You could always argue that we are both not creative / intelligent enough to find a solution and that this is not indicative that a whole society would not find a solution. And this argument may well be correct.
Given an expectation of how hard it is to solve the problem if it can be solved, inability to solve it with given effort produces corresponding evidence of impossibility of solving the problem. Not responding to inability to solve the problem amounts to actually expecting the problem to be very hard. If I don’t expect that, I would be wrong in suggesting that inability to solve the problem is not evidence for impossibility of solving it.
Another framing is to generalize “inability to solve the problem” upon the conclusion of the project, to a situation where the expectation that the problem can be solved eventually is reduced. Correspondingly, generalize “ability to solve the problem” with expectation having gone up upon the project’s conclusion. This way, it’s clear by conservation of expected evidence that you can’t expect that the estimate for the probability that the problem is solvable will go in a particular direction upon the conclusion of the project. Either the expectation will go up (and so the project produces evidence of the possibility of eventually solving the problem), or else it must go down (and so you gain that elusive evidence of the negative).
Can you imagine a way a group of quadriplegics (imho a good aproximation of a stranded dolphin with a human brain—except that their skin does not dry out - ) could fell a tree with stone tools? And delimb it? And bring it to the construction site? And erect it as a pillar?
Sure, depending on what you are thinking about as the reference procedure of, say, chopping down a tree when using hands. Dolphins with hands won’t just be swinging an axe on the surface, as they would first need to solve the problem of being able to move around, so I’m responding to the analogy with humans who have to do the task without hands, but do have legs. For dolphins, we would need to start with the reference procedure where it’s clear how dolphins with hands can do something.
To chop down a tree, you need to strike it repeatedly with an axe (this is what I assume you meant). To strike it repeatedly, you need to be able to strike it once. It’s such actions as striking a tree with an axe once that I meant as something that I expect can be reduced.
Let’s make the handle of the axe a much longer stick, and also attach another stick perpendicularly to control the tilt of the head of the axe, so that it’s possible to make sure that the blade is turned in the correct direction without having to apply torque directly to the handle. The long handle can be placed on top of a third stick perpendicular to it, and ride along that third stick, with the end (knob) of the handle fixed in place. When it does so, the head of the axe swings. Now, if we let the head of the axe fall under its weight while guided by (“riding” on) the third stick, or alternatively pull it in order for the axe to gain the necessary speed, and use the second stick to direct the blade, the result is the axe head striking the tree with the blade at sufficient speed to dent it. Perhaps such method would be a hundred times slower, so that it would take a year to do a job that would otherwise take a day, and that is just what I meant by the process being much less efficient, more laborous.
Now imagine this creature as strictly waterbound
(Not sure what you mean by “strictly waterbound”, though this distinction doesn’t seem important for this discussion. The hypothetical considers creatures that are like dolphins in all relevant respects excepts they also have hands (maybe as additional retractable limbs, to preserve swimming capabilities). So they should be about as waterbound as dolphins. If this hypothetical allows technology, we could pose the more difficult problem of developing technology without the ability to surface even for a short time (which dolphins have).)
Given an expectation of how hard it is to solve the problem....
Agreed
… like dolphins in all relevant respects excepts they also have hands (maybe as additional retractable limbs, to preserve swimming capabilities). So they should be about as waterbound as dolphins.
No they are not. They are much less waterbound than seals (watch the video), because they can move around on their hands and use their hands to cover themselves with seaweeds or somesuch to protect against drying / sun. I fully agree with you that such creatures are can bootstrap a civilisation especially if they have scientific knowledge.
Where I disagree is the point where an unmodified dolphin or a strictly waterbound (arbitrarily defined as cannot leave the water for more than 5 seconds) “dolphin with hands” gets anything done on the surface without having significant technology to start with (arbitrarily defined as anything humans could not build 40000 years ago). They would run into the problem that they have to build complex contraptions
Let’s make the handle of the axe a much longer stick, and also attach another stick perpendicularly...
to perform simple tasks (felling a tree) without being able to build those complex contraptions without the help of even more complex contraptions (You cannot build what you described in the above quote without having wood and being able to work with it—and do that in a terrestrial environment, where you can not do anything in the first place, because you can not move.).
Given an expectation of how hard it is to solve the problem if it can be solved, inability to solve it with given effort produces corresponding evidence of impossibility of solving the problem. Not responding to inability to solve the problem amounts to actually expecting the problem to be very hard. If I don’t expect that, I would be wrong in suggesting that inability to solve the problem is not evidence for impossibility of solving it.
Another framing is to generalize “inability to solve the problem” upon the conclusion of the project, to a situation where the expectation that the problem can be solved eventually is reduced. Correspondingly, generalize “ability to solve the problem” with expectation having gone up upon the project’s conclusion. This way, it’s clear by conservation of expected evidence that you can’t expect that the estimate for the probability that the problem is solvable will go in a particular direction upon the conclusion of the project. Either the expectation will go up (and so the project produces evidence of the possibility of eventually solving the problem), or else it must go down (and so you gain that elusive evidence of the negative).
Sure, depending on what you are thinking about as the reference procedure of, say, chopping down a tree when using hands. Dolphins with hands won’t just be swinging an axe on the surface, as they would first need to solve the problem of being able to move around, so I’m responding to the analogy with humans who have to do the task without hands, but do have legs. For dolphins, we would need to start with the reference procedure where it’s clear how dolphins with hands can do something.
To chop down a tree, you need to strike it repeatedly with an axe (this is what I assume you meant). To strike it repeatedly, you need to be able to strike it once. It’s such actions as striking a tree with an axe once that I meant as something that I expect can be reduced.
Let’s make the handle of the axe a much longer stick, and also attach another stick perpendicularly to control the tilt of the head of the axe, so that it’s possible to make sure that the blade is turned in the correct direction without having to apply torque directly to the handle. The long handle can be placed on top of a third stick perpendicular to it, and ride along that third stick, with the end (knob) of the handle fixed in place. When it does so, the head of the axe swings. Now, if we let the head of the axe fall under its weight while guided by (“riding” on) the third stick, or alternatively pull it in order for the axe to gain the necessary speed, and use the second stick to direct the blade, the result is the axe head striking the tree with the blade at sufficient speed to dent it. Perhaps such method would be a hundred times slower, so that it would take a year to do a job that would otherwise take a day, and that is just what I meant by the process being much less efficient, more laborous.
(Not sure what you mean by “strictly waterbound”, though this distinction doesn’t seem important for this discussion. The hypothetical considers creatures that are like dolphins in all relevant respects excepts they also have hands (maybe as additional retractable limbs, to preserve swimming capabilities). So they should be about as waterbound as dolphins. If this hypothetical allows technology, we could pose the more difficult problem of developing technology without the ability to surface even for a short time (which dolphins have).)
Agreed
No they are not. They are much less waterbound than seals (watch the video), because they can move around on their hands and use their hands to cover themselves with seaweeds or somesuch to protect against drying / sun. I fully agree with you that such creatures are can bootstrap a civilisation especially if they have scientific knowledge.
Where I disagree is the point where an unmodified dolphin or a strictly waterbound (arbitrarily defined as cannot leave the water for more than 5 seconds) “dolphin with hands” gets anything done on the surface without having significant technology to start with (arbitrarily defined as anything humans could not build 40000 years ago). They would run into the problem that they have to build complex contraptions
to perform simple tasks (felling a tree) without being able to build those complex contraptions without the help of even more complex contraptions (You cannot build what you described in the above quote without having wood and being able to work with it—and do that in a terrestrial environment, where you can not do anything in the first place, because you can not move.).