"May" in this case meaning "we haven't actually done any testing yet." Can't anyone wait until they have tested their theory before having an article written about it? This title could just as easily have been "Humans are going to record and play different sounds to dolphins with the hope that something happens."
My guess is that this article will help the project compete for funding. The name of the project (CHAT) and its principle investigators are very prominent in the article, as well as promising descriptions of the technology already developed.
every small step toward recognizing intelligence of others is a great leap for humanity. I think before human species is able to move any further in its development, the first step it must to make is to step out of the "i'm the top of the God's creation" closet.
So he devised a test. He had four (human) volunteers walk through a prairie dog village, and he dressed all the humans exactly the same — except for their shirts. Each volunteer walked through the community four times: once in a blue shirt, once in a yellow, once in green and once in gray.
He found, to his delight, that the calls broke down into groups based on the color of the volunteer's shirt. "I was astounded," says Slobodchikoff. But what astounded him even more, was that further analysis revealed that the calls also clustered based on other characteristics, like the height of the human. "Essentially they were saying, 'Here comes the tall human in the blue,' versus, 'Here comes the short human in the yellow,' " says Slobodchikoff.
Amazingly, it doesn't stop there. Slobodchikoff's next move was to see if prairie dogs could differentiate between abstract shapes. So he and his students built two wooden towers on each side of a prairie dog village. They then made cardboard cutouts of circles, squares and triangles and ran them out along a wire strung between the two towers, so the shapes sort of floated through the village about three feet from the ground. And the prairie dogs, Slobodchikoff found, were able to tell the difference between the triangle and the circle, but, alas, they made no mention of the difference between the square and the circle.
the first step it must to make is to step out of the "i'm the top of the God's creation" closet
I want to give you 100 of my own karma points. I just do not know where this believe that we are better comes from. [This is totally hypocritical coming from me since I eat meat. Nevertheless]
thank you, i appreciate it :). In my understanding, meat eating is just a stage in the species development. I.e. eating meat, as a more efficient energy source, allowed a bunch of species move to the state of mental development we can observe among the advanced predators, ie. likes of wolves, cats, apes/humans, etc...
I think humans have exhausted how far the _extensive_ (ie. size increasing) brain development of meat eating species can go - it seems we're near the biomechanical limits - the brain consumes ~25% of our body energy. The further development seems to require to "shrink the die" of our brain and/or increase/improving of the energy intake.
"Shrinking the die" is biological evolutionary process that will take time on the scale of several generations at least (Einstein's brain, smaller, yet more densely packed and having more energy generating cells than the average human's brain, shows that it is a viable, in principle, option)
Wrt. improving of the energy intake - i think we're on the brink (ie. in the next few decades) of bio-engineering of the meat-comparable and, this is much more important, more effective-than-meat energy carrying and generating proteins (or whatever compounds it will result in) for human consumption, and in result - move of the humans past the meat (as meat eating would be an artificial dumbing down of yourself) and we'll see the world in the new light. Meat consumption would become just an ugly habit of the past, like torturous executions (ie. burning at stake, disemboweling, quartering...) that were an enjoyable public spectacle just few hundreds years ago.
the predators don't typically eat their own kind, so there is definitely something in their mind that facilitates that separation. In the case of humans that "something" is the idea that "we are better and they are stupid".
of course, they would be looking for fine structured mental field waveforms that they would expect us, like any sentient species, to naturally produce ... and i guess they are still waiting for us to generate the waveforms
Did anyone see the recently circulating video of the cat on the dock interacting with dolphins. Including repeated and extended nuzzling and no signs of aggression.
I immediate thought that, in part, the dolphins might be attracted by, intrigued by the cat's probably purring, sensing it through their jaws. But there seems to be a patience and curiosity there that speaks to significantly more than mere "animal instinct".
We already communicate with dolphins, and experiments have shown that they can understand the syntax and semantics of request/command structures (the same communication elements in different orders ('sentence structures', so to speak) have different meanings).
What will they say when we finally understand them? "Took you long enough."
What will they say when we finally understand them? "Took you long enough."
I don't believe that communication between dolphins and trainers has been strictly one way. I'm pretty sure a trainer can easily read a lot from a dolphin's actions, sounds, etc.
And keep in mind, the other great apes are wicked smart, like smarter then small human children smart, way smarter then the smartest dog, but still not smart enough to say something like "Took you long enough to teach us sign language."
What does "long enough" mean, in that context? I think it's fair to assume that they don't have a cultural heritage, as we do, and thus no perception of time before they were born.
I agree with you, however, that communication is definitely two-way. Anyone with a dog knows that.
Just want to mention that I just watched "The Cove" last night and it was really well done doc. (About Dolphins being mass slaughtered in Japan). Just watch it, its on netflix instant.
I saw a different edit of the same event. From that, I didn't realize it was at a marine theme park. It also didn't include the animals' startled reactions.
Still, interesting. And goes to show, cats are real charmers -- when they want to be. ;-)
One documentary on netflix had a couple training dolphins. They used signs to tell the dolphin to do different tricks. At the end of their training the dolphin had to invent a new trick. They then had two dolphins do the tricks together. At the end of the training, they asked the dolphins to do a new trick, and the dolphins would coordinate a brand new trick together on the fly and perform it simultaneously!
From a machine learning perspective this doesn't seem like such a daunting task. We have pretty good speech recognition for human language (plus acceptable speech synthesis). Assuming dolphins have a smaller vocabulary than humans, speech recognition of dolphins should strictly speaking be a simpler problem (although it would be significantly harder to record the training data).
Oh, I'm sure there would be a few unfortunate "drop your panties, Sir William; I cannot wait until lunchtime" incidents, but with an automated Hungarian Phrasebook[1], we'll eventually learn to get by.
More to the point, though, we have no reason to assume that dolphins, any more than, say, apes, have the ability to "chat" -- to communicate about things displaced from the here and now. It's worth a go, of course, but our expectations shouldn't be too high going in.
I think part of the problem may be context. Without swimming around with them, and having similar senses (something that these days some wearable sensors might mitigate), it may be difficult to grasp what they are talking about.
As dolphins hearing or seeing system is 3D their mind is very different from ours. Before trying to communicate we should be able to imagine what kind of society we could construct with this 3D sensor system.
A part of me feels like conscious, sentient beings should have equal protection under the law. Just because they don't encode knowledge in written language or make tools like we do doesn't mean that they may be any less sentient.
If we ever encounter aliens more intelligent than ourselves, let us hope that we were able to show them that we knew how to treat other intelligent species with whom we cohabit Planet Earth. Otherwise, for the sake of avoiding hypocrisy, you should be OK finding yourself chopped up on a platter, or, enslaved in a zoo to be gawked at.
Eh, reasonable. I suppose I meant that I care about it enough to post something on the internet, but only about that much. That's what part of me cares.
If we establish two-way communication (a big if, given the over-promising that goes on with technology), they could probably share a lot of useful information on the condition of the marine environment and fish stocks, with considerable mutual benefit. Then again, if the the quality of the oceanic ecosystems has plunged as much as we suspect, they might be pretty pissed off with us.
I'll get down-voted -- correctly -- for saying something that adds nothing to the conversation, but YES! I think spending my childhood watching Lucas Walencheck was part of my inspiration to learn programming.
