This does lead to interesting speculation...
Fisrt off, what sort of tools would our intellectual dinosaurs use? IIRC, many of them had forelimbs that were useless (ex. T-rex). Would they use their mouths? But how could they properly grip the tools?


Another thing: COMMUNICATION. How would dinosaurs communicate? Their mouths don't seem developed enough to form actual speech (I'm not an expert on such things, I'm merely looking at it from a layperson's view) Unless they used honkings or hoots. But that makes no sense, because there are only so many types of honks or hoots one can make.
And what about written language? Certainly any "intelligent"(intelligent meaning capable of forming a society)dinosaurs would come up with some form of written language - even pictographs!

__________________
here we go, the world is spinning
when it stops, it's just beginning

sun comes up, we laugh and we cry
sun goes down, and then we all die

Touched by his noodly appendage

There are more than 6 billion humans alive today. We have found remains of hominids and their tools from a couple million years ago, when their population can only have been a tiny fraction of the current human population. Also, in at least a few places--- the large cities of the world--- we have completely altered the land, down to the very bedrock. In two million years, there may not be anything on the surface that's immediately recognizable as manmade, but there will be plenty of evidence that an archaeologist could interpret.

Honks and hoots would be quite sufficient. If the dinosaurs recognized eight different pitches, two durations, and three overtones, that would give them 48 distinct sounds, which is more than the number of phonemes in English.

I read recently that chickadee communication was found to be more complex than anyone had thought, because there are subtle modulations in the calls that humans can't hear but the birds can distinguish just fine. If you think about it, human speech is the same way. Compared to the full range of possible sounds, human vowels are all very similar to one another, and the same is true of consonants. To an intelligent dinosaur, the Gettysburg Address would sound like quack quack quack quack quack.

I suspect this is human bias.

I mean, somewhere in an alternate universe, I can imagine a distant maiasaur descendent saying, "Another thing: COMMUNICATION. How would mammals communicate? They don't have any crests, so they can't make most of the sounds we use. Most of them can manage only two or three octaves at best, so there are only so many tones they can make. A mammalian language would be pretty much limited to squeak squeak squeak squark sweak . . . wash off mudbath and repeat."

I'm pretty interested in some of the new findings about animal "language," actually. I know dolphins and whales are a favorite candidate for near-human intelligence and language, but I have a few others I think we should listen to. Elephants, for example. A lot of elephant noises are infra-sound, and I suspect that there's a fair bit of complexity there. I'd love to see a nice in-depth study of this.

Well, most settled human groups form a written language sooner or later, to be sure. Foragers (the new, PC term for hunter-gatherers, IIRC) always have art of some type--it's kind of a feature of humanity--but they don't always have writing. It might be a feature of civilization, but not IMO of society.

Izunya

__________________
Mal: Define "interesting!"
Wash: Oh God, oh God, we're all going to die?

- from Serenity

PC or not, any replacement for the horribly cumbersome hunter-gatherer is welcome with me. (I particularly hate the gerund form--- "Hunting-gathering is highly effective in desert environments . . ." :x )

I've often wondered what a dinosaur intelligent species would be like.

Little green men perhaps?

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

Sleestaks. :P

W.F. Tomba, where did you read that about chickadees? Sounds interesting...

__________________
here we go, the world is spinning
when it stops, it's just beginning

sun comes up, we laugh and we cry
sun goes down, and then we all die

Touched by his noodly appendage

Troodon

Smartest dinosaur ever found.

http://www.allaboutspace.com/subject.../Troodon.shtml

We don't know that troodontids were the most intelligent; they merely have the biggest braincase-body mass ratio. While this is a telling factor; it isn't a certainly.

The problem with thinking about a possible dinosaur civilization is that we a) don't know anything about dinosaurs - we don't even know what they looked like; apart from general body structure and a few skin samples. Myth, assumption and supposition are the words of the day. For instance - the assumption that dinosaurs were big.
They weren't, really. Definitely; some were big - the huge apatosaurs, T-rex's (I hate that term) etc. Stegosaurs (my fave) were giants as well.
The vast majority of dinos were much smaller though - man-sized or less (most were dog sized). It's in this region that any dinsaur intelligence - however that is defined - seems to max out.
Another myth that really took off after Jurrassic Park - that dinos were birds.
Forget it. They weren't birds - they shared birdlike qualities and certainly some species of dinosaur shared a root ancestor with birds; but keep in mind that birds existed simultaneously with dinosaurs.
Saying dinos are birds is like saying Humans are shrews. (No jokes... )
Another myth yet - ant this is the biggest one - is that here was one type of animal called 'dinosaur'. There wasn't. 'Dinosaurs' were not one particular type of animal with widely-varying body types; they were an entirely different class of creature. I think it's safer to think in terms of a completely different classification - somewhere between kingdom and phylum - for the creatures rather than trying to fit them into the 'lizard' category or some such.

We do know a few things; because we can draw parallels from modern times. Predators are smarter than herbivores. They have to be - they must hunt their prey - that takes practice, preparation, planning. They are also much less numerous than herbivores - again; they have to be; or there'd be not enough food. IIRC the optimal predator-prey ration is about 1-10.
While we don't know coeleurosaurs - the infraorder to which troodontids, raptors, etc. belong - were truly intelligent; I personally prefer to believe so. But so saying; were they intelligent enough to create a civilization?

No. IMO.

Look at dolphins. BY FAR the most intelligent so-called 'animal' nonhuman species of which we are aware. No civilization. Why? No need. They have their family groups; they swim, hunt, grow, travel, breed and thrive in the ocean - they don't need civilization.
Let's imagine for a moment that troodons were really smart - even smarter than dolphins. Civilization? No way.

The important point here is not brains; it's need. Humans developed civilization because we as individuals cannot survive for long. We need to band together to help one another.
Even when done so; we didn't advance far - huning groups were very small; perhaps 20 or so individuals; tops. Gatherers, small as well. We didn't thrive until we learned to modify the terrain to suit us - to take seeds of a useful plant and grow them for future use.

In other words; civilization started with agriculture.

Agriculture - and later, farming - allowed humans to come together in much larger groups. It gave not only enough food; but also a surplus; so people not immediately involved in food gathering - IOW getting their own food - could live as well. The elderly, the pregnant, the injured. etc. Also those with specialized skills could concentrate on those skills without having to be distracted by foodgathering. Skills like making fire or building. Or clothmaking.

See; civilization arose because we needed to modify our environment; not just because we were smart.

Back to the troodons - OK; they're smart. But did they modify their environment? No - they just lived in it. No civilization; no need for it. Brains - almost certainly tool-users in some way or another; but no underlying need for complex social interaction and large-scale environmental control.

QED.

Cheers!

could small egg eating/stealing dino's have used stone to break them open?
If so does that count as a tool?

__________________
GCS/S d(+) s+:+ a--- C++(+++)>$ W+++>$ L>+ M+>++ w++ P+>++ tv@ PS b+ DI+ G e-> h! r-- !z+

~Jorge Schrauwen

It definitely qualifies as tool using.

It also qualifies as 'unneccessary use of force'.
It'd have to be a pretty wimpy 'saur that couldn't crack through an eggshell...

have you ever tried to crack a shell of an oustorige using your hands?
Sure its possible but it hurts.
Ok they had sharp claws and beeks though

__________________
GCS/S d(+) s+:+ a--- C++(+++)>$ W+++>$ L>+ M+>++ w++ P+>++ tv@ PS b+ DI+ G e-> h! r-- !z+

~Jorge Schrauwen

Never have but I'd love to - it'd make a heck of an omelette.

I agree with Staiduk. I strongly suspect that there are many animals on Earth with near human intelligence (dolphines, certain species of wolf, certain species of ants (very alien intelligence though if they have it), chimps, gorillas, ravens, and maybe a few others).

They are intelligent, and they are probably completely selfaware. But they don't have civilization, and they don't have technology. I think life is common in the universe, and I think intelligence is common in the universe. I believe that culture is a little less common, and that techonology is truely rare. Why? Because for most species it simply won't be necessary. Humans only developed technology because we were too gimped to survive on our own .

Paraphased from Calvin & Hobbes: "No tail, no claws, no fangs, no fur no nothing." (couldn't find the exact quote sorry)

__________________
http://boincwapstats.sourceforge.net.../style:2/p.png

I read about it in Science News. If you register on their web site, you can read it I think.

I don't recall what the original source was, but I also saw it summarized in the newspaper.

What's wrong with T. rex? It's a pretty standard way of abbreviating a species name. Just like E. coli.

As for the chickadee thing, I just read about it in the news; I don't remember where.

Something to keep in mind - and this is my own weird musings, mind.

I grew up around horses; and have certain opinions about the considerable intelligence of these magnificent creatures. Also; I spent considerable time with a dolphin researcher (OK; I was dating her.)

Researchers studying animal intelligence have a tendancy to do so by comparing the animal's intelligence with our own. In other words; they tend to make assumptions of a being's intelligence based on what Human things that being can do - count, discern shape and colour, etc.
Personally (and Marnie and I used to have some wild arguments about this) I think that's flawed - in order to get a true value of a creature's intelligence one has to look at how well that creature uses its brainpower within its own environment. Look at dolphin language; for instance - there are two approaches to the research. The first attempts to make use of the dolphins' huge intellect by teaching them to understand human - follow commands; respond to vocal signals, etc. Using this format a researcher can make huge strides in progress. The dolphins want to help; they're having fun, they throw themselves in enthusiastically. This is AFAIK the main means of communication/training for aquarium mammals.
The other way is a lot harder; and shows far less progress. However; I personally feel it will ultimately prove more successful - trying to learn the dolphin's language. Very hard - how do you learn the language of an utterly alien species? Particularly if they're not going out of their way to help.

I think it's an indication of dolphin's intelligence that they're a lot better at learning our language than we with all our technology and education are at learning theirs.

As a different example, horse folk tend follow this second method much more than the first. Yes; training a horse involves essentially teaching it to obey/understand human commands but it goes much farther than that. A good horse trainer understands what the horse is thinking/feeling from one minute to the next; he can communicate with the horse in its language. So do good riders - I'm no expert horseman; but I've never had a problem with 'wild' or 'balky' horses - I know when a horse is tense or fearful; I understand that as herding animals they have a strong social order and can work within that instinctive system.
IOW; horses are incredibly intelligent - at being horses.

OK, this is getting far afield (no pun intended) but I just thought I'd throw out a few more shots about how we look at 'animal intelligence'.

Many folks think that because a species is intelligent enough; it could eventually form a civilization. I submit - based on the above - that a suitably intelligent species, properly equipped for its environment, may have no need for civilization.

Thus; going back to coelurosaurs. I personally believe they were extremely intelligent animals; self aware problem solvers. Quite possibly limited tool users. But they were intelligent at being dinosaurs; which doesn't necessarily include aspects of intelligence we ascribe to humanity.

Whoa - that was probably confusing...too much coffee.

Cheers!

Nothing at all wrong with the term - palaeontologists use it all the time.
I'm just weird that way - you never heard the term before Jurassic Park; then after the film came out suddenly every large therapod was a 'T-rex'. LOL - just one of my quirks - I never call a helicopter a 'chopper' or a pistol a 'gun' either.

Another point that occurred to me: While we're discussing possible saurian civilization; we'd better define a term - civilization.

What exactly defines civilization for our purposes?
The dictionary defines it as "An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions. "

This definition is entirely human-oriented though. How do we determine civilization in nonhumans?
Would they need to build villages, or will caves do? Do they need to discover fire? Do they need a method of record keeping? What about culture?

We are (sarcastic political comments aside) civilized. As were the ancient Greeks. So what about the - say - ancient Celts? Before them; how about early man - the Clovis peoples, for example? How about the Neanderthals?
At what level of sophistication to we draw the line of 'civilization'? If we want to discuss saurian civilization; I think we'd better define it first.