So They're Presumedly Smart

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Treeknocker, I'm not saying I would never eat snake. I may eat one but only if I've been in the bush for a few months without and if I get at least 30 lbs below my ideal weight. (only as a last resort and only after I ran out of mammals in other words) There's just too much other stuff to eat out there that doesn't "hiss" at you. You never know. There may come a day when I have a plate of snake and proclaim "MMMM good." I hope that day never arrives. Chris B.

[norseman]

Bigfoot Intelligence can not be defined in conventional terms. I see it this way; if we go to the Mall to shop, we can drive there, park, shop, and find our way around easily. Put a Bigfoot in the Mall (as long as no one pays him any mind), he's totally lost, has no idea what to do, and lord help us if he drove. Put most people in that same Mall deep in the woods, and do they know what to do, or how to survive? We are brilliant in our world, and he is brilliant in his.

Your ignoring the fact that humans mastered the woods FIRST, and then took steps to manipulate his environment so that his family can play in the waves in Alberta at some giant mall. It's a natural progression of technology from knowledge.

Some of our brothers we have left behind and they still reside in the deep jungles of the world. And just because we would consider them primitive they are still masters of their domain.

Bigfoot for what ever the reason does not have the intelligence required to be the top dog over humans, not in a mall and not in the forest. This isn't some egotistical power trip, it's just the facts. If Bigfoot had the upper hand in intelligence? He would be the master of his domain taking the choicest resources for himself and pushing humans to the fringe. We would have a situation that was akin to the planet of the apes.

People seem to think that it requires intelligence to be "good in the woods". Obviously for a human it is something that must be learned and practiced. But a cougar is certainly good in the woods, but if he could talk I doubt I'd get a very lively discussion with him, because he isn't intelligent. Most of what drives a cougar is instinct, and a small amount of observation of mom when young.

I'm sure a Bigfoot has the mental capacity of Koko, you can sign a very simple conversation with her, but your not going to get into a mean game of chess with her. And ultimately that is what the game of survival is all about, it's a chess match.

Ultimately I think it's human nature to assign our attributes and feelings onto animals, something akin to the movie Bambi, it's just not realistic though.

[norseman]

Why equate the need to be the dominant species with intelligence? Dominance can occur from intelligence if there is a selective pressure for it but would BF need to dominante the planet to be quite intelligent?

I would see this as a natural progression to his intelligence yes. Maybe he wouldn't be building pyramids and sailing ships at first, but I'd **** sure bet he would use that intelligence to have the choicest fishing spots on the river. If by his intelligence he is securing the best resources for his offspring? Eventually the species is going to grow and continue to dominate resources, and in time who knows?

Ultimately this is the story of humans, but if it hadn't been us, I have little doubt another hominoid would have filled the niche.

[norseman]

That's just one of hundreds of conquests over indigenous peoples in the Americas to which I was referring, Huntster. I did not imply that Cortes used biological warfare, I was writing more generally.

More to the point though, it appears that you are correct and I was perpetuating something of an urban legend with my comment about "intentional" spread of smallpox among Native Americans at the hands of the advancing power (in this case, the U.S. military). Thanks to your objection, I did some research and agree that it looks as though such events never happened. I want to express my apologies to the BFF for spreading misinformation about that issue. We all owe Huntster a debt of gratitude for keeping me honest about that and helping debunk a bunk belief held by a lot of people.

Back on topic, human technology trumps animal intelligence and comfort in the animal's environment. If you don't like the example among humans, whales are potentially every bit as smart as we are - perhaps smarter - and they do have complex abilities (using infrasound for example or finding food through echolocation) that are foreign and in many ways more advanced than anything we can do. They also swim a lot better than we do. But our technology allowed us to conquer them - so much so that we used them for lighting dressing rooms so dressmaids could see what they were doing as they laced whalebone corsets of fashionable, tiny-waisted ladies.

No I think you were correct.

http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/bioterrorism/00intro02.htm

[Guest]

Treeknocker, I'm not saying I would never eat snake. I may eat one but only if I've been in the bush for a few months without and if I get at least 30 lbs below my ideal weight. (only as a last resort and only after I ran out of mammals in other words) There's just too much other stuff to eat out there that doesn't "hiss" at you. You never know. There may come a day when I have a plate of snake and proclaim "MMMM good." I hope that day never arrives. Chris B.

Now that there no matter who you are... that was funny lol. Good one Chris Hey I may feel the same way about it.. I still have not tried it and you know, that is ok by me lol.

[Guest]

No I think you were correct.

http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/bioterrorism/00intro02.htm

As a matter of fact, the small pox virus is one of those that can live for decades outside of a host if left undisturbed. They did not have the germ theory back then but even folks in the middle ages knew to burn blankets and clothing of plague victims.

[Guest]

The problem here is that we humans are only able to measure intelligence by our own yardstick, we can't fully relate to anything else even though we try. We simply do not have bigfoot's yardstick to provide us a view of their insight or intellect or thought processes.

They probably even have a few abilities and advantages we can't even comprehend, and because we don't, or don't want to understand, we will always be wanting. Sure, we recognize their ability to camouflage themselves well. We know they are stealthy, fast, elusive, big. But it takes more then these basic skills to continually remain one step ahead of us. This is where our limits of understanding cease, and their unrecognized abilities enable them to run circles around us begin. We can't even maturely discuss controversial topics such as telepathy as an explanation, when even our government and universities have spent millions trying to understand that phenomenon they recognize exists. The funny thing is, that single topic may provide the answers we seek, and yet we don't go there because it is not a measure of our own 'yardstick' we grew up with. Well just because most humans don't have certain skills, doesn't mean some animals don't. I for one listen to my senses when I get the feeling I'm being watched. That's just a sliver of what they may be capable of. That may be edge they have on us but its up to us to grow if we want to comprehend it.

It is probably even why it becomes self defeating to go out there with the intent of trying to capture them on film with even our high technology. Yet when an encounter begins with them being curious about an individual, it usually ends with them realizing that person can't be trusted because he/she ends up trying to trick them. And yet we repeatedly see this happen and we don't understand why. What else could logically give them an edge on a regular basis? Researcher after researcher has come to this conclusion that they figured out we betrayed them. I too came to this conclusion in my field work so I don't do this like I used to. There is ample personal satisfaction with having encounters over getting some footage to prove their existence. Why do we think this same conclusion happens to many researchers if they were just some animal? Respecting them for their right to exist is kinda where our realization of their true intelligence begins.

[Guest]

Here, we can use dolphins and whales as a comparison since they are known animals and brain anatomy and physiology has been documented:

Scientists Say Dolphins Should Be Considered ‘Persons’

Scientists say that dolphins as a species are significantly smarter than chimpanzees, so smart that they should be classified as “non-human persons†— making it deeply unethical to keep them in amusement parks or inadvertently kill them in fishing operations.

Until recently, dolphins were placed third among animals in intelligence (behind humans and chimps). However, new behavioral studies suggests that dolphins are smarter than previously believed. How smart? From the U.K.’s Times:

Dolphins have distinct personalities, a strong sense of self and can think about the future.

Dolphins can solve difficult problems, and those in the wild cooperate in ways that imply complex social structures and a high level of emotional sophistication. It has also become clear that they are “cultural†animals.

Bottlenose dolphins [can] recognize themselves in a mirror and use it to inspect various parts of their bodies, an ability that had been thought limited to humans and great apes.

http://www.disinfo.com/2010/01/scientists-say-dolphins-should-be-considered-persons/

Also here is an older article that had relevant info about whale and dolphin brain structure and function. I only included the pertinent info regarding intelligence here. I think current research questions the relevance of brain size and IQ tests but there is still some good info here.

The PARAGON OF ANIMALS: REFLECTIONS OF THE HUMAN PERCEPTION OF INTELLIGENCE

Paul Watson

Ocean Realm, Autumn 1997

The mammalian brain is a complex layering of evolutionary processes that reflects hundreds of millions of years of progressive development. The billions of electrochemical interactions within this complex organ define consciousness, awareness, emotion, vision, recognition, sound, touch, smell, personality, intuition, instinct, and intelligence.

Comparing human intelligence to animals

Neocortex development is an accurate indicator of the evolutionary process of intelligence - in addition to differentiation, neural connectivity and complexity, sectional specialization, and internal structure. All these factors help us compare intelligence between species.

The much larger supralimbic lobe is primarily association cortex. Unlike humans, in cetaceans sensory and motor function control is spread outside the supralimbic, leaving more brain area for associative purposes.

Are cetaceans’ brains superior to humans’ brains?

Comparisons of synaptic geometry, dendritic field density and neural connectivity reveal that the cetacean brain is superior to the human brain. In addition, the centralization and differentiation of the individual cerebral areas are higher than the human brain.

Humans have the rhinic, limbic, and supralimbic, with the neocortex covering the surface of the supralimbic. However, with cetaceans we see a radical evolutionary jump with the inclusion of a fourth cortical lobe, giving a four-fold lamination that is morphologically the most significant differentiation between cetaceans and all other cranially evolved mammals, including humans. No other species has ever had four separate cortical lobes.

Sight in humans is a space-oriented distance sense which gives us complex simultaneous information in the form of analog pictures with poor time discrimination. By contrast, our auditory sense has poor space perception but good time discrimination. This results in human languages being comprised of fairly simple sounds arranged in elaborate temporal sequences. The cetacean auditory system is primarily spatial, more like human eyesight, with great diversity of simultaneous information and poor time discrimination. For this reason, dolphin language consists of very complex sounds perceived as a unit. What humans may need hundreds of sounds strung together to communicate, the dolphin may do in one sound. To understand us, they would have to slow down their perception of sounds to an incredibly boring degree. It is for this reason that dolphins respond readily to music. Human music is more in tune with dolphin speech.

Utilizing their skill at echo-location with elaborate detailed mental images of what they "see" through auditory channels, dolphins may be able to recreate and transmit images to each other. Imagine being able to see into another person's body, being able to see the flow of blood, the workings of the organs, and the flow of air into the lungs. Cetaceans can do this through echo-location. A dolphin can see a tumor inside the body of another dolphin. If an animal is drowning, this becomes instantly recognizable from being able to "see" the water filling the lungs. Even more amazing is that emotional states can be instantly detected. These are species incapable of deception, whose emotional states are open books to each other.

Brain-to-Body ratio

Japan claims that brain-to-body ratio that is an indication of intelligence. They claim that the large brain size of the whale is relative to the mass of its body. However most of its body is blubber and requires little interaction by the brain. Besides, if brain-to-body ratio indicates intelligence, the hummingbird would be the world's most intelligent animal.

Brain size in itself, however, is important, and the largest brains ever developed on this planet belong to whales. More important is the quality of the brain tissue. With four lobes, greater, more pronounced neocortex convolutions, and superior size, the brain of the sperm whale at 9,000 cc or the orca at 6,000 cc are the paragons of brain evolution on the Earth. By contrast, the human brain is 1,300 cc.

How humans judge intelligence

For us, technology is intelligence. Intelligence is not a naked creature swimming freely, eating fish, and singing in the sea. We measure intelligence based on the abilities we as a species excel at such as hand-to-eye coordination. We make tools and weapons, manufacture vehicles and construct buildings. We use our brains to focus our eyes to guide our hands to force our environment to conform to our desires or our will.

Whales cannot or do not do any of the things we expect intelligent creatures to do. They do not build cars or spaceships, nor can they manage investment portfolios. However, cetaceans have built-in abilities like sonar that put our electronic sonar devices to shame. Sperm whales have even developed a sonic raygun, so to speak, allowing them to stun prey from a head filled with spermaceti oil to amplify and project a sonic blast.

The whale is an organic submarine. All of its technology is internal and organic. We as humans cannot begin to compare our elaborate intelligence to the complex intelligence of other creatures whose brains or nerves are designed for completely different functions in radically different environments. Whales have biologically evolved what we utilize technology to achieve. Technology is something that the whales have never needed. They contain all the assets needed for survival and development within their massive bodies and formidable brains.

IQ Comparisons

If we look at the comparative intelligences of species strictly on cortical structural development alone, we can assign an average associative score relative to human intelligence. Let's assign the average human brain a score of 100. This is the number we consider average on human Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests. Based on associative skills as defined by the physiological structure of the comparative brains, we will find that a dog scores about fifteen, and a chimpanzee around thirty-five. These are scores that are comfortably within our understanding of intelligence. Based upon comparisons of cortical structure alone, a sperm whale would score 2,000.

According to Pilleri and Gihr, dolphins, toothed whales, and primates have the most highly differentiated brains of all mammals, with especially Amazonian dolphins having higher levels than primates. Cetaceans are the most specialized mammalian order on the planet. Humans may be the paramount tool-makers of the Earth, but the whale may be the paramount thinker.

Other parameters of intelligence

Intelligence can also be measured by the ability to live in harmony with one's own ecology and to recognize the limitations placed on each species by the needs of an ecosystem. Is the species that dwells peacefully within its habitat with respect for the rights of other species the one that is inferior? Or is it the species that wages a holy war against its habitat, destroying all species that irritate it? What can be said of a species that reproduces beyond the ability of its habitat to support it? What do we make of a species that destroys the diversity that sustains the ecosystem that nourishes it? How is a species to be judged that fouls its water and poisons its own food? On the other hand, how is a species that has lived harmoniously within the boundaries of its ecology to be judged?

[bipedalist]

Ok, I'm trying to post this comment for about the 20th time, must be some kind of test, but I"m about ready to kick the server to the curb!

Apparently porcine and dolphine intelligence are pretty impressive but the phrase memory like an elephant still rules Octopus is just below parrot and elephant apparently.

[Guest]

Same point I made above: Why is it intelligent for humans to build skyscrapers? I suppose because you can house a lot of people/offices in there. What good would it do a bigfoot to build a skyscraper? I think it would be stupid for them to build skyscrapers actually! Why would they waste their time to build one if they could just sleep in the woods? (Again, not that I think they COULD build one!)

They do not make fire. That we know about.

[Guest Blackdog]

They can light cigarettes according to at least one poster on this board.

[Guest]

I personally do not believe them to be intelligent enough to know that their own behavior is being dictated by survival of the fittest scenarios. What I mean by this is that they probably do not understand why they do certain things and so place blame externally.

This can be a big plus for researchers in that if we can develop a reasonable model for specific behaviors of the animal, we might be able to predict certain occurrences happening, that they themselves would be helpless to prevent. I am not talking about being in such and such a place the week of such and such, but more like - these three areas have had activity during a specific time of year and what they all have in common is such and such. By placing resources at these three locations during that time, and monitoring what is common between them, it may be possible to encounter one. These three places would have to be in close proximity to one another to be considered part of a singular individuals range, and thus a singular individuals behavioral pattern. I feel the model for these animals (that is what I think they are) can be developed from the other great apes, with behavioral inclusions from comparable life strategies, those large mammals of a more local variety (such as bears).

If this is an animal, it is probably a primate and primates are quick learners, equipped with the necessary equipment (hands) to manipulate it's environment, and often times learning from other species as how to better take advantage of presented opportunities (for instance the same can be said for bears learning to take advantage of garbage dumps, of course without the aide of hands.)

Attributing more intelligence to them then need be to explain documented observed behavior is nothing but being romantic about them. They do not exhibit a language, tool use or building practice that can be for certain claimed attributable to them and that we recognized as such. Family unit observations are very infrequent, with some barely cohesive enough to even be compared as such. I think they are probably more intelligent than a bear or dog, but that is the extent of it.

Edited March 21, 2011 by damndirtyape

[Guest]

DDA, your advice is what I'd give to those who don't want to ever see one. That or going on a ++++ Expedition. Seeing one is often a privilege they grant us. But to understand that, it requires recognizing their intelligence and capacity for being sentient. Have you ever wondered why you've never seen one in all these years of searching? That is correct right? Besides that, they are probably upset with you for purporting them as an elk's arse.

Edited March 21, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist

[BobZenor]

I seriously doubt they are as smart as modern humans at what we generally call intelligence. It would be foolish to not assume that they are probably much more aware of themselves and their actions than any other animal in North America. It would also be reasonable to assume that they have deductive skills far greater than any other animal at least in North America. Those skills could probably be described as situational awareness. Humans have mastered that way beyond any other animal so I don't think it is likely they are as aware as we are.

In their environment, they should be perfectly capable of things like evading people for the most part. They are probably closer to people than any other animal so it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that they are very likely much more intelligent than a chimp. A chimp can learn a great deal about its environment mainly by learning from other chimps. I would expect the same from them. They are probably extremely aware of what goes on in their territory. They would probably have learned a very large number of food sources and how to get them, that sort of thing. That would be learned by experience and culture or the parent/parents teaching them. It might even extend beyond parents to other sasquatch passing down knowledge. How well they do that is really the biggest question to me or how good are their communications skills. Modern humans probably got to the position of dominance chiefly because we developed language to the point where we could pass down the knowledge of a huge number of people going back hundreds of thousands of years. We were able to continuously build on previous knowledge. We also apparently got smarter but it is an open question how much smarter we are than some human that live over a million years ago. They weren't primitive just because they were dumb. They also lived in a culture that hadn't figured out many of things that make modern society possible. I doubt we are significantly more intelligent than some guy a hundred thousand years ago whose idea of modern life was living in a cave and didn't even know how to make a bow and arrow. Sasquatch probably doesn't have our level of communication skills but it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume they might have communication skills far beyond any other animal.

[Guest]

I seriously doubt they are as smart as modern humans at what we generally call intelligence. It would be foolish to not assume that they are probably much more aware of themselves and their actions than any other animal in North America. It would also be reasonable to assume that they have deductive skills far greater than any other animal at least in North America. Those skills could probably be described as situational awareness. Humans have mastered that way beyond any other animal so I don't think it is likely they are as aware as we are.

In their environment, they should be perfectly capable of things like evading people for the most part. They are probably closer to people than any other animal so it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that they are very likely much more intelligent than a chimp. A chimp can learn a great deal about its environment mainly by learning from other chimps. I would expect the same from them. They are probably extremely aware of what goes on in their territory. They would probably have learned a very large number of food sources and how to get them, that sort of thing. That would be learned by experience and culture or the parent/parents teaching them. It might even extend beyond parents to other sasquatch passing down knowledge. How well they do that is really the biggest question to me or how good are their communications skills. Modern humans probably got to the position of dominance chiefly because we developed language to the point where we could pass down the knowledge of a huge number of people going back hundreds of thousands of years. We were able to continuously build on previous knowledge. We also apparently got smarter but it is an open question how much smarter we are than some human that live over a million years ago. They weren't primitive just because they were dumb. They also lived in a culture that hadn't figured out many of things that make modern society possible. I doubt we are significantly more intelligent than some guy a hundred thousand years ago whose idea of modern life was living in a cave and didn't even know how to make a bow and arrow. Sasquatch probably doesn't have our level of communication skills but it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume they might have communication skills far beyond any other animal.

I tend to agree with this too Bob, but I cannot help but wonder what the extent is regarding the possible communication skills.. which seems to be an interesting controversial subject. Interesting that we are where we are with them Another question might be the variety they show in their development... if their distribution is even half that suggested by the great Mangini (lol... I just enjoy saying that) then the options for variation in their habits and behavior should be wonderful to analyze.