5 ms·

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 t

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".)
- madaxe_again 11y ago
  Sure, although the reason I raised it in the context of Africans is that not so long ago this was used as a justification for all sorts of horrors - any Explorer worth their salt would keep a stuffed pygmy as a coat rack - I mean, "it's" not really sentient, its family only gave the appearance of being distraught when you "culled" it. And, of course, slavery and all that begat. Ota Benga is a nice (not so nice) case study in the impact of this sort of thinking.
- augustnagro 11y ago
  not sure why you got down voted for this
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  > Turing describes a number of objections that people are inclined to raise to the possibility of AI. One, which he calls the "Heads in the Sand" objection, he characterises thus: "The consequences of machines thinking would be too dreadful. Let us hope and believe that they cannot do so." It is, he says, particularly prevalent among intellectual people, since they most value the power of thinking. Turing notes that this position needs no refuting: "Consolation would be more appropriate." Today the Heads in the Sand objection is alive and well. (Sourced from https://plus.maths.org/content/computers-ltd https://plus.maths.org/content/computers-ltd ; the paper of Turing's can be read at http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~rosen/161/turing_paper.html http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~rosen/161/turing_paper.html )
  - cperciva 11y ago
    My favourite answer is that the question of machines thinking -- and in this context, dolphins thinking -- is about as meaningful as the question of whether submarines swim: Not the same way as we do, but if they get the same result does the mechanism really matter?
    - meric 11y ago
      I think machines would have to have awareness and experience before we can say they think like us. We are extremely aware of our computers - every pixel it emanates from the screen, every bounce on the keyboard, the temperature, it's hum. With our awareness we build a model of the computer, we can anticipate and manipulate it's future states. The computer on the other hand, senses only touches on its keyboard, the power feeding to it from the power socket, the light entering its camera, the bits coming through on it's wifi. Sure, this information are enough to build some sort of model of the world, but it does not currently do that. Our computers do not marshal all of it's sensory experience into a coherent whole, and therefore remains in unawareness, cannot anticipate and cannot manipulate the world around it informed by its own experience, it acts and thinks like the detached tail of a lizard. Nonetheless, I do think, one day, computers will think and be aware.
augustnagro 11y ago
Definition of anthropomorphism (noun): "the attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object. " A common example of anthropomorphism is in voles (and other rodents). [1,2] Very long ago, scientists noticed that bank vole pups frequently cry when their mother leaves the nest. The scientists assumed that the pups were afraid, and missed their parent. Eventually, it was discovered that the absence of their mother drops the temperature of the underground nest, and that the pups cries are actually a mechanism to generate heat. When scientists took their mother away, but increased the heat of their den to normal levels, the pups did not cry. The animals were not communicating or displaying anything resembling "human" emotion, but were innately responding to environmental stress. No matter how much we want to believe that animals are sentient, have emotions, and communicate to each other via language, science indicates that's just not the case. In fact, there have been numerous studies that indicate anthropomorphism is a byproduct of our complex social structure. Nice job bringing racism into a discussion about dolphin vocalizations, by the way.
- madaxe_again 11y ago
  You've just underscored my point, however, by reducing potential communication to "vocalisations". Then again, perhaps you are just a well trained markov chain, and not actually a person.
- tzs 11y ago
  > No matter how much we want to believe that animals are sentient, have emotions, and communicate to each other via language, science indicates that's just not the case. That's an overstatement. All you can really conclude is that science cannot say whether or not any non-humans are sentient.
- cmdrfred 11y ago
  How do we know that human infants don't respond that same way, for the same reason? Perhaps the voles reaction to heat signals a more sophisticated understanding in comparison to the child who cries regardless of temperature.
  - 11y ago
srean 11y ago
I thoroughly agree with you. This "denial due to lack of undeniable evidence" has been one of my pet annoyances in discussions on this topic. I am all for skepticism, it is a fundamental pillar of science. What bugs me is the application of different standards when discussing the question "are humans sentient/intelligent" vs "are dolphins (elephants, apes, etc) sentient/intelligent". For both the cases we can only observe their external behavior, and I think all we can measure is whether that external behavior is consistent with our hypothesis. Sure, there are other hypothesis that explains the same behavior, the fault lies in choosing a less charitable hypothesis for animals but a more charitable one for humans. Till better methods are discovered, I think a Turing test analogue is the best we can do.

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".)

madaxe_again 11y ago
Sure, although the reason I raised it in the context of Africans is that not so long ago this was used as a justification for all sorts of horrors - any Explorer worth their salt would keep a stuffed pygmy as a coat rack - I mean, "it's" not really sentient, its family only gave the appearance of being distraught when you "culled" it. And, of course, slavery and all that begat. Ota Benga is a nice (not so nice) case study in the impact of this sort of thinking.
augustnagro 11y ago
not sure why you got down voted for this
thaumasiotes 11y ago
> Turing describes a number of objections that people are inclined to raise to the possibility of AI. One, which he calls the "Heads in the Sand" objection, he characterises thus: "The consequences of machines thinking would be too dreadful. Let us hope and believe that they cannot do so." It is, he says, particularly prevalent among intellectual people, since they most value the power of thinking. Turing notes that this position needs no refuting: "Consolation would be more appropriate." Today the Heads in the Sand objection is alive and well. (Sourced from https://plus.maths.org/content/computers-ltd https://plus.maths.org/content/computers-ltd ; the paper of Turing's can be read at http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~rosen/161/turing_paper.html http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~rosen/161/turing_paper.html )
- cperciva 11y ago
  My favourite answer is that the question of machines thinking -- and in this context, dolphins thinking -- is about as meaningful as the question of whether submarines swim: Not the same way as we do, but if they get the same result does the mechanism really matter?
  - meric 11y ago
    I think machines would have to have awareness and experience before we can say they think like us. We are extremely aware of our computers - every pixel it emanates from the screen, every bounce on the keyboard, the temperature, it's hum. With our awareness we build a model of the computer, we can anticipate and manipulate it's future states. The computer on the other hand, senses only touches on its keyboard, the power feeding to it from the power socket, the light entering its camera, the bits coming through on it's wifi. Sure, this information are enough to build some sort of model of the world, but it does not currently do that. Our computers do not marshal all of it's sensory experience into a coherent whole, and therefore remains in unawareness, cannot anticipate and cannot manipulate the world around it informed by its own experience, it acts and thinks like the detached tail of a lizard. Nonetheless, I do think, one day, computers will think and be aware.

augustnagro 11y ago

Definition of anthropomorphism (noun): "the attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object. " A common example of anthropomorphism is in voles (and other rodents). [1,2] Very long ago, scientists noticed that bank vole pups frequently cry when their mother leaves the nest. The scientists assumed that the pups were afraid, and missed their parent. Eventually, it was discovered that the absence of their mother drops the temperature of the underground nest, and that the pups cries are actually a mechanism to generate heat. When scientists took their mother away, but increased the heat of their den to normal levels, the pups did not cry. The animals were not communicating or displaying anything resembling "human" emotion, but were innately responding to environmental stress. No matter how much we want to believe that animals are sentient, have emotions, and communicate to each other via language, science indicates that's just not the case. In fact, there have been numerous studies that indicate anthropomorphism is a byproduct of our complex social structure. Nice job bringing racism into a discussion about dolphin vocalizations, by the way.

madaxe_again 11y ago
You've just underscored my point, however, by reducing potential communication to "vocalisations". Then again, perhaps you are just a well trained markov chain, and not actually a person.
tzs 11y ago
> No matter how much we want to believe that animals are sentient, have emotions, and communicate to each other via language, science indicates that's just not the case. That's an overstatement. All you can really conclude is that science cannot say whether or not any non-humans are sentient.
cmdrfred 11y ago
How do we know that human infants don't respond that same way, for the same reason? Perhaps the voles reaction to heat signals a more sophisticated understanding in comparison to the child who cries regardless of temperature.
- 11y ago

srean 11y ago

I thoroughly agree with you. This "denial due to lack of undeniable evidence" has been one of my pet annoyances in discussions on this topic. I am all for skepticism, it is a fundamental pillar of science. What bugs me is the application of different standards when discussing the question "are humans sentient/intelligent" vs "are dolphins (elephants, apes, etc) sentient/intelligent". For both the cases we can only observe their external behavior, and I think all we can measure is whether that external behavior is consistent with our hypothesis. Sure, there are other hypothesis that explains the same behavior, the fault lies in choosing a less charitable hypothesis for animals but a more charitable one for humans. Till better methods are discovered, I think a Turing test analogue is the best we can do.