norseman Posted October 8, 2014 Admin Posted October 8, 2014 The comment that I took exception to was that greater technology aka intelligence does not make a being superior......nothing could be farther from the truth. It's why we are here and Neanderthals are not. It's why we give our students tests, and why those that score low become ditch diggers. And it's why if we got into a show down with a civilization a million years older than ours? We would lose..... So back into the context of this thread, if your looking for physical evidence of Bigfoot? Best of luck! If your looking for physical evidence of aliens? (Biological or otherwise) Your either delusional or on a death wish. 1
hiflier Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) Hello All, There is a difference here that needs mention. Intelligence is a capacity for learning and comprehension. ALL creatures have great intelligence. It's all in how it's applied. Technological superiority requires intelligence yes, BUT it's the application that makes the difference. Humans are smarter- not necessarily more intelligent. Crows can be taught to talk. Chimpanzees can be taught to do many things that Humans do. Sometimes it's only the physical restraints of body design that limits functioning as Humans. Are there limits to brain function? Sure. But having an intelligence capacity to function in a given environment won't ensure survival. Having the capacity to LEARN the environment and it's dangers will though. Being smart is learning the tools necessary for survival. Being intelligent allows the learning process to take hold. It has a lot to do with recall, plugging different experiences together and solving problems. Intelligence is the capacity to perform and remember what one learns. Edited October 8, 2014 by hiflier
Guest DWA Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 We are all winners! Give everyone a gold participation medal. Welll....I may be, um, kinda superior...given, um, these statistics, here...
Guest Divergent1 Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 So you think a shrew's brain function is on par with ours because it's a mammal ? https://www.ted.com/talks/robert_sapolsky_the_uniqueness_of_humans http://brainmuseum.org/functions/ Yes I do, functionality developed early on in our evolution. I don't think technology is a reflection of any type of superiority. Instead, I think of it as a handicap because it has prevented us from adapting to the planet that we live on. This makes our species extremely vulnerable should we lose our technological abilities because the majority of us don't have the instincts or physical ability to survive without them. By the way, have you, or anyone else here ever read any of Robert Sapolsky's books? I have, and I'm a big fan, but in the context of this discussion his viewpoint seems to reaffirm my opinion rather than discount the point I'm attempting to make. That point is that if you presetned an alien or bigfoot with a shrew and a human, which do you think would be thought of as superior from their perspective? I don't think we can know that answer until we know what a bigfoot or alien is and I don't think by applying our own theory of mind, or theory of secondary mind, to predict what either entity is thinking would work very well for us humans.
Guest Divergent1 Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 The comment that I took exception to was that greater technology aka intelligence does not make a being superior......nothing could be farther from the truth. It's why we are here and Neanderthals are not. It's why we give our students tests, and why those that score low become ditch diggers. And it's why if we got into a show down with a civilization a million years older than ours? We would lose..... So back into the context of this thread, if your looking for physical evidence of Bigfoot? Best of luck! If your looking for physical evidence of aliens? (Biological or otherwise) Your either delusional or on a death wish. We don't know exactly why Neanderthals died out. By your own admission, you think the level of technology indicates the level of intelligence of a species. Neanderthals had a very similar level of technology to that of Homo Sapiens. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2616071/Neanderthals-wiped-INTERBREEDING-not-lack-intelligence.html I don't think it's appropriate for you to say that low test scorers are doomed to become ditch diggers. I personally have school friends that barely graduated from high school who never attended college that are doing very well for themselves in the business world so I don't think the school yardstick really applies for judging human intelligence. There are several types of intelligence and those with better social skills tend to do better in life regardless of IQ, that includes animals too. Unfortunately our high tech culture tends to promote socially unacceptable behavior. http://sites.duke.edu/ihss/files/2011/12/IRW-Literature-Reviews-Deviance-and-the-Internet.pdf A confrontation with an alien species with better technology than ours is not a guarantee that we would end up being the loser, It depends on how they think, what kind of creature they evolved from that enables them to cope here, how well we might understand their technology, and a million other variables as to whether we would be overpowered. http://natgeotv.com/uk/alien-invasion/what-would-happen-if I'm not looking for evidence of either but there are other people who are very certain that evidence for both aliens and bigfoot exist.
Guest Divergent1 Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 Here are what some scientists have to say about the alien issue, and not just any aliens, but those from planets that are similar to Earth. By our human standards the scientists in this article do meet the criteria for being intelligent. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2014/05/24/aliens-exist-and-will-be-found-pretty-soon-say-scientists/
Cotter Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 VERY cool Divergent!! From the article, sums it up nicely! "So there you have it. Aliens by 2034."
georgerm Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 (edited) Welll....I may be, um, kinda superior...given, um, these statistics, here... That's really good DWA..................best comment yet. You guys are all right, and it just depends on what side of the coin that you look on. Some say a coin is heads, while another says no, a coin is tails. Who is right? Intelligence has been defined in many different ways such as in terms of one's capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity and problem solving. It can also be more generally described as the ability to perceive and/or retain knowledge or information and apply it to itself or other instances of knowledge or information creating referable understanding models of any size, density, or complexity, due to any conscious or subconscious imposed will or instruction to do so. Back to the real question: "...................We see today far more UFO shots than ever before which coincides well with the development of camera availability..................The Bigfoot phenomenon hasn't given the expected surge in pictorial data. " My opinion is bigfoot is either hiding better, migrating to Canada, or perishing. UFOs are easy to spot while BF is not. Fewer people are entering the woods. However, as Norseman said, we have lots of BF UTube Vidoes showing up today. Below is a shocker and introduction to a possible agreement made between our government back in 1952, and the grey alien race. This also explains why we have more sightings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sG5RS-99mM Edited October 11, 2014 by georgerm
Guest Divergent1 Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 I could have sent a PM to Norseman but thought I would eat my words here. Evidently we are pretty special, not just because we are more intelligent than other species but because the change happened so fast. http://www.hhmi.org/news/human-brain-evolution-was-special-event Perhaps aliens tinkered with our genome for some reason? No other species shows the same rapid rate of evolutionary change that we do, that is just weird. If it was an environmental cause then it should have affected other primates that are genetically close to us like the chimps and orangutans. I guess I never gave it much thought until I got here. If nothing else, it's the possibility of bigfoot's exitence that seems to inadverdently lead you to question other things such as your own species existence.
Teegunn Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 Being superior in a specialized way doesn't make a lesser, obviously less intelligent lifeform more intelligent. Most animals are vastly less intelligent than humans, but in their way, how their bodies are designed, and how their instincts are wired, they can be better at surviving or doing certain specialized situations. But that doesn't mean they are more intelligent, just better adapted at a specialized survival mechanism. On top of that, superior intellect is not just survival, but all the forms of deeper think and awareness that no other species has shown to have on a level near to humans. Overall, homo sapiens is by far the top of the food chain of intelligence as we know it in about every metric. Sure, our technology, which is a large sign of our superior intellect, CAN be a crutch if we suddenly lose our tech in some kind of world tragedy. But there are still plenty of humans who are not so dependent upon technology to live. And humans can adapt very quickly. This just isn't even a debate - as far as we know - there is no more intelligent species.
Guest Divergent1 Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 I did some more reading and now they are saying that environmental factors aren't necessarily responsible for genetic adaptation. Using humans as an example of this, once we created a fairly stable society where we were interdependant on food production and basic needs that environmental pressure to adapt was missing. They attribute the rapid rate of genetic mutation to the population explosion over the last 10,000 years. More people seemed to allow the mutations to be passed on, one of those being an increased resistance to bacterial infection and other immune factors other than just intelligence. However, with every useful mutation there are also less usefull adaptations like diabetes, heart diseaese, and certain mental illnesses like autism and ADHD. IMO I think the increase in the average life span might have something to do with the development of diabetes and heart diseaese. We might have died before the aging process and the results of years of bad diet and sedentary habits kicked in. As for autism and ADHD, I never heard of either until the last 20 years and that might be a maladaptive response to increased reliance on technology. It might have always been there but because we weren't put in a high tech environment we just never noticed the behavior.
Guest Divergent1 Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 Sorry for the side track, as for video of either bigfoot or UFO's, if you aren't expecting to see either one chances are you won't notice them to take a picture. I wonder how many bigfoot have been mistaken for bear and UFO's as meteors?
Guest DWA Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 It's far more likely, in fact, to do those two things than it is to do the reverse. Bigfoot and UFO reports are, in fact, about the best places to see that what people invariably do is see something they are unsure of, and make an extreme, sometimes illogical effort - bipedal bear with humanlike gait, no snout and hands? - to pigeonhole it into their inventory of knowns.
Guest Divergent1 Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 I'm not sure how you would go about demonstrating that's what's happening for either type of sighting.
Guest DWA Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Nope, there isn't any way to prove that. The sightings aren't proof. But it does handle the easy objection that people are just hallucinating or mistaking this. This isn't the kind of thing anyone can really use as an explanation. Unless, now, they can actually prove that. Which no one is going to do, if no one has done it yet. In fact, a common skeptical objection to being asked to prove their proposition is that there is no way to do it. No one can do anything with sightings other than prove - by following them up - that they lead to (1) a comprehensive false positive or (2) an unlisted animal. Neither of these things can be determined without the kind of field effort the mainstream seems unwilling to apply. But the patterns evident in sightings seem to make (2) the more likely option. Unless people's hallucinations and misidentifications are following biogeographical rules and creating a plausible ecological profile of a temperate-zone omnivorous primate.
Recommended Posts