Intelligence in dinosaurs

[SamBridge]

 

No it doesn't, crows have brains smaller than opossums and they use tools and language and transmit culture to their young.

 

The "larger" refers to the complexity or the number on the intelligence scale, which is larger. I think it said triceratops was something like .11 and humans were 5-8? Of course that scale is off, but it still says dolphins are 3-4, even though dolphins can be larger animals.

 

 

I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

 

You're almost contradicting yourself. Just because that system of measuring intelligence on mammals doesn't work on birds doesn't mean that that system can't measure intelligence at all, that's what that system was designed to measure in the first place, the EQ. We can still have some idea of the intelligence of dinosaurs, we just can't use the same system of extrapolating intelligence that we use on mammals.

 

 

Again, what are you saying? After 65,000,000 years there would be clothing left behind from stone age humans? What man made living domain are you talking about?

There's algae fossils that are 3.4 billion years old, and on top of that there's plants which are definitely more delicate materials than many man-made objects or even some man-made clothing materials.

 

 

No i am saying they left no direct descendants, birds are not the direct descendants of troodons, in fact birds existed well before troodonts.

They left no direct descendants that's fine, but there are still animals closely related to them which have similar bone structures, we can create a clear picture of the evolutionary time line using all the fossils we have and the anatomy we know of in modern animals.

Edited January 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

 

The "larger" refers to the complexity or the number on the intelligence scale, which is larger. I think it said triceratops was something like .11 and humans were 5-8? Of course that scale is off, but it still says dolphins are 3-4, even though dolphins can be larger animals.

 

 

 

You're almost contradicting yourself. Just because that system of measuring intelligence on mammals doesn't work on birds doesn't mean that that system can't measure intelligence at all, that's what that system was designed to measure in the first place, the EQ. We can still have some idea of the intelligence of dinosaurs, we just can't use the same system of extrapolating intelligence that we use on mammals.

 

Mormyrid fishes have a higher EQ than mammals or even humans the system loses it's significance when used on non mammals.

 

There's algae fossils that are 3.4 billion years old, and on top of that there's plants which are definitely more delicate materials than many man-made objects or even some man-made clothing materials.

 

That is not an apt comparison...the biomass of algae is billions of times more than all the clothing ever made much less stone age clothing...

 

 

They left no direct descendants that's fine, but there are still animals closely related to them which have similar bone structures, we can create a clear picture of the evolutionary time line using all the fossils we have and the anatomy we know of in modern animals.

What animals are you talking about?

Edited January 22, 2013 by Moontanman

[SamBridge]

What animals are you talking about?

I'm talking about birds of course, they aren't directly descended but we can still use their bone structure and how closely they are related to make extrapolations of dinosaurs themselves.

 

 

Mormyrid fishes have a higher EQ than mammals or even humans the system loses it's significance when used on non mammals.

 

But we can still look at their behavioral patterns as well as actually dissecting their brain and running thermal imaging tests to see that they aren't quite as intelligent in cognitive thinking ability. With dinosaurs, this is limited, but we still have behavioral patterns extrapolated from fossils as well as the patterns found in animals near them in the evolutionary family tree which exist today, we can see that based on the behavioral patterns extrapolated and the intelligence of animals related to them that at the time of their extinction they probably did not possess spears.

 

That is not an apt comparison...the biomass of algae is billions of times more than all the clothing ever made much less stone age clothing...

But it doesn't matter, their structures are still fragile, you can actually kill bacteria just with the friction of your hands when clapping, and there's still millions of pounds of clothing so even if clothing was as fragile as bacteria, there should by probability be some that survive, especially considering all the living domains that exist. If dinosaurs had just at the around the time of extinction began to posses the ability of stone age humans I can grant you that possibility, but not as evidence. While it may be possible, there is no direct evidence of it. If we found a "tribe" of dinosaurs with structures that couldn't be possibly naturally made, then we could say that there were some dinosaurs with a high likelihood of being as intelligent as humans if there was strong evidence that those structures were not from human origin.

Edited January 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

I'm talking about birds of course, they aren't directly descended but we can still use their bone structure and how closely they are related to make extrapolations of dinosaurs themselves.

 

I'm not sure what you are asserting here... I assert this resemblance makes it possible there were intelligent dinosaurs...

 

But we can still look at their behavioral patterns as well as actually dissecting their brain and running thermal imaging tests to see that they aren't quite as intelligent in cognitive thinking ability.

 

For me Mormyrids, specifically elephant nose fishes, are more than just a google link, I've kept them for many years, they do display behaviors that suggest some inkling they are a bit more intelligent than other fish. They communicate with each other through electrical impulses, defend themselves with electrical impulses that are closely directed unlike electric eels that just shock everything in range, they live in black water that doesn't allow light so they navigate with electrical fields (most species are pretty much blind), they school in large groups. All they lack is size and hands... but the real point is that their brains are completely different than mammal brains, I think it's a mistake to compare any other animals brain with mammal brains and draw conclusions from that comparison...

 

With dinosaurs, this is limited, but we still have behavioral patterns extrapolated from fossils as well as the patterns found in animals near them in the evolutionary family tree which exist today, we can see that based on the behavioral patterns extrapolated and the intelligence of animals related to them that at the time of their extinction they probably did not possess spears.

 

I have to agree with this, I am not asserting that dinosaurs were technological beings i am saying we simply can't say one way or another... unless we actually find such evidence we will forever be unable to say one way or another...

 

But it doesn't matter, their structures are still fragile, you can actually kill bacteria just with the friction of your hands when clapping, and there's still millions of pounds of clothing so even if clothing was as fragile as bacteria, there should by probability be some that survive, especially considering all the living domains that exist. If dinosaurs had just at the around the time of extinction began to posses the ability of stone age humans I can grant you that possibility, but not as evidence.

 

It's not evidence, but i think we should be more open to the possibility, as it is now if dinosaurs bones are found with something akin to arrow heads that would be evidence.

 

While it may be possible, there is no direct evidence of it. If we found a "tribe" of dinosaurs with structures that couldn't be possibly naturally made, then we could say that there were some dinosaurs with a high likelihood of being as intelligent as humans if there was strong evidence that those structures were not from human origin.

 

I think this is at the heart of this discussion, what would we expect to see and would we recognize it if we did see it or would our human chauvinism kick in and make us assume it was some sort of hoax or a natural occurrence that just looked like stone tools.

 

In archaeology (oh how I wish we had areal archaeologist here) any thing resembling a stone tool is examined very closely if it is found in strata contemporary with hominids would we do the same in strata too ancient to be contemporary with hominids?

Edited January 22, 2013 by Moontanman

[SamBridge]

Ok, well, I can't deny the possibility, all I can say is that with our current evidence, dinosaurs likely were not technologically advanced even to the stone age at the time they went extinct.

You could make an argument for anything being possible, but we use science to show just how likely those possibilities are, and so far it is unlikely dinosaurs were that advanced.

Edited January 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

Ok, well, I can't deny the possibility, all I can say is that with our current evidence, dinosaurs likely were not technologically advanced even to the stone age at the time they went extinct.

 

I don't think we can really say either way, the most honest answer is "we don't know"

 

You could make an argument for anything being possible, but we use science to show just how likely those possibilities are, and so far it is unlikely dinosaurs were that advanced.

 

Again we cannot say that but recent discoveries do point to the possibility, before we figured out that bird brains are significantly different than mammal brains we could be quite sure that dinosaurs were almost too stupid to live but now we know that mammalian EQ is not an indicator of other animals EQ.

 

Our bias toward mammalian brains and intelligence led us to believe that only brains of similar size, structure and complexity could be intelligent, this is now demonstrably false.

 

In fact i would suggest that the humble octopus shows that in spades. The octopus lives only for a couple years, most live less than one year yet they can learn a task by watching another octopus perform that task. This was once thought to be something that only higher vertebrates could do.

 

While I cannot assert that dinosaurs were intelligent as hominids I can assert it was within the realm of reality as we know it.

 

The most important thing that can be taken away from this is that We have been chauvinistic toward mammals being more intelligent than other animals by default and we now know this is evidently not true... Nor is brain size an evident indicator of intelligence as well...

[SamBridge]

Ok, let's say we don't know then, I don't see how it's particularly likely though. Birds are smart, I thought this before this topic.

[Moontanman]

Ok, let's say we don't know then, I don't see how it's particularly likely though. Birds are smart, I thought this before this topic.

 

 

And birds are dinosaurs and theropod dinosaurs do have limbs free to manipulate objects, hominids didn't have much more of an advantage than this to begin with...

[SamBridge]

 

 

And birds are dinosaurs and theropod dinosaurs do have limbs free to manipulate objects, hominids didn't have much more of an advantage than this to begin with...

I thought you mentioned a few things that emphasized that birds weren't dinosaurs by saying "dinosaurs have no direct descendants", but anyway, dinosaurs still had probably better claws and wings are definitely an advantage both for cold temperature and aerial technique, not to mention what their brain power was being used on. Dinosaurs were particularly capable with smell and probably sight, it takes a larger amount of brain power to have better sight and small to pick up more and more faint particles and objects, so there's not a particular reason why they had to have better developed cognitive abilities either when they wouldn't need it to survive. Hominids on the other hand when compared to other animals don't seem particularly physically specialized, and since there weren't many physical advantages developed, the only ones that survived would have had to be particularly smart ones to make up for their lack of physical advantages, but this is not necessarily true for dinosaurs.

Edited January 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

I thought you mentioned a few things that emphasized that birds weren't dinosaurs by saying "dinosaurs have no direct descendants",

 

No... I did not say that, you are putting words in my mouth, I said "troodonts did not leave any direct ancestors"

 

 

but anyway, dinosaurs still had probably better claws and wings are definitely an advantage both for cold temperature and aerial technique, not to mention what their brain power was being used on.

 

No, while troodonts were indeed dinosaurs not all dinosaurs had the teeth and claws you mention, in fact troodonts were remarkably less well armed in that fashion than most other predatory dinosaurs...

 

 

Dinosaurs were particularly capable with smell and probably sight, it takes a larger amount of brain power to have better sight and small to pick up more and more faint particles and objects, so there's not a particular reason why they had to have better developed cognitive abilities either when they wouldn't need it to survive.

 

You are attempting to standardize a remarkably diverse group of animals and animals with virtually no brains have much better sense of smell than mammals or dinosaurs...

 

Hominids on the other hand when compared to other animals don't seem particularly physically specialized, and since there weren't many physical advantages developed, the only ones that survived would have had to be particularly smart ones to make up for their lack of physical advantages, but this is not necessarily true for dinosaurs.

 

I never said it was true for all dinosaurs troodonts in particular were not particularly specialized and some hominids were not weak or defenseless either...

Edited January 23, 2013 by Moontanman

[SamBridge]

 

No... I did not say that, you are putting words in my mouth, I said "troodonts did not leave any direct ancestors"

Ok well I didn't mean to "put words in your mouth" then.

 

No, while troodonts were indeed dinosaurs not all dinosaurs had the teeth and claws you mention, in fact troodonts were remarkably less well armed in that fashion than most other predatory dinosaurs...

So some of the later ones were rather smart which I agree with, but do you think a human would win in a fight with them? It's still 65 million or more years ago too, there just maybe not have been the time to develop such advanced thinking. If you only consider my logic and not the time, intelligent life should have developed almost right away, but it didn't because there's very low mutation rates for those specific things that actually lead to a better survival as a species, so even with environmental pressures, at that long ago it still could have been that no dinosaurs needed to be particularly smart because no dinosaur was that particularly smart of a hunter or that even with the environmental pressures, because of the higher temperature and larger abundance of plants there was enough resources to disregard that environmental pressure (to an extent), or that the mutations just didn't develop because they needed more time.

Edited January 23, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

Ok well I didn't mean to "put words in your mouth" then.

 

So some of the later ones were rather smart which I agree with, but do you think a human would win in a fight with them?

 

What has that to do with the idea of intelligent dinosaurs? In fact i think the idea that troodonts were so outclassed by the other predators of the time it supports my case, humans of today would lose in a struggle with hominids of 2 millions years ago as well...

 

It's still 65 million or more years ago too, there just maybe not have been the time to develop such advanced thinking. If you only consider my logic and not the time, intelligent life should have developed almost right away, but it didn't because there's very low mutation rates for those specific things that actually lead to a better survival as a species, so even with environmental pressures, at that long ago it still could have been that no dinosaurs needed to be particularly smart because no dinosaur was that particularly smart of a hunter or that even with the environmental pressures, because of the higher temperature and larger abundance of plants there was enough resources to disregard that environmental pressure (to an extent), or that the mutations just didn't develop because they needed more time.

 

 

I don't think you can support any of these notions much less the part I bolded...

[SamBridge]

 

What has that to do with the idea of intelligent dinosaurs? In fact i think the idea that troodonts were so outclassed by the other predators of the time it supports my case, humans of today would lose in a struggle with hominids of 2 millions years ago as well...

But this is the problem when this topic, there is no evidence to say for sure either way, even though it's a possibility we don't have enough evidence for it,. You'll just say "oh well this could have been the case" and I'll say "but that could have been the case" and then you'll say "but wait this could have been the case" and I'll say "but no wait, THIS could have really been the case" and it will just never end. The only thing we can agree on is that it's possible. It doesn't seem particularly likely, but I guess it doesn't seem particularly unlikely either.

Edited January 23, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

But this is the problem when this topic, there is no evidence to say for sure either way, even though it's a possibility we don't have enough evidence for it,. You'll just say "oh well this could have been the case" and I'll say "but that could have been the case" and then you'll say "but wait this could have been the case" and I'll say "but no wait, THIS could have really been the case" and it will just never end. The only thing we can agree on is that it's possible. It doesn't seem particularly likely, but I guess it doesn't seem particularly unlikely either.

 

I am well aware I am arguing from a virtually indefensible position, but I have gathered together enough information to say it is possible a species of dinosaur could have developed the intelligence to have some semblance of technology and it's entirely possible we have missed it in the fossil record so far.

 

I've laid my cards on the table, it's a weak hand but not necessarily a losing hand, at one time not that long ago it would have been crazy to have suggested such a thing, now it's just unlikely.

 

At one time the idea of continental drift was crazy, sadly the man who asserted it didn't live to see his ideas vindicated... I do not suggest i am of that caliber but i think I put together as good an argument as is possible at this time...

[SamBridge]

 

I am well aware I am arguing from a virtually indefensible position, but I have gathered together enough information to say it is possible a species of dinosaur could have developed the intelligence to have some semblance of technology and it's entirely possible we have missed it in the fossil record so far.

 

I've laid my cards on the table, it's a weak hand but not necessarily a losing hand, at one time not that long ago it would have been crazy to have suggested such a thing, now it's just unlikely.

 

At one time the idea of continental drift was crazy, sadly the man who asserted it didn't live to see his ideas vindicated... I do not suggest i am of that caliber but i think I put together as good an argument as is possible at this time...

Well if you find further evidence then by all means post it.

[Moontanman]

This is a more serious take on the idea than i expected, i am not the only person to make this connection, science, opinion, and fantasy...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_intelligence

This really isn't evidence but I think i might have to get this book...

 

 

http://askwhy.co.uk/books/wholiessleeping.htm

 

 

 

Mankind seems to suffer from an inability to recognize and understand what it is doing to its own environment. In this book Dr Magee considers the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago and shows that its symptoms were just the symptoms of the mass extinction which is occurring at present. Is it possible that the dinosaurs developed intelligence and destroyed themselves just as present day humans seem to be doing? The author examines the evidence in detail and shows that the dinosaurs gave every indication of being ready to become intelligent. Some species of dinosaur somewhere had all the attributes considered necessary for intelligence in the intelligent mammal. The latter has used its gift to begin the destruction of the world within 200 years of inventing technology. If the intelligent dinosaur had done the same, all that would remain of it in the fossil record would be an oily smear, polluted with heavy metals and exotic compounds. That is just what we find when the dinosaurs died.

[SamBridge]

This is a more serious take on the idea than i expected, i am not the only person to make this connection, science, opinion, and fantasy...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_intelligence

I'm sure dinosaurs were intelligent and given enough time they probably could have achieved stone age human technology and definitely made a stone spear (eventually), but eventually social abilities would have to take an effect on that. The science we achieved was only possible because there was not only specialization of workers but also a hierarchy that allowed people to not have to spend their life worrying about being attacked as well as complex and concise language that allowed ideas to be recorded and organized through thought, and I do not see dinosaurs having those advanced communication abilities even though I do see birds having the ability to eventually do it as well as Dolphins and Otters as they all have advanced communication skills and brains that are more apt to being social and exploring. But, I still don't think dinosaurs had spears at the time they went extinct even if they were "intelligent" enough to make them supposedly. Intelligence isn't the only factor, there also has to be an open mind in exploring things and imagining things as well, there are definitely smart animals like monitor lizards and tigers, but their intelligence is more for hunting things, not really exploring things, the intelligence they have isn't exactly equated to imagining a scenario, but rather that you do not have to consciously think what 2+3 is, you just automatically know almost as soon as you see it that 2+3=5, that's what many predators have only its with 3 dimensional locations and tracking of animals for hunting them down. So they are intelligent, but are they consciously investigating things like technology? I don't think so. Their brains are just smart and good for calculating how far away animals are and how to react to them and kill them and ect. This isn't to say they don't have consciousness, but without language they have no way to organize their conscious thoughts, for them it is just a collection of feelings and memories, and I suppose sometimes they can see logical connections without having to put them into words.

Edited January 23, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

I'm sure dinosaurs were intelligent and given enough time they probably could have achieved stone age human technology and definitely made a stone spear (eventually), but eventually social abilities would have to take an effect on that. The science we achieved was only possible because there was not only specialization of workers but also a hierarchy that allowed people to not have to spend their life worrying about being attacked as well as complex and concise language that allowed ideas to be recorded and organized through thought, and I do not see dinosaurs having those advanced communication abilities even though I do see birds having the ability to eventually do it as well as Dolphins and Otters as they all have advanced communication skills and brains that are more apt to being social and exploring. But, I still don't think dinosaurs had spears at the time they went extinct even if they were "intelligent" enough to make them supposedly. Intelligence isn't the only factor, there also has to be an open mind in exploring things and imagining things as well, there are definitely smart animals like monitor lizards and tigers, but their intelligence is more for hunting things, not really exploring things, the intelligence they have isn't exactly equated to imagining a scenario, but rather that you do not have to consciously think what 2+3 is, you just automatically know almost as soon as you see it that 2+3=5, that's what many predators have only its with 3 dimensional locations and tracking of animals for hunting them down. So they are intelligent, but are they consciously investigating things like technology? I don't think so. Their brains are just smart and good for calculating how far away animals are and how to react to them and kill them and ect. This isn't to say they don't have consciousness, but without language they have no way to organize their conscious thoughts, for them it is just a collection of feelings and memories, and I suppose sometimes they can see logical connections without having to put them into words.

 

 

Seriously, you think you can say how or what dinosaurs were capable or not of thinking? How can you assert they could not have been capable of language? Not capable of socialization? And I thought my position was indefensible...

[SamBridge]

 

 

Seriously, you think you can say how or what dinosaurs were capable or not of thinking? How can you assert they could not have been capable of language? Not capable of socialization? And I thought my position was indefensible...

I'm not saying they had 0 capacity for it, but given their environmental and adaptations it would not be particularly useful to their survival, it wouldn't have been an environmental pressure it seems. It's more just that as a whole, the dinosaur species did not have a need for being that highly developed throughout much of their history.

Edited January 23, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

I'm not saying they had 0 capacity for it, but given their environmental and adaptations it would not be particularly useful to their survival, it wouldn't have been an environmental pressure it seems. It's more just that as a whole, the dinosaur species did not have a need for being that highly developed throughout much of their history.

 

 

I really don't see how you can assert that either, in fact i would suggest that intelligence would be selected for in the face of such ravenous predators... IMHO bipedality sets the stage for technological intelligence, troodons and oviraptors would seem to be pre-evolved for intelligence and we know from the fossil record that intelligence develops rapidly once bidepality, lack of natural weapons, the ability to manipulate objects evolves.

[too-open-minded]

Dinosaurs may not have needed intelligence to survive. Although primates don't really need it either...

 

Hey look at us, were part of the primate order. Theirs still primitive primates running around, with a huge intellectual gap between us and them.

[SamBridge]

Dinosaurs may not have needed intelligence to survive. Although primates don't really need it either...

Primates such as strong apes may not need it, but weaker ones do, because they need to have complex social structures to work together, which requires heightened cognitive ability.

 

 

 

I really don't see how you can assert that either,

Yeah but you can't definitely assert anything you'r saying either, that's the only reason why I can't definitely assert what I'm saying is because the axioms you put in place were not definite to begin with. If you say "it's possible they could have", the only possible thing that could be done with that statement is estimating how likely it was and that's it, there is no possible more definite thing you can do with it.

Edited January 24, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

I suggested possibilities, you asserted speculation as forgone conclusions, big difference...

[SamBridge]

I suggested possibilities, you asserted speculation as forgone conclusions, big difference...

Well not all conclusions I made were speculation, whether you like it or not it is a fact that we have not observed or found any evidence of a dinosaur holding a spear. You say it's "possible", that's as good as you're going to get without at least some direct fossil evidence.

[too-open-minded]

I'm not saying their was a dinosaur species with intelligence to match that of a Homosapien or even Australopithecus. I'm just open to the idea that under the right evolutionary circumstances a dinosaur could evolve intelligence.