
trains constantly from the age of about 3 (I think). The training
involves lots of unpleasant things. But the point is, that it is
possible. With intellegence we can make life easier for ourselves,
but we could have (and in my opinion did) make it without.

Incidently, we're not the only creature to use armour either. A fair
number of crabs do it too.
Generally yes. But once again, mainly because it's easier and safer
to do so. But thats not necessarily a virtue of intellegence.
Yes, and I would agree with him whole heartedly. I would also advise
you to hand over your wallet as well. But Chris had claimed that the
humans level of intelligence must be an evolutionary survival trait
because the human skin is soft. I was contesting that claim.

[plus's and minus's of upright position snipped]
I'm not sure I'd agree with you here. A tool is anything that gives
you a mechanical advantage. Ooops, techie talk. Hows about a tool is
anything that will make life easier. A stone will fit that criteria.
Building a bridge out of dead ants would also.

Even so by your own definition, would picking up flints and dropping
them to get a sharp surface, with which to smash your eggs count?
Thrush's do this. The bridge those ants built from ants bodies is
a tool even if the corpses aren't. As I said there is even an insect
that fishes for ants using a striped down leaf. Thats a tool. None
of these creatures has an intellegence comparable to a humans.
And yet wolves, and many other predators seem to be capable of this.
Cats one of our most stupid pets, are capable of working out that if they
purr and rub around Freds legs, that Fred will tell Jane to put some
food in it's bowl. Now you could claim that the cat does this through
trial and error, eventually it hits on the right combination. But to
be honest I don't really think humans can claim as good a success through
getting fed by shear manipulation as cats.

Later,

---

Adam Hattrell, Support, Cimio Ltd. adam@

(lots of snips)
Dave Barlow also claimed that Neanderthals made better hunters than Homo
Sapiens (i.e us). If this is so how come Homo Sapiens managed to replace
Neanderthals. Before I here any theories for wiping out Neanderthals
could I point out that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens did co-exist for a
period (I know, I've studied human evolution a bit last academic year).
The reason for it is that Homo Sapiens were much more intelligent than
neanderthals and were able to use their intelligence for making tools
etc. This made them better hunters than the Neanderthals, so that they
succeeded where the Neanderthals failed (and subsequently died out).
Homo Sapiens actually did have a larger cranial capacity than
Neanderthals. Neanderthals may have had a larger head but this was due
to them having thicker skulls than Homo Sapiens. The ability to make
tools is what has made humans so successful. As has been pointed out
humans are basically unsuited to surviving in a hostile environment. It
is thought that humans started as scavengers, but as they learnt how to
make weapons and work together they were able to become hunters. A
second possible explanation for why humans stand upright is that it is a
little difficult to use weapons if all your limbs are required for
movement.
Apologies for this completely non SF rant but I felt is was
necessary to clear up a few of the suggestions that have been floating
around recently.

Jon

In article <E0xxXWC-0002z3-00@>, "Daniel Celano" <celano@> wrote:
[...]
Cutting sections of leaves and then carrying them away to grow mushrooms
(Leafcutter ants)?

Making wax into elaborate honeycomb structures, then storing concentrated
nectar in them for winter food (honeybees)?

Any sort of nesting behaviour (loads of insects, fish, birds, lizards,
mammals)?

Spinning webs out of sticky silk, then using these to catch insects
(spiders)?

I could go on, but I won't. Tool use doesn't demonstrate intelligence.
Or even to teach someone else so the skills survive after our death. The
point where our behaviour is more modified by language and culture than by
instinct is the point where our extensive alteration of the environment
became possible.

But first we needed language. And I would still contend that language is
primarily a social and sexual signal, and only secondarily a way of passing
on ideas. Use of language is instinctive, and language is a central part of
human courtship.

I may be completely wrong, but I do feel that evolution of intelligence is
rather unlikely, not inevitable. There are thousands of species, even in
the mammals - only one of them seems to be intelligent enough to use
language. That seems pretty significant to me. It also suggests to me that
we are probably pretty alone.
Not all adults can do it well.

But then for these people life is a box of chocolates. With no chocolates.
And no box.



Simon

---
"This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind" -Ecclesiastes 4:16

simon@ | Not affiliated to any religion
simon@ | Not affiliated to any politics
H (+44/0)1784 431998 | Not affiliated to any ideology
W (+44/0)1784 434568 (GMT/BST) | What does that make me?

"I have been asked to point out, as if you couldn't guess, that my rantings
are not the opinions of One Chip Solutions. So now you know, don't you..?"

stomped
If the shark isn't too big (say, up to two metres in length), if you
just stick your fingers into it's gills, it will not last very
long... Of course, this is not very effective against a big shark...

Gordan

So let's design something better.

(Bill Hicks reckoned the next evolutionary step would be for man to lose that
extra vertebrate that prevented him from undoing his own flies with his teeth.)

Starting from scratch though - I'd go for slightly larger than mansize - say
Bearish.
Two legs/two arms, but with a balancing tail, and stronger legs for faster
running.
Thicker skin - maybe rhino sort of stuff, with fine fur covering.
Gills that function in water and air.
Able to hold its breath for as long as a seal, with a facility for storing
oxygenated fluid elsewhere in the body to retrieve later, and last even longer.
Fine claws that extend from the (thick and armoured, remember?) fingers for
delicate manipulation as well as weaponry.
Sonar as well as regular hearing.
Two sets of eyes - one high wide-set for scanning wide areas, and one lower
narrow-set pair for close-up work. Two layers of eyelids, lower one
transparent.
Egg-laying, but internally fertilised for enjoyable sex.
Omnivorous.

This should function pretty well anywhere, including brief periods in space.
Any comments?

Dominic.

"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by."
[Douglas Adams]

I saw a very good documentary some years ago as to why Humans developed
intelligence and an upright posture. We know from australopithecine
afarensis
(Lucy as she was called) that our earliest ancestors where walking upright
and had similar bone and hand structure. The idea was simply that walking
upright kept the head cooler than if we walked on all fours. A simple
demonstration showed that there was a 5-8 degree temperature difference
between 6 inches above ground to three feet above ground. The main argument
centred on the number and location of blood vessels that go through the
skull, around the scalp and back into the brain again, this is a primary
cooling system for us. The number of these vessels lessen as earlier
primates went from walking on the ground to upright. I can't remember exact
details it was 2-3 years ago.

It was then suggested that intelligence develops because the brain is
cooler. Based on the argument that death is a side affect of the brain
overheating by as much as two degrees or so. There was some other good
argument but I have forgotten it.

A similar documentary pointed that in early hominids (of the Lucy type or
Homo Robustus) the male was larger than the female and also had extended
canines. This was consistent with the male having a harem and having to
defend his harem, chimps and some other apes display the same social traits
and bodily characteristics. In this case sexual attractiveness and breeding
capability had little to do with brain size and more to do with big teeth
and the ability to fight off other males wanting to mate with your harem.

It is worth noting that Homo Neanderthals had a larger brain case than Homo
sapiens. The extra tissue was more to do with sensory input. They had better
sight, smell and hearing than we do. Thinking about it, this made them
better hunters so they where probably better providers and hence where more
attractive as mates.

Dave Barlow

To make two points again,

The most useful defination of a tool is something which is made for
a task. Else you end up with a defination that includes every thing
under the sun. For example I climb a tree to see a predator - does
that make the tree a tool, what about a hill...

I saw the same bit with the monks and spear, I also saw two uni-student do the
same thing. To show that a lot of these things are just good physics.
The students are part of a group in India who disprove fakia claim to
super powers. They also do tricks with pins, pulling cars by hooks in
their skin etc. They just use what they know about physics and the
human body. By the way I noticed that the spear was very slowly pressed
agaisnt the monk - either to allow the skin to become tougher or to
reduce the forces applied at the point. One last point (no pun), the weight
on the spear was his own body wieght, I am not surprise that our
bodies are designed to handle that...

Animal (and authistics) are only cabaple of thinking in the second person -
no other species so fare has shown to be able to thing in the third
or forth. No cat would purr to one person and expect another to get the
food (unless we train the cat to do a series of actions to get fed -
then all its doing is being a robot; which is not what we are talking about).

Daniel

=====================================================================

Nortel Ltd, E-Mail : celano@
140 greenway,
Harlow Business Park, TEL : (01279) 405316
Harlow,
Essex.
CM19 5QD FAX : (01279) 405070

=====================================================================

In article <E0xxfbB-0004zr-00@>, "Daniel Celano" <celano@> wrote:
Honeycomb is made for a task.

So is a spiderweb.

Neither animal is remotely intelligent. The important thing about tools is
not the ability to use them, but the ability to design them. All spiderwebs
are spirals - no spider can learn to make netlike webs. Likewise all
honeycomb is hexagonal, and one of two standard sizes (drone-size and
worker-size). Neither animal can change the design outside the
preprogrammed limits - because the limits are fixed in the animal's DNA.

One of the important points here is that apparent structure is not as clear
evidence for intelligence as it appears. We listen to the quite structured
sounds that birds and whales make - birds are not intelligent, but what
about whales? We don't really know.

It seems likely to me that any contact with aliens is likely to be at least
as difficult as our contact with dolphins. It may be many years before we
can tell for sure if that thing over there is intelligent. And making tools
is not enough evidence.


Simon

---
"This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind" -Ecclesiastes 4:16

simon@ | Not affiliated to any religion
simon@ | Not affiliated to any politics
H (+44/0)1784 431998 | Not affiliated to any ideology
W (+44/0)1784 434568 (GMT/BST) | What does that make me?

"I have been asked to point out, as if you couldn't guess, that my rantings
are not the opinions of One Chip Solutions. So now you know, don't you..?"

As long as we're talking evolution, I have heard a very nice theory as to
why we evolved our big brains - the aquatic apes theory. I'll only go into
it if someone asks... But it did make sense out of the whole 'Whe the hell
do we look so stupid in animal terms' question for me.

Ben.

*---------------------------------------------*
| IVE SEEN THE FU *---------------------------*
| S T |
| R U |
| UCER STI DNA ER |
*-----------------*

O _____________
/ \ /3
o / X BAD \ / 3
< Fish X 3
. \__ TRIP / \ 3
/____________/ \3

So them giraffes is gonna be bright cookies.
Probably something about neck length being detrimental.
Explains why ostritches are so thick, and giraffes can't talk.
Blood pressure to the brain, and all that.

Dominic.

"The optimist proclaims we live in the best of all possible worlds;
and the pessimist fears this is true." [James B. Cabell]

In article <E0xxDR3-0005Lr-00@>, Chris Turner <chris@> wrote:
But with their intelligence, they can learn the skills quickly in early
adulthood. And then, since the learning process is now conscious, choose
which rules to obey and which to ignore.

I suspect that we are actually breeding it out by structuring our society so
that the breeding of the stupid is subsidised by the intelligent. But that
will stop. When the nominally-Labour Party has realised that it is
economically impossible, it has to stop. The great thing about it is that
it is also stopping all these strange 70's-SF scenarios of 80% unemployment
in the future. It just isn't happening. Instead, more and more people are
working with their minds.



Simon

---
"This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind" -Ecclesiastes 4:16

simon@ | Not affiliated to any religion
simon@ | Not affiliated to any politics
H (+44/0)1784 431998 | Not affiliated to any ideology
W (+44/0)1784 434568 (GMT/BST) | What does that make me?

"I have been asked to point out, as if you couldn't guess, that my rantings
are not the opinions of One Chip Solutions. So now you know, don't you..?"

On Tuesday, January 27, 1998 3:01 PM, simon@
[SMTP:simon@] wrote:
billions
intelligent-life-bearing-planets
like
chat
I
All I can say is - wow! I have heard some WIERD stuff in my time, but
this definitely beats everything so far hands down. The worst part is
probably the fact that it is even possible! I reckon you should
submit this to the people assembling famous lines for the "fortune"
program that most unix systems have... :)

Gordan