Feline intelligent life?

D

Dinosaur

Rational Skeptic
Valued Senior Member
About 10 or more years ago, there was a not bad SciFi movie with an intelligent biped who had evolved from feline progenitors. She at first seemed to be a human teenage girl. She referred contemptuously to humans as clumsy monkey people with slow reflexes. She was a star fighter pilot who easily outperformed human pilots. There were also some decent SciFi stories about an intelligent feline species called the Kzin.

I wonder if intelligent life evolving from primates was a fluke. Might an intelligent species have evolved from a tree dwelling feline progenitors?

It is my opinion that a hand-like appendage suitable for tool making & tool use is critical to the evolution of an intelligent species. We evolved from tree climbing monkey-like creatures who evolved hands for tree climbing purposes. Perhaps feline claws are so effective as weapons as well as for tree climbing that evolving hands does not confer much, if any, advantage to a feline species. If that is the case, felines are unlikely to evolve into an intelligent species.
 
kilrathi_poll_wc3.jpg

wc_kilrathi.gif

I think the sci-fi you're talking about is Wing Commander. It started out as a really cool videogame with a pretty cool plot. I remember playing a very old version of the game on a 286 desktop with an amazing 4 megabytes of RAM and a very impressive 1 megabyte of video RAM. From what I remember, it was a race between humans and freak biped cats, by the name of the Kilrathi. Sometimes there would be cut-scenes when you lost a mission that would show gruesome graphics in 8-bit color glory of gigantic biped cats clawing humans apart. It was awesome.

Yeah dude. I don't think it's a coincidence that we evolved from apes.
 
The disparity in intelligence among species is wide enough that we have many examples of relatively high intelligence to study. I'll confine my examples to warm-blooded vertebrates for the very good reason that these are the only ones I'm familiar with. The following traits have a high correlation with high intelligence:
  • A three dimensional universe. Arboreal mammals have to develop observational and locomotion skills in three dimensions. Whether they swing on vines, climb on branches, or jump from one to another, their brains have much more difficult kinematic problems to solve than animals who only have to concentrate on a plane. Primates, rodents and bears are all noted for their high intelligence. Aquatic mammals follow the same pattern, with otters, pinnipeds (seals) and cetaceans being among the most intelligent mammals. The Aquatic Ape Theory (note our buoyancy and the vestigial webs between our fingers) suggests that man got a boost by diving into the nearest lake before trying to compete on land. This model is not without exception, as one would expect true flying mammals to be near the top of the chart and bats clearly are not.
  • Opportunistic feeding. This tends to be scavenging. The ability to eat almost anything provides the opportunity to save energy by going after the food source that is safest, easiest, less in demand, highest nutritional content, etc. Ursines and rodents show up in this group too, as do dogs. Man leapt ahead of the primate pack when he became an omnivore. Among the birds, scavengers like the corvids (jays and crows), the I-can-eat-anything-with-this-mouth grosbeaks, and the no-I-can-REALLY-eat-anything-with-THIS-mouth psittacines (parrots, macaws, cockatoos etc.) are legendary for their wits.
  • Prehensility. The ability to hold and manipulate objects gives the brain new problems to solve and a reason to expand and separates the animals with whom we feel a kinship from their relatives. The other primates with their hands and the psittacines with their hooked bills and zygodactyl feet (opposable toes) are at the top of our list, but bears and rodents with their nimble paws are not far behind.
But the most important trait is
  • Social. With the inexplicable exception of bears, all of these animals are either pack-social or herd/flock-social. Communities foster communication and cooperation, which put further pressure on the species to develop intelligence. Cetaceans have proto-language. Chimps and gorillas can learn sign language, African Grey parrots have learned more English than most of us could learn of Navajo. Dogs can understand much of our language even if they can't talk back. Solitary animals have a universe of the self and never need to develop communication and other social skills.
Man, the omnivore with the opposable thumbs who lives in complicated packs and whose recent ancestors lived in the trees and possibly the water, is the most intelligent animal. Dogs, bears, apes, other primates, pinnipeds, whales and dolphis, crows, parrots... they all have more than one of these traits and we observe high intelligence in them.

So how about felines? Most cats live in three dimensions. A small number of species hunt in packs. The species we're most familiar with, F. domesticus, is regarded by many humans as intellectually comparable to the dog. So to postulate a creature comparable to man evolving from the cat family is not implausible.
 
This is an unusually cogent and informed post, Fragglerock.

Of particular interest to me are your comments regarding the relationship between three dimensional activities and relative "intelligence", which happen to correspond exactly to my own view.
For some reason, although a fairly obvious interpretation, it does not seem to be widespread.

I wonder if you could tell me if you arrived at that conclusion independently or from an external source. If the latter could you please point me to that source?

There are some other issues to which I will return when I have time.

Pete

I
 
Last edited:
soscat.gif


one thing is for sure, they are fascinated by movement.

you can tell that they are wondering how it happens.

when my cat watches something on the computer screen and especially if it moves out of field of vision, it used to look behind the screen and back at the screen. then it circled it. now that is clear indication it is trying to figure out how the things on the screen could exist. it is so cute and i feel sorry for them as they don't understand it. they are so innocent. :eek:
 
Peter Kinnon said:
Of particular interest to me are your comments regarding the relationship between three dimensional activities and relative "intelligence", which happen to correspond exactly to my own view. For some reason, although a fairly obvious interpretation, it does not seem to be widespread. I wonder if you could tell me if you arrived at that conclusion independently or from an external source. If the latter could you please point me to that source?
Click to expand...
I think I simply read someone else's thoughts on the subject and it made sense. I have no idea who. But if you look at the animal kingdom, at least the warm-blooded animals that we know best, it does seem that intelligence correlates highly with a three-dimensional universe. Primates and cetaceans are the mammalian classes with the highest average intelligence and they evolved to live in trees and water, respectively. Pinnipeds are also highly intelligent. If you look at any ecological niche and compare the mammals and birds who fill it, IMHO it's usually the bird who's a little brighter. The only other entire order of vertebrates whose intelligence we find challenging is avian: the psittacines.

Of course this is by no means universal. AFAIK bats, the only true flying mammals, are not noted for their intelligence, and elephants, who are, are strictly land-dwellers. Manatees seem to be rather slow-witted and many rodents are exceptionally bright.
 
The Aquatic Ape Theory (note our buoyancy and the vestigial webs between our fingers) suggests that man got a boost by diving into the nearest lake before trying to compete on land.
Click to expand...

that would only work if they were more successful at breeding otherwise Lamarkism was relegated to the rubbish bin long ago. and i thought the aquatic ape theory was dead in the water?
 
Just maybe 2-3 weeks ago somewhere online I read an article about dog vs cat intelligence.After much research and study scientist and researchers concluded dogs had the upper hand in intelligence.I dont remember all the details but remember one key reason for the dogs higher intelligence was it's "social pack" practice.Being social has it's advantages I guess.I'll try to find the article.

Found part of the article,it's about social mammals in general: http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2010/102311.html
 
Last edited:
birch said:
one thing is for sure, they are fascinated by movement.

you can tell that they are wondering how it happens.

when my cat watches something on the computer screen and especially if it moves out of field of vision, it used to look behind the screen and back at the screen. then it circled it. now that is clear indication it is trying to figure out how the things on the screen could exist. it is so cute and i feel sorry for them as they don't understand it. they are so innocent. :eek:
Click to expand...

I like the GIF, cute OK!. They have to be fascinated by movement, of course, it is an evolutionary prerequisite for their fitness to survive. But we have to be careful to avoid the idea that their way of thinking is similar to that of our species so I would have reservations about being able to tell what they are wondering.
I don't think there is any reason to feel sorry for them.

Actually none of our cats have ever paid more than a passing interest in screen images. Nor, too my puzzlement, in mirrors. It would be interesting to hear how your particularly inquisitive moggie goes with that. You are no doubt aware that only some apes, elephants, dolphins and magpies have been shown to be able to actually recognize themselves.
 
Actually none of our cats have ever paid more than a passing interest in screen images. Nor, too my puzzlement, in mirrors. It would be interesting to hear how your particularly inquisitive moggie goes with that. You are no doubt aware that only some apes, elephants, dolphins and magpies have been shown to be able to actually recognize themselves.
Click to expand...

it depends on the particular individual animal. not all cats will and the other cat didn't or wasn't as interested as the one who clearly showed he was puzzled and kept circling and looking behind it and in front as he saw movement. he was very inquisitive. yes, he knew it was himself when in front of the mirror. or course he didn't tell me he knew but i gathered by body language as he was first very surprised and thought it was another cat but as he saw that it was his own movements, he wasn't surprised any longer. also, i was standing beside him looking in the mirror so i'm sure he could look at the mirror and back at me for additional reference and he did. lol

yes, some animals can recognize themselves in the mirror such as cats or dogs. maybe not immediately but they can figure it out eventually but not all cats or dogs. just like people, they aren't all the same or have the same level of intelligence or even interest. some may just not be as interested.

why i felt sorry for him is he gave up trying to figure it out after awhile because he couldn't. that's why i felt sorry for him because i'm sure he was left with just a puzzlement. poor kitty.

i mean he was taking things at face value and is expected and understandable. he sees moving people on the screen and can hear them, yet they disappear out of screen or how can they fit in there etc. when objects or people would move left or right off the screen, he would move around to the back looking curiously, then his head would pause for a second to stare out into space for a moment as if to say 'how did that happen?' i think that's terrible to not know, can you imagine how cheated he was? it's like some trick. i wish i could have videotaped his actions as he curiously circled the screen many times. how can you explain to a cat that it's an artificial representation of people on the screen via a signal. it was just so cute that one could witness the perplexing innocence and fascination.
 
Last edited:
Boris2 said:
and I thought the aquatic ape theory was dead in the water?
Click to expand...
I'm sure it is; the discovery of Ardipithecus extensively revised the history of hominids. That post is four years old, and in any case I was not exactly advocating the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, merely referring to it. Why indeed are we the only primates who float, and the only ones with these vestigial webs between our fingers?
 
Basis of assertions

Can you point to evidence to support the generalization that no other primate can float?

Or that the small skin flaps between fingers are indeed vestigial webs?
 
Peter Kinnon said:
Can you point to evidence to support the generalization that no other primate can float?
Click to expand...
No. For all I know it may be an exaggeration. But I'm pretty sure that none of the other Great Apes are buoyant.
Or that the small skin flaps between fingers are indeed vestigial webs?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they really are vestigial webs. They just look like it and AFAIK they are unique to our species.

I'm not a booster of the aquatic ape hypothesis, especially now that it seems incompatible with what we know about our actual history. But I would like to know how we came to be able to swim. Most mammals can, so how and why did primates lose the ability, and how and why did we regain it?

Sure, primates are herbivores and grazing is an easier life on land than in the water. But the hippopotamus is also a grazer and someone way back in his family tree was the ancestor of the cetaceans. They have developed into both carnivores and full-time marine mammals.
 
"Sure, primates are herbivores"

Actually, few, if any primates appear to be obligate herbivores. In fact the tarsier is claimed to be an obligate carnivore. Google for "the-worlds-cutest-carnivore-this-precious-primate-will-make-your-heart-melt/"

And it is the chimpanzee's predilection for those very same creatures that gives rise to the commonly quoted example of pan tool-use. Those of Senegal apparently sharpen sticks with their teeth so as to spear the bush-babies from their nests. Yum!
 
Lets examine intelligence for a second. There are many indicators of intelligence, from whales to elephants to arthropods, but the kind of intelligence I think your asking for is technologically capable, to do that it need hands (or some kind of dexterous grappling appendage) need to live in oxygen atmosphere (for fire) and needs to be social enough to develop advance communication to teach and exchange ideas. Cats as predators certainly have some intelligence, but lack hands and the social order to develop language.
 
ElectricFetus said:
Cats as predators certainly have some intelligence . . . .
Click to expand...
Predation is not necessarily a major selector for intelligence. Predators have to be fast and strong, but not necessarily smart. Omnivores are often the most intelligent animals in an ecosystem: raccoons and other ursids, crows, many species of rodents, most psittacines. Being an opportunistic feeder makes intelligence an advantage because you can figure out how to get at the choicest sources of food that require the least expenditure of energy.

Of course proximity to humans is also a major factor. Since we killed off all the carnivores that prey on deer, speed and agility is no longer a survival factor in their evolution. Instead they are breeding for the intelligence to survive in urban and suburban environments. I saw a pair in Washington DC one night standing on the curb at a crosswalk, patiently waiting for the pedestrian signal to turn green. They've even learned to distinguish dogs from wolves and coyotes, and figured out that dogs have been bred to protect livestock instead of eating them, so they jump into our yards at night where our dogs will keep them safe.

Speaking of coyotes, in Los Angeles they have become diurnal and learned to carry their tails upright so they are mistaken for dogs. One hopped into a friend's truck, wagged his tail endearingly, and rode along for several miles until the guy figured out what was going on and dumped him out--in a brand new scavenging area.

And of course the trash can hasn't been invented that a raccoon can't open.
 
Your anecdotes on deer and coyotes are intriguing and hilarious.
It's not clear what your take on this is, though.

You mention breeding, which implies you consider these to be genetic adaptations.
Or do you really interpret these as learned behaviors?
Or learned behaviors facilitated by an underlying genetic change in "intelligence" arising from an urban environment?

Note that it is my habit put "intelligence" in quotes.
There is a good reason for this. It it a word that is bandied about wildly in these discussions but is actually a very vague and term that has little objective basis. This leads to much confusion as different folk ascribe different shades of meaning to the concept and wind up talking at cross-purposes.

There happens to be a very good way to resolve this. I will not get into that now but will address it a bit later. And probably on a new thread as this one's title is too feline-specific to attract general interest.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
Predation is not necessarily a major selector for intelligence. Predators have to be fast and strong, but not necessarily smart. Omnivores are often the most intelligent animals in an ecosystem
Click to expand...

Wasn't saying predators were the best, but certainly need more cunning them herbivorous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top