Species, Instinct, and Culture

Tenebrarum wrote:

Yay! Remember though, these are not drastic changes that'd be made. We're not re-writing the AI for each race, just tweaking it.

On Octopi: Sentience/sapience yes. Civilization no.

Actually we could work on two instances, with AI archetypes which would be radically different from each other due to radical differences in the cognitive function of the individuals. A hivemind would think radically different from an individual, so would a planetbrain like in alpha centauri.
Then we'd have the AI modfiers which would be based on different traits and do tweaks. I think for simplicity's sake we should stick with a "human" AI and give it tweaks, then after that start thinking out of the box.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Yay! Remember though, these are not drastic changes that'd be made. We're not re-writing the AI for each race, just tweaking it.

On Octopi: Sentience/sapience yes. Civilization no.

I think that we might be on to something big here... what could be a non-social type of "civilization". It would basically be he opposite of civilization. If we can find a way to make it work, we could have an entirely new concept on our hands.

~sciocont wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

Yay! Remember though, these are not drastic changes that'd be made. We're not re-writing the AI for each race, just tweaking it.

On Octopi: Sentience/sapience yes. Civilization no.

I think that we might be on to something big here... what could be a non-social type of "civilization". It would basically be he opposite of civilization. If we can find a way to make it work, we could have an entirely new concept on our hands.

Organisms without empathy and perception of others perhaps? They could all work individually like a hive of ants, and the sum of their work would be meaningful, while each individual would be oblivious to the greater picture. Of course such a system would hardly develop cognition.

~sciocont wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

Yay! Remember though, these are not drastic changes that'd be made. We're not re-writing the AI for each race, just tweaking it.

On Octopi: Sentience/sapience yes. Civilization no.

I think that we might be on to something big here... what could be a non-social type of "civilization". It would basically be he opposite of civilization. If we can find a way to make it work, we could have an entirely new concept on our hands.

How would information be shared? That's what makes civilizations.

Tenebrarum wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

Yay! Remember though, these are not drastic changes that'd be made. We're not re-writing the AI for each race, just tweaking it.

On Octopi: Sentience/sapience yes. Civilization no.

I think that we might be on to something big here... what could be a non-social type of "civilization". It would basically be he opposite of civilization. If we can find a way to make it work, we could have an entirely new concept on our hands.

How would information be shared? That's what makes civilizations.

Exactly, but could there be extreme technologigical advancement without civilization? It's something we really need to think hard about.

~sciocont wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

Yay! Remember though, these are not drastic changes that'd be made. We're not re-writing the AI for each race, just tweaking it.

On Octopi: Sentience/sapience yes. Civilization no.

I think that we might be on to something big here... what could be a non-social type of "civilization". It would basically be he opposite of civilization. If we can find a way to make it work, we could have an entirely new concept on our hands.

How would information be shared? That's what makes civilizations.

Exactly, but could there be extreme technologigical advancement without civilization? It's something we really need to think hard about.

Stupid organisms stumbling upon ruins of long gone advanced civilization?

I think we need someone with a major in sociology. Or perhaps more.

*Raises Hand*

Okay, no major, but i've had advanced psychology and a sociology class.

I hope we can think of an "anti-civ." It would be awesome.

To disagree with much further up the thread, organisms like ants and bees have whole subclasses of workers devoted to caring for the offspring of the hive. Crocodiles and turtles just let the little ones swim away. Group living + care for offspring = rudimentary civ-like structure.

If a species has effective long-distance communication, they can spread info without being close. Achievable without technology? Don't know and will research.

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

*Raises Hand*

Okay, no major, but i've had advanced psychology and a sociology class.

I hope we can think of an "anti-civ." It would be awesome.

To disagree with much further up the thread, organisms like ants and bees have whole subclasses of workers devoted to caring for the offspring of the hive. Crocodiles and turtles just let the little ones swim away. Group living + care for offspring = rudimentary civ-like structure.

If a species has effective long-distance communication, they can spread info without being close. Achievable without technology? Don't know and will research.

Well, a crystalline race could use some sort of quasi-cientifical oscillators or something to transmit data. The fastest information relay for biological organisms seems to be sound though. Light could also be used if you had a race of giant billboards that relayed info around...

Unless information can be spread, no new technologies can arise. No culture can exist. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Unless organisms communicate they cannot, under any circumstances, advance. All knowledge dies with the induvidual.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Unless information can be spread, no new technologies can arise. No culture can exist. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Unless organisms communicate they cannot, under any circumstances, advance. All knowledge dies with the induvidual.

This is true. It really all hinges on handing down knowledge to others.

Well, if they could communicate, it would be just giving the information to their offspring, so each family would be a mini-nation, radically different from any other. Now the problem is, how would they communicate, and how would they evolve that form of communication.

Commander Keen wrote:

Well, if they could communicate, it would be just giving the information to their offspring, so each family would be a mini-nation, radically different from any other. Now the problem is, how would they communicate, and how would they evolve that form of communication.

Likely a basic universal language, extremely simple, with complexities that vary based on geographical location.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Unless information can be spread, no new technologies can arise. No culture can exist. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Unless organisms communicate they cannot, under any circumstances, advance. All knowledge dies with the induvidual.

If each creature makes something simple, and the next creature that comes across it experiments and improves on it, we could have a sort of technological advancement. Octopi naturally experiment with things they come across to see if they could use it. if they had more cognitive power, they may be able to invent simple machines. This could lead to a chain reaction- if a solitary creatuire got enough knowledge by experimentation, it could combine those machines. However, this leads to a point where the technology becomes so complex that it cannot be learned in a lifetime and advancement hits a wall.

~sciocont wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

Unless information can be spread, no new technologies can arise. No culture can exist. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Unless organisms communicate they cannot, under any circumstances, advance. All knowledge dies with the induvidual.

If each creature makes something simple, and the next creature that comes across it experiments and improves on it, we could have a sort of technological advancement. Octopi naturally experiment with things they come across to see if they could use it. if they had more cognitive power, they may be able to invent simple machines. This could lead to a chain reaction- if a solitary creatuire got enough knowledge by experimentation, it could combine those machines. However, this leads to a point where the technology becomes so complex that it cannot be learned in a lifetime and advancement hits a wall.

The machines would have to stay VERY simple. Otherwise they could not figure it out initially.

Djohaal wrote:

Religion, diet and culture? I wodner how an exclusively carnivore lifeform would evolve agriculture. What about photossynthesizing animals?

Carnivores could have hunted all they could from a herd, but then been smart enough to trap the rest so they don't have to hunt anymore, starting domestication.


Although, on the subject of killing, what if there was a species that did not have that natural empathy toward each other, or had such strong empathy they couldn't fight each other (although they could still fight other sapient species, if more than one evolved)

DragonEye4 wrote:

Djohaal wrote:

Religion, diet and culture? I wodner how an exclusively carnivore lifeform would evolve agriculture. What about photossynthesizing animals?

Carnivores could have hunted all they could from a herd, but then been smart enough to trap the rest so they don't have to hunt anymore, starting domestication.


Although, on the subject of killing, what if there was a species that did not have that natural empathy toward each other, or had such strong empathy they couldn't fight each other (although they could still fight other sapient species, if more than one evolved)

A species without empathy cannot form a society, a species with too much cannot progress in society because they cannot make difficult choices as leaders.

I was going to refer you to Rousseau's first and second discourses, but it's essentially what scio said.

Except that a species with too much empathy doesn't get to the society stage. They aren't able to make any choices that could potentially harm each other, and are stuck that way as soon as they hit sentience.

Back to the "anti-civ," all you need for an anti-social species to reach some form of civilization is: A common or similar universal language, and writeing.

All right, gratuitous defninitions here:
Anti-social = not social/ unwilling to associate normally with others or in a friendly way. Does not have anything to do with a lack of empathy.
Antisocial personality disorder = lack of empathy for all other people, manifesting as disregard for their rights.

If the first case were true, how would common languages and writing be developed? You have to come into contact with others sometime in order to teach language and writing, let alone need to develop it.

Quote :

Anti-social = not social/ unwilling to associate normally with others or in a friendly way. Does not have anything to do with a lack of empathy.
Antisocial personality disorder = lack of empathy for all other people, manifesting as disregard for their rights.

My bad, I thought anti-social was anti-civ (I was looking at it as if humans were the standard).

Quote :

how would common languages and writing be developed? You have to come into contact with others sometime in order to teach language and writing, let alone need to develop it.

Good point, it may not be possible for anti-social creatuers to create a civilization (Octipi didn't). If an anti-social species supported family however, you could get some level of orginization; and as the lineage developed you could see language change and seperate nations form, but at a slower speed [just my thoughts, haven't analysed them(thats everyone elses job)].

True, language would be rather tricky.

There should be an Language editor.

Thrivial Pursuit wrote:

True, language would be rather tricky.

There should be an Language editor.

This has been shot down more times than I can count.

Indeed. If you have a fleshed out idea propose it, but also prepare to have it picked to bits and thrown away.

Please remind me: What was our plan for creature noises and language?

Poisson wrote:

Please remind me: What was our plan for creature noises and language?

The noise would be dependant on mouth type, and varied according to the size of neck, head, and chest. But it was said we would first need some noises to be recorded for each mouth type. Then I think people just lost interest.