- #36
Drakkith
Mentor
- 22,913
- 7,262
Aero51 said:Your statements are only applicable to systems near identical to earth.
I disagree.
Aero51 said:Your statements are only applicable to systems near identical to earth.
They would simply have observed that plants don't grow through rocks. If you need every single detail spelled out, I can do it, but you shouldn't need it. Let's say that the rocks on the river bank were washed there during a flood within living memory. They saw that, where the plants used to grow thick right down to the water's edge before the rocks were deposited, now they were held at bay. This is what gives them the idea of paving the path in the first place. However, without even having to attempt removing the stones from the river, they realize if they do, the jungle will grow back where it was before.Drakkith said:And I think your entire example is flawed for the reasons I pointed out already. You're using it to say that they could know about the consequences of a technology before they even develop said technology. I think this is nonsense. They'd need to know in advance what effect removing rocks from one area and placing them somewhere else would have. This seems to imply that they have already developed the very technology that you claim they won't, or at least something very similar.
It's specific fiction but general truth. The times a thing turns out to be easier than someone thought are far fewer than the times they turn out to be much more trouble than anticipated.You can call them what you wish. The fact remains that you are inventing a scenario to support your position and handwaving away anything that goes against it. Not every problem has solutions with obstacles equal in scope to the original problem.
I'm proposing they would have our intelligence plus something we don't have, a special facility for seeing and grasping larger consequences.And I propose that if you think a pre-technological intelligent species is going to be able to predict the outcomes of developing a technology, then you're out of your mind. Especially if you think they the'd be able to do this for ALL possible technologies and never develop any at all.
As many have said, we're the only intelligent species we know of. It doesn't seem a stretch to me to conceive of a variation that consciously avoids impacting its environment.If we accept that any intelligent species would be the result of natural selection and evolution, I can't see this as a realistic possibility. I won't say it's impossible, but I think it's so improbable that it might as well be.
You are equating intelligence with technology again, defining it, in fact, as the ability to create technology. By this mode of thinking we'd have to judge bees and ants as more intelligent than chimps. Bee hives and ant farms are much more technologically advanced than anything a chimp ever makes, despite their opposable thumbs (on hands and feet).MathJakob said:...it doesn't matter what kind of dexterity you have, aslong as it allows you to use tools to build things, you can always adjust the size of the tools to match the size of your limbs.
I just don't think it is possible to have an intelligent life form with the dexterity of a horse... I think part of natural selection is that intelligent life comes with the ability to develop that intelligence.
Intelligence and ability are not the same thing. Let's take one example of a footballer. The best footballer in the world is skillful, talented, creative prehaps? He is not intelligent, well he might be intelligent as well but all we know is the he is a great footballer.
Pablo Picasso was creative and imaginative, he was not intelligent... of course he may well have been but we are basing these off what they were known for.
Aero51 said:With the shear number of degrees of freedom in the universw, I feel that the OPs post s extremely confining. Any assertion we make is a mere projection of human reasoning. An insect, for example, is presumed to have virtually no abstract reasoning compared to a human. By contrast humans can only reason two ways, emotionally and comparatively. What is to say that there are other means of reasoning that are completely outside our understanding due to biological limitations?
zoobyshoe said:It's specific fiction but general truth. The times a thing turns out to be easier than someone thought are far fewer than the times they turn out to be much more trouble than anticipated.
I'm proposing they would have our intelligence plus something we don't have, a special facility for seeing and grasping larger consequences.
As many have said, we're the only intelligent species we know of. It doesn't seem a stretch to me to conceive of a variation that consciously avoids impacting its environment.
You said, " Not every problem has solutions with obstacles equal in scope to the original problem." I said, 'Actually most do.'Drakkith said:And? So what?
All they would need is enough intelligence to see the general principle that when you change something you also change everything dependent on that thing. Most humans can already see this, but they tend to choose immediate gratification over consideration of long term consequences.I can't see this at all. Not to the extent that you're imagining. There is absolutely no way a pre-technological species is going to be able predict the outcome of every single piece of technology before it is invented.
If we were still living in tribal ways we wouldn't be having any more impact on the environment than any other animals. However we've reached the point where we can, and do, incidentally and by accident, ravage and poison large tracts of land and parts of the ocean. We're turning the Amazon forest into a desert, and there's Chernobyl, the recent Japanese nuclear leak, not to mention the big Gulf oil spill a couple years back. Lots of others. Towns now uninhabitable. Thalidomide babies. All brought to you by technology.As living creatures we impact our environment constantly in our struggle to survive. I don't see this being any different for another species, alien or not.
zoobyshoe said:What about those people born with no arms who do everything with their feet? I know a guy like this who can play the guitar. I have two arms and can't play the guitar. People like this can milk incredible dexterity out of their legs and feet. I think if cats, for example, had more sophisticated brains they could get much more dexterity out of their legs and claws.
Aero51 said:I think your ideas are close minded and uncreative...
Drakkith said:What about dolphins? They have extremely little dexterity.
While I agree that having appendages with high dexterity would have some sort of effect, don't discount the advantage of being able to communicate and solve ever more complex problems.
gmax137 said:When I first read the OP last night, I thought "narrow-minded and unimaginative." But I refrained from posting out of fear of being rude, plus I was curious as to what other responses would pop up.
I agree w/ Aero51: in a universe as vast as ours, I imagine life taking almost limitless forms with ideas and thoughts ranging from similar to our own to utterly alien and incomprehensible. There are possibly life forms that we wouldn't even recognize as being alive.