We're animals, too.
-
Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.
Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.
Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?
Scientists say dolphins should be treated as 'non-human persons'
- Thread starter ultraviolet
- Start date
We're animals, too.
Please, tell me how a dolphin would make a spear and WHAT POINT would that have considering they don't have hands to throw spears? And underwater farms? They eat fish. Lolz. No need for spears or anything.
Oh yes. Humans are known to be taught tricks too. It's called the circus ;)
Zora of Termina
forget your high society
- Pronoun
- fucking guess
Sir, you appear to be drastically overestimating human intelligence.
nastypass
that bitch what arranges the blocks
- Pronoun
- they/her/hers
You do realize that weapons are kinda hard to make without opposable thumbs-- or even hands, for that matter?
Also, I'm pretty sure one could view the whole pod system as something similar to tribes, but I'm not 100% sure of the technical definition of a tribe compared to, say, a hunting party.
Mirry
New member
I hate to rain on everybody's parade, but I think it's pretty unlikely that we could actually develop a mutual language with dolphins, and thus have "dolphin buddies." =3 I don't mean to say that dolphins aren't extremely intelligent, it's just that when it comes to language, that seems to fall into the "humans only" category. There have been plenty of attempts to teach parrots, chimpanzees, and whatnot to speak, but they only achieve a very rudimentary understanding of language, and only use language (if it can even be called language) when they receive a reward in return... it's not like with human children, who just start talking out of the blue without anyone teaching them how.
Although I don't think dolphins could ever master language, that of course does not mean that we should mistreat them. In fact, I think the whole idea that we only need to treat intelligent species kindly is stupid. I think what's important is whether or not the animal has feelings, not whether its intelligence rivals that of humans.
Although I don't think dolphins could ever master language, that of course does not mean that we should mistreat them. In fact, I think the whole idea that we only need to treat intelligent species kindly is stupid. I think what's important is whether or not the animal has feelings, not whether its intelligence rivals that of humans.
Um...Gorillas + ASL anyone? They didn't only reply if there was a treat involved. They actually learned. And if dolphins are smarter than gorillas, why is it beyond the realms of possibility for us to develop a mutual language? What if we decode their language and build equipment with which we can reply in their click-y language? Similar to morse code or whatever?
Aisling
Super Moderator
But the thing is that dolphins actually do seem to use more advanced techniques to communicate with eachother in their natural habitat. It's not like birds and chimpanzees don't vocalize and use body signals to convey things to eachother too, though! If you think about it, communication and language actually does come down to receiving attention or a reward, even for humans. Unless there's been an actual study on it that I'm unaware of, babies cry and children learn how to speak because they associate making those sounds with some kind of result, and then they come to understand it as a language where certain combinations of vocalizations can represent an object or idea. From there they learn to utilize it to express ideas, desires and needs that benefit themselves and others in their community, because working together is already something we do as a species. Because it's more abstract most animals who can communicate still never really learn a language. If dolphins are brighter than parrots and chimpanzees (both animals that can utilize language to an extent, and still communicate in the wild) I think they have a shot at being able to grasp the more complex and abstract aspects of language as we know it. If not now, they probably will eventually, sooner than most other animals. The only thing stopping another species from eventually reaching our level is us actively preventing it, or our planet dying out before it happens.
Mirry
New member
Just for you, I've transcribed an excerpt from one of my university-level textbooks:
"Using each type of training technique, some researchers have made remarkable claims for the ability of other species to approximate language use. In one of the better-known projects, a chimp named Washoe was trained in ASL from a very early age (Gardner & Gardner, 1969, 1975). According to the Gardners, Washoe acquired a vocabulary of several hundred signs and displayed the rudiments of syntax by putting signs together with some regularity of ordering. In addition, Washoe reportedly displayed productivity in language by coining new words. Upon seeing a swan, Washoe is said to have signed "water-bird." Similar claims were made for a groilla named Koko, who also was schooled in sign language (Patterson, 1978).
...
Do these examples demonstrate the rudiments of a syntax-governed language, or can the data on primate language training be interpreted in other ways? We should always maintain a healthy, objective skepticism in science, but it is especially important to take a skeptical attitude when scientific investigation seek to prove something that we really want to believe. Even the subjects who have been among the fastest learners in this research, such as Kanzi, require an enormous investment of time and energy to train, and they learn much more slowly than humans learn language. Some critics charge that, for these reasons, investigators are particularly prone to interpret often subjective data in ways that support the continuity view, even if such interpretations are not warranted by the data (Umiker-Sebeok & Sebeok, 1981).
...
Let's first consider the efforts to teach ASL to chimps and gorillas. Terrace and colleagues attempted to teach ASL to a chimp they dubbed Nim Chimpsky, after the famous linguistic Noam Chomsky. They found, however, that Nim's communications bore little resemblance to the language abilities of his namesake. As in other projects involving signing among chimps, Nim acquired a fairly extensive vocabulary and strung together two-word "sentences" that often followed a predictable word order. For excample, when Nim asked for something with the sign for "more," the "more" sign was used in the first position 85% of the time, as in "more drink" or "more banana." However, when the project ended and Terrace looked back at his data, he came to suspect that it was not a language-like ability that Nim had displayed.
Even though Nim's vocabulary increased as he was trained, the length of his utterances showed little development over time. The average "sentence" length remained around 1.5 signs. In addition, Nim's longer utterances were not novel or sentence-like. They were characterized by repetition...When Terrace closely watched the tapes of Nim's signing, he observed that what was originally taken to be spontaneous and syntactically organized utterances could be explained as imitations of the teachers in order to get specific rewards (Terrace, 1983). Other animal language researchers critized the teaching methods used in the Nim project and claimed that Nim's limitations were not representative of the abilities of other language-trained chimps (e.g., Gardner, 1981). However, when Terrace and colleagues examined films of the training of chimps or gorillas in other studies, they saw the same problem that they themselves had experienced: The experimenters failed to distinguish between language utterances and the imitation of the signs (Terrace et al., 1980; Seidenberg & Petitto, 1979).
A number of other criticisms have been leveled against studies supporting the claim that chimps can learn language (Wallman, 1992). For instance, fluent users of ASL have noted that it takes a very generous interpretation of the chimps' use of signs mixed with pointing and other natural gestures to come up with vocabulary estimates in the hundreds. And because the trainers possess language, it is all to easy for them to extrapolate beyond the chimps' behavior. When Washoe signed "water-bird," was this a novel label for a swam? Or did Washoe merely give a sign for water and a sign for bird, thus separately naming each object?"
I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea from that.
"Using each type of training technique, some researchers have made remarkable claims for the ability of other species to approximate language use. In one of the better-known projects, a chimp named Washoe was trained in ASL from a very early age (Gardner & Gardner, 1969, 1975). According to the Gardners, Washoe acquired a vocabulary of several hundred signs and displayed the rudiments of syntax by putting signs together with some regularity of ordering. In addition, Washoe reportedly displayed productivity in language by coining new words. Upon seeing a swan, Washoe is said to have signed "water-bird." Similar claims were made for a groilla named Koko, who also was schooled in sign language (Patterson, 1978).
...
Do these examples demonstrate the rudiments of a syntax-governed language, or can the data on primate language training be interpreted in other ways? We should always maintain a healthy, objective skepticism in science, but it is especially important to take a skeptical attitude when scientific investigation seek to prove something that we really want to believe. Even the subjects who have been among the fastest learners in this research, such as Kanzi, require an enormous investment of time and energy to train, and they learn much more slowly than humans learn language. Some critics charge that, for these reasons, investigators are particularly prone to interpret often subjective data in ways that support the continuity view, even if such interpretations are not warranted by the data (Umiker-Sebeok & Sebeok, 1981).
...
Let's first consider the efforts to teach ASL to chimps and gorillas. Terrace and colleagues attempted to teach ASL to a chimp they dubbed Nim Chimpsky, after the famous linguistic Noam Chomsky. They found, however, that Nim's communications bore little resemblance to the language abilities of his namesake. As in other projects involving signing among chimps, Nim acquired a fairly extensive vocabulary and strung together two-word "sentences" that often followed a predictable word order. For excample, when Nim asked for something with the sign for "more," the "more" sign was used in the first position 85% of the time, as in "more drink" or "more banana." However, when the project ended and Terrace looked back at his data, he came to suspect that it was not a language-like ability that Nim had displayed.
Even though Nim's vocabulary increased as he was trained, the length of his utterances showed little development over time. The average "sentence" length remained around 1.5 signs. In addition, Nim's longer utterances were not novel or sentence-like. They were characterized by repetition...When Terrace closely watched the tapes of Nim's signing, he observed that what was originally taken to be spontaneous and syntactically organized utterances could be explained as imitations of the teachers in order to get specific rewards (Terrace, 1983). Other animal language researchers critized the teaching methods used in the Nim project and claimed that Nim's limitations were not representative of the abilities of other language-trained chimps (e.g., Gardner, 1981). However, when Terrace and colleagues examined films of the training of chimps or gorillas in other studies, they saw the same problem that they themselves had experienced: The experimenters failed to distinguish between language utterances and the imitation of the signs (Terrace et al., 1980; Seidenberg & Petitto, 1979).
A number of other criticisms have been leveled against studies supporting the claim that chimps can learn language (Wallman, 1992). For instance, fluent users of ASL have noted that it takes a very generous interpretation of the chimps' use of signs mixed with pointing and other natural gestures to come up with vocabulary estimates in the hundreds. And because the trainers possess language, it is all to easy for them to extrapolate beyond the chimps' behavior. When Washoe signed "water-bird," was this a novel label for a swam? Or did Washoe merely give a sign for water and a sign for bird, thus separately naming each object?"
I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea from that.
Aisling
Super Moderator
I heard about the water-bird thing, also. They couldn't decide if it meant that it could see water and a bird, because the swan was in the water, or if it was giving the name "water bird" to the swan, since it hadn't been taught a sign with which to refer to "swan". That's the sort of abstractness I was talking about that birds and chimps probably don't get, but dolphins could have a shot at- and if not, some species will eventually. Probably not in my lifetime, but the prospect is still exciting.
Mirry
New member
I don't doubt that other species could evolve the ability to use language as humans do -- after all, there isn't any kind of intrinsic barrier between what composes a human and a non-human animal -- and it certainly is impressive that chimps could learn as much as they did, but I would say, looking at the data, that it's a far cry from being able to have a real conversation with an animal. It's true that babies/toddlers may talk in order to receive a direct reward, but think of all the times when even children talk just for the sake of talking. People don't just communicate to signal requests -- we talk about abstract ideas, our dreams, completely irrelevant shit like Jersey Shore -- not just "give me fish" or "I want water" or whatever.
The textbook that I quoted from in my previous post argues that "the data on teaching language to other animals do not provide support for the hypothetical scenario that language is an invention made possible by the general cognitive abilities of our ancestors" -- thus, language is not something that any creature with general intelligence can learn, but that there are specific neural mechanisms that allow one to acquire language. So no matter how intelligent dolphins, apes, birds, etc. are, they may not be able to acquire language no matter how hard they try if they do not possess language-specific mechanisms.
Perhaps dolphins are indeed different, and do have language abilities comparable to that of humans -- but until I actually see a dolphin communicating fluidly in morse code, I remain a firm skeptic.
And, it's a parrot, but check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6KvPN_Wt8I . I've read enough about Alex the parrot (sorry if this makes me seem really lame, but I'm a Brain and Cognitive Sciences major) to be convinced that he isn't displaying human-like language abilities, but you gotta give him credit for being one smart bird.
The textbook that I quoted from in my previous post argues that "the data on teaching language to other animals do not provide support for the hypothetical scenario that language is an invention made possible by the general cognitive abilities of our ancestors" -- thus, language is not something that any creature with general intelligence can learn, but that there are specific neural mechanisms that allow one to acquire language. So no matter how intelligent dolphins, apes, birds, etc. are, they may not be able to acquire language no matter how hard they try if they do not possess language-specific mechanisms.
Perhaps dolphins are indeed different, and do have language abilities comparable to that of humans -- but until I actually see a dolphin communicating fluidly in morse code, I remain a firm skeptic.
And, it's a parrot, but check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6KvPN_Wt8I . I've read enough about Alex the parrot (sorry if this makes me seem really lame, but I'm a Brain and Cognitive Sciences major) to be convinced that he isn't displaying human-like language abilities, but you gotta give him credit for being one smart bird.
Music Dragon
Doosic Maggon
- Pronoun
- she
Sure, but that goes for you as well, doesn't it?
Um...I don't see bears or sharks going around saving peoples lives ^^;
Anyway, just because they haven't done the things that we have done, doesn't mean they don't have their own lil accomplishments. Obviously they can't do many of the things we do like building cars and harnessing electricity, but they don't NEED to do any of that stuff, either. By what, exactly, are you judging their intelligence (or lack thereof)?
Anyway, just because they haven't done the things that we have done, doesn't mean they don't have their own lil accomplishments. Obviously they can't do many of the things we do like building cars and harnessing electricity, but they don't NEED to do any of that stuff, either. By what, exactly, are you judging their intelligence (or lack thereof)?
Last edited:
Music Dragon
Doosic Maggon
- Pronoun
- she
I think you overestimate the value of human discoveries - particularly your own - as well as humanity in general.
Lucas₇₅₅
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
- Pronoun
- he
I never said dolphins weren't intelligent; I was questioning the significance of dolphin intelligence.
The fact that we can discover and understand things about the universe shows our intelligence over dolphins, doesn't it?
And what is the bolded part supposed to mean?
Lord Mewtwo
Fallen1
- Pronoun
- She/They
That sounds like BS, I highly doubt mice are as smart as people.
I agree with the rest of your post though, we are all living creatures, every human and animal on earth. We all live the exact same way; we're born, we are raised, we get and eat food, sometimes tragedy invades such as murder or abandonment, we grow up, we leave our parents, find mates and make babies. Varying intelligence I do not believe should rank our worth.
Last edited:
Music Dragon
Doosic Maggon
- Pronoun
- she
Maybe you'd understand if you were a dolphin...