[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 158 KB, 1356x668, walkingfishh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14747434 No.14747434 [Reply] [Original]

If the earth is mostly water, why would the most intelligent species be on land of all places? wouldn't the more dominate species be in the oceans? Land is very limiting and forces us to build and use all these needless technologies to survive, but the ocean is so vast it provides everything, not saying a water species wouldn't develop forms of tech but it wouldn't be near as much as we have to do on land. Was coming on land a psyop for ancient species?

>> No.14747447

>>14747434
Pure speculation, but maybe the ocean is not calorie-dense enough for advanced brain development the same way the jungle, forest, and savanna were. Additionally, a higher amount of calories are probably expended moving through the water and preventing heat loss.

>> No.14747450

>>14747447
Another thought: the ocean is corrosive and degrades/dissolves most materials on long enough time scales. Hence creating any written language or long-term tools would be extremely difficult in the ocean. Something as simple as a sharpened stick would quickly rot away.

>> No.14747451

If everything is plentiful, why develop an intelligence?
Intelligence came from having to overcome hardships, and from intelligence actually giving you an edge.
Imagine you are a fish in a school of fish, you don't need intelligence to just live. You don't compete with your fellow fish.
And even if you had developed a higher intelligence, you don't have the appendages to do anything with it. See how the most intelligent sea animals are octopuses and whales. The former have appendages they can use. The latter don't have easy lives and arguably need intelligence to live especially killer whales.

>> No.14747457

>>14747450
I like this take. It makes sense. Not only that but language relies a lot on sounds, and sounds travel weirdly underwater. You can't have a high intelligence without a body of knowledge, or giants on whose shoulders to stand on.
If you remove language from civilization, were all berry picking tribesmen wearing loincloths, not much smarter than an orca or a crow

>> No.14747486
File: 61 KB, 976x850, pepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14747486

>>14747451
>If everything is plentiful, why develop an intelligence?
It's kind of weird to think that Intelligence is a crutch and as technology gets more advanced people are going to get dumber because they don't need to be smart because once we've advanced so much the technology will be smart for us.
>Why learn about math, I got a calculator
>Why learn how to change a tire, my tesla changes it's own tires now
>No need to learn about the law any more, an A.I. has been programmed with all legal knowledge and will hand down the perfect verdict .
>Doctors? No this machine can perform surgeries on people with 99.99% accuracy and no complications
Man that really fucking explains zoomers, they don't need to be smart so they are just being fucking silly.

>> No.14747487
File: 523 KB, 2560x1707, Fossil_record_gaps_-_animals_with_hard_body_parts.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14747487

>>14747434
I'm an intelligent design advocate but I play devils advocate all the time.
Probably the most accepted answer would be some sort of combination of greater competition for resources on land, greater need to adapt to weather/climate that has far greater extremes compared to the ocean, and the simple fact gravity applies, all would accelerate the effects of natural selection. When something is culled due to natural selection it opens up a niche other species could take advantage of, and any slight benefit those species mutate/have already mutated would be amplified and refined faster. If benefits are being refined faster you're more likely to arrive at the specific benefit of high intelligence.
Basically life is harder on land and it prompts the need for greater adaptation, kind of like how technology develops most rapidly during war (although ultimately that would be a false analogy since war tech is reliant on goal-oriented intelligent design).

Tons of problems with this but it's probably the most acceptable answer. At the same time one could posit there should be an equal chance of high intelligence on both land and oceans and by random luck it happened on land first.

>> No.14747493
File: 17 KB, 341x159, RATGD.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14747493

>>14747434
the ocean is a boiling cauldron of bigger fishes constantly eating smaller fishes. intelligent life doesn't have the luxury of forming except at the top of the food chain, like with mammals, or oddities like octopi that are hardwired with unusual agency

>> No.14747514

>>14747434
>why is high intelligence more common in more challenging environments?

>> No.14747517

>>14747514
>>14747451
I see the opposite being true, that you need an environment with more food, and greater incentive for intelligence -> getting more food, for intelligence to develop. Food in the ocean seems difficult to get, and being more intelligent than a dolphin wouldn't necessarily make you any better at hunting fish.
Early humans had both plentiful sources of fruits/veggies/bugs and animals, even ones far larger than themselves (mammoths) they could hunt.

>> No.14747576
File: 1.19 MB, 498x498, realtalk.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14747576

You wanna know the truth, fren? The most intelligent life form did exist in the ocean. But the CIA killed it.

>> No.14747598

>>14747457
orcas communicate with each other via sounds
they even have dialects

>> No.14747696

>>14747514
>why is high intelligence more common in more challenging environments?
It's not exactly more common on land per se. Primates and dolphins are comparative in intelligence yet of course dolphins have a huge setback due to having no practical appendages they can use for immediate learning.
In terms of intelligence per mammal, or maybe mammal intelligence per capita, I'd say the ocean is significantly higher.
There's also octopi, which are practically aliens, and have no land counterpart. They are insanely smart.

>> No.14747728

>>14747434
it may be that you cant create easy heat and energy in the water (fire) so intelligent species dont have the opportunity to thrive better than non-intelligent

>> No.14748237

Im obviously oversimplifying, but imagine you are
>A random fish
>A decent predator
>A massively good predator that nothing threatens you
All in water of course. Then you, by magic, are born with a higher than normal intelligence. Way smarter than what a single lucky mutation could do, I'm talking like someone edited your genes to make you smart.
The small fish could hardly do anything. If it starts getting its own thoughts, that may get in the way of blindly following the school, and then he gets eaten anyway, or has trouble having offspring. I argue that for a small fish, intelligence is not a desirable trait.
Then you have the predator. I will argue that this is where intelligence shines, and why orcas are so smart. I argue that they are smart because they have to hunt in pods, and intelligence is important to do that. A dumb fish could never coordinate with its school.
Then you have the apex predator. Intelligence doesn't matter, why would it? You're a white shark, you can be as dumb as a rock and you're the perfect design anyway. Even if you develop intelligence, I don't think apex predators have enough offspring to evolve a lot. They live for so long, have no selection pressure for intelligence, and have few offsprings, they're almost the opposite of bacteria. I imagine the evolutionary rate depends on the amount of offspring per year.
Then you have another thing. Orcas developed enough intelligence to hunt together in pods, but through that they became apex predators like sharks. I think their intelligence was bound to be limited by the fact that they stopped being threatened, that they stopped having to adapt.

I think intelligence comes from the need to adapt. Humans never became the apex predators, the bosses of their environments. We had natural disasters, sickness, famines and even other people to deal with, and wild animals of course, most of which are stronger.

>> No.14748454

>>14747696
>no practical appendages they can use for immediate learning.
Why do you need tools or a written language to be intelligent? We don't know anything about our oceans why would a dolphin or octopus who do know about the oceans be considered less intelligent. They don't need computers and shit to pass their knowledge down

>> No.14748462

>>14748237
The ancestors of humans weren't necessarily threatened either. There are plenty of chimps that are more similar to our ancestors, still existing today.
On land, intelligence was a cheat code to efficiently get huge amounts of food through throwing, tool use, persistance hunting, trapmaking, etc. No such strategies exist in the ocean.

>> No.14748483

>>14748462
Except that chimps are extremely violent, territorial and competitive, and they definitely aren't apex predators.
I think it's no surprise we evolved from such a competitive animal as the chimp and not from stronger gorillas, who live much safer lives.
Chimps are vicious, extremely competitive and they needed every single competitive advantage they could get. Same for society really, if you learn about anthropology you'll learn that city walls were almost an evolutionary response to the first cities being threatened by nomad tribes.
I'll die by this hill. A competitive environment and the absolute need to adapt drives intelligence. Yes, caloric supply is important of course, BUT I just can't believe that given a caloric surplus, that intelligence is going to arise without a dire need to get even the smallest competitive edge.

>> No.14748510

>>14748454
I would argue that real IQ = IQ + cultural IQ
And by cultural IQ I mean the result of millennia of work. It's like why even a dumb ass kid now would make Pythagoras shit his pants with his mathematical knowledge.
An octopus may be smart but without a body of knowledge to get lifted by, he's hardstuck.

>> No.14748552

>>14748483
>I'll die by this hill. A competitive environment and the absolute need to adapt drives intelligence. Yes, caloric supply is important of course, BUT I just can't believe that given a caloric surplus, that intelligence is going to arise without a dire need to get even the smallest competitive edge.
I think you should revise that thought though. More specifically than a "competitive environment", you need an environment in which strategies that involve more intelligence are more rewarding. Like I said earlier, I can't imagine what useful tools Dolphins, other cetaceans, or octopi would even make if they were able to manipulate objects as effectively or even better than we can. Most of these creatures in the ocean live very violent competitive lives, large whales and killer whales being the exception.

>> No.14748610

>>14748552
Yes of course I absolutely agree with that. My point is that I just refuse to believe that caloric surplus alone is enough.

>> No.14748624

>>14748462
Don't octopus and dolphins use elaborate setups to catch prey?

>> No.14748737

>>14748624
Cornering animals and tricking them into moving into your arms requires intelligence, but nothing on the level of making pitfalls, snares, throwing weapons, etc. Felines use ambush tactics as well, but never developed higher intelligence.

>> No.14748937

The ocean does not lend itself to evolving an affinity for tool use, which hard caps effective intelligence. Can't start fires, can't isolate liquids effectively, the vast majority of underwater species completely lack prehensile limbs. Octopi and cuttlefish are the only high potential ocean animals for human-level capability. Whales/porpoises/etc. Are incapable of becoming like use due to the fish body design. Orcas and pilot whales literally have better brains than humans and are still inferior thanks to being ocean mammals.

>> No.14748949

>>14748483
Intelligence requires a caloric surplus, but it is not caused by it. The caloric surplus is easily supplied by cooking plentiful but hard to digest foods like grains and beans.

>> No.14749043

>>14747434
The atmosphere is a lighter ocean//fluid. Land organisms have the edge with less competition for resources maybe.