dimreepr

Evolution is a fact, that I accept; what it's capable of is unknown and "that's a fact"... 😉 And that's humans with the same number of digit's thinking differently about the same thing; imagine how different octopus maths would work, 8 arm's time's a hundred individually manipulable sucker's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_numerals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quipu

Our understanding of evolution, so far, is because we already have the data and an excellent hypothesis that explains the it. The problem with extrapolating the hypothesis into the future is, we don't/can't have all the data... Not offended, just curious as to how? If the alien has a different understanding of mathematics and/or can't see the illustrations, perhaps you can explain how it's 'scientific' rather than just a best guess...

You certainly have jumped through hoops in a vane effort to make us understand; Douglas Adams was right, you're a Dolphin that's about to leave the planet.

Exactly 🤣 +1

That assumes the current evolutionary pressure's will continue on it's current path without change. An unforeseeable change in that path renders that speculation null; for instance a change in the oceans, force's octopuses on to the land and a new path to evolve on. The six legged banana flavoured kind.

Indeed, get back to me when you've figured it out...

But would we? Which is the point of the thread.

10:1 thanks. You're just not getting it, or are you refusing to get it (I'd love to play you at poker); your view of the potential of octopuses is coloured by your view as explained by sir David on the BBC. The octopus/rabbit/tomato is not limited by your view of them, now... Why is that a barrier to evolution? You use silly a lot now; since "it is a silly thing"... 😉

If I could explain it too you, I'd have a career... 😉

That might be true, but the philosophy is absolute (don't eat honey); hence my question...

But vegan's include bees in their stark mind-set, what if we were to suddenly stop farming bee's?

You know we have evolved from single cell organism's to a space faring civilisation, given the peculiar evolutionary pressure's of our planet/time, therefore a different set of pressures and a different amount of time could produce a different type of space faring civilisation; a branch of which could easily have contained an octopus/rabbit/tamato, rather than a monkey. Explain how I'm being silly or illogical? Rationally please... I should explain, I have a book on your reply... 10:1 his next post will be an insult. 12:1 it'll be gainsay. 15:1 it'll be a strawman. 20:1 bar. Don't let me down.

I changed my mind, I'm not sure why...

I wasn't sure where to place this question, to get the best answer's, so I thought I'd keep it light for now.

Did you enjoy it?

It's simply our evolution, that has got us here, at our level, at this time. It's a process not an attribute, and that process is just as capable of producing a space faring octopus/rabbit/tomato as it has us, logically speaking... Remember, we are not formed in the image of God.

Only in reality... In a paradox, reality is contradicted...

So it's not a paradox, a real paradox is an explanation of why 'it' can't be real, if I kill my father before I'm real... The real paradox of time is, we're doomed/liberated and liberated/doomed, by it...

Not if you want to be logical. Fuzzy logic, is just a third choice...

I base my assertions on the trouble I had talking to Bill, a very distinguished dolphin. He suddenly disappeared, leaving a garbled message... Something about fish???

You can't assume intelligence is a commonality, as you pointed out, an octopus has a very different intelligence to us; even assuming an equal level of advancement doesn't mean we can assume an equal level of technology. IOW stop assuming you know what an alien visitor would look like; "It is a silly thing"...

Yes I do, why are you assuming something related to hominids? Just because it has an octopus ancestor, why assume it can't become more advanced than us and if it communicates via it's skin or by touch, how could you tell a threat from a welcome? Just being cock sure about your assertions doesn't make it fact, how can you even guess that you're right about something you can't possibly know?

You/they are assuming a certain amount of commonality for a basic language to be established. What if the alien's evolved from octopuses and have to spend half their time in an ocean enviroment and communicate with the colours of their skin and, no doubt, they'd have a different way of counting; how would you tell them you're hungry? I'm not saying language is always a barrier, but it is a significant hurdle that's not automatically surmountable. Much like time and distance... 😉 Thus rendering your question moot and your use of Sagan's quote irrelevant. Life can't exist without star's; but it can exist without a sun... And before we go round the block again, if life can exist without a direct need of a sun, then a parent star is not needed but a parent universe is.