So They're Presumedly Smart

[Guest]

Look, I've had my run-ins with WTB1, we've sparred a time or two. But why does it so often come to this? It's sorta like the schoolyard boast "Mine's bigger than yours" (whatever it might be).

Oh, and fwiw, I'm an old hunter who has spent plenty of time in the woods, camping, fishing, and communing with nature. But if one can't respond to points made by a poster without the 'ole canard of time spent in the woods, then you're not truly engaging in the discussion.

My humble opinion only.

Must agree, Yes, I do have an opinion (and an ass too)

I don't care if your'e Grizzly Adams, or Jerry Stienfeld, the stuff being offered as "proof" is...well, you know

[Guest tracker]

They're not modern man type of smart. You can't look at it that way. It's survival intelligence and adaptivity. How would most of us fare in their world for an extended time without our tech and outside help? Immagine trying to live in the deep back country of YNP for an entire year alone? Only 5% of us would survive, so whats that say about the rest of us?

[Guest Joey Kay]

Humans are dumb, without teaching and passing of knowledge we'd be real stupid. Humans are just good at taking in information. It really depends what you class as intelligence aswell, it just seems like the more you can remember they more clever you are now days. But ive met some highly intelligent men that cant even interact with females without getting all flustered, they start stumbling and they go from a genius to retard in a space of seconds. Humans rarly have to use their natural instincts at all in todays day and age, someone who can act on their natural instincts in the correct way is intelligent in my eyes. Todays society has got everything messed up, everythings too easy and its surpressing all our natural feelings. humans have their brain stimulated pretty much all day whether it be being on the computer, watching TV, advertisements every where, brigth colours/lights. It just doesnt feel right. Go to the countryside, jungle, where ever and just take in nature and you feel normal, like thats how your meant to feel, how you should feel. Thats the BF in us trying to get out. Were pretty much stuck in a dream world. I dont know why this is, why we've evolved like this. Whether it be some sort of extra terrestail intervention, or some sort of world event. In my eyes BF is the original human, how we should be. They're probably wayyyyyyyyyyy more intelligent then humans,just in a completly different way. BF and modern humans are at complete different ends of the spectrum, they know and are capable of things we could probably only imagine. Same with humans, BF will never be able to accomplish somethings we have like make a microwave.I hope I made some sense, Im not to great at articulating myslef.

[MagniAesir]

I think if you take the average person out into the wilderness, drop them off and expect them to survive, their survival time is likely measured in days. Chris B.

That has nothing to do with intelligence.

You can take just about any able bodied person and teach them the skills necessary to live in the wild.

If you took an inuit that lived a traditional life-style and stuck him in the amazon they would probably not last long. The same if the situation was reversed with an amazonian tribesman, however an inuit could be taught to survive in the amazon.

Intelligence and learning are not the same

Edited November 12, 2010 by MagniAesir

[Guest]

So the general discussion seems to center around two concepts so far:

A. Humans are smarter because we can make tools and have created vast technological wonders and complex civilizations.

vs.

B. Bigfoot is just as smart if not smarter because they are canny survivors in the wilderness, adept at living in the wild, without the need of tools and technology, and yet, facing great adversity, continue to live and reproduce. Bigfoot lives (from a philosphical view) in a very admirable, romantic, and simple way. Their simple wild life is to be admired, according to this viewpoint.

Here is another "nut" to throw out:

Perhaps their ability to survive IS the standard by which we should measure intelligence/smarts. But that argument has a very dark, double edge.

Humans have been BY FAR the ultimate survivors currently on the planet. The measure of our intelligence and success is our domination of the planet. For good or ill, we humans have out-foxed or destroyed other competition (BF likely included, in addition to Erectus, Neanderthal, and any other human or humanoid or primate) to be the ultimate controllers of this planet. That would seem to cinch the argument that humans are more intelligent than BF. We have been smart enough to dominate and destroy our way to the top. Whether that bites us on the behind is ultimately yet to be seen. But if BF were smarter, then likely, humans would not dominate the planet as we do.There is no arguing that humans have been the most successful species currently living on the planet, and that makes us smarter than BF, no matter what romantic notions about living close to nature any of us hold, myself included. BF survivors may still have the last laugh, but the way things are going, they (if they exist) will be gone before we eradicate ourselves. Bigfoot numbers in the thousands (maybe) vs. humans at over 6 Billion. Seems pretty clear whose intellect allowed them to dominate.

[BobbyO]

Lot of assumptions there. Number one, we don't know if BF even exists.

Who's we ??

Anyway, back to the question, i don't think the could build a Skyscraper & i doubt they are more intelligent than Man in every sector BUT being, living & surviving in a Forest..

[Guest]

Bigfoot numbers in the thousands (maybe) vs. humans at over 6 Billion. Seems pretty clear whose intellect allowed them to dominate.

Well that

6 Billion

doesn't seem all that clever to me.

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

Edited November 12, 2010 by Ilikebluepez

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

That has nothing to do with intelligence.

You can take just about any able bodied person and teach them the skills necessary to live in the wild.

If you took an inuit that lived a traditional life-style and stuck him in the amazon they would probably not last long. The same if the situation was reversed with an amazonian tribesman, however an inuit could be taught to survive in the amazon.

Intelligence and learning are not the same

I agree. I just wanted to point out that although humans are pretty smart, we've traded our skills of survival in nature for a different sort of life choice. Obviously we could relearn some of the skills needed to survive in nature but these creatures (if you think they may exist) are clearly smarter than us about survival/stealth. The whole "smart" thing largely depends on how each individual wants to look at it. Any way you look at it, you have to give the creatures this much: Of all the people looking for them, they seem to have remained unfound by most, and that's pretty smart of them in my book. Great topic!

Chris B.

[Incorrigible1]

This has devolved into a ridiculous discussion between those that think humans are the scourge of the earth and those that are compelled to defend their species.

It's just silly.

[Guest]

This thread is too silly for me. I neveer should have chimed in on it, and won't any longer.

[Guest]

We didn't survive as a species based on intelligence. We survived as a species because we reproduce at a very rapid rate and can mate at any time of the month or year. No other species can do that.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Jodie

[Guest]

We didn't survive as a species based on intelligence. We survived as a species because we reproduce at a very rapid rate and can mate at any time of the month or year. No other species can do that.

I suggest you do some reading on animal gestation periods and then get back to us.

[Guest]

Discussions regarding the nature of intelligence as it is expressed and observed is frought with problematic perspectives due to our personal perceptions of just what it ("intelligence") is. This is true whether the subject is animal or human intelligence, and has been for centuries or longer, though these days the modern understanding of neurobiology and other related findings are giving us something objective on which to speculate when it comes to the nature of intelligence and possibly regarding that mysterious quality called the "theory of mind".

If BF are real, and as most members here will agree, are derived from some kind of primate probably in the human lineage, we do at least have the fossil record available from which we can show that a key trait is the relatively large brain those human lineage derived ancestors have been measured having. Certainly, the human brain is larger than other animials (adjusted for size), whether clever clever whitetailed deer or oh-so smart wolves or leopards, and even larger than the other great apes. By the time our ancestral lineage was producing craniums that exceded by a considerable amount the capacities of chimps, gorillas and orangutans, those ancestors were already living bipedally, socially and creating stone tools far beyond what other living known species of great apes are reported to be able to do.

The enlarged brain of the human genus is of course significant, but what has come to light lately has been the role that a previously poorly understood component of the enlarged human brain,(but not all that significant in the brains of other animals) a kind of neurological substance called "white matter", present in large amounts as a layer between the inner and outer regions of the brain and in contrast to this well known 'gray matter. White matter's presumed contribution to its owner's ability to both think and act with sufficient deliberation and control is being studied and something of an understanding is emerging, correlating with human behaviors and capabilities which are rarely seen in other animals. So the large brain not only allows for more connections and therfore more complexity but it also supports a significant amount of white matter that is largely absent in chimps and other so-called intelligent animals and we can presume accounts for some of the enlarged brains of our presumed extinct ancestral predecessors.

This white matter was largely seen in previous neurobiology as a kind of bulk insulator as it wraps itself around the nerve cells which we have seen as the hard wiring, but that insulative white matter when finally present in large enough quantities as in a human brain, and presumably in the brains of h. habilis (650cc), and h. erectus (1000cc) and h. neanderthalis (1500cc) before h. sapiens, seemingly becomes critical to our ability to use our muscles as we do, with finer and unprecedented degrees of control, as well as the aforementioned capacity called "the theory of mind", which is almost exclusively a property of humans, even humans with relatively low mental capacity (such as those with impaired cognitive development or similarly even 3 year olds) and yet is almost totally absent in any other animal except as singular examples of instinctive behavior).

Coincidentally, this white matter is also instrumental in how our brain controlls the ability of our muscles to act smoothly with fine controlland restrains them from using their full power, a trait that chimps don't seem to be burdened with and hence their seemingly super-human strength, on an order that we humans can only express when the brain is subjected to either chemical (adrenal) or electrical shock, at which time we too can express super-human strenth and indiference to pain.

My point here is that BF, if they exist and were derived from the human lineage, may have a human kind of brain, with significant white matter but perhaps not so much as modern h. sapiens, and so perhaps posessing a 'theory of mind' beyond it's innate intelligence and yet able to express its muscles with strength comparable to the other great apes.

Anyhow, sorry for the long post, and hope that it contributes something to better understanding how an intelligent animal (intelligent like a human and not just 'smarter than your average bear' kind of intelligence) could conceivable remain elusive using it's "theory of mind", and beyond what even the most cleaver and elusive animal achieves. Cheers.

[Guest]

To be looking directly at something, only to blink and have it disappear from sight is hard to hang on to or explain.

It's actually quite easy to explain. The thing the person was looking at before he/she blinked wasn't actually there before the blink either.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

It's actually quite easy to explain. The thing the person was looking at before he/she blinked wasn't actually there before the blink either.

That could be a possible explanation except it doesn't work for remaining footprints and or photographs/video captured. Chris B.