

Using iPads to bridge communication gap with dolphins - evo_9
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/using-ipads-to-bridge-communication-gap-with-dolphins.ars

======
RevRal
_> Numerous studies on dolphin language show signs of advanced intelligence,
and it is believed that the high-frequency sounds dolphins make underwater are
capable of communicating information that is holographic in nature._

Chris Foresman elaborates in the comments: _The gist is that scientists are
convinced that when one dolphin communicates with another, it is transmitting
three-dimensional imagery, as opposed to speaking a "verbal" language as we
think of it._

This really reminded me of Grenouille, from the novel Perfume, who could think
in "scent sentences." He lived his entire life isolated and frustrated with
humanity, since he could not have a two way conversation with anyone in his
language of scents.

Strange to think that human communication represents only a small portion of
what's possible.

~~~
xenophanes
> Strange to think that human communication represents only a small portion of
> what's possible.

But humans can communicate 3d scenes and imagery in words. Perhaps
inelegantly. But universal turing machines do lots of things _inelegantly_ and
it doesn't really matter. English is universal language (taking into account
its ability to define new words), so we're not missing out on anything
fundamentally important (and nor are, e.g., the French missing out on anything
fundamental by not speaking English: French is universal too).

~~~
illumin8
I don't think you mean the same thing when you say we can communicate 3d
scenes and imagery in words. Humans can describe a 3d scene in words.

Dolphins use such high-pitched and information dense communication that it's
highly possible they are communicating raw data that is directly converted
into a 3d map or image by the receiving dolphin's brain. Listen to a dolphin's
speech, then think of what a 56k modem sounds like... not too far off huh? Now
imagine that dolphins could communicate actual 3d maps or sonographic images
using sound, rather than just describe them.

~~~
xenophanes
Would you agree the "describing" issue you raise is the same as "English can
_describe_ what it feels like to be pinched, but cannot make you _feel_ a
pinch"? No dolphins are needed, it's the issue of qualia.

A universal language can express anything that can be expressed in language.
If qualia are outside the realm of language, that wouldn't make English less
universal.

You may say dolphins use a language, and then feel qualia in response.
Similarly, we can imagine a human who is genetically engineered for his skin
to pinch when he hears certain sounds, so that he would feel the pinching
quale. I think in neither case should triggering hardware features by sound be
considered language. A nice example is "clap on" devices -- surely that's not
language.

~~~
illumin8
I'm not sure I agree. You may describe an underwater setting by saying "there
is a clump of seaweed floating 3 meters above , 10 meters in front of, and 2
meters to the left of your current location, and a shark hiding about 20
meters behind the clump of seaweed", but it's much more efficient for you to
send me a JPEG image of it, or better yet, a 3d image of it. I think this is
how most scientists believe that dolphins communicate.

This is sort of like the difference between playing a text game like Zork or a
3D MMO like World of Warcraft. English only descriptions leave the details up
to your imagination. 3d graphic imagery communicates the actual picture.

~~~
xenophanes
You could read out each byte of a jpeg to someone (or invent a different
format in pure English). That is an example of an English description that
leaves no details up to your imagination (that aren't also left up to your
imagination by jpeg).

Further, really detailed and well written prose can describe 3d scenes -- and
help the reader visualize them -- better than everyday photographs, 3d
computers renderings, what dolphins have, etc... There is no limit to how much
detail prose can include.

As a practical matter, we do not use English to its full capacity, and it's
inefficient for some things, but still it is universal.

------
Batsu
> _Kassewitz searched for nearly two years to find a touchscreen device that
> dolphins could reliably activate with their rostrum (or beak), while still
> being powerful enough to record or play back the high frequency sounds
> associated with dolphin language and durable enough to work in underwater
> environments._

If someone had faith in this area of research, you'd think they would have
been able to find funding for the construction of a specialized device in that
time frame.

~~~
MWinther
Isn't it cool that you won't have to anymore, though? The Objective-C
requirement for native apps might still be a problem in a lot of places, but
other than that, I can see the iPad being a relatively cheap platform that
could work well for various kinds of experiments going forward.

~~~
timknauf
IIRC, the Objective-C (plus C and C++) limitation is only for apps distributed
through the App Store. Presumably ad-hoc distribution is just fine for this
type of project. :^)

------
xenophanes
lol. One of those people who thinks dolphins' problems aren't their (lack of)
minds but just their different mouths and lack of hands.

> "a complete language interface between humans and dolphins."

Soon enough dolphins will improve on Socrates? Or if they can't understand
philosophy -- i.e. much of English is inaccessible to them -- then how exactly
will it be complete?

~~~
unignorant
I take your point, but many humans can't understand elements of philosophy.
Can we have a "complete language interface" with them?

Complete means different things in different contexts. I don't think the
researcher was implying that dolphins might someday understand (or advance)
philosophy.

~~~
xenophanes
Many humans _don't_ understand philosophy is different than being incapable of
it -- it's a learned skill. Anyone without brain damage is surely capable.

~~~
stcredzero
Fodder for a meta-argument:

Just about any undamaged human is capable of understanding _some kind_ of
philosophy, but I suspect that not even 1/2 of all humans are capable of
understanding many particular philosophies.

Questions: What are the problems with the above? Is it precisely worded? How
many of those observations also apply to the parent-post assertion?

~~~
xenophanes
Here's a more substantive statement:

Only a quite limited amount is known about how knowledge is created at a
hardware level.

At a higher level (epistemology -- my specialty), there only exists one viable
theory of how knowledge is created: by conjecture/guessing and
refutation/criticism. This trial-and-error is an evolutionary process
(literally, not metaphorically).

This process of knowledge creation is universal in character. Something either
can do it, or can't. It does not conveniently allow for any limits.

Your assertion about limited and varied capacity for learning is clear, but to
be compelling it would need some philosophical backing, in particular it'd
need a theory of how knowledge is created that it's compatible with.

I think the issue your theory attempts to address is that a lot of people are
dumb. If they have universal capacity, why don't they use it? However, this
issue can be answered in other ways, e.g. by discussion of creativity-
supressing memes.

~~~
stcredzero
_e.g. by discussion of creativity-supressing memes._

Which is exactly what I wanted to talk about when I read "is capable" in your
previous post.

~~~
xenophanes
Well, all memes are possible to change. They're just ideas. Software. The
difficulty level is an open question, but the bare capability isn't
controversial. So when people talk about _impassable_ limits, I take them to
be referring to supposed genetic limits -- genes are commonly supposed to be
adept at putting strong limits on people.

Here is something relevant I wrote, about changing emotions (raw emotions
aren't memes, but ways of interpreting and reacting to them are memes.
emotions can also be triggered by ideas or memes.):

<http://fallibleideas.com/emotions>

The basic, overall problem is that parents and educators are extremely
coercive and destroy the ability of (most) children to think for themselves
(to a good approximation -- again, it's _possible_ to recover). If you'd like
to discuss that more, I'd urge you to come post your thoughts or questions on
this list and I will reply (HN is not a suitable forum for longer
discussions):

<http://groups.google.com/group/taking-children-seriously>

------
mkramlich
I pictured a dolphin starting up the Notepad app, punching in letters with his
nose, spelling out, "So long and thanks for all the fish!"

~~~
stcredzero
Needs another app with an icon that says "Don't Panic"

~~~
mkramlich
really!

iPad + home screen wallpaper that says, "Don't Panic" = HHGG

------
jaybol
I thought this was a headline for The Onion

------
startup12
Awesome!

