LibriumArcana.Games

In Star Trek, it was said that some of their humanoid species are not mammals. There was on TNG that were supposed to be fish, the Cardassians are supposed to be reptilian, and there was at least one on Voyager that was supposed to be avian.

Putting aside Star Trek's stupidity when it comes to species, would such a thing even be biologically possible? Intelligence requires a rather massive brain, which takes a good chunk of energy and water. A large brain in a bird seems impossible: it would make the bird to heavy to fly, and a bird that can't fly will quickly become prey, which is a bad thing for passing that gene on. Unless it is an environment where they can get away with it, so let's say it is in an environment where predators aren't a very big selection pressure. Can avian physiology support human level intelligence?

What about reptiles? It seems to me as if they would not get enough energy to maintain a large brain, being cold-blooded. And if they were to change significantly enough to support a large brain, they would no longer fall under the reptilian classification.

And lastly fish. The biggest obstacle I see here is not getting enough oxygen to support a brain. Gills aren't nearly as good as lungs, and even if they were, there simply isn't enough oxygen dissolved in the water to be of use. Again, if a fish were to change significantly enough to need to surface for air, it wouldn't be classified as a fish anymore.

It seems to me as if mammals are the only type of animals that can support a large brain.

EDIT: I am also reminded of intelligent plants, seen in TAS at least once. I don't see how a plant could support a large brain either: photosynthesis wouldn't provide sufficent energy, nor would the transport system be good enough in transferring nutrients and water to the plant's brain. If the brain was low on the plant it might work though, perhaps right above the roots, but that still wouldn't solve the energy problem. </edit>

Do the bionerds here agree with my assessment? Anything more to add on why it is possible or not possible?

Biology is never my chore... But it seems that not even all mammals can develop sentience. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the reason why apes evolved into more intelligent beings (humans) is because they bodily structure make it possible to do so. For example, apes have hands and limbs that allow them to better manipulate their surroundings (ie using crude tools, etc) compared to, say, lions. I couldn't imagine cats or rats could evolve into intelligent beings.

Well, I am not saying all mammals are intelligent, I am saying the mammal characteristics make it possible, which is obvious as we humans are mammals. Even other mammals, like dogs and cats often show more intelligence than reptiles, fish, and birds. Not human level, but still some intelligence.

The question I am basically asking here is if intelligence at even that level, it doesn't have to be Star Trek human like intelligence, but even dog level brains are possible with non-mammal body characteristics (things like hearts and metabolism, not necessarily hands). I will agree that making any kind of technological civilisation, including one capable of building spaceships, is absurd without hands, and that also greatly limits their scientific potential, as building and using microscopes and other tools of discovery is not really possible. I am more curious on if a potentially intelligent brain could exist in these animals.

However, the evolutionary question is important too: what advantage would such an intelligent brain offer the organism if it doesn't have hands and opposable thumbs with which to utalise this intellect? But, they say whales and dolphins are very intelligent, and they don't have hands, so a large sophisticated brain can still develop even without them. And again, dogs are pretty smart without hands, so intelligence must offer an advantage aside than just being able to use tools.

A large brain in a bird seems impossible: it would make the bird to heavy to fly, and a bird that can't fly will quickly become prey, which is a bad thing for passing that gene on. Unless it is an environment where they can get away with it, so let's say it is in an environment where predators aren't a very big selection pressure. Can avian physiology support human level intelligence?

In a word yes. A flightless bird is not automatically prey, observe one Phorusrhacos, this flightless bird ate mammals. Standing at 10ft tall and 5ft long, this sucker could have done well today. And even among modern birds, no one picks a fight with an emu.

There are radical changes that would have to take place in the phyiscal sturcture of the birds, tool using limbs would be needed, flight would have to be surrended to gain sapience, however given several billion years anything is possible.

My suggestion is that an intelligent bird would be a flightless predator who hunted in packs.

If a flightless bird is automtically prey why is the penguin still around?
The energy problem for plants-its not like there aren't carnivorous plants in the real world.
Reptiles-given the size dinosaurs grew to the energy situation can't be that bad.
If they could find the energy to move a 100-ton body they can find the energy to move a 200-pound body and power a decent-sized brain given enough time.
The only ones I have a real problem with are fish. Nevermind the oxygen problem, how do you get a spacefaring civilisation when you can't even discover fire?

Maybe a lungfish kinda specis that can roam on the ground for limited periods of time?

frigidmagi wrote:Maybe a lungfish kinda specis that can roam on the ground for limited periods of time?

To form any civilisation worth mentioning they'd have to spend the majority of their time on land, with the accompanying physiological changes, which as Adam said would stop them being considered fish. A sufficiently advanced civilisation may eventually decide to go back to being fish over time but they couldn't (IMHO anyway) develop that way.
Aquatic mammals absolutely. Fish I don't think so.

frigidmagi wrote:

A large brain in a bird seems impossible: it would make the bird to heavy to fly, and a bird that can't fly will quickly become prey, which is a bad thing for passing that gene on. Unless it is an environment where they can get away with it, so let's say it is in an environment where predators aren't a very big selection pressure. Can avian physiology support human level intelligence?

In a word yes. A flightless bird is not automatically prey, observe one Phorusrhacos, this flightless bird ate mammals. Standing at 10ft tall and 5ft long, this sucker could have done well today. And even among modern birds, no one picks a fight with an emu.

There are radical changes that would have to take place in the phyiscal sturcture of the birds, tool using limbs would be needed, flight would have to be surrended to gain sapience, however given several billion years anything is possible.

My suggestion is that an intelligent bird would be a flightless predator who hunted in packs.

Agreed, but I think it would only take several million, rather than billion.

Since birds have a naturally bipedal stance, if they can keep their wings for some sort of useful function (aside from swimming, at which point they become flippers), they could get free arms that could use tools. The tendency however is for the wings to become vestigal, but there have not been many large-scale areas where birds ruled free from mammals (New Zealand just isn't a continent). The tendency could be changed after an extinction event, if mammalian competition was eliminated and huge niche opportunities opened up. Then, possibly, a vestigal wing that can be used like a climbing claw could be useful, and further mutations could even reinstate genes for forming digits (they still have genes for growing teeth, after all). Only one line needs to keep and modify its wings to have a strong selective pressure for it and rapidly diversify.

I've put a good amount of thought into this before, as you can tell.

Additional note: even us humans don't want to mess around with a cassowary. Fromhere:

Danger

Stay well clear of this animal. If you happen to encounter a Cassowary do not run from it, face the bird and just back away slowly slowly and hide behind a tree or bush.
Cassowaries are easily provoked and have very powerful legs that they use to kick with. By jumping feet first the sharp claws on its inner toes can easily rip flesh. Humans have been killed by cassowaries.

Putting aside Star Trek's stupidity when it comes to species, would such a thing even be biologically possible? Intelligence requires a rather massive brain, which takes a good chunk of energy and water. A large brain in a bird seems impossible: it would make the bird to heavy to fly, and a bird that can't fly will quickly become prey, which is a bad thing for passing that gene on. Unless it is an environment where they can get away with it, so let's say it is in an environment where predators aren't a very big selection pressure. Can avian physiology support human level intelligence?

Yes. Yes they can. A bird's brain is already amazingly efficient. A bird the size of your forearm is capable of some of the things humans can do. African Grays approach sapience, are capable of simple mathematics, and form complex social hierarchies.

A birds brain is amazing because it has to be so light, yet so powerful. They exhibit behavioral complexity which land dwelling predatory mammals many times their size do not even approach in many respects, and which NO mammal that I am aware of of their own size, even gets close to.

The size and predation things are not really an issue, there is nothing set in stone saying that birds MUST be able to fly, so long as they have other advantages. They could do anything, burrow, climb trees, jump into the water to escape predation, run quickly, all of these combined with social behavior which lets them watch our for predators would allow flight to deminish, and sapience to evolve. So long as they can develop tool use. Many birds are capable of standing on one foot for extended periods, and wiht a slight change in a regulatory gene, it would also be possible to regain functional wing claws like a Hoaztin(sp)

The major problem is Evolutionary Inertia, or the pressure evolution puts on a population to keep going along the same path.

Reptiles CAN do it. It would not be far fetched for a reptile, potentially, to achieve sentience. It would just need the right selective pressures. Not all reptiles were poikilotherms (cold blooded) many of the predatory dinosaurs were endothermic homeotherms(warm blooded). And under situations of social carnivory with free claws, it is possible that they may develop tool use under the right conditions, and after that it is a slippery slope to sapience.

Fish... no.

Fascinating, very interesting. Supposing the brain did develop into sapience, would tool use begin to evolve next?

It seems to me as if a hand without the brain to use it wouldn't offer much of an advantage, and may still survive (as, of course, you know useless is not necessarily detrimental, and as such need not be weeded out by natural selection) but a hand with a brain already there would offer a significant advantage, so evolution would point in that direction. Do you think after a good time (like a million years) the intelligent birds and reptiles would start to look more like primates, with arms and hands or would they probably retain their same basic shapes and sizes? While, as you said, they are getting by well enough as they are, so no real pressure to evolve is present, but I still think it is interesting to investigate.

IIRC, reptiles have a three chamber heart, which is less efficent than the four chamber we mammals and birds have. What complications, if any, would that have for a budding intelligent species? Given that dinosaurs are large animals that would have failed if the heart was inadequate, I doubt it would be a large factor at all.

I wonder if sapient birds would look at hypothetical mammalian sapience and say, "Nah, it couldn't happen. Their lungs are too inefficient to provide enough oxygen to their brains."

Tool use occurs even without hands. There are already a number of tool-using birds. Neither is tool-making out of avian range, as the New Caledonian crows demonstrate.

Having an extra pair of hands would make things a bit easier, though.

EDIT: And I totally forgot the original reason I made this post. Dinosaurs had four-chambered hearts.

IIRC, reptiles have a three chamber heart, which is less efficent than the four chamber we mammals and birds have. What complications, if any, would that have for a budding intelligent species? Given that dinosaurs are large animals that would have failed if the heart was inadequate, I doubt it would be a large factor at all.

Archosaurs (dinosaurs and crocodilians, as well as birds ;) ) Have four chambered hearts.

A big part of developing intelligence is language. Communication creates a sort of feedback loop with brain size. The more important communication between organisms becomes, the smarter they get. THis is because the social animals become more successful predators (and they are almost always predators) which allows them to get more food, which allows them to support larger brains. THis would "take the gloves off the firing team" in a certain respect, and allow for larger brains to evolve, which in turn increases communicative ability, tool use, problem solving, all of which allows the organism to become more successful, and so on.

Now, here's one to flip your mind into WTF territory: instead of hands, they've got tentacles. Classic sci-fi bug eyed monsters, with tentacles! Can it be done?

Yes. Tentacles can manipulate objects very easily. And so long as they are social animals, it is completely possible. Granted, their enviroment would have to be different from earth...

Comrade Tortoise wrote:Yes. Tentacles can manipulate objects very easily. And so long as they are social animals, it is completely possible. Granted, their enviroment would have to be different from earth...

I envision 'landsquid', friendly aliens that enjoy having visitors. What kind of environment are we talking about here?

I was under the impresstion--as far as 'tentacled intelligence' goes that octopi (and perhaps some other similar cephalopds[Sp?], I seem to remember something implying that smaller squid are actually very social animals.)
They exhibit observational learning behaviours, as well as being predatory in nature. Predators tend to be smarter than non-predatory animals, after all. I don't have the time to do any research on it, but perhaps someone happens to have a fascination, or a handy research link or two concerning intelligent ocotopi and their ilk?

Octopi ARE very intelligent animals. I cant say anything about their sociality, but they have been demonstrated to display very impressive problem solving abilities, including forsight.

When an octopus is placed in a tank with a jar with a crab inside, they often figure out how to open the jar, eat the crab, then crawl inside the jar and close the lid behind them.

Octupi are solitary IIRC. I'm not sure about squid and cuttlefish, though. How much brainpower do they need to do their color changing tricks?

Speaking of language, chickadees have different warning calls for different predators depending on size and danger. You may not think that's too impressive, but they're tiny and must have small, light brains to be able to fly. And chickadees are social during the winter.

Just more factoids of avian intelligence.

Do you have to be social though?

Hell if I know but every creature we even consider semi-sapience (dolphins, chimps, gorilleas) are social creatures.

And Chimps hunt people.

frigidmagi wrote:Hell if I know but every creature we even consider semi-sapience (dolphins, chimps, gorilleas) are social creatures.

That's a good point.

Another question: does it matter to be a predator? We had a hunter-gatherer period in our development. I suggest that perhaps both are necessary for a species to get there.

And Chimps hunt people.

This is why Charleton Heston advocates gun ownership.

it's a mad house. A MAD HOUSE!!!!

Another question: does it matter to be a predator?

It doesn't but predators tend to be smarter for a reason, if they can't outsmart the prey, they don't eat. Also hunter packs tend to need greater communication than herds and a need for more advanced tactics, or they don't eat. This puts pressure on them to be smarter that usually isn't placed on a herbavore.

However, Gorillias don't eat meat...

Neither do Elephants and while I am repeatly told they are not sapience... They seem to come pretty fucking close at times.

Sociality would be necessary for civilization, for obvious reasons. I would argue that sapience would also require sociality, at least for its formation, because sapience isn't just having a fancy brain, but being able to use it effectively. That would require learning and education of some form or another (parents or elders teaching children how to hunt, showing them more effective methods) which solitary animals would not want to do; that'd be helping out future competition. Solitary animals would have to reinvent tools every generation unless it was genetically preprogrammed, and then it's hardly sapience at all.

Without other people teaching us how to walk, teaching us language (even if just by talking to us), teaching us concepts and methods and toolmaking and using, we're just weak, malformed apes.

One thing to remember is that a large brain is a resource hog that doesn't pay off in the short term, only in the long term. For a species to develop one they need the long term pay off to make it worth while. Gorillas, chimpanzees, and elephants are all social animals with manipulative appendages that are quite useful to an intelligent animal. Our own ancestors didn't start having dramatic increases in brain size (compared to other primates) until the time when they started using stone tools. While I am reluctant to say that being a carnivore is a necessary attribute of attaining sapience, the increased hunting prowess offered by stone tools seems to have been a factor.