Advanced life following a universal handbook

[Drakkith]

Your statements are only applicable to systems near identical to earth.

I disagree.

 

[Aero51]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm proposing they would have our intelligence plus something we don't have, a special facility for seeing and grasping larger consequences.

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.

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.

 

[zoobyshoe]

...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.

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).

From an earlier post of yours:

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.

First definition that comes up on google:

"the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills."

The footballer or successful artist is certainly intelligent. Any kind of sport requires keen observation of the other players, knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses, and very quick witted responses to a constantly changing field of play. Picasso was certainly, not merely intelligent, but a genius. Not for his art, but for the way he played the art market.

I think you are too science/math oriented in your conception of intelligence.

An intelligent but horse-like creature, with no fine dexterity, could not create technology, but it could conceivably develop a language as sophisticated as any we know, and produce speeches, stories, and jokes as great as any heard in Ancient Greece.

 

[Drakkith]

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?

I see your point, and I don't disagree, but I feel this is but a small part of intelligence overall.

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.

And? So what?

I'm proposing they would have our intelligence plus something we don't have, a special facility for seeing and grasping larger 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.

Now let me be clear. I think it's entirely possible that a species may be intelligent and be stagnant in their development of technology. But if they are, I cannot see it being because they are able to understand their impact, I think it would be something more akin to religious superstition or whatnot.

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.

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]

And? So what?

You said, " Not every problem has solutions with obstacles equal in scope to the original problem." I said, 'Actually most do.'

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Drakkith]

I think I'm just going to say I disagree and step out of this thread. I suck at arguing too much to get my point across.

 

[epenguin]

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.

OK but you know what I mean - a nervous system that can just think but not do anything with its thoughts cannot evolve. The modern hand does not get there without brain to direct it, brain does not get there without hand or something else to usefully direct. It goes through stages of mutual feedback.

 

[gmax137]

I think your ideas are close minded and uncreative...

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.

 

[MathJakob]

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.

Even if every dolphin on Earth was twice as smart as Einstein, they still don't have any means to use that intelligence in any meaningful way.

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.

Of course I agree that the endless amounts of different kind of life out there could be near endless but if you read my OP again I said that intelligent life must convey to those 3 principles. No matter how smart a life form is, if it doesn't have a complex language and dexterity it's as useless as any other unintelligent life.

I'm not saying that intelligent life must look like humans or have the same features, for all we know it could be something that looks like a bee or a squirrel, but it MUST have dexterity, it must have a complex language and therefor must create technology otherwise what use is it to be intelligent?

Without a complex language, you can't really "think" properly and without dexterity you can't create anything meaningful. Evolution wise, there is no reason to be intelligent if you can't use that intelligence.

Which is why I said that out of all the possible types of life that could ever exist, those that are intelligent must have these 3 attributes. I highly doubt that somewhere in the universe you'll find an intelligent life form without the ability to bring that intelligence to the outside world.

**EDIT** unless said beings have evolved to some higher dimension or they can use telekenisis or telepathy which is beyond our scope of what we know to be true.

 

[Evo]

Sorry, this thread is way too speculative and has to be put down.