What is necessary for technology to occur?

[Doctordick]

I started this thread and as the opening author, I have a definite feeling that the discussion has gone off topic. In my mind, the single most important observation was

I see no technically advanced fish

and the discussion descends into “what is technology?” How about we just side step that issue and point out that there are no “aquatic universities”, no “aquatic libraries” and no “advanced” cultural centers in the aquatic world. That way the question of what is and is not possible evidence of, “technically advanced” becomes rather moot and we can get to the issue of “why?”

 

I personally suspected the problem stemed from the lack of any natural experience with fire which means lack of cooked food which, from what I have read, may make the energy cost of evolving brains outside realization. However, that idea seems to be crushed by freeztar's video on the friendly octopus. So, in my mind, the question is still open. Why is the aquatic environment so hard on intelligent life?

 

Is it reasonable that, nowhere in the universe should we expect advanced technological life to develop in a purely aquatic world? That puts a rather subtle stop on the development of advanced technological life: there must be water, but not enough to bury all the mountains. That is a pretty strong constraint as it is only about one order of magnitude regarding water supply.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[freeztar]

I started this thread and as the opening author, I have a definite feeling that the discussion has gone off topic.

 

Check again. :shrug:

 

In my mind, the single most important observation was

and the discussion descends into “what is technology?” How about we just side step that issue and point out that there are no “aquatic universities”, no “aquatic libraries” and no “advanced” cultural centers in the aquatic world. That way the question of what is and is not possible evidence of, “technically advanced” becomes rather moot and we can get to the issue of “why?”

Have you read the thread "you" started?

 

I personally suspected the problem stemed from the lack of any natural experience with fire

 

Of course, who would have experience with fire?

Oh, Moontanman brought it up. Good of him. :)

 

which means lack of cooked food which, from what I have read, may make the energy cost of evolving brains outside realization. However, that idea seems to be crushed by freeztar's video on the friendly octopus. So, in my mind, the question is still open. Why is the aquatic environment so hard on intelligent life?

The video was not meant to "crush". It was a reasonable extension of the fact that tool-making is not limited to those with hands. It was emphasizing the point Boerseun made that hands were not a necessity in the equation.

 

Is it reasonable that, nowhere in the universe should we expect advanced technological life to develop in a purely aquatic world? That puts a rather subtle stop on the development of advanced technological life: there must be water, but not enough to bury all the mountains. That is a pretty strong constraint as it is only about one order of magnitude regarding water supply.

Thank you. This gets to the heart of the matter. ;)

The "one order magnitude concerning water supply" refers to what? The ability to cover mountains? Surely you jest?

[Moontanman]

One more possible constraint to making tools under water is the fact of the nature of the liquid. I scuba dive, doing things under water is significantly different than above the water. Yes with a scuba knife i can crack and break things but try it with a rock or other less than metal dense object. Flaking off a sharp edge under water would be a difficult task due to the drag of water. chipping a stone flake requires both speed and some accuracy. Under water would be problematic, not impossible but much more difficult to discover under water. I can see the possibility of some technology under water, weaving nets, stone structures, (which octopuses do build in some areas) but things like spears seem unlikely if for no other reason than there are no stiff plants under water to make spears from. On the other hand a natural type of technology seems feasible. Sharks teeth could be used in place of rock flakes as sharp edges, nets and basket type objects could be made. Stones can be stacked into dwellings to escape enemies. But I see no possibility of ceramics, metals, electronics or anything we would see as high tech.

 

So for technology to come about we should first define technology, is it what we see as technology? or is it simple tools and other things like baskets and dwellings?

 

I think the pressures that bring about technology should be looked at as well, under water creatures like the octopus have very little need for technology since they are evolved to exploit the natural environment in non technological ways.

 

Is oxygen necessary for fire? Could a fire burn in a hydrogen atmosphere? A chlorine atmosphere? Lots of possibilities for sure....

 

On the octopus, I used to keep them in aquariums, they are fascinating creatures and very intelligent, at least on the level of a house cat. they love unusual objects, ping pong balls drive them nuts, metal objects are a big prize as are smooth dense ceramics. Mine would build houses out of rocks and to remove a rock from their fortress would bring about a round of posturing to show how upset they were at the theft and giving them a new rock would bring about a long process of the octopus placing the rock in various places in it's home to see where it fit best. They are great but very short lived animals and I think their biology is more to blame for their lack of civilization than any lack of intelligence or inability to manipulate objects. Very few octopuses live longer than one year. 18 months is a very long time for an octopus to live, and they all die after one reproductive cycle. Very sad for those of use who love them.....

[jedaisoul]

Hi Moontanman, thanks for the piece about octopi. It was very interesting. But to your questions:

So for technology to come about we should first define technology, is it what we see as technology? or is it simple tools and other things like baskets and dwellings?

This is a point that Boerseun raised. Having given it some thought, I'm of the opinion that merely colecting items, like rocks or shark's teeth, for later use does not constitute technology. So I define technology as making things with tools. Note: This includes the making of the tools, albeit that a stone axe is made by hitting one stone with another.

 

I think the pressures that bring about technology should be looked at as well, under water creatures like the octopus have very little need for technology since they are evolved to exploit the natural environment in non technological ways.

That was both Boerseun's and my first criterion: the need for technology.

 

Is oxygen necessary for fire? Could a fire burn in a hydrogen atmosphere? A chlorine atmosphere? Lots of possibilities for sure....

Yes oxygen is required for fire. Fire is the vigorous oxidisation of materials, commonly carbon to carbon dioxide, but also metals to metal oxides (if finely ground) and hydrogen to water etc...

[Moontanman]

Yes oxygen is required for fire. Fire is the vigorous oxidisation of materials, commonly carbon to carbon dioxide, but also metals to metal oxides (if finely ground) and hydrogen to water etc...

 

Actually a candle will burn in a chlorine atmosphere with no oxygen, as will other things. I would have to assume things will also burn in a fluorine atmosphere as well. Issac Asimov proposed that on a world with a hydrogen atmosphere that plant materials might burn if active catalysts were part of their make up due to living in a hydrogen atmosphere with animals that metabolized hydrogen. He said it would a saturation saturation cycle using fat like substances instead of proteins.

[Rade]

...I see no technically advanced fish...why is the aquatic environment so hard on intelligent life?

The question, "can technology evolve in a pure liquid environment ?" is very interesting. I would hold the answer to be no. One characteristic that makes humans unique vis-a-vis evolution and technology is the fact that humans are the only species that can 'adapt their environment to their genes' more efficiently and quickly than nature can 'adapt their genes to their environment'. Technology (by any definition of the term) requires mental ability to adapt the environment to increase survival and reproduction of the species, it derives from cultural evolution, not organic evolution as operated on by natural selection. Some primates have simplistic forms of technology (i.e., using tools made of natural objects to access food). The example of the octopus opening a jar is not an example of technology.

 

So, to the question--'why' are there no advanced species with technology that live in the ocean ? I would argue that physical constraint of ocean environment being matter in a liquid state compared to gas puts constraint on ability of any species to change or adapt its liquid environment to its genes (think here process of movement). Even if by chance the correct genetic code evolved to allow for such behavior in a fish (say, to make a primitive tool to use for protection from predators or collect food, etc.), the physical constraint of movement of matter in liquid would not provide an environment where such behavior could be adaptive. Recall that the bones of the fins of fish 'evolved' to take the form of the feet and hands of land animals (evolution from fish to amphibians). Would humans have "technology" if they had hands in the form of fins--?--I think not. Following this logic, I find even less possibility of technically advanced forms of life in solid or semi-solid environments than in pure liquid state anywhere in the universe.

 

 

Edit: This thread topic overlaps with the one on concrete concepts under philosophy section. There it is stated that brain research shows correlation between ability to form concepts and sensory-motor skills--that is, being able to manipulate objects. If true, for a fish to form a mental concept that a tool would be useful requires the ability to use motor skills to form such a tool. The aquatic environment does not provide the necessary conditions for these types of motor skills to evolve, too much energy must be used to move through the environment--no room for adaptation vis-a-vis ability to make tools.

[UncleAl]

The Chinese did not have optical glass. They did not have microscopes, telescopes, eyeglasses,or glassware for (al)chemistry. They had wonderful decorative ceramics but not optical glass. What does technology NOT require? A suffocating bureaucracy leaning on a codified culture destroys creativity before and after the fact. We call this public education, Human Resources, and Homeland Severity. When you need a license to think, nobody does - not legally.

 

Look up Tracy Hall and the first synthetic diamonds. He knew he needed carbide inserts for their stiffness at temperature and pressure. GE told him to screw off, so he bootlegged the parts. He succeeded in making diamond and GE eventually fired him, plus a warning not to infringe on their half-belt press. Tracy Hall departed, then invented tetrahedral and cubic diamond presses, the commercial standards.

 

His sons continued the family tradition of creative excellence and insubordination to appointed incompetent authority. A diamond inserts for hard rock drill bits business was sold with a severe non-competition clause. It resurfaced in the family as asphalt ripping inserts... just as road recycling became all the rage. Go ahead, piss off the Gifted.

 

--

Uncle Al

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/fqxi.htm

Vote a 10 for the experiments!

[AnssiH]

Hey what's going on here... I haven't noticed this thread before. I have a comment and a question.

 

First the comment. Evolutionary pressure is only pushing towards stability of organization. The survival rate of a gene (/the reproduction rate of the organism) is not depending on intelligence alone. Intelligence is only one very specific survival niche, and there's no more or less reason to expect it to arise during the course of evolution, than there's reason to expect diamond-hard shells to arise.

 

Given also that every survival niche is a product of its environment, and that very many things had to be appropriate for human brain size to become possible (and humongous cost of parenthood when compared to any other animal) it is not very surprising when the "intelligence"-slot is not getting filled. Who knows how many evolutionary paths towards an intelligence-niche has been extinguished by organisms with more muscle. As we speak, there's no reason why a very nasty virus couldn't eventually wipe us all out. Boy wouldn't we feel dumb? :D

 

Then the question. It seems people often take water as a pre-requisite for life, but I don't really understand why. Life is a bit difficult to define, but let's take it as some sufficient complexity to a self-organized system. Let's ask for "animal-level intelligence" at least; i.e. something that has got some idea of its surroundings, for drawing predictions (for survival purposes).

 

What exactly is required for something like that to arise... ...and how do you recognize it when you see it?

 

-Anssi

[Moontanman]

I think fire is necessary for true technology, yes things like stone tools can be made with out fire but ultimately without fire these things would be a dead end. Fire is the real key to technology.

[jedaisoul]

I think fire is necessary for true technology, yes things like stone tools can be made with out fire but ultimately without fire these things would be a dead end. Fire is the real key to technology.

Moontanman, you said this in #2 of this thread, and I replied in #3. You then did not comment till #20, when you were no longer talking about fire but about octopi. I replied in #21.

 

Why are we back to fire? You did not, or could not, defend your ideas then. Why are we back to them now?

[Moontanman]

Moontanman, you said this in #2 of this thread, and I replied in #3. You then did not commnt till #20, when you were no longer talking about fire but about octopi. I replied in #21.

 

Why are we back to fire? You did not, or could not, defend your ideas then. Why are we back to them now?

 

So far I've said nothing that is off topic or unsupportable. If you think differently please elaborate I will back up or admit to being wrong on anything i say. You said fire required oxygen, that is not supportable. You said opposable thumbs are required , that is also unsupportable, Humans who've their thumbs amputated can still manipulate objects. so can animals with no opposable thumbs, Ergo the octopus. (not to mention sea otters, crows, etc. Be specific about what I've said that you have a problem with, I'll either back it up or admit to being wrong. Go for it.

[jedaisoul]

Hey what's going on here... I haven't noticed this thread before. I have a comment and a question.

[snip]

It seems people often take water as a pre-requisite for life, but I don't really understand why. Life is a bit difficult to define, but let's take it as some sufficient complexity to a self-organized system. Let's ask for "animal-level intelligence" at least; i.e. something that has got some idea of its surroundings, for drawing predictions (for survival purposes).

 

What exactly is required for something like that to arise... ...and how do you recognize it when you see it?

Hi AnssiH

 

The question was "What is necessary for technology to occur?'. Not "What is necessary for life to occur?'.

 

The discussion had moved on to the possession of hands with opposable thumbs as the root of technology. This led on to the making and use of tools. I said:

"I define technology as making things with tools. Note: This includes the making of the tools, albeit that a stone axe is made by hitting one stone with another..."

 

Your thoughts on this would be appreciated.

[jedaisoul]

So far I've said nothing that is off topic or unsupportable. If you think differently please elaborate I will back up or admit to being wrong on anything i say.

You have said nothing off topic, and I never accused you of that. As for unsupported, the discussion moved on.

You said fire required oxygen, that is not supportable.

That depends on your definition of fire. Fire is usually defined as the vigorous oxidation of chemicals. Oxidisation requires oxygen. There are, of course, many exothermic reactions that do not require oxygen, but are they called "fire"?

You said opposable thumbs are required , that is also unsupportable, Humans who've their thumbs amputated can still manipulate objects. so can animals with no opposable thumbs, Ergo the octopus. (not to mention sea otters, crows, etc. Be specific about what I've said that you have a problem with, I'll either back it up or admit to being wrong. Go for it.

I did not say that opposable thumbs were required. What I actually said was:

You don't have to have hands with opposable thumbs to use tools, but it helps. Tool use requires, and hence promotes, imagination and ingenuity. You have to make the connection between the tool and your objective.

Also I said:

The fashioning of tools gives rise to technology. I suggest that to fashion tools (other than at a rudimentary level), you require hands. For example, the stone axe is a remarkable tool. You have to chose the right sort of stone, and work it in a sophisticated manner to produce the cutting edge. The stone axe is, itself, a product of technology. I don't think you could produce a stone axe without hands.

And:

Perhaps there is a hierarchy of needs for technology to arise? I suggest the order: Lack of specialisation (to create a need for tools), hands (to create tools, rather than just use them), then fire (to create better tools).

The point is, where does technology start? I do not question the importance of fire, I just suggest that technology starts at an earlier point.

[Moontanman]

Why are you giving me a hard time? If what you say is true then otters, crows, dolphins and chimps all have technology, fire or even oxidation can involve chemicals other than oxygen.

 

oxidation does not require oxygen.

 

the loss of at least one electron when two or more substances interact. Those substances may or may not include oxygen.

 

A fire can burn without oxygen. Fluorine and chlorine can support a flame.

 

your assertion is not the the OP

 

The point is, where does technology start? I do not question the importance of fire, I just suggest that technology starts at an earlier point.

 

The OP is What is necessary for technology to occur, i say fire, if you count tool use then technology occurs all across the animal kingdom.

 

If you want to discuss where does technology start? then you need to make your own thread.

 

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

The fashioning of tools gives rise to technology. I suggest that to fashion tools (other than at a rudimentary level), you require hands. For example, the stone axe is a remarkable tool. You have to chose the right sort of stone, and work it in a sophisticated manner to produce the cutting edge. The stone axe is, itself, a product of technology. I don't think you could produce a stone axe without hands.

 

Can you support this assertion on any level?

[jedaisoul]

If what you say is true then otters, crows, dolphins and chimps all have technology

I have made it clear that, in my opinion, tool USE (which is commonplace amongst the animal kingdom) does not involve technology. Similarly I suggest that collecting tools for future use does not involve technology.

 

But the making of tools like the stone axe IS technology. It involves fashioning a tool that is more "fit for purpose" than the raw material, a stone, that a bird etc would use. Making stone axes does not involve fire, therefore technology starts at a lower level than the use of fire. It starts with making tools. What is your problem with that?

 

oxidation does not require oxygen.

I think this misunderstanding is based on the term oxidization having two meanings:

1. To combine with oxygen; make into an oxide.

2. To increase the positive charge or valence of (an element) by removing electrons.

I was referring to the former definition, which is in common usage. You were referring to the latter definition, which is technically more correct. I acknowledge that you are correct, but I fail to see the relevance of that to the subject?

 

The OP is What is necessary for technology to occur, i say fire, if you count tool use then technology occurs all across the animal kingdom.

See above. I refer specifically to the making of tools.

 

If you want to discuss where does technology start? then you need to make your own thread.

What is the difference between "What is necessary for technology to occur" and "where does technology start"? "Where" in the latter statement was not intended to indicate a location, but rather a point in a gradual development. So I fail to see the distinction you are making...

 

The fashioning of tools gives rise to technology. I suggest that to fashion tools (other than at a rudimentary level), you require hands. For example, the stone axe is a remarkable tool. You have to chose the right sort of stone, and work it in a sophisticated manner to produce the cutting edge. The stone axe is, itself, a product of technology. I don't think you could produce a stone axe without hands.

Can you support this assertion on any level?

Has any creature without hands produced as sophisticated a tool as the stone axe?

[AnssiH]

Hi AnssiH

 

The question was "What is necessary for technology to occur?'. Not "What is necessary for life to occur?'.

 

The discussion had moved on to the possession of hands with opposable thumbs as the root of technology. This led on to the making and use of tools. I said:

"I define technology as making things with tools. Note: This includes the making of the tools, albeit that a stone axe is made by hitting one stone with another..."

 

Your thoughts on this would be appreciated.

 

I wasn't responding to the title, but I was responding to the question posed in the OP. (with everything else in my post except for that question in the end)

 

I.e. it is not surprising that technologically advanced civilizations did not arise in sea, because intelligence is not exactly what evolution is moving towards. Whatever self-organized system persists is what you get, and building houses and fire and weapons, that is only one very specific survival method, and it can't be taken as the end-all-be-all of evolution.

 

I know a lot of people take it that way because they see themselves as the most advanced/complex thing that evolution has produced, but 1. Self-organization is not aiming for complexity, and 2. Complexity is in the eye of the beholder; there is no way to cleary define what constitutes "an organism", and what constitutes a "colony of organisms". (There are examples that are right in the middle; made of different set of genes but completely dependent on each others like your organs are dependent on each others... ...on the other hand, ant colonies are made of the same gene, and in terms of survival methods, the colony also acts as a one organism; single ants readily sacrifice themselves for the survival of the "colony/organism")

 

Anyway, about the thumbs, certainly there are many other ways to manipulate your environment than with opposable thumbs. Octopuses don't have opposable thumbs. And even if some sea organism has got opposable thumbs (or any other good method of manipulating its environment), again, there's still no specific evolutionary pressure for it to adopt the survival method of "advanced technology".

 

-Anssi

[HydrogenBond]

Evolution begins with two basic principles. Some random change will create disorder, with respect to the existing system, i.e., not yet part of the cell's integration. Next, life lowers the entropy of this change as it assimilates its. Genetic changes have potential, but not actuality, until it is integrated.

 

Not all genetic changes will lead to evolution, because not all changes can be integrated or integrated in a way that leads to an advantage. Most genetic changes will not lead to evolution, because they can't be assimilated or assimilated in a way that improves the state of life in the context of its environment. There are many genetic disorders, which don't lead to evolution even when assimilated.

 

There is the old saying, necessity is the mother of invention. The necessity is analogous to a change that carries potential. But in the short term, it leads to entropy or disorder, similar to a random genetic change (nobody saw it coming).

 

Let me give an analogy for both evolution and invention. A dump truck drops a pile of good soil in your front yard. This pile of soil has the potential for making a garden, which will give you an advantage over the Jones'. However, the pile will initially create disorder in your front yard, since it is an eye sore, that is killing the grass in your front lawn. If you just leave it there, there is no evolution or invention. It can't just levitate and move itself into a garden but needs your help.

 

To make use of the potential, you need to assimilate it. If you have a wheel barrel and shovel, it may take many trips back and forth to the location of the new garden. There you will rough it in. One also needs to spread it out. But eventually, the pile of soil is a new garden.

 

If you don't have a wheel barrel, you may have be more inventive to figure out a way to take advantage of this potential. Not having a wheel barrel, means more work or more energy needs to be expended to take advantage of the potential. Life stores and builds energy (caloric value). As such, it tries to minimize energy loss, while still taking advantage of the potential within the change. This is where invention comes in. It saves labor or the expenditure of energy.

 

If you look at western culture, money is analogous to the caloric energy within life. The goal is to increase this energy value. Nobody will invest in something they know will cause this energy to go down, i.e., knowingly lose money. Life is the same way. Life will also takes chances for a big payout.

 

If we add a potential for change, such as clean air standards, this initially increases entropy for business that can also lower energy (money). But it also has the potential for a better future. The goal is assimilation, since a government mandate is like something hardwired into the DNA of business. Business, like the cell, now has no choice but to assimilate. Some business would like to bury it into the junk DNA, or lobby to remove it to avoid the entropy increase and loss of energy. Others will assimilate. This is where invention comes in, it lowers the expenditure of energy, while helping to lower the initial entropy, to take advantage of the future potential.