Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Group of scientists suggest that octopuses might actually be aliens

bgr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 129 posts

Re: Group of scientists suggest that octopuses might actually be aliens

#111

Post by Nomentatus »

Tomminn wrote: post #107
Nomentatus wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I share your discouragement with the present state of "science" (see the Replication Crisis) but the trouble with your comment that it applies to everything ever written, not this article in particular, not to mention that Theodore Sturgeon said it first, as a still more general rule.

I assumed the HN crowd was familiar with the fact that "90% of everything is crap" is someone else's idea. This was probably not a good assumption to make.

So familiar, so why state it without any special relevance, much less without attribution? Why waste our time then if everybody knows it?

Re: Group of scientists suggest that octopuses might actually be aliens

#112

Post by philbarr »

detaro wrote: post #110
philbarr wrote: post #109

Octopuses? Octopi, surely?

Both are fine. (Octopi is arguably wrong, since octopus comes from Greek, not Latin (where you'd find that style of pluralization), but is used so commonly that it has become part of the language)

It's interesting, though. When I was a child "octopi" was the classic pluralization exception.

There's even the joke, "if the plural of octopus is octopi, what's the plural of whatatwitamus?"

I have never seen "octopuses" until today.

Re: Group of scientists suggest that octopuses might actually be aliens

#113

Post by mirimir »

Nomentatus wrote: post #99
mirimir wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We humans use genes that were delivered by viruses.

Yes - a bit at a time, I take it whereas some bacteria can swallow whole chromosomes entire (so-called "competence"); so I was skeptical about so much DNA transferring to just one kind of creature, at once. But now I think about it, the frozen octopi or eggs would bring a lot of alien octopi viruses along with them that might be able to do the job for all I know.

Sure. But this isn't science. It's fiction. Or religion.

If it's not testable, it's not science.

Re: Group of scientists suggest that octopuses might actually be aliens

#114

Post by jonny_eh »

JdeBP wrote: post #90
jonny_eh wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every pseudo-scientific journal claims to be peer reviewed.

However, so too do the properly scientific ones, so that does not demonstrate anything at all. The thing to look at is the editors, who they are and whether they indeed edit the journal as claimed. * https://www.bioc.cam.ac.uk/research/uto/blundell * https://www.dpag.ox.ac.uk/team/denis-noble * http://www.herzzentrum.de/englisch/departments-sections/inst...

> so that does not demonstrate anything at all.

That's exactly my point!

Re: Group of scientists suggest that octopuses might actually be aliens

#115

Post by natecavanaugh »

AlexCoventry wrote: post #80
natecavanaugh wrote: post #35

This strangely reminds me of a Wired article[0] from 2013 where it quotes a scientist in this way: "If you want to study an alien intelligence, Godfrey-Smith says, 'octopuses are the closest thing we have.'" Though it doesn't make the claim that it's of alien origin, nor do I subscribe to the theory necessarily. There's just too much question-begging in the theories that life is somehow of extraterrestrial origin (wh…

> question-begging in the theories that life is somehow of extraterrestrial origin (where did that life come from?). I really dislike this paper, but they do address that. The fact that life had to start somewhere doesn't make the question of extraterrestrial origin any less interesting.

Sorry for the late reply, but I agree the idea is interesting, but for me it comes off the same way intelligent design or creationism comes off, almost as a God of the gaps type mentality. Because if life is seeded from elsewhere, it's essentially placing it's origin into infinity, and kind of hand waving away the need to dig further. Not that I'm saying we should philosophically determine where we want the evidence to go, but usually the idea is based on so much conjecture and leads to the same result practically that it just seems like a secular way of dismissing the search based on the evidence we do have.

Granted, we have no idea what discoveries and scientific advancements are going to come in the near to distant future, but while I think the question is worth considering, it seems pretty weird for some scientists to accept this conjecture, but randomly eliminate others.

To each his own I guess, but this probably is more about my own distaste for the line of thinking (that, and the whole "we're in a simulation" hypothesis), where it kicks the question off into a place where we'll probably never be able to answer it. Though as far as fun discussion and speculating as entertainment, that is where I find the ideas most enjoyable, personally :)

Re: Group of scientists suggest that octopuses might actually be aliens

#116

Post by TimTheTinker »

peteretep wrote: post #79
TimTheTinker wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking for Christianity, God's omnipotence does not mean he can violate his own nature. In fact, he is very limited in the sense that there are an infinite number of things that he cannot do because they are inconsistent with his nature -- his holiness, truth, love, and wisdom.

> In fact, he is very limited in the sense That's blasphemy, and you take it upon yourself to interpret and understand His divine will, and second guess Him, despite being warned over and over that His will is beyond your understanding. Your comments are a textbook example of the type of human arrogance that gets Biblical characters unstuck, over and over and over again. > he is very limited in the sense that there a…

> you take it upon yourself to interpret and understand His divine will, and second guess Him

God's complete will is absolutely beyond human understanding (as he is infinite), but deducing facts about him and his will based on what he has said about himself is not human arrogance or second-guessing him. It's just straightforward thinking.

> I would be interested to see canonical scriptural references for this statement.

Ok, got some direct scriptural examples of a few categories of things God cannot do, because they are inconsistent with his character.

1) God cannot lie.

- Titus 1:2: "... in the hope of eternal life that God, who cannot lie, promised before time began"

- Hebrews 6:18: "... so that through two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to seize the hope set before us."

2) God cannot deny himself

- 2 Timothy 2:13: "if we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself."

This implies that he can't go against his own word or his own express will.

3) God cannot be tempted with evil and does not tempt anyone.

- James 1:13: "No one undergoing a trial should say, 'I am being tempted by God.' For God is not tempted by evil, and He Himself doesn’t tempt anyone."

---

This isn't to say he is restricted to doing only what he wants to do or actually does. Other passages refer to his ability to do things that he doesn't end up doing. One example is Matthew 3:9: "... God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones!" -- something he didn't do and never said he would.

Please understand, AFAIK when the Scriptures speak of what God can't do, it's always meant as a comfort and encouragement to his people. E.g. from the above examples -- if he can't lie, deny himself, or be tempted with evil (much less do it), and if he is all-powerful to accomplish his holy will, then his words can be taken as rock-solid and trustworthy.

[Quotations from the HCSB translation.]

Re: Group of scientists suggest that octopuses might actually be aliens

#117

Post by flukus »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #116
peteretep wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In fact, he is very limited in the sense That's blasphemy, and you take it upon yourself to interpret and understand His divine will, and second guess Him, despite being warned over and over that His will is beyond your understanding. Your comments are a textbook example of the type of human arrogance that gets Biblical characters unstuck, over and over and over again. > he is very limited in the sense that there a…

> you take it upon yourself to interpret and understand His divine will, and second guess Him God's complete will is absolutely beyond human understanding (as he is infinite), but deducing facts about him and his will based on what he has said about himself is not human arrogance or second-guessing him. It's just straightforward thinking. > I would be interested to see canonical scriptural references for this stateme…

> God cannot be tempted with evil and does not tempt anyone.

Is creating evil in the first place not being tempted by it?

Re: Group of scientists suggest that octopuses might actually be aliens

#118

Post by TimTheTinker »

flukus wrote: post #117
TimTheTinker wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you take it upon yourself to interpret and understand His divine will, and second guess Him God's complete will is absolutely beyond human understanding (as he is infinite), but deducing facts about him and his will based on what he has said about himself is not human arrogance or second-guessing him. It's just straightforward thinking. > I would be interested to see canonical scriptural references for this stateme…

> God cannot be tempted with evil and does not tempt anyone. Is creating evil in the first place not being tempted by it?

God didn’t create evil. Is there something specific you’re thinking of?

Re: Group of scientists suggest that octopuses might actually be aliens

#119

Post by flukus »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #118
flukus wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> God cannot be tempted with evil and does not tempt anyone. Is creating evil in the first place not being tempted by it?

God didn’t create evil. Is there something specific you’re thinking of?

God created everything directly and indirectly, everything includes evil. Even if it was indirect, being omniscient makes him ultimately responsible for it.

Either that or you start to get into pantheistic territory.

Re: Group of scientists suggest that octopuses might actually be aliens

#120

Post by TimTheTinker »

flukus wrote: post #119
TimTheTinker wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God didn’t create evil. Is there something specific you’re thinking of?

God created everything directly and indirectly, everything includes evil. Even if it was indirect, being omniscient makes him ultimately responsible for it. Either that or you start to get into pantheistic territory.

He created several classes of beings with the capacity for free will, since love freely chosen is the only kind of real love. Knowing that some would choose to hate him (or do anything else, for that matter) doesn’t shift responsibility away from them for that choice.

Actually, the existence of evil is one of the biggest arguments for God’s existence via showing that there are universal, objective moral values and duties. Summary is —- one cannot call some actions evil except by contrast with what is morally good. We all know certain things are absolutely evil (although some atheists deny that). And moral accountability is impossible without a moral law and a moral law-giver.

Post reply on HN