Tribal stage and weaponry

[Raggs]

We haven't found all the dinosaurs ever to exist. An intelligent species would have a good chance of doing something significant with their corpses, probably reducing the already small chances of fossilization. They were around for a hell of a long time, plenty of time to evolve the necessary intelligence.

You say it's unlikely they got to the level of great apes, but just what the hell are you basing that on? They had the geological time, a major component, and actually, they may well have had the brains.

As for brain size and birds, ever heard of the grey parrot Alex? Word vocabulary of 150 or so, and used in context. There's a grey parrot out there with a vocab of around 950 words. N'kisi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Some of the theropods, mainly the two legged, carnivorous ones, had fairly large brain size, especially compared to body size. There's been 65000000 years since the dinos left this earth, you think anything mankind has made could last that long? I sure as hell don't. There'd be no evidence if they'd made it to a tribal level, and there's no reason why they couldn't.

Brain size does not automatically equate to intelligence, not by a long way. And there's been plenty of things around on this earth, for much longer than the mammals. Intelligence is almost a guaranteed outcome of evolution in my mind, just how much intelligence is another question, but with all these species around with us capable of so much, it's not too hard to believe it could arise.

EDIT You think you could kill a bear with a spear/club/sword? Personally I think it would kill you, and that a bear would kill most people, regardless of their basic armament. Yes you can kill a bear armed only with a spear, but it's not easy, and it's not guarenteed. And you're still sort of missing my point that we're not dealing with humans here, but creatures that could already have their own decent defense.

[TheAesthete]

where to start....
Ok, intellegence, and with that i am assuming you mean self consciousness and content. These are not the teleogical end of evoloution. And it is certainly not a guarenteed outcome, how are you basing that? Evoloution is a random set of mutations, nothing more. There is actually a very complex and as yet not understood path that took us to the intellegence and consciousness we have today. The fact that others of the great ape family are still around without our level of intellegence shows that intellegence itself is not a neccisary outcome. species survived in different ways, so there is no reason to assume that the way our species survived was anything special and definitely not neccisary.

I am aware of alex, and no he is not intellegent in the way you want the dinosaurs to be. He doesn't get close to the great apes i'm afraid.

errr i'm sure i have more but its starting to feel to much like my work, and i'm on holiday!

I think you'll find i said in my post that brain size didnt automatically equate to intelligence, but there are certain physical facts required for intellegence and the running of a body. Brain power is needed for both, so the more complex/larger your body is the harder it would be to achieve a greater intellegence.

[Raggs]

We can at least agree that there is no end to evolution. However evolution is more than random mutation. The most important part is selection.

Consciousness is very tricky, since we can only ever have our own experience of it. We can test for self recognition, but just because a creature can't recognise itself doesn't mean it's not conscious. But self recognition is a very strong evidence for consciousness.

As for Alex, check out the other one. And whilst they may not reach the levels of the great apes, considering the size of them, it's amazing what they achieve, and solidly proves that brain size isn't too much of a limiting factor. In my mind one of the keys to our success is they way we learn and communicate, not in fact our capacity for memory etc. Yes we can use tools, yes we can learn words, so can apes, so can birds (they use tools in nature, making hooks from wire etc). Very few human beings are actually as amazing as we like to think. The guy who used a wheel to make a cart, genius, the guy who first created a combustion engine, again pretty damn clever. Most inventions todays aren't in fact that amazing, they're just a sensible progression from yesterdays technology. And humans are able to communicate so fast today it means we're rocketing forward through cultural learning.

As for physical facts required, what exactly do you mean? Running a body doesn't need that much intelligence at all, most of the creatures on this earth manage it with just a few hundred nerve cells. Mammal bodies are perhaps a bit trickier, but running a human body isn't really any harder than running a shrews on the technicalities, so that's maybe half a centimeter squared. Mammals are all of roughly equal complexity. Dinosaurs may well have been warmblooded, or cold, or both, we can't really tell, but there's no reason to think they are any more complex than us, or perhaps simpler (no need for milk production, if cold blooded, even less brain power is required, no regulation required). If I'm on completely the wrong track with your reasoning here, please correct me.

The reason I think intelligence is more than likely, is that we have a lot of examples of it on earth, several mammal species, bird species too, octopi, squid, cuttlefish, mantis shrimp, birds, all of these have displayed large degrees of intelligence. It's merely a matter of social factors from there on in (in my opinion, of course evolution is required to put these social factors in place).

I'm very good with biology, so don't worry about using any technical terms etc (I don't know your level), offer up your ideas and reasons.

[TheAesthete]

Om firstly. My point on complexity was in reference to creatures in spore rather than dinosaurs.
And the reason why we are "amazing" as a species (i believe but this has been disputed heavily in current litrature) that we can talk. And by talk i mean converse with content. Animals do not talk with content, and i'm afraid even the likes of alex dont have content. Yes he can respond in situations with certain behavioural characteristics which appear to us to be conversational but this is memetics at its finest.
I think a problem here could be what we catogorise as intellegence. Because certainly things like octopus's have a great ability to problem solve, finding their way through mazes etc. But i would not count them as intellegent in the same way i would count great apes and us as intellegent.
Great apes however lack something that parrots have in abundence, they lack memetic skills. (watching apes try to copy each other is hillarious) However they have complex social structures, and cognative abilities similar to a 4yearold human.

Our memtic skills are probably not as good as an african grey's, but they are far better than our ape cousins. And other cognitive abilities (such as folk physchological,) are far better than both.

Sorry i'm rambling here rather than making a point. If we are going to talk about intellegence in a meaningful way, where the "intellegent" species can achieve what they can in spore, then i believe we have to use the term intellegent to mean self conscious; tool using; language speaking; able to connect belief and desire as concepts that cause action amongst oneself and others.

[Woutman]

Not to be a spelling nazi, but "intelligent" is probably the worst word to misspell on the internet.

[Raggs]

Hmm, I'd disagree, chimps are capable of all these things, not in their wild state perhaps, but they only really lack the communication there, and for them it is merely more basic, as opposed to lacking. Communication is capable of improving for them, but doesn't have the drive. I'd therefore like to add one, simply active teaching, rather than passive.

You talk of memetics, as if it is less than conversational. The transfer of ideas from one to another. The parrot has had the idea of the number 4, and the colour blue, and the shape square, transfered to it by it's trainer. And when placed in front of such a number of objects can state these facts about them. When given a selection of objects, and asked to count the squares, it gives the correct answer. A memetic transfer has obviously occurred. When asked to describe an object it had not been taught, it combined two words of objects possessing the correct attributes, again it has been given the idea of the two objects, when presented the one, given what it has been taught, in a sensible fashion.

How exactly is that any different (except for scale), to what you and I are indulging in now? I have been taught by various sources, and am taking this information and presenting it to you, and you are doing the same. This is what I was talking about when I said I feel humans are too impressed with themselves. Most of us merely spout knowledge that we have been fed from other sources, maybe with a few insignificant modifications. But these modifications don't come from innovation, but a continuity of knowledge (such as using two words that sufficiently describe a new object). Those very very very few examples of humans that geniunely invent a use (such as a cart with wheels), are by far the exception of the rule, and can perhaps be compared to the first chimps to fish for termites, or a great modern day example, those few chimps that have made spears.

Birds are capable of great problem solving abilities, and build tools. Crows (caledonian are the smartest I believe) show these skills in the wild and in the lab. And we've all heard bird calls. Unfortunatly they rarely need to use true teamwork, this is where chimps perhaps have them on the run.

Enough examples, I think we can pretty much agree on as what represents a suitable definition of intelligence that we are looking for (for a spore like universe). So lets get on with what is required for these things to come about, since it is these things that are more likely to be able to detect.

Self conscious, very hard to pin point when it comes about, but recognising yourself in a mirror seems to be sufficient to suggest it exists. Merely a sufficient mental capacity seems to be enough to give this. So other pressures leading to completion of other necessities should lead to it.

Tool using, not necessarily requiring anything more than a basic copying intellect, and one revolutionary individual to pick up a pointed stick and stab something with it. Mimicing can spread it from there, from tool use in birds to chimps.

Language to a sufficient level. Teamwork, as it's necessity increases, encourages communication and active teaching. Chimps are getting there, but a chimp can get by without learning skills such as spearing, there's not a lot of pressure of developing active teaching. Active teaching, with decent teamwork, covers the desire and action part.

So I feel that teamwork is essential to develop sufficient conversational, and teaching skills, you need to be able to rely on others in your pack. And this teamwork needs to be essential itself.

And of course, time helps immensely, mutations causing increase in brain capacity, social ability, mothering instinct (probably very significant in terms of teaching).

So, something that runs in a pack, and requires specific actions from it's pack mates, that must be learnt in order to survive more successfully. And enough time.

Humans stagnated for hundreds of thousands of years, with very little advancement, then the odd innovator comes forward, and boom massive advancements, then again, stagnation, not for so long admittedly, with increase in numbers comes a decrease in the needed time for the innovator.

Really in my mind human intelligence, whilst very impessive, it's more our social capabilities that lead us to such success, and the occasional innovator.

If there were no humans, then the world would be a very different place, but I suspect that since many intelligent species would be far more numerous (the great apes for example), it is more than likely that something else would have come about to replace us, as we replaced the neanderthals.

Intelligence isn't a guarenteed occurence in evolution, but very clever creatures are. Then, depending on how likely you think it is for them to gain improved cultural skills (not necessarily that massively improved, just a slight change could be enough, from having your offspring copy your toolmaking technique, and then showing them again), you have a very good chance of intelligence.

Very long post, but I'm enjoying the discussion and tend to get carried away.

[TheAesthete]

i'd like to stop you there for a second. Firstly memetics is a very dificult skill, i no way belittle it. And, as i said above, many creatures have better memetic skills than us. However copying someone is not the same as a transfer of content. When a parrot says "square" because you show it a square object, it does not have the concept of a square, it just as a behavioural response. (behavioural responses can be very complex, things like mating riturals in many species show us this)
When i talk of intelligence in this context i do not mean anything like inventors or scientists. I am talking about the basic capacities of our species, at the basic level.

As i said above, many animals display certain qaulities which you could refer to as intelligent, i've done a lot of research into great ape abilities, particularlly the cognitive side of things, and i can assure you, although its very exciting some of the things they can do, their cognitive abilities are stunted at a 4yrold childs level.

Research with animals such as parrots is very dodgy, and the stuff i've looked over is often discredited by many phychologists because of the way the birds are taught words. (given food for getting things right etc) This way of teaching encourages behavioural traits to develop, not concepts to be learnt.

We barely understand how brains can hold concepts/content (on the meta level not the physical mechanics) at the moment, and how representations can form inside a mind. But one key thing that seems essential is language. Without looking into the details of that second parrot you showed the wiki page of i can't comment on its perosnal situation. But i am confident that that parrot has no idea what its actually saying. As far as it is concerned it is making noise to gain itself food or what ever it wants.
Its like when i shout "food" to my cat. She gets up and runs to me very excited. She doesn't know what "food" means it is just a behavioural response because when ever if done it before i've put food down on her bowl.


***edit***
and apologies for my spelling, i know its awful, but i'm so used to an automatic spell check that i've lost the habit of proof reading.

[Raggs]

Hmm, I'd say that discrediting the parrots skills is perhaps not so easy. These are animals that when you place a plate in front of them, containing an array of shapes, in various number, then ask them how many orange objects, they tell you the correct number, then you ask them how many squares, and they reply. This suggests to me an understanding of the concept of counting, and of indeed a square? How about yourself? How do we teach our children language? Mostly at first, with reward, big smiles at new words, saying mama etc. We give positive stimulus, and so the child tries to learn more words, it may not get praised for every one, but it receives a positive stimulus, just as though rewarding with food. I'm sure that apes recieve a positive stimulus when they learn language also?

You saying food to your cat is basically pavlovs dog responses, it is not the same as you asking your cat how many bowls of food are present, or to pick out the bowl of whiskers cat food from the selection of various dishes, which is what these parrots (and chimps) are achieving.

I agree that our basic ability is higher than possibly all other species. We imitate with accuracy, not perfect (which is an advantage), but very well. We have a very large capacity to learn. We can store a huge amount of knowledge, and we can use tools. However, if you showed a human being from 5,000 years ago, a bottle of wine with a cork inserted, then handed them a corkscrew, do you think they would work it out? It can be tested I suppose with children, give them semi complex tools (hammer is pretty easy, bashing things with rocks has been happening for years), and see if they can work it out. I'd say no. But show them how, and it's all sorted, chimps can manage this too, but they don't actively teach, so it's not passed on so successfully and can be lost.

A four year old child is capable of a lot of things, but their capacities are limited, but in my mind this isn't the major problem chimps face, it's the fact they don't teach each other. In humans children teach each other, the whole time people are teaching people, it's an innate quality, and extremely important one. Innovators allow us to advance and they occur in nature (chimps fishing for termites, using leaves as a sponge, using spears, birds using hooks to get food from holes etc etc), but we only advance successfully if the social attributes of the species are correct. Chimps (at least one) are capable of understanding language to certainly a high enough necessary degree for a tribal level, there are 120000 people out there speaking taki taki, which contains 340 words. They have the capacity to learn enough to form a tribal society. But information is lost, and takes a long time to learn, because of the lack of teaching. If you are taught you can learn more, faster, meaning less effort doing it, and more chance of innovation.

[Carenthos]

The thing is that if a creature has the physical abilities not to need its spears and drums and so on its not going to be able to advance much. Its not like some brilliant mind is going to come along and invent a cement mixer as the first tool of a species just because they didn't need anything before.

Sorry if thats a bit hard to understand, it sounded much clearer in my head.

[JohnConnor101]

It's the Turing box thing you're on about, isn't it, Aesthete? You can create an illusion of understanding based on identification of form, not content.

It's generally agreed humans are the best symbolisers and this ability to think in abstract allowed the large-scale, complex social forms that allowed like production, and control of environment. I think a more important question than 'is this intelligent behaviour?' is 'is this evolutionarily-effective behaviour?' and clearly it is from the (over-)preponderance of our species on this planet.

[TheAesthete]

i need to sleep, so one last point.
Children actually learn language as long as they are exposed to it and do not need to be directly taught. However the amazing things with children is they learn far more language than they should given the amount of stimulus they recieve. They seem to have an innate ability to learn language.

And chimps are very bad at copying. its not that they just dont teach each other but they will watch a chimp bash a rock on a nut to break it open. they'll watch it a couple of times and pick up a rock and a nut. But instead of putting the nut down and bashing the rock against it like they've just watched, they will try and smash the nut against the rock, then they'll smash a nut against a nut, and so on. i've watched this. it is actually quite hard to understand how they get it so wrong when you watch them.

And one question for you to think. if you told alex or that other parrot that a square was a 4 sided shape, then showed them a triangle and asked them what that was do you think it would understand it is a 3 sided shape? sure it could tell you how many shapes there were etc, but that doesnt mean their is any understanding. Having a desire doesnt mean you understand the concept of a desire. and nor does being able to recognise a square mean that you know what a square is.
anyway i'm off to bed.

[Raggs]

Just because you don't need spears doesn't mean you won't develop other simple technology. Nothing in my mind could have acted as a preceding invention to the wheel cart. So some species that hadn't made anything too similar to this, suddenly came up with it. Fishing for termites may occur, picking up a stick to hit a branch to knock something off, throwing a stone for the same reason.

TheA, I too should probably sleep, but hey.

I know what you mean about chimps being poor imitators, but are they imitating because they are aware there will be a reward if they do so, or because they are seeing something going on and think it looks interesting to do. If the second then it's merely the action of bashing that is needed, and if a nut suddenly comes out, maybe the reward stimulates it to get it right further. Unfortunatly it's very hard for us to know whats going on inside their heads. Nevertheless I agree, they aren't always that skilled at imitation.

As for the parrot thing. I wonder if such tests have been done. Quite probably, but I'm not searching for them now. I have no doubt that it would be able to choose the shape with the correct number of sides, if you asked for it to choose that. But whether you could say squares have 4 sides, then ask for a square, who knows.

Btw, Alex is dead, but the one that seems far more accomplished, is alive and kicking.

[JohnConnor101]

What about basic containers (leaf bags, etc.) or fire, probably humanity's first step into organised cultivation?

[yoshi1476]

I reckon that spears and whatever will be stronger than biting or whatever just so the game will take a bit longer + it is cooler to throw spears than bite a ball o' colour on the head! Oh and if i had a rocket launcher and a bear was coming at me i would win!

[orifice]

Originally Posted by Raggs

Nothing in my mind could have acted as a preceding invention to the wheel cart.

Log rollers!!!!

[Raggs]

Fair enough, log rollers it is . But it just goes to help my other point, that most "invention" is just progression of an already existing concept, and not that innovative.

[yoshi1476]

Really i thought that the can opener was made by some crazy whacko who thought people actually needed to open the cans to get the food inside it! ANd now you say he was inovative?

[TheAesthete]

i do need to opent he cans. i hate eating the metal, gives me ulcers.

Originally Posted by JohnConnor101

What about basic containers (leaf bags, etc.) or fire, probably humanity's first step into organised cultivation?

And i believe the first cultivation that has been discovered was a snail farm that shepard must of been really bored. (or would he be a snapard?)

And i've figured it out the earth wasn't hit by a commet to extinct the dinosaurs, one of their nuclear power stations blew up and created large amounts of nuclear fallout.

[Raggs]

Unfortunatly the evidence for a comet is too great for that to have a chance . But you have to admit, there's no way we could know if they had developed tribal level intelligence. I doubt the pyramids would be around in 65 million years, especially with bloody big rocks hitting the world, and lots of snow covering the earth all the time.

[TheAesthete]

nah the pyramids wouldn't be around... its true what they say about slave labour, you get what you pay for.

[JohnConnor101]

I saw the thing about snail-iculture. What I meant by fire is early hominids burning off underbrush to encourage one game type over another rather than later slash 'n' burn farming. I guess you'd have to look at midden deposits to see if snails came before fire, but it'd be hard to know whether they were wild-caught or not and prehistory is very fragmentary, evidence-wise. A point though: fire is earlier to move than snail farms, and our earliest ancestors were migratory, hunter / gatherer bands ('Spore' misses out this stage of development, though their version is more fun).

[TheAesthete]

Well actually your creatures are migratory so you do move about a bit early on lol. And the snailfarm evidence they found was prehistoric (such a massive area of time lol) And is the first evidence of agriculture of any sort found. However fire was probably earlier, though i have no idea on the earliest evidence of manmade fire. (i dont remember ever seeing carbon diposits you'd expect from a fire next to prehistoric cave carvings when i've seen them on tv , but its not exactly like i've been looking for it lol.

[RedGiant]

Someone mentioned correlation between brain size and intelligence. While it's true that whales would be the smartest creatures alive were it a direct link, I read that if you plot out an average body size against average brain size among animals alive today the correlation is extremely strong, with humans coming out on top as having the biggest brain size for their body and dolphins coming second.

This fact makes dino-tribes look unlikely, at least to me.

[TheSpaceMan]

I think there must be a way to get by in tribal hase without weapons or instruments. For one thing you can play tribal with a creature without hands