5 ms·

If you can’t do an experiment in your own environment, you improvise. Humans have done experiments in space that couldn’t be done on earth, so an advanced aquat

If you can’t do an experiment in your own environment, you improvise. Humans have done experiments in space that couldn’t be done on earth, so an advanced aquatic species could do experiments above the surface, given enough time, intelligence and inclination. Intelligence might also take different forms, so an ocean-sized equivalent of a termite colony comprised of specialised molluscs that were collectively intelligent and had selectively bred themselves into specialised roles for millennia could achieve a great deal?

dogma1138 9y ago
We’re talking here about very specific intelligence a technological one. Humans can do experiments in space because we have the technology to do so, show me an evolutionary path to technology capable of overcoming environmental barriers without fire and chemistry.
- hossbeast 9y ago
  Because you can't conceive of it in 5 minutes, it doesn't exist?
- debatem1 9y ago
  You're making three specific claims and have provided zero evidence: that it is impossible to develop fire underwater, that it is impossible to develop chemistry underwater, and that it is impossible to build a technological civilization without these things. I say hogwash; show me the proof for your claims. Your proposed alternative is to play "what if" until either I come up with an imaginary scenario that strikes your fancy or, more likely, you reject out of hand anything brought to you and claim to be right by default. Well, that's hogwash too. It's certainly no way to advance a scientific claim, let alone three of them. I'm particularly skeptical of the claim that you could not develop chemistry underwater; it seems equally as implausible as saying that you could not develop chemistry in air for exactly the same reasons.
  - autokad 9y ago
    "I'm particularly skeptical of the claim that you could not develop chemistry underwater; it seems equally as implausible as saying that you could not develop chemistry in air for exactly the same reasons." what? you think its possible to develop fire under water? chemistry? have you done any chemistry? what about electricity? (a huge but impossible one to do under water)? I am trying really hard not to say something mean
    - aalleavitch 9y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baKdHa5TlYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baKdHa5TlYM We did it.
      - dogma1138 9y ago
        Now show me an evolutionary path towards that that is feasible underwater.
    - debatem1 9y ago
      There is literally no reason to believe that developing chemistry is impossible underwater. Interesting and useful chemical reactions happen underwater every second of every day; it is irrational to assume that there is no path by which an intelligent but not technological entity would observe this, utilize those reactions, and refine them. Electricity is far from impossible either to develop or use underwater, and in fact nature has already done so in the form of the electric eel. More to the point, many aquatic species have specially developed sense organs for electricity, increasing the odds of it being developed for communication. Similarly, although it doesn't look much like your childhood campfire underwater lava flows can be stable and useful sources of heat great enough for refining ores and similar. Further shaping using hydraulic pressure (equivalent to waterjet cutting or forming) would hardly be unimaginable. And please feel free to say your mean things-- it certainly can't damage my view of the evidence you've put forth so far.
      - autokad 9y ago
- vadimberman 9y ago
  1. Tools made of bone or very hard stone. 2. Different type of oxidation. 3. Work with air bubbles; people fished and dived since time immemorial not being able to survive underwater. 4. No one said the ocean has to be a water ocean, how about ammonia? 5. The first space launches of the hypothetical aquatic species may involve air-breathing animals, or it may be delayed until the automation reached a sufficiently high level. The technological path is not linear. For example, the Aztecs had advanced societies and infrastructure but no utilitarian wheel: http://www.zoesaadia.com/real-smart-folks-but-no-wheel/ http://www.zoesaadia.com/real-smart-folks-but-no-wheel/.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    Again show me an evolutionary path, ammonia is still a solvent, solvents prevent you from doing controlled complex chemistry.

dogma1138 9y ago

We’re talking here about very specific intelligence a technological one. Humans can do experiments in space because we have the technology to do so, show me an evolutionary path to technology capable of overcoming environmental barriers without fire and chemistry.

hossbeast 9y ago
Because you can't conceive of it in 5 minutes, it doesn't exist?
debatem1 9y ago
You're making three specific claims and have provided zero evidence: that it is impossible to develop fire underwater, that it is impossible to develop chemistry underwater, and that it is impossible to build a technological civilization without these things. I say hogwash; show me the proof for your claims. Your proposed alternative is to play "what if" until either I come up with an imaginary scenario that strikes your fancy or, more likely, you reject out of hand anything brought to you and claim to be right by default. Well, that's hogwash too. It's certainly no way to advance a scientific claim, let alone three of them. I'm particularly skeptical of the claim that you could not develop chemistry underwater; it seems equally as implausible as saying that you could not develop chemistry in air for exactly the same reasons.
- autokad 9y ago
  "I'm particularly skeptical of the claim that you could not develop chemistry underwater; it seems equally as implausible as saying that you could not develop chemistry in air for exactly the same reasons." what? you think its possible to develop fire under water? chemistry? have you done any chemistry? what about electricity? (a huge but impossible one to do under water)? I am trying really hard not to say something mean
  - aalleavitch 9y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baKdHa5TlYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baKdHa5TlYM We did it.
    - dogma1138 9y ago
      Now show me an evolutionary path towards that that is feasible underwater.
  - debatem1 9y ago
    There is literally no reason to believe that developing chemistry is impossible underwater. Interesting and useful chemical reactions happen underwater every second of every day; it is irrational to assume that there is no path by which an intelligent but not technological entity would observe this, utilize those reactions, and refine them. Electricity is far from impossible either to develop or use underwater, and in fact nature has already done so in the form of the electric eel. More to the point, many aquatic species have specially developed sense organs for electricity, increasing the odds of it being developed for communication. Similarly, although it doesn't look much like your childhood campfire underwater lava flows can be stable and useful sources of heat great enough for refining ores and similar. Further shaping using hydraulic pressure (equivalent to waterjet cutting or forming) would hardly be unimaginable. And please feel free to say your mean things-- it certainly can't damage my view of the evidence you've put forth so far.
    - autokad 9y ago
vadimberman 9y ago
1. Tools made of bone or very hard stone. 2. Different type of oxidation. 3. Work with air bubbles; people fished and dived since time immemorial not being able to survive underwater. 4. No one said the ocean has to be a water ocean, how about ammonia? 5. The first space launches of the hypothetical aquatic species may involve air-breathing animals, or it may be delayed until the automation reached a sufficiently high level. The technological path is not linear. For example, the Aztecs had advanced societies and infrastructure but no utilitarian wheel: http://www.zoesaadia.com/real-smart-folks-but-no-wheel/ http://www.zoesaadia.com/real-smart-folks-but-no-wheel/.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  Again show me an evolutionary path, ammonia is still a solvent, solvents prevent you from doing controlled complex chemistry.