7 ms·

These dolphins talk to each other. Why do we insist it isn’t language?

58 points by CarolineW 11y ago

dharma1 11y ago
"We’re still not able to break the whistles and burst pulses into meaningful units, the equivalents of words or phrases." Seems like something machine learning could help with. Of course it may turn out it's impossible to translate between human and dolphin languages in a meaningful way. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129624-300-dolphin-whistle-instantly-translated-by-computer/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129624-300-dolphin-...
- spatulan 11y ago
  We might be looking for sentences and words that just aren't there. Dolphins see with sound, so maybe all those clicks and whistles are their way of sketching images for each other.
  - Hoasi 11y ago
    True, but it might just be even more interesting to decipher. Imagine you could rebuilt 3D visualisations of dolphin thoughts.
  - dharma1 11y ago
    is there enough data in the clicks and whistles to render an image?
    - spatulan 11y ago
      There probably isn't enough data to render a full image, but how many lines do we need to draw to give the impression of a person, or a tree? Surprisingly few. Couldn't the same apply to a sonar image? It's just an idea. I'm not saying its true, just that its an interesting possibility.
      - thaumasiotes 11y ago
        > how many lines do we need to draw to give the impression of a person, or a tree? Context sensitive, but yes, surprisingly few. 大 is three lines. 木 is four.
        inimino 11y ago
        人 is just two.
        thaumasiotes 11y ago
        I'm aware, but you need special training before you can recognize that as a person. 木 is "wood" in the modern day; does 树 really make you think "that looks like a tree"?
        inimino 11y ago
        So perhaps any visual representation of meaning would require shared context to interpret, and would then inevitably become symbolic rather than directly representational.
        thaumasiotes 11y ago
        I don't understand what you're trying to say here, but e.g. Michelangelo's David is widely recognized as representing a person, and no shared context is required for that.
  - suvelx 11y ago
    Perhaps to test this, you could have two sets of identical statues. Two dolphins need to interact with the matching statues together to get food. If you followed the 'five monkeys and a ladder with a banana' experiment and found two dolphins who worked it out. Replace one with another. Presumably one will try and teach the other. With enough dolphins and statues, you might be able to use the similar methods you'd use to break simple cryptography to work out what part of the communication is about the statue. Or, you'll find out every dolphin talks to every other dolphin differently. And then and then the government bans dolphins out of fear of being unable to intercept dolphin based communications.
    - jack9 11y ago
      > Presumably one will try and teach the other. IIRC this has already been tried and demonstrated to happen. This is the first thing that google came up with, but I'm sure Scientific American has also covered the teaching behavior. http://www.earthintransition.org/2011/09/dolphins-teach-each-other-new-trick/ http://www.earthintransition.org/2011/09/dolphins-teach-each...
- V-2 11y ago
  "If a lion could speak, we couldn't understand him" (Wittgenstein)
  - dharma1 11y ago
    Wittgenstein didn't know about LSTM or word2vec :)
madaxe_again 11y ago
It's the same sort of thinking that used to say "the African does not truly think or feel, he simply exhibits reflex responses that can give the appearance of thinking and feeling". Given what we know of cetaceans their classification as non-human persons seems fair, and future generations may look at our treatment of cetaceans today as dimly as we now do early 20th century whaling. Assuming that only humans are sentient is a arrogant as assuming only the white man is sentient. On the note of how they communicate - I wonder if anyone has considered sonar holography - I.e. The clicks and whistles aren't words per se but are interpreted visually, as an actual sonar reflection off an actual object would be. I'm trying to find the paper but I seem to recall some research in which they realised a dolphin was mimicking the sonar echo of an object, with startling accuracy.
- s_kilk 11y ago
  > On the note of how they communicate - I wonder if anyone has considered sonar holography - I.e. The clicks and whistles aren't words per se but are interpreted visually, as an actual sonar reflection off an actual object would be. I'm trying to find the paper but I seem to recall some research in which they realised a dolphin was mimicking the sonar echo of an object, with startling accuracy. Do you mean something like this? http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/this-picture-reveals-how-dolphins-communicate-and-how-we-may-some-day-understand-their-language/ http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/this-picture-reveals-how-dol...
  - madaxe_again 11y ago
    Exactly that, yes. Spatial information encoded in acoustic information - audio pictograms, almost. The really interesting question then becomes "is it always literal, or do they have abstract imagery too?". If it's the latter, that is, in my admittedly inexpert opinion, a slam dunk for dolphin sentience - abstract symbolism allows art.
- cperciva 11y ago
  It's the same sort of thinking that used to say "the African does not truly think or feel, he simply exhibits reflex responses that can give the appearance of thinking and feeling". Or, perhaps, "the Computer does not truly think or feel, it simply follows numerical algorithms that can give the appearance of thinking and feeling"? (Obviously I'm not attempting to compare the intellect of Africans and that of computers; just to make the point that it's really hard to describe what is going on inside someone or something else's mind, when we don't even have clear definitions for what it means to "think" or "feel".)
aaron695 11y ago
That fact it mentions Koko (A great example of Facilitated Communication) shows they have no real concern for science on the subject. It's the one who "cried" when Robin Williams died, you can't make this stuff up (1) But the original research looks interesting, but yes silly humans finding patterns to prove things they want to believe does not make science. Hence why intelligent people still say, there's no evidence yet it's language. (1) https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/koko-the-gorilla-cries-over-robin-williams-94619476571.html https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/koko-the-gorilla-cries-over-robi...
KingMob 11y ago
Former neuroscientist here. In grad school, I TAed for one of the profs who tried (and eventually renounced) to teach Nim Chimpsky language. I am well-versed in this. For starters, we need to make a clear distinction between communication and language. Many animals communicate information to each other. But the hallmark of language is flexibility; the existence of grammar allows us to communicate novel sentences we have never spoken and others have never heard in a way that is clearly impossible with conditioning. Second, anthropomorphism is a big problem; It's why the field ultimately rejected the project to teach chimps language, and why they are dubious about language in parrots and dolphins. The evidence was, and is, relatively weak. Many researchers heard what seemed like language from chimps (e.g., Washoe's infamous "water bird" for swan), but when they analyzed Nim's total corpus, the connection between utterance and meaning vanished. Other than a few holdouts, the field largely concluded that all the chimp behavior observed could be just as easily explained with conditioning (utter that in this circumstance, get a reward, if no reward, try a new utterance, etc). Regarding the dolphins, I looked at the abstract of the original paper. Nowhere do they use the word "language", and the lead scientist also says they don't know if it's language. It's not clear why the Guardian article's author wants to argue for more.
- cLeEOGPw 11y ago
  > It's not clear why the Guardian article's author wants to argue for more. It's pretty clear why - sensationalism, as always.
mac01021 11y ago
Something I've always wondered about dolphins: They are widely regarded as ranking among the most intelligent animals. At the very least, they seem to be much more trainable than a wide variety of other mammals. But why? What about their lifestyle, diet, hunting methods, etc requires cognitive ability greater than that of (say) a shark or an antelope?
- jack9 11y ago
  Same could be asked about humans. Quirk of evolution is my best guess.
  - mac01021 11y ago
    Noone would ask this question about humans. Humans use tools, coordinate their activity by communicating detailed questions, statements, and commands, and contrive elaborate schemes for altering their environments to be more favorable. The ability to do these things is accepted without controversy as being essential to their success as a species. But dolphins: what do they do in their natural environment that utilizes such intelligence? If they just swim around eating fish and mating, then they need not be any smarter than sharks, which do basically the same thing.
mannykannot 11y ago
If dolphins had a human-like facility for language, I imagine some captive dolphins would have figured out (probably through a discussion among themselves) that humans also have language, and that it would be greatly beneficial if they could communicate with humans. With both parties sharing this goal, I don't think it would take long. On the other hand, I don't suppose human language emerged fully-formed (I don't think there is much evidence for Chomsky's views on this), and these pre- or proto-language skills may provide a lot of insight into its evolution.
- kwhitefoot 11y ago
  Or the dolphins are just as biased as we are and simply think that humans just appear to have a language.
linhchi 11y ago
We call it communication as a broader classification. Then the system of sounds they make is the communication medium. Like looking in the eyes.

58 points by CarolineW 11y ago

"We’re still not able to break the whistles and burst pulses into meaningful units, the equivalents of words or phrases." Seems like something machine learning could help with. Of course it may turn out it's impossible to translate between human and dolphin languages in a meaningful way. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129624-300-dolphin-whistle-instantly-translated-by-computer/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129624-300-dolphin-...

spatulan 11y ago
We might be looking for sentences and words that just aren't there. Dolphins see with sound, so maybe all those clicks and whistles are their way of sketching images for each other.
- Hoasi 11y ago
  True, but it might just be even more interesting to decipher. Imagine you could rebuilt 3D visualisations of dolphin thoughts.
- dharma1 11y ago
  is there enough data in the clicks and whistles to render an image?
  - spatulan 11y ago
    There probably isn't enough data to render a full image, but how many lines do we need to draw to give the impression of a person, or a tree? Surprisingly few. Couldn't the same apply to a sonar image? It's just an idea. I'm not saying its true, just that its an interesting possibility.
    - thaumasiotes 11y ago
      > how many lines do we need to draw to give the impression of a person, or a tree? Context sensitive, but yes, surprisingly few. 大 is three lines. 木 is four.
      - inimino 11y ago
        人 is just two.
        thaumasiotes 11y ago
        I'm aware, but you need special training before you can recognize that as a person. 木 is "wood" in the modern day; does 树 really make you think "that looks like a tree"?
        inimino 11y ago
        So perhaps any visual representation of meaning would require shared context to interpret, and would then inevitably become symbolic rather than directly representational.
        thaumasiotes 11y ago
        I don't understand what you're trying to say here, but e.g. Michelangelo's David is widely recognized as representing a person, and no shared context is required for that.
- suvelx 11y ago
  Perhaps to test this, you could have two sets of identical statues. Two dolphins need to interact with the matching statues together to get food. If you followed the 'five monkeys and a ladder with a banana' experiment and found two dolphins who worked it out. Replace one with another. Presumably one will try and teach the other. With enough dolphins and statues, you might be able to use the similar methods you'd use to break simple cryptography to work out what part of the communication is about the statue. Or, you'll find out every dolphin talks to every other dolphin differently. And then and then the government bans dolphins out of fear of being unable to intercept dolphin based communications.
  - jack9 11y ago
    > Presumably one will try and teach the other. IIRC this has already been tried and demonstrated to happen. This is the first thing that google came up with, but I'm sure Scientific American has also covered the teaching behavior. http://www.earthintransition.org/2011/09/dolphins-teach-each-other-new-trick/ http://www.earthintransition.org/2011/09/dolphins-teach-each...
V-2 11y ago
"If a lion could speak, we couldn't understand him" (Wittgenstein)
- dharma1 11y ago
  Wittgenstein didn't know about LSTM or word2vec :)

madaxe_again 11y ago

It's the same sort of thinking that used to say "the African does not truly think or feel, he simply exhibits reflex responses that can give the appearance of thinking and feeling". Given what we know of cetaceans their classification as non-human persons seems fair, and future generations may look at our treatment of cetaceans today as dimly as we now do early 20th century whaling. Assuming that only humans are sentient is a arrogant as assuming only the white man is sentient. On the note of how they communicate - I wonder if anyone has considered sonar holography - I.e. The clicks and whistles aren't words per se but are interpreted visually, as an actual sonar reflection off an actual object would be. I'm trying to find the paper but I seem to recall some research in which they realised a dolphin was mimicking the sonar echo of an object, with startling accuracy.

s_kilk 11y ago
> On the note of how they communicate - I wonder if anyone has considered sonar holography - I.e. The clicks and whistles aren't words per se but are interpreted visually, as an actual sonar reflection off an actual object would be. I'm trying to find the paper but I seem to recall some research in which they realised a dolphin was mimicking the sonar echo of an object, with startling accuracy. Do you mean something like this? http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/this-picture-reveals-how-dolphins-communicate-and-how-we-may-some-day-understand-their-language/ http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/this-picture-reveals-how-dol...
- madaxe_again 11y ago
  Exactly that, yes. Spatial information encoded in acoustic information - audio pictograms, almost. The really interesting question then becomes "is it always literal, or do they have abstract imagery too?". If it's the latter, that is, in my admittedly inexpert opinion, a slam dunk for dolphin sentience - abstract symbolism allows art.
cperciva 11y ago
It's the same sort of thinking that used to say "the African does not truly think or feel, he simply exhibits reflex responses that can give the appearance of thinking and feeling". Or, perhaps, "the Computer does not truly think or feel, it simply follows numerical algorithms that can give the appearance of thinking and feeling"? (Obviously I'm not attempting to compare the intellect of Africans and that of computers; just to make the point that it's really hard to describe what is going on inside someone or something else's mind, when we don't even have clear definitions for what it means to "think" or "feel".)

aaron695 11y ago

That fact it mentions Koko (A great example of Facilitated Communication) shows they have no real concern for science on the subject. It's the one who "cried" when Robin Williams died, you can't make this stuff up (1) But the original research looks interesting, but yes silly humans finding patterns to prove things they want to believe does not make science. Hence why intelligent people still say, there's no evidence yet it's language. (1) https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/koko-the-gorilla-cries-over-robin-williams-94619476571.html https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/koko-the-gorilla-cries-over-robi...

KingMob 11y ago

Former neuroscientist here. In grad school, I TAed for one of the profs who tried (and eventually renounced) to teach Nim Chimpsky language. I am well-versed in this. For starters, we need to make a clear distinction between communication and language. Many animals communicate information to each other. But the hallmark of language is flexibility; the existence of grammar allows us to communicate novel sentences we have never spoken and others have never heard in a way that is clearly impossible with conditioning. Second, anthropomorphism is a big problem; It's why the field ultimately rejected the project to teach chimps language, and why they are dubious about language in parrots and dolphins. The evidence was, and is, relatively weak. Many researchers heard what seemed like language from chimps (e.g., Washoe's infamous "water bird" for swan), but when they analyzed Nim's total corpus, the connection between utterance and meaning vanished. Other than a few holdouts, the field largely concluded that all the chimp behavior observed could be just as easily explained with conditioning (utter that in this circumstance, get a reward, if no reward, try a new utterance, etc). Regarding the dolphins, I looked at the abstract of the original paper. Nowhere do they use the word "language", and the lead scientist also says they don't know if it's language. It's not clear why the Guardian article's author wants to argue for more.

cLeEOGPw 11y ago
> It's not clear why the Guardian article's author wants to argue for more. It's pretty clear why - sensationalism, as always.

mac01021 11y ago

Something I've always wondered about dolphins: They are widely regarded as ranking among the most intelligent animals. At the very least, they seem to be much more trainable than a wide variety of other mammals. But why? What about their lifestyle, diet, hunting methods, etc requires cognitive ability greater than that of (say) a shark or an antelope?

jack9 11y ago
Same could be asked about humans. Quirk of evolution is my best guess.
- mac01021 11y ago
  Noone would ask this question about humans. Humans use tools, coordinate their activity by communicating detailed questions, statements, and commands, and contrive elaborate schemes for altering their environments to be more favorable. The ability to do these things is accepted without controversy as being essential to their success as a species. But dolphins: what do they do in their natural environment that utilizes such intelligence? If they just swim around eating fish and mating, then they need not be any smarter than sharks, which do basically the same thing.

mannykannot 11y ago

If dolphins had a human-like facility for language, I imagine some captive dolphins would have figured out (probably through a discussion among themselves) that humans also have language, and that it would be greatly beneficial if they could communicate with humans. With both parties sharing this goal, I don't think it would take long. On the other hand, I don't suppose human language emerged fully-formed (I don't think there is much evidence for Chomsky's views on this), and these pre- or proto-language skills may provide a lot of insight into its evolution.

kwhitefoot 11y ago
Or the dolphins are just as biased as we are and simply think that humans just appear to have a language.

linhchi 11y ago

We call it communication as a broader classification. Then the system of sounds they make is the communication medium. Like looking in the eyes.