Topic: Research Shows Dolphins Name Each Other

[Dracho]

Okay... ugh.. if animals don't recognize identity information, why does my dog know his name?



By Deborah Zabarenko

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Bottlenose dolphins can call each other by name when they whistle, making them the only animals besides humans known to recognize such identity information, scientists reported on Monday.

Scientists have long known that dolphins' whistling calls include repeated information thought to be their names, but a new study indicates dolphins recognize these names even when voice cues are removed from the sound.

For example, a dolphin might be expected to recognize its name if called by its mother, but the new study found most dolphins recognized names -- their signature whistles -- even when emitted without inflection or other vocal cues.

More than that, two dolphins may refer to a third by the third animal's name, said Laela Sayigh, one of three authors of a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"They are known to produce these individually distinctive signature whistles, like names," Sayigh said in a telephone interview. She said the researchers wanted to know what information in the whistles helped dolphins identify each other's names.

The scientists already knew that dolphins responded to whistles, but wondered if something in the actual voice of the whistling dolphin was making the identity clear, or if the name itself was enough for recognition.

To find out, they studied bottlenose dolphins in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Instead of playing recordings of actual dolphins making signature whistles, the researchers synthesized signature whistles with the caller's voice features removed and played them to dolphins through an underwater speaker.

In nine out of 14 cases, the dolphin would turn more often toward the speaker if it heard a whistle that sounded like a close relative's.

"It's a very interesting finding that encourages further research, because they are using whistles as referential signals -- that's what words are," said Sayigh, of the University of North Carolina Wilmington. "Dolphins appear to be using these arbitrary signals to identify another dolphin."

She stopped short of saying dolphins might have a human-like language.

"I tend to shy away from using the word 'language' myself, because it's such a loaded term," Sayigh said. "I still really feel strongly that there is no evidence for something like our language. (Dolphins) have got the cognitive skills at least to have referential signals."

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060509/2006-05-09T132626Z_01_N08213486_RTRIDST_0_ODD-SCIENCE-DOLPHINS1-DC.html

[Bonk]

I wish the press would not call biologists scientists. Biology is not a science.   

[E_Look]

You may remove the evil smokin' flamin' smiley; your statement may be truer without it!

[J. Carney]

I wish the press would not call biologists scientists. Biology is not a science.   

Biology is a science... Biology is chemestry that moves about and makes noise.

BEHAVIOR, which is being discussed here, is NOT science, however. It's social work with animals.

[Just plain old Punisher]

I wish the press would not call biologists scientists. Biology is not a science.   

Tom Cruise?

[Lepton]

I wish the press would not call biologists scientists. Biology is not a science.   

I am not sure if you are fishing or not but I will take the bait regardless.  I find it personally disappointing that your reaction to this research is a mere impish critique.  Considering a report in the most recent issue of Nature that river dolphins in China are on the brink of extinction or may be extinct, I'd rather think that your critique might have been a bit more thorough-going.  To me it hardly seems necessary to confirm or dis-confirm the rather anthropocentric metric, "language", as it were, of intelligence considering the considerable stupidity of most human beings on the planet, not only from a human behavioral perspective, but also from an ecological perspective.  I'd take a dolphin over a person any day of the week. In fact, I'll trade you one chemist and one physicist and, hell, one biologist, for a dolphin any time you like, if you can make that happen.  The problem with this research is that it is focusing on the wrong species, if you get my meaning.

What I find most disappointing of the scientist involved in the research and/or the reporter involved is the conceit that human language is somehow the standard that must be met for whatever warped speciesist normative crap that such research or reporting of such research is meant to accomplish.  The ultimate measure of human worth will be whether humanity can pull back from the brink of continuing the largest extinction event since the K-T event for no other reason that human arrogance and short-sightedness.

[GE-Raven]

I wish the press would not call biologists scientists. Biology is not a science.   

I am not sure if you are fishing or not but I will take the bait regardless.  I find it personally disappointing that your reaction to this research is a mere impish critique.  Considering a report in the most recent issue of Nature that river dolphins in China are on the brink of extinction or may be extinct, I'd rather think that your critique might have been a bit more thorough-going.  To me it hardly seems necessary to confirm or dis-confirm the rather anthropocentric metric, "language", as it were, of intelligence considering the considerable stupidity of most human beings on the planet, not only from a human behavioral perspective, but also from an ecological perspective.  I'd take a dolphin over a person any day of the week. In fact, I'll trade you one chemist and one physicist and, hell, one biologist, for a dolphin any time you like, if you can make that happen.  The problem with this research is that it is focusing on the wrong species, if you get my meaning.

What I find most disappointing of the scientist involved in the research and/or the reporter involved is the conceit that human language is somehow the standard that must be met for whatever warped speciesist normative crap that such research or reporting of such research is meant to accomplish.  The ultimate measure of human worth will be whether humanity can pull back from the brink of continuing the largest extinction event since the K-T event for no other reason that human arrogance and short-sightedness.

Umm..... not our faults... All the evolutionists have taught us that We are the "end of the road" in evolution so far.  This means we are the most advanced.  Our communication MUST be the standard for we are the most evolved.

right?

[Dracho]

It's not so much that we are the end of evolution, as it is that any research must have a benchmark against which it must be measured.  Since none of us understand or can verify any standard of language other than human, it therefore become the defacto measurement by which all animal linguistic ability is to be measured by us.  Should dolphins one day do their own research, it will likely be measuring ape speech against whatever they are using.


That said, there is some interesting research in  animal communication on frequencies that humans cannot detect.  However, the use of language should be similiar, as we mammals are all descended from a common ancestor, even if the method of linguistic communication varies from species to species.

[Nemesis]

Okay... ugh.. if animals don't recognize identity information, why does my dog know his name?

People give things names. Apparently dolphins do too.  Dogs don't seem to.  It is the giving of names that I see as most important here rather than the recognition of them.

Rather like chimps can be taught to make stone tools or sign language but in the wild they never seem to have figured it out themselves.  The big step from being able to and recognizing the need or utility of doing it seems to be beyond most creatures.  Dolphins apparently take that next step of creating something that didn't already exist, like humans do.  Dogs and chimps don't.

Perhaps in any definition of sentience we need to include the giving of names.

[Dracho]

Well,  a couple of retorts:

Dogs give things smells.  With a dog's nose, it's possible their communication system involves odors we cannot detect.  This could replace facial expressions?

Chimps and apes have both been observed to use tools in the wild.  Additionally, chimps have been observed to fight "wars" with other bands of chimps, using rocks and clubs.  What amazes me more with the great apes are the ones that have been taught several hundred American Sign Language words, and seem to use them properly (though at about the level of a 3-4 year-old human).

[Nemesis]

Umm..... not our faults... All the evolutionists have taught us that We are the "end of the road" in evolution so far.  This means we are the most advanced.  Our communication MUST be the standard for we are the most evolved.

right?

Evolution teaches that change is on going that there is no "peak".  People who speak as if evolution has a goal speak incorrectly.

Evolution is simply about how species change over time to adapt to the environment period.  No goal of perfection or intelligence or any other characteristic.

Those who really call us the peak or end point are religions. 

[Nemesis]

Well,  a couple of retorts:

Dogs give things smells.  With a dog's nose, it's possible their communication system involves odors we cannot detect.  This could replace facial expressions?

Can they create new ones?  If not then the "language" is limited to what is programmed in, no new words to handle new situations.

Chimps and apes have both been observed to use tools in the wild.  Additionally, chimps have been observed to fight "wars" with other bands of chimps, using rocks and clubs.  What amazes me more with the great apes are the ones that have been taught several hundred American Sign Language words, and seem to use them properly (though at about the level of a 3-4 year-old human).

They uses sticks and stones but they don't shape them into forms that did not already exist.  No chipping a rock into shape or carving the stick into a new form.  They also don't retain the "tools" past the current use.

Yes chimps have been taught sign language so they have the ability to use it.  They don't seem to have created one in the wild though.  The key difference.  Perhaps near sentience for chimps vs sentience for dolphins.

[Dracho]

Perhaps.  Dolphins, IMHO though, are a dead-end intelligence because developing their smarts in a water environment will prevent them from ever developing fire, or the ability to leave the Earth.

Interesting category there:  Terrestrial intelligence vs. Space Faring or Space Capable Intelligence.

[Nemesis]

Perhaps.  Dolphins, IMHO though, are a dead-end intelligence because developing their smarts in a water environment will prevent them from ever developing fire, or the ability to leave the Earth.

Interesting category there:  Terrestrial intelligence vs. Space Faring or Space Capable Intelligence.

Depends on how their evolution continues (and if we let it).  According to evolution life has left the sea before. 

It also depends on sociology.  Imagine if eventually we end up in two way communication with them and find out that they think  enough differently from us that they can solve problems that we can't (and vice versa).  Together we might achieve things that neither could alone.

At this point we don't know enough of how they think and how well.  They could be smarter than us or they could be borderline sentience or just different.  No way to know yet.

[jayvt3]

they great apes does the same.  not with whistles but through hoots and rumbles in their diaphram.  turtle doves also do this but to us one sounds like the other but to a lost dovling or a mate their are significant differences.

this all reminds me of when I was a child in the late 70's to early 80's of self-proclaimed scientists and experts "demanding" that dolphins were our sentient equals and should be given rights and such.

to me it was all just a bunch of left wing liberal crap so i went with my friend to the harbor at Shimono-Seki and had dolphin for lunch.

now you want a "smart" sea animal.  Scripps at La Jolla in San Diego had a cuttlefish that could do math better than some high school seniors.

[Dracho]

You know, if you haven't read it, I bet you'd love the Uplift War series by David Brin.


And Javvt3, when you eat dolphin in a resturaunt, you're not eating porpoise.  You're eating Mahimahi, or dolphin fish.

[Death_Merchant]

So the dolphins finally get through to us, all their failed attempts at elaborate communication at SeaWorld shows notwithstanding...

Gads, has anyone checked the transit construction filings at Alpha Centauri lately???

A slightly annoyed DM starts to look for a ride off this rock.....

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345391802?v=glance

[The Bar-Abbas Anomaly]

You know, if you haven't read it, I bet you'd love the Uplift War series by David Brin.


And Javvt3, when you eat dolphin in a resturaunt, you're not eating porpoise.  You're eating Mahimahi, or dolphin fish.

Bender: Who wants dolphin?
Crew: [Gasps]
Leela: Dolphin?! But dolphins are intelligent!
Bender: Not this one. He blew all his money on instant lottery tickets.
Crew: Oh! All right then [start eating]...


(Quote author=Futurama)

[The Bar-Abbas Anomaly]

Evolution teaches that change is on going that there is no "peak".  People who speak as if evolution has a goal speak incorrectly.

Evolution is simply about how species change over time to adapt to the environment period.  No goal of perfection or intelligence or any other characteristic.

Those who really call us the peak or end point are religions. 

True statement.  However, that being the case, why all the fuss from evolutionists over extinction?  If a species can't adapt to any particular enviornment, it'll die out and perhaps some other species will adapt it's way into the void left behind....  It's all about on-going change; who are we to think we know better or to try to force evolutionary progress to stand still?

Stewardship of the Earth is a religious principle, not evolutionary.

[The Bar-Abbas Anomaly]

To find out, they studied bottlenose dolphins in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Instead of playing recordings of actual dolphins making signature whistles, the researchers synthesized signature whistles with the caller's voice features removed and played them to dolphins through an underwater speaker.

In nine out of 14 cases, the dolphin would turn more often toward the speaker if it heard a whistle that sounded like a close relative's.

"It's a very interesting finding that encourages further research, because they are using whistles as referential signals -- that's what words are," said Sayigh, of the University of North Carolina Wilmington. "Dolphins appear to be using these arbitrary signals to identify another dolphin."

I'm not sure I'm all too excited regarding their numbers...  They seem to be saying that "In 64% of cases (9 out of 14), 64% of dolphins ("more often") would turn towards the whistle."  I'm just not too impressed with that, although I would concede that it warrants further research.

Somebody still in college run that through a statistical analysis and get back to us, hey?  (Clark.... Ed....     )