[QUOTE=xilman;335267]Are you sure of that?

It's a good first approximation, undoubtedly, but there are exceptions both actual and potential. An actual exception is shown by those organism which kill their prey by electrocution.[/QUOTE]

If you want to get pedantic, no.

[QUOTE=xilman;335267]Potential exceptions are much more varied. Fire _per se_ might be tricky; scaldingly hot water from geothermal sources is definitely available.[/QUOTE]

Fire can be carried (at the end of a stick or in a vessel, for example) or made (flint; rotating a stick quickly against another flammable object). Scalding hot water...?

[QUOTE=xilman;335267]Humans have also made good use of animal power, wind power and water power. Only the second is in the least bit tricky for aquatic organisms to exploit but the invention of a sail to make surface transport easier shouldn't be beyond the intellectual capabilities of some cetacea and octopodes.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. But surface bound creatures had the advantage of having "free" oxygen for fire, and mountains for potential energy from water.

[QUOTE=xilman;335267]Remember that for almost all of human history fire was used almost exclusively for cooking food and hardly at all for technological purposes. Electricity is an extremely recent invention and profoundly technological civilizations have existed or millenia; high intelligence for much longer.[/QUOTE]

Fire was also used to scare away predators who didn't understand it and were afraid of it. Also, later, used to refine and harden metals.

[QUOTE=xilman;335267]I would suggest that an aquatic technological civilization would have no more trouble with electricity than we do with either vacua or cryogenics.[/QUOTE]

I disagree.

If a technology is inherently unusable in your own environment, or an environment you create, it is unlikely to be developed.

[QUOTE=chalsall;335275]I disagree.

If a technology is inherently unusable in your own environment, or an environment you create, it is unlikely to be developed.[/QUOTE]We have to agree to disagree then.

From my point of view it appears that a good number of species, aquatic and terrestrial, have developed tool use. Of those, only one extant species has gone on to develop high technology including the use of fire. That occurred extremely recently in the earth's history. If other smart terrestial creatures such as crows, bonobos and elephants haven't yet done so, I see no good reason why aquatic species can't also develop technology in the future. Their technology would undoubtedly develop in different ways and in a different order from our, but what is to stop them developing weaponry (clubs, swords, toxins, nets, shields, armour, fortifications, etc) , weaving, carving, building shelters and storage, herding and farming, and so on?

If you'd like to speculate, suppose that the common octopus mutated in such a way that the female survived to lay more than one batch of eggs and so had an interest in looking after them after they had hatched. (They take a very great deal of care over them during the octopus equivalent of pregnancy.) Over generations this could easily result in them becoming social animals like elephants or humans. The present species is already undoubtedly smart and has been shown to use tools, the first step on the road to technology. Given an incentive to pass on their knowledge to others of their tribe (they are already great communicators) it should be quite possible for the cultural feedback loop to be started.

Incidentally, the common octopus is about as adept on land as we are in water unaided by our technology. They are perfectly capable of brief forays out of water in search of food, to escape emptying tidal pools (our equivalent would be to escape floods or accidental falls into water) and to cross dryish land (cf. wading or swimming rivers). For all I know, they may well do it occasionally for entertainment --- they certainly show some very complex behaviours elsewhere. As for intelligence, they seem to be on a par with New Caledonian crows, African Grey parrots and, perhaps, elephants.

These capabilities - language and tool use - are certainly impressive
evidence of thought / intelligence wherever they're observed. And
require that we respect the animals that exhibit this. But are they
evidence of free will or actual reasoning? Dolphins / whales
certainly can communicate, but do they go beyond informing their
own species of, say, new food sources or other prosaic news?
Can they invent a story, or lie, or otherwise be creative?
Sure there are degrees of intelligence, and the smarter animals
sometimes make you wonder, but unless there's another major
evolutionary change, I don't see how the fascinating abilities
some animals show can ever become identified as our special
capacity of free will.

[QUOTE=davar55;335339]These capabilities - language and tool use - are certainly impressive evidence of thought / intelligence wherever they're observed. And require that we respect the animals that exhibit this. But are they evidence of free will or actual reasoning? Dolphins / whales certainly can communicate, but do they go beyond informing their own species of, say, new food sources or other prosaic news? Can they invent a story, or lie, or otherwise be creative?[/QUOTE]

No disrespect intended davar55, but I have always been amused by the moving goal-posts of trying to define humans as unique.

Once it was "only humans use tools". Ummm... No.

"Only humans communicate". Ummm... No.

To speak to your above, [URL="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110414131444.htm"]this link is relevant[/URL]. Among other things, creative whales write new "pop" songs when they get bored of the "current chart".

Personally, I can't wait for we humans to find evidence of extra-terrestrial life. My money is on first finding evidence of (at least past -- possibly still viable) bacterial life on Mars, and then (maybe) higher life-forms on (or more specifically, in the sea under) Europa.

Then, maybe 10 to 30 years out, finding secondary signals of life on planets orbiting other nearby stars.

Then, maybe 100 to 200 years out, finding a signal in the "heavens" which only an "free-willed" intelligence could create.

How will the religions respond to that?

[B]P[/B] e n i e l

Not to speak for everyone, but my religion actively taught (and still teachers) that there is intelligent life on uncountably many worlds more than 150 years ago.

I think it is a mistake to blame "religion" for man's self-centered conceptions about life and the universe from the recent past.

[QUOTE=chalsall;335643]No disrespect intended davar55, but I have always been amused by the moving goal-posts of trying to define humans as unique.

Once it was "only humans use tools". Ummm... No.

"Only humans communicate". Ummm... No.

To speak to your above, [URL="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110414131444.htm"]this link is relevant[/URL]. Among other things, creative whales write new "pop" songs when they get bored of the "current chart".

Personally, I can't wait for we humans to find evidence of extra-terrestrial life. My money is on first finding evidence of (at least past -- possibly still viable) bacterial life on Mars, and then (maybe) higher life-forms on (or more specifically, in the sea under) Europa.

Then, maybe 10 to 30 years out, finding secondary signals of life on planets orbiting other nearby stars.

Then, maybe 100 to 200 years out, finding a signal in the "heavens" which only an "free-willed" intelligence could create.

How will the religions respond to that?[/QUOTE]

No disrespect taken. And please note I didn't use the phrase
"we humans", as I was trying to be inclusive to the two non-human
intelligent free-will-possessing beings of the OP, as well as the
(likely in my view) other-worldly intelligent free-willed beings we
will someday meet in space.

The distinction I make is between reason / free-will possessing, such
as (most) humans, and the merely intelligent capacity of the rest of
the animal kingdom. And if we were to determine that some other
species or individual outside of humanity possessed the full capacity
to reason, (and was peaceful), I would welcome them as friends
and ascribe to them the same rights we ascribe to each other.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;335651]I think it is a mistake to blame "religion" for man's self-centered conceptions about life and the universe from the recent past.[/QUOTE]

Please forgive me, for I may have sinned (or, at least, made a mistake)...

I was thinking of Genesis 1 (KJV). Very Earth centric...

It is true that many other religions would be very comfortable with extraterrestrial life existing.

[QUOTE=davar55;335652]The distinction I make is between reason / free-will possessing, such as (most) humans, and the merely intelligent capacity of the rest of the animal kingdom.[/QUOTE]

But this is where we disagree.

You agree that other animals have demonstrated reason. But for some reason you refuse to accept that they [I]might[/I] have free will.

Do not whales writing new songs demonstrate creativity?

Do not dolphins recognizing themselves in a mirror demonstrate self-awareness?

Just what, [B][I][U]exactly[/U][/I][/B], is your test for free will? (And, I note that you say that you think only [I]some[/I] humans (importantly, not [B][I][U]all[/U][/I][/B]) have free will.)

[QUOTE=chalsall;335643]Then, maybe 100 to 200 years out, finding a signal in the "heavens" which only an "free-willed" intelligence could create.

How will the religions respond to that?[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sparrow_%28novel%29"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sparrow_(novel)[/URL]

[QUOTE=chalsall;335656]But this is where we disagree.

You agree that other animals have demonstrated reason. But for some reason you refuse to accept that they [I]might[/I] have free will.

Do not whales writing new songs demonstrate creativity?

Do not dolphins recognizing themselves in a mirror demonstrate self-awareness?

Just what, [B][I][U]exactly[/U][/I][/B], is your test for free will? (And, I note that you say that you think only [I]some[/I] humans (importantly, not [B][I][U]all[/U][/I][/B]) have free will.)[/QUOTE]

You're not attributing me quite right. I've said in earlier posts that
possession of consciousness is what I consider the dividing line, among
living creatures, between animals and plants, and that while animals
may be considered to be intelligent (to vastly different degrees) that
is not the same as exhibiting reason, the locus of free will. And I even
acknowledged that a non-human species or individual may come to
demonstrate their rationality, in which case I will be more than willing
to acknowledge their capacity to exercise free will.
Also, in a previous post I suggested that a person asleep, in a coma,
or catatonic would be incapable (or at least have difficulty) exercising
their free will. But most healthy awake persons, in the operation of
their intelligent minds, would be able to exercise their free will.
New whale songs are certainly a kind of intelligence, but they may
be explainable as an automatized reaction to something, not a
result of a freely chosen decision to produce something new.
Mirrored self-recognition by dolphins is certainly a sign of intelligence,
even self-awareness (forming a triad with language and tools), but
this capacity doesn't qualify as reason / free will.