What is necessary for technology to occur?

[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]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

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?

Originally Posted by Moontanman

oxidation does not require oxygen.

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

Originally Posted by Farlex Dictionary

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?

Originally Posted by Moontanman

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.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

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...

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Can you support this assertion on any level?

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

[AnssiH]

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

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.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by 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.

Random changes do not "create disorder" and neither does "life lower entropy." You may be able to point to a few correlations, but there are many counterexamples and nothing that I'm aware of that posits actual causation.

This appears to be a radical new theory of yours. You'll need to open a thread to discuss it before you can justify any of these statements begin givens to support the rest of your discussion. Otherwise, this post is completely off-topic.

Communications without intelligence is noise; Intelligence without communications is irrelevant,
Buffy

[lawcat]

I like the description in 2001: A Space Odyssey. It takes a bit of ability (to grab a tool), a bit of intellgence (a-ha moment), and a bit of necessity (some motivation) to figure out you can use tools, a big bone, to beat up a stronger opponent.

Now, spiders have a nice little web technology going. Birds build nests which is a sort of technology. Bees build crates.

In water, the environment is denser, and subject to stronger force of currents. It's really hard to come up with something to use under water that will give you advantage over opponent's natural speed of movement. It's also hard to build a net, from natural sources, for example, due to strong currents and lack of anchors. In water, you only have stability at the sea floor, and even there the ground moves due to dense fluid and currents. There must be some little critter on the ocean's floor that builds something, I woud presume that much.

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by AnssiH

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)
[snip]
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".

Hi AnssiH

Having re-read the OP I agree that it is not solely about technology, so your comments are apposite. I also agree that there's no specific evolutionary pressure for it to adopt the survival method of "advanced technology", except perhaps the wanton over-exploitation of the environment achieved with our technology. That is putting the survival of whole species at risk. So, perhaps that creates an evolutionary pressure for other species to develop technologies, to enable them to fight back?

We used to think that man was the only tool using animal. Now they are all at it. As I've said, I don't regard the tool usage achieved by animals to represent technology, yet, but is non-human technology on the rise?