I myself have asked, with wonder, this exact question about the demonstrated intelligence of octopi. Some species live only a single year, starting out the size of a bee and dying a year later of old age. In the interim they exhibit remarkable problem solving abilities and complex adaptive behaviors. My conclusion is that their brains work fundamentally differently from ours. Our brains are more software than hardware; we build up intricate neural networks by trial and error over years, even decades, in interaction with the natural world. Tabula rasa, but with enormous growth potential. Learned, not instinctive behavior. The octopus cannot be like that; there is no time. The only alternative is their sophisticated brains are more hardware than software. A lineage over 500 million years old, 10 times longer than primates, has enabled them to evolve behaviors that are learned in us, genetic and ingrained in them. They are hardwired with a sophisticated behavioral repertoire, instinctive, not learned, intellects. They have a fundamentally different architecture of mind. But it is a mind, and we have so much to learn of it.
Thanks for your interesting and profound insights into the what, how, and why of the octopus and its mind. Complex behavior and cognition are pre-hard-wired into octopus consciousness thanks to evolutionary forces. I'm almost tempted to say that your idea lends support, in a weird way, to my story's veiled implication that the octopus may have been engineered and then slipped into our terrestrial evolutionary continuum, but I realize you're not really implying that because you also write, "A lineage over 500 million years old, 10 times longer than primates, has enabled them to evolve behaviors that are learned in us, genetic and ingrained in them." Time—deep time—at that scale makes the ratcheting-up of cognition through evolutionary forces both possible and plausible. No extraterrestrial explanation, however fanciful, is necessary.
Life is a local reversal of entropy. A vast plastic mass that fills the space available. Extinction is not forever. Speciation occurs wherever it's wanted. Adaptation is replication with fidelity and variation. Sensation is easy. Stored sensation slips in sentience. Learn then anticipate.
Man is born without genetic tools, but has the ability to create them. And lacks a preexisting script on how to use make tools.
Evolution moves sentience to sapience and “forward-memory." Man can replay actual memories, and even better, create possible scripts in the imagination.
Man is both highly cooperative and fiercely competitive. That allowed Man into every habitat on earth That alone also drove the expansion of imagination. Doesn’t take much power to find ripe fruit or avoid predators. Rather for Man, the great challenge was to anticipate the Other. Will they cooperate or cheat? How does Man detect, signal, keep the balance. Play the game Tit-for-Tat, the optimal game theory for such an uncertain world. And because we’ve played that game, for 500,000 years, there are no secrets in the real world, no true surprises.
What an excellent comment. I'm lucky to have sharp readers. They keep me sharp.
I had meant to write a comment earlier, one explaining the background of this story, so I guess I'll do that here and now.
I wasn't sure whether readers would "get" the final question which, if unpacked, is really asking, "What if the octopus is actually a designed device made to look consistent with evolved life on Earth, as if it were part of the terrestrial evolutionary continuum but in reality more like a machine with a purpose, whatever that purpose might be?" That's really what I meant by the pronoun "it" in that concluding question. I wanted to end on a note of awe and wonder about what such a device might imply about its extraterrestrial inventors/designers. Just peeks and glimpses into something greater.
Some of what I'd written about octopuses/octopi/octopodes was rooted in my childhood fascination with them, long before I'd ever heard that some scientists jokingly or half-jokingly refer to the animals as "aliens." Some information, though, e.g., the things I'd written about how octopi now seem to be forming communities, comes from recent scientific discoveries that probably aren't more than a decade or so old.
The rival schools of thought I'd mentioned (alien life = recognizable or unrecognizable?) are a real thing (Google "universal biology vs. weird life"). In my own life, I tend to favor the "unrecognizable" school, but in the story, my main character favors "recognizable," and with good reason. I don't think either school of thought is irrational, but for me, it just comes down to preference, and "unrecognizable" just feels more plausible.
Anyway, Mr. Arvanitis, it's always a pleasure to see readers get eloquently engaged with a story, and one of my purposes was to prompt a lively discussion. So far, I've had your and one other intelligent comment on another story, but no one else has jumped in to discuss. It could simply be that I don't have enough subscribers yet to deserve that sort of engagement. So I guess I'll just keep hoping that another year of writing will bring more people to my campfire. Again, thank you very much for your insights. You sound as if you should be writing science fiction yourself. Or have you done so already?
I myself have asked, with wonder, this exact question about the demonstrated intelligence of octopi. Some species live only a single year, starting out the size of a bee and dying a year later of old age. In the interim they exhibit remarkable problem solving abilities and complex adaptive behaviors. My conclusion is that their brains work fundamentally differently from ours. Our brains are more software than hardware; we build up intricate neural networks by trial and error over years, even decades, in interaction with the natural world. Tabula rasa, but with enormous growth potential. Learned, not instinctive behavior. The octopus cannot be like that; there is no time. The only alternative is their sophisticated brains are more hardware than software. A lineage over 500 million years old, 10 times longer than primates, has enabled them to evolve behaviors that are learned in us, genetic and ingrained in them. They are hardwired with a sophisticated behavioral repertoire, instinctive, not learned, intellects. They have a fundamentally different architecture of mind. But it is a mind, and we have so much to learn of it.
Mark,
Thanks for your interesting and profound insights into the what, how, and why of the octopus and its mind. Complex behavior and cognition are pre-hard-wired into octopus consciousness thanks to evolutionary forces. I'm almost tempted to say that your idea lends support, in a weird way, to my story's veiled implication that the octopus may have been engineered and then slipped into our terrestrial evolutionary continuum, but I realize you're not really implying that because you also write, "A lineage over 500 million years old, 10 times longer than primates, has enabled them to evolve behaviors that are learned in us, genetic and ingrained in them." Time—deep time—at that scale makes the ratcheting-up of cognition through evolutionary forces both possible and plausible. No extraterrestrial explanation, however fanciful, is necessary.
Thanks again for commenting!
Life is a local reversal of entropy. A vast plastic mass that fills the space available. Extinction is not forever. Speciation occurs wherever it's wanted. Adaptation is replication with fidelity and variation. Sensation is easy. Stored sensation slips in sentience. Learn then anticipate.
Man is born without genetic tools, but has the ability to create them. And lacks a preexisting script on how to use make tools.
Evolution moves sentience to sapience and “forward-memory." Man can replay actual memories, and even better, create possible scripts in the imagination.
Man is both highly cooperative and fiercely competitive. That allowed Man into every habitat on earth That alone also drove the expansion of imagination. Doesn’t take much power to find ripe fruit or avoid predators. Rather for Man, the great challenge was to anticipate the Other. Will they cooperate or cheat? How does Man detect, signal, keep the balance. Play the game Tit-for-Tat, the optimal game theory for such an uncertain world. And because we’ve played that game, for 500,000 years, there are no secrets in the real world, no true surprises.
What an excellent comment. I'm lucky to have sharp readers. They keep me sharp.
I had meant to write a comment earlier, one explaining the background of this story, so I guess I'll do that here and now.
I wasn't sure whether readers would "get" the final question which, if unpacked, is really asking, "What if the octopus is actually a designed device made to look consistent with evolved life on Earth, as if it were part of the terrestrial evolutionary continuum but in reality more like a machine with a purpose, whatever that purpose might be?" That's really what I meant by the pronoun "it" in that concluding question. I wanted to end on a note of awe and wonder about what such a device might imply about its extraterrestrial inventors/designers. Just peeks and glimpses into something greater.
Some of what I'd written about octopuses/octopi/octopodes was rooted in my childhood fascination with them, long before I'd ever heard that some scientists jokingly or half-jokingly refer to the animals as "aliens." Some information, though, e.g., the things I'd written about how octopi now seem to be forming communities, comes from recent scientific discoveries that probably aren't more than a decade or so old.
The rival schools of thought I'd mentioned (alien life = recognizable or unrecognizable?) are a real thing (Google "universal biology vs. weird life"). In my own life, I tend to favor the "unrecognizable" school, but in the story, my main character favors "recognizable," and with good reason. I don't think either school of thought is irrational, but for me, it just comes down to preference, and "unrecognizable" just feels more plausible.
Anyway, Mr. Arvanitis, it's always a pleasure to see readers get eloquently engaged with a story, and one of my purposes was to prompt a lively discussion. So far, I've had your and one other intelligent comment on another story, but no one else has jumped in to discuss. It could simply be that I don't have enough subscribers yet to deserve that sort of engagement. So I guess I'll just keep hoping that another year of writing will bring more people to my campfire. Again, thank you very much for your insights. You sound as if you should be writing science fiction yourself. Or have you done so already?