Anthropomorphic Aliens

[psyche101]

As you are all aware, this topic started in the Roswell Alien Photo Thread. Klambo said - An Alien surely would not be Anthropomorphic, no way that could be real.

On that point I disagree, and still do, however, with the constant nattering about a member that has moved on ended that conversation prematurely, there is still much to be said and debated. That Alien was indeed a fake, but not because it was anthropomorphic in shape.

Now I'd like to say, that member's status does not contribute to the thread, please refrain from mentioning him so others may enjoy a conversation.

Now, where Id like to start is by continuing with the contribution by Lost Shama, I will follow up with a reply to Stereologist, which I felt requires a reply.

As you did not get the opportunity to reply to Lost Shaman Stereo, here is your opportunity:

Your first point, the activities of the individual do contribute to gene change to some extent. I admit I'm not a moleculer biologist, but this should happen via gene expression. It has also recently been shown that males make the most contributions to offspring and that older males give thier offspring more mutations than younger males. So older males that were highly succesful and still able to attract mates and provide for children also made greater contributions to the gene pool diversity than young males that aren't that sucessful or can't provide for mates and offspring into older ages.

Your second point, is kind of bunk IMO. Have you ever seen an elephant weave some grass into a Basket to carry something? No. Its because they can not. Just because you can Imagine something does not mean it could be true. There are some serious constraints to what is physically possible. For example chimps have hands and arms like ours and they are even stronger than we are, but a study was done where an Anthropologist spent 5 years trying to teach chimps to knapp simple stone Tools. The Chimps simply can't do it! There wrists and Arm muscle structure just do not allow them the precision needed even when they know what they are asked to do!

On the otherhand almost any Human can knapp an arrowhead if you bother to teach them even though this is an almost a Dead art. Its because our wrists, arm bones, muscles, and even our Brains are perfectly adapted to do this type of delicate work.

It is not just a bunch of random mutations that allow us to do this. It is that tool use was so advantagious gene expression or some other mechanism must play a role.

Your third point, I'm not sure I get what you're saying. I agree with psyche in that there is an inherent Goal of Evolution. That is to have viable offspring.

Also #3, is a perfect example of your imagination running wild! Choking is not a real problem, but if we did not have a common pathway the immune system would have to work so much harder and patrol much more area. It makes no sense. You just imagine chocking is bad. So you assume eating and Breathing should be sepearate. I think such a creature would just get sick more often and if you got something stuck in your throat then how would you dislodge that if your lungs are employing a seperate pathway? Have you even thought about that?

[psyche101]

I disagree.

That is fine, but I would request that you find a more amicable way to express yourself, insult it not at all required if you can support your position.

The activities of an individual do not change their genes. Free time, thinking, eating meat - none of that changes the genes that are passed on. Teaching others does not affect the genes either. Behavior does alter the gene pool through survival.

Yes they do indeed, teaching others to survive results in a stronger survival rate that that particular lineage. Lets say I am a Homo Erectus with some offspring, and I have an FTB as a neighbour. The FTB will rely on "something" to provide, whilst I get out there and teach my kids to fish, hunt, strain water for cleanliness etc etc, and the FTB survives on scraps and abandoned food. The second that environment changes to provide less is the same time the FTB example would die out. I expect something like that happened when the first hominid discovered that cooking meat benefits our design and left others behind to dwindle away.

How does that action not assist further survival and create the competition for survival that eventually led to streamlining all aspects of life to outcompete each other?

Many animals have dexterity. Weaver birds make intricate nests. Gibbons can perform amazing athletic feats. Opposable thumbs are not needed for dexterity. Your claim seems to be that humans do better at what humans do.

I am not sure how you get to that conclusion, I am saying "The Anthropomorphic shape gives the abilities to attain intelligence and initiate in Industrial Revolution" It is not "our shape" any more than a Silverback can claim it. None of those animals can grasp a nut in one hand, a wrench in the other, match the threads up and understand it needs to be tight and why. None of them can or do smelt steel, none of them possess the understanding of leverage or physics to make a spaceship. The Anthropomorphic shape make it all possible, these animals can do one thing we can, we can do anything any animal can like swim, fly, lift millions of times out own weight, see into the depths of space and into the smallest corners of the micro world, we can do all of it and then some, none of those other shapes can.

That in no way means that humans can outperform aliens at what aliens do. If we go back to what you stated you claimed that other species cannot manipulate. I suggested watching an elephant. To respond that humans do it better has no bearing on whether or not species other than man can manipulate.

I never said anything like that at all, I said that the Anthropomorphic shape is likely to be utilized throughout the cosmos and that this shape lends itself to Intelligent life as the shape of a fish lends it to swimming or the shape of a wing lends to flying. I never said "Humans" at all, I have been specific in stating "The Anthropomorphic Shape" which I have stated "Is not OUR shape" it's one we have adapted to earth conditions. The Anthropomorphic Shape has outperformed other shapes on earth because it's design is perfect to initiate an Industrial Revolution and as Nature in our Pool of one has made extensive usage of convergent evolution, it is more than likely that other earth like planets will also find thes solutions that we have found on earth will be beneficial to whatever forms of life take shape on another "earth Like Planet". Darwins Finches did this in Isolation, so why is it such a difficult concept to consider?

Humans" are not what is being discussed here. Convergent and Parallel evolution is. Lets not confuse the two.

You are not tryign to pull a zoser and move the goalposts are you?

I take that as a deep insult and expect an apology. I have presented my case in detail to best of my ability, yet above you seem to be making some broad assumptions. Mate, I am right freaking here, if you have a question, simply bloody well ask it. Man up.

That is incorrect. There is no goal in evolution. The fact that it is not goal oriented is what makes evolution so powerful. Evolution is simply the change in species observed over time. Evolution is not trying to make anything. Evolution happens because some offspring survive and some do not.

I feel there is, however, would the term "directional trend" suit better here? - to create viable offspring, is what I understand the goal of evolution to be, to not die out. The mutations provided by diversity make a stronger better being that is adaptable and resistant. There is no "ultimate shape form or type" it is simply survival of the fittest. The fittest attain that goal. The survive and produce more viable offspring, and improve the design yet again. One cannot come to a state of "perfection" in an ever changing environment, the goal is not "static" there are no "goal posts" the idea is simply to stay in the game and attain top predator.

To say that the "body is adapting" is wrong. That is NOT how evolution works. It works as you state afterward. Evolution allows survival. In the case of resource limited environments it leads to dwarfism. The larger animals do not survive. The smaller ones do and dwarfism is the result of evolution. These are all examples of evolution leading to smaller, weaker, less consuming species.

Yes it is adapting, if not, then why are some people lactose tolerant, and others not?

The smaller a creature is, the stronger it is proportionally. In an Island Environment, the resources are few, so the smaller species can be healthier than the larger species. Viable offspring I point at, not size and strength, we are surely not the strongest animal on the planet, yet we are dominant.

Again. that is what I was saying, the most viable offspring survive. A species does not have to be the biggest to be the best adapted to suit it's conditions. All species dwarf in that environment right? So the environment dictates that shape - small. Attaining intelligence requires certain parameters too, and they as we can see in our pool of one, are ones the Anthropomorphic Shape has and utilises to initiate an Industrial Revolution - we have all the tools required to do this in this shape. Adding to it is superfluous.

1. You are guessing about survival. Bilateral symmetry is something we are stuck with. All chordates have that form.

2. I disagree. Killing off dodos is meaningless. Snakes are wiping out bird populations. Mammals have been completely wiped out by pythons in the Everglades.

3. Evolution is full of bad ideas such as a single mouth. The ability of mammals to chew and breath at the same time is a plus. So why not 2 separate openings. There is plenty of real estate on the body for that.

4. The blood vessels are in front of the retina. That is like taking photos looking through a bush! There is nothing that requires a human shape for an Industrial Revolution. Nothing you have posted supports such an idea. You asked for fixes to humans and the eye needs fixes. You are moving the goalposts.

5. Again you are moving the goal posts. Your suggesting that we can get around the flaws that evolution has dealt us does not address the original issue which is that there are better ways to construct a being.

6. Regardless of where life starts the issue is that the spine in an upright position is not a good idea. Aliens may not have this issue and may not be upright.

7. The appendix is not useless. It has a purpose. Tails don't disappear because they take up resources or are useless or no longer needed. All of those suggestions are Lamarkian.

8. No comment

There are not 50 billion body shapes. There are some 50 basic types if we include extinct phyla. A spine is not required for intelligence. It is not required for leverage either. There is no reason to suppose that there cannot be other body plans, some of which might be superior.

1 - How so, did we not require balance to escape predators earlier in our record, allowing us to maintain a population that arose to intelligence?

2 - Again you have me at a loss, how would one way breathing which we do not really need as far as I can see have assisted those mammals in the Everglades?

3 - Real Estate requires resources, it's not just space, it's maintenance and sustenance. More than is required, in addition to the good point Lost Shaman offered in that regard, and considering the path evolution has taken, why would this develop, and what specific advantages does it have? We do not have mass deaths from choking, what is the overall benefit to the species? Consider the evolution of the mouth - In animals at least as complex as an earthworm, a dent forms in one side of the early, spheroidal embryo. This dent, the blastopore, deepens to become the archenteron, the first phase in the growth of the gut. These early life forms are where we get these characteristics from, what might prompt a real need for two openings there - as you say, that is not how evolution works. It takes the simplest path to create the best advantage. That advantage allows some species to thrive where other fail.

4 - I am not moving the goal posts, you are, I said that light is a specific advantage to any species for both predation, and escape from predation. UV Rays break down DNA, so the very earliest species to ever swim in the ocean had a distinct survival advantage over other species that did not, They could swim down to depth that shielded them from UV rays, while other organisms simply perished. Why having blood in front of the retina - not the Supply but distribution, creates no specific disadvantage, like the Laryngeal Nerve of the Giraffe, it is a benign adaption that we live with that does not affect s in any way. Our intelligence as I have said, took over Evolution in this regard, and gave us sight that any unitelligent species could only comprehend as magical. Also, I don't say "our eye" must be reproduced, in a certain environment perhaps a compound eye might be of better use, but a blind creature has a distinct disadvantage over a creature with the ability to see in an environment where light exists.

5 - I am not moving the goal posts, again you are, You are coming with adaption to the anthropomorphic frame - an extra arm, different eyes, two mouths, that is not what I consider "different" I am saying that two arms and two legs in a bipedal stance is perfectly suited to perform any task that all other species can. It is adaptive, flexible, strong, durable, and the combination of being able to do all these things ives us the ability to shape out environment, and initiate in Industrial Revolution. A handy extra arm, which really would not be handy at all, is just another resource to fuel, another appendage to get in the way, there are no specific survival traits that you have outlined that the anthropomorphic shame cannot already do. You are not giving me alternatives at all, you are trying to improve on what we have already.

6 - Nonsense! Who says it is not a good idea? We should give away leverage, benefits by way of better range of sight, the ability to birth a large brain, thermoregulation, the ability to carry things, the ability to forage, the list is long, yet your argument is solely that we have back problems which is genetic, I know, I found out recently that I am tissue type HLAB27 which means genetically, I am prone to eye and back problems. Yet the advantages that has given me alone far outweigh a back that simply needs some strengthening, and I have the ability to speak to a consultant and fix that with Intelligence. That's why Quadrupeds have little success as top predator. Dinosaurs, Birds and humans by far are the dominant species on this planet across time, all predominantly Bipedal. There were Quadruped Dinosaurs sure, but who ate them? Bipeds.

7 - Nonsense they are not Lamarckian at all. That's just a bluff to cover up the fact that it is actually true. If you have another idea as to hw wee lost out tail, I'd be more than interested to hear it, WIki says this:

Coccyx[edit]

The coccyx, or tailbone, is the remnant of a lost tail. All mammals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis.[14] This tail is most prominent in human embryos 31–35 days old.[15] The tailbone, located at the end of the spine, has lost its original function in assisting balance and mobility, though it still serves some secondary functions, such as being an attachment point for muscles, which explains why it has not degraded further.

And I never said the Appendix was Useless, I said it, like the ail is all BUT useless and now considered a vestigial organ. Please read the post again if you doubt me. In support, Wiki also says:

Function[edit]

Vestigiality[edit]

The human appendix has been proposed to be a vestigial structure, a structure that has lost all or most of its original function through the process of evolution.

Which is what I said.

8 - Valid though. I see no examples in nature where species are provided with neat or handy adaptations, we adapt to suit needs nothing more.

How do you attain leveage of you do not have rigidity? You need a surface to brace against, commonly the ground.

Hint: giraffes do not have prehensile tails that swat flies. They have prehensile lips. According to you lips are limbs.

Lets stick with the standard definition, it never was "mine" at all.

Limb (anatomy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A limb (from the Old English lim), or extremity, is a jointed, or prehensile (as octopus tentacles or new world monkey tails), appendage of the human or other animal body. In the human body, the upper and lower limbs are commonly called the arms and the legs.

Lips are not an appendage are they now.

Missed something:

Nothing you stated has anything at all to do with a creature being headless and still having sensory organs. A head is simply the result of an early chordate having a brain at one end of a cord of nerves. It's a dangly thing exposed to all sorts of dangers. There is no need for a head. The brain and sensory organs can be redistributed to other parts of the body.

What you have not stated is a disadvantage, again, you are shifting the goal posts,. lets look at your original proposal shall we?

A headless creature does not mean a creature without a brain or sensory organs. It means it does not have something dangling off one end of the body. You claim it would be "extinct as soon as it adapted". Not true. Our heads are simply due to the manner in which the earliest chordates formed. You are thinking in terms of our evolution. Headless creatures are common in scifi as people imagine a more robust creature that protects its brain by placing it inside of the body mass. Sensory organs can be relocated to other parts of the body. There are even scifi creatures which sense in part by membranes that can see by way of sound.

You are not referencing "A brain" You are clearly referencing "A Headless Creature" if that evaluation is at fault, may I request that you clarify.

However, I assume you new question is saying, our other important organs like the heart lungs and so forth are well protected correct? That's also due to the humble beginnings of evolution. If we peer back down the evolutionary timeline, we will see that our earliest ancestors possessed nothing more than sensory cells - the ones that survived that is - neurons and adherent processing ganglia were faced forward because that was the direction the creature moved in. Like the Laryngeal Nerve of the Giraffe, Evolution expands on what it has, it does not suddenly sprout new handy adaptations, if we follow the evolution of these early species that merely had to know a direction the expansion pushes all these sensory organs into one place - the Head. Why would that process change, and how would a change advantage such a primitive life form?

LINK - Evolution of nervous systems

Please mate, I have come to respect you. Do have a good look for you manners when you reply. If you feel an data is in error, proved a precise description with supporting references please, lets try and discuss something like grown ups, and let the more childish people fawn over appeals to authority.

Edited July 4, 2014 by psyche101

[lost_shaman]

I suspect that some things are related, for example cooking food reqiures fire but it also makes food softer so you can digest it better but fire also keeps other animals at bay and provides heat when its cold and you even have another child faster if you feed the last child cooked food instead of breast milk sooner. You can also fire harden wooden spear tips and boil or disinfect water. Even most of the rocks people made stone tools from here in Texas had to be literally BBQ'd with Fire before they would fracture correctly for knapping into stone tools.

So thats just one example, a hominid can master that one trick and end up walking on the Moon! Thats what we did. No imagination needed.

[quillius]

Well done on creating this thread Psyche, this conversation was the best part of that thread.

I remember thinking that both you and LS were very wrong in your stance with regards to the Anthropomorphic design, however you both completely changed my view and this new discussion on it has reinforced it for me rather than challenged it.

I suspect that some things are related, for example cooking food reqiures fire but it also makes food softer so you can digest it better but fire also keeps other animals at bay and provides heat when its cold and you even have another child faster if you feed the last child cooked food instead of breast milk sooner. You can also fire harden wooden spear tips and boil or disinfect water. Even most of the rocks people made stone tools from here in Texas had to be literally BBQ'd with Fire before they would fracture correctly for knapping into stone tools.

So thats just one example, a hominid can master that one trick and end up walking on the Moon! Thats what we did. No imagination needed.

Hey LS, could it also be argued that 'fire' has enabled us to reduce disease and sickness derived from raw food?

[lost_shaman]

Well done on creating this thread Psyche, this conversation was the best part of that thread.

I remember thinking that both you and LS were very wrong in your stance with regards to the Anthropomorphic design, however you both completely changed my view and this new discussion on it has reinforced it for me rather than challenged it.

Hey LS, could it also be argued that 'fire' has enabled us to reduce disease and sickness derived from raw food?

Hey quillius, of course cooking can kill bacteria and parasites. Simply boiling water probably saves countless Human lives every year!

[quillius]

Hey quillius, of course cooking can kill bacteria and parasites. Simply boiling water probably saves countless Human lives every year!

sorry mate, must have seemed like I was just stating the obvious

My line of thinking was more towards how intelligence has enabled us to find ways of combating disease/parasites/bacteria etc seeing as it seems that humans are the most prone to the largest number of such dangers. And that intelligence has been our evolutionary defence to enable survival.

Yes boiling water does do that, had we not have evolved intellgence then we may have evolved/adapted to fight off many of the diseases naturally but with intelligence we can 'outpace' natural evolution. i.e. if it takes us 100 years to evolve a defence system against parasite x, we can instead (due to intelligence) defend against the same parasite (through medicine) in a much shorter time period. Allowing our species to flourish and survive with far less danger than we would have faced without intellignce.

[lost_shaman]

Honestly, we got where we are without much medicine.

[Harte]

I would say that what we mean by "the anthropomorphic shape" should be more clearly defined.

To use examples provided by Lost Shaman, it would be my opinion that an "anthropomorphic shape" could be considered to have been maintained anyway in a species with a form similar to ours, but that has no "blood vessels in front of the retina," or has a breathing hole in the top of its' head.

I don't think we're talking about an absolute carbon-copy of humans when we say "anthropomorphic."

That said, I have no doubt that symmetry would be displayed in a "higher" organism's body shape. What we refer to as intelligence may be more likely in a species with bilateral symmetry, if by intelligence we mean the capability to alter our environment and even construct ships that travel into space.

Symmetry runs deep in our form, and in practically every form on Earth, and likely does so because of reasons having more to do with chemistry than evolution.

On the other hand, an octupus is extremely intelligent, but a society of intelligent octopi is unlikely to venture into space, and unlikely to alter the environment the way we can (buildings, roads, etc.) and so might never fit the definition of what we mean by an intelligent species.

Harte

[seeder]

Well done on creating this thread Psyche, this conversation was the best part of that thread.

I remember thinking that both you and LS were very wrong in your stance with regards to the Anthropomorphic design, however you both completely changed my view and this new discussion on it has reinforced it for me rather than challenged it.

Hey LS, could it also be argued that 'fire' has enabled us to reduce disease and sickness derived from raw food?

Hey quillius, remember the link I posted about the 'uncontacted tribe'? And how they may resist diseases due to being remote? Well they're in the news only this time its not so good

Uncontacted tribe of the Amazon forced out of the rainforest by logging on the Peru border

Members of the unnamed tribe emerged from the rainforest in Brazil near the Peru border

Government officials believed logging in Peru forced them to move

Fears they could lack immunity to common diseases

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2679851/Uncontacted-tribe-forced-forest-logging-Peru-border-scared-Brazilian-rainforest.html#ixzz36VR80frA

[psyche101]

I would say that what we mean by "the anthropomorphic shape" should be more clearly defined.

To use examples provided by Lost Shaman, it would be my opinion that an "anthropomorphic shape" could be considered to have been maintained anyway in a species with a form similar to ours, but that has no "blood vessels in front of the retina," or has a breathing hole in the top of its' head.

I don't think we're talking about an absolute carbon-copy of humans when we say "anthropomorphic."

That said, I have no doubt that symmetry would be displayed in a "higher" organism's body shape. What we refer to as intelligence may be more likely in a species with bilateral symmetry, if by intelligence we mean the capability to alter our environment and even construct ships that travel into space.

Symmetry runs deep in our form, and in practically every form on Earth, and likely does so because of reasons having more to do with chemistry than evolution.

On the other hand, an octupus is extremely intelligent, but a society of intelligent octopi is unlikely to venture into space, and unlikely to alter the environment the way we can (buildings, roads, etc.) and so might never fit the definition of what we mean by an intelligent species.

Harte

Excellent suggestion Harte. To make the discussion productive, best make sure we are all on a level playing field, again, I would suggest we refer to the standard definition:

anthropomorphic

anθrəpəˈmɔːfɪk/Submit

adjective

relating to or characterized by anthropomorphism.

"explanations of animal behaviour in anthropomorphic terms"

having human characteristics.

"anthropomorphic bears and monkeys"

Examples:

And may even lead to confusion:

[psyche101]

Well done on creating this thread Psyche, this conversation was the best part of that thread.

Gidday Mate

Thanks kindly, hopefully we can get some good contributors to throw in, the more the merrier. I find it a subject that few really have a good think about, the more basic line of thinking is "different planet, life must be different" yet what we have been looking for is something very much like earth, so to me it stands to reason life would also be familiar based upon that which Darwin realised.

I remember thinking that both you and LS were very wrong in your stance with regards to the Anthropomorphic design, however you both completely changed my view and this new discussion on it has reinforced it for me rather than challenged it.

I think like UFOLogy, many start out with that concept, but the more we break down the functions of life and how evolution works, I have to admit to having the same preconceptions myself. Darwins Finches are a powerful example in nature to me that the Convergent and Parallel hypotheses are correct.

Hey LS, could it also be argued that 'fire' has enabled us to reduce disease and sickness derived from raw food?

If it shaped us or not, it did give us the ability to begin the battle against the microbial dangers.

LINK - Eating Cooked Food Made Us Human

This is a central thesis of Wrangham's 2009 book, "Catching Fire." He argues that the control of fire allowed early hominids to not only cook their food, but obtain warmth, allowing them to shed body hair and in turn run faster without overheating; to develop calmer personalities, enabling social structures around the hearth; and even to form relationships among men and women - in short, to become human.

"My day job is studying chimpanzees in the wild, and I have often studied feeding behavior. I have tried to survive on what chimps eat," he said.

Really?

"If I don't have any food with me, I just eat what they eat. And that told me that what they eat is totally unsatisfying," he continued. "I thought about what would happen if humans had to live like chimps. And that took me very rapidly to the conclusion, within a few minutes, that as long as we've been human, it's hard to imagine how we could live on raw food."

[DONTEATUS]

As long as theres B.B.Q being served Im all In ! Aliens and All ! Big or Small !

[lost_shaman]

"Timeline of Human Origins Revised: New Synthesis of

Research Links Changing Environment With Homo's

Evolutionary Adaptability"

This article on Science Daily page discusses a July 4th article in Science that discusses new evidence the early Homo species quickly adapted to different and quickly changing environments with multiple Species often overlapping and employing differing strategies along with stone tool use to survive and spread to new environments.

It goes along quite well with the arguement here that the Anthropomorphic design is clearly a winner.

[kartikg]

I am not contesting anybody's claim I used to watch a cartoon named Oswald it's an octopus abd the animators made it look easy for octopus to turndoor knonbs use tools which requrequire fingers. I guess having tentacles which can curl around and grab or grasp things are enough to do almost anything that human fingers do. Of course such species if has intelligence can also develop tools according to it's needs.

[psyche101]

"Timeline of Human Origins Revised: New Synthesis of

Research Links Changing Environment With Homo's

Evolutionary Adaptability"

This article on Science Daily page discusses a July 4th article in Science that discusses new evidence the early Homo species quickly adapted to different and quickly changing environments with multiple Species often overlapping and employing differing strategies along with stone tool use to survive and spread to new environments.

It goes along quite well with the arguement here that the Anthropomorphic design is clearly a winner.

Hi LS

Great link mate, for anyone wanting to read that article, the link is here

The team's research takes an innovative approach to integrating paleoclimate data, new fossils and understandings of the genus Homo, archaeological remains and biological studies of a wide range of mammals (including humans). The synthesis of these data led the team to conclude that the ability of early humans to adjust to changing conditions ultimately enabled the earliest species of Homo to vary, survive and begin spreading from Africa to Eurasia 1.85 million years ago. Additional information about this study is available in the July 4 issue of Science.

[psyche101]

I am not contesting anybody's claim I used to watch a cartoon named Oswald it's an octopus abd the animators made it look easy for octopus to turndoor knonbs use tools which requrequire fingers. I guess having tentacles which can curl around and grab or grasp things are enough to do almost anything that human fingers do. Of course such species if has intelligence can also develop tools according to it's needs.

Try using a pencil grasping it with one finger like a tentacle.

Then try a standard grip with 3 digits.

[seeder]

I am not contesting anybody's claim I used to watch a cartoon named Oswald it's an octopus abd the animators made it look easy for octopus to turndoor knonbs use tools which requrequire fingers. I guess having tentacles which can curl around and grab or grasp things are enough to do almost anything that human fingers do. Of course such species if has intelligence can also develop tools according to it's needs.

quoting a cartoon!! Of course the animators made it look easy, because when watching cartoons one should suspend reality and critical thinking, and just enjoy the show! The Tom and Jerry show was another where the animators make it look possible for a cat and mouse to grab frying pans to fight each other..

Or hammers

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Try using a pencil grasping it with one finger like a tentacle.

Then try a standard grip with 3 digits.

You'd use three tentacles obviously.

[seeder]

You'd use three tentacles obviously.

nah, you only need one, just dip it in the ink and use like a paintbrush!!

ETA: wait a minute, its got its own ink built in

.

Edited July 9, 2014 by seeder

[CuriousRey]

I would say that what we mean by "the anthropomorphic shape" should be more clearly defined.

To use examples provided by Lost Shaman, it would be my opinion that an "anthropomorphic shape" could be considered to have been maintained anyway in a species with a form similar to ours, but that has no "blood vessels in front of the retina," or has a breathing hole in the top of its' head.

I don't think we're talking about an absolute carbon-copy of humans when we say "anthropomorphic."

That said, I have no doubt that symmetry would be displayed in a "higher" organism's body shape. What we refer to as intelligence may be more likely in a species with bilateral symmetry, if by intelligence we mean the capability to alter our environment and even construct ships that travel into space.

Symmetry runs deep in our form, and in practically every form on Earth, and likely does so because of reasons having more to do with chemistry than evolution.

On the other hand, an octupus is extremely intelligent, but a society of intelligent octopi is unlikely to venture into space, and unlikely to alter the environment the way we can (buildings, roads, etc.) and so might never fit the definition of what we mean by an intelligent species.

Harte

For some reason when you spoke of octopi being unlikely to venture into space I immediately thought of the Dalek.... They kinda look like octopi right?

On a more serious note I agree with the consensus that an Anthropomorphic design would be the most likely candidate for an intelligent species, a majority of the reasons as to why have already been stated.

That being said, I would love to be proven right or wrong in my lifetime, however I won't hold my breath.

[Sundew]

It's hard to say whether any form of advanced life would be human-like or not. For instance there are several forms which life is modeled after. Amorphous like an amoeba or a sponge, radially symmetry like a jelly fish or sea star (although technically sea stars are not radial), or bilateral like most forms of life. Bilateral means that if you take a human or animal and cut them down the middle from top to bottom, the two halves are more or less alike. So it seems reasonable that bilateral organisms being the most common form taken by higher life forms on earth, that it might also be the most common everywhere.

Then you can go with the number of limbs, on earth six is the most common (insects which are the most numerous of larger animals, and by larger I mean non-microscopic), then there are 10 (crustaceans, scorpions) 8 (spiders, octopi), 4, (birds (wings are limbs) and mammals) of which birds and humans are bipedal. So an alien intelligence would presumably have at least two limbs free for tool use, so graping "hands" would be likely, leaving and uncertain number available for locomotion, but 2 or 4 seems reasonable.

Then presumably any organism has senses that interpret the world around it, so if there are sense to pick up light and sound you would have forward facing eyes and ears. It would need nutrition, so a forward facing mouth, the means of gaining nutrition on earth animals is extremely variable, so no guesses here.

So it's possible that by the time you add up all the features needed for an intelligent being, you might not have something recognizable as a human, but it might not even be as alien as something like an octopus.

[Oniomancer]

Try using a pencil grasping it with one finger like a tentacle.

Then try a standard grip with 3 digits.

Lousy comparison. A human finger has only 4 degrees of freedom. An octopus tentacle has substantially more.

The octopus does have two legitimate strikes against it, an aquatic environment and an extremely limited lifespan., neither of which have anything to do with shape.

[kartikg]

@psyche I have heard an elephant trunk can do some fine work including but not limited to painting and peeling banana (not very sure) any thoughts on that ?

[DONTEATUS]

So are we all in agreement about Squidly writeing a Novel or Building a FTL craft now ?

[Oniomancer]

Stereologist hasn't jumped in yet either but I wanted to address this:

For example chimps have hands and arms like ours and they are even stronger than we are, but a study was done where an Anthropologist spent 5 years trying to teach chimps to knapp simple stone Tools. The Chimps simply can't do it! There wrists and Arm muscle structure just do not allow them the precision needed even when they know what they are asked to do!

I don't know what study you saw LS, but it's not the one I saw:

http://www.stoneageinstitute.org/tool-behavior.html