Bay 12 Games Forum
Finally... => General Discussion => Topic started by: Chaoswizkid on February 22, 2012, 06:02:45 pm
-
According to a joint group of scientists, philosophers and animal rights activists, enough conclusive evidence has been gathered to determine that members of the cetacean order (whales, dolphins, and other marine mammals) are able to rival human intelligence. Due to this high level of intelligence and displays of personality, these marine mammals should be viewed as non-human persons. The first step in this process is to introduce a bill of rights granting them the right to life and removing them from forced captivity, as well as granting them increased privacy from such human activities as whale-watching tours. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2104034/A-rights-dolphins-Theyre-smart-treat-non-human-persons-say-scientists.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)
There's some pretty neat anecdotal (http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/303/CanAnimalsThink.pdf) and scientific evidence lying around on the net, (http://www.dolphins.org/research_DRC.php) and this isn't the first time this concept has come up before. (http://www.wilddolphinproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Etica-animali-Herzing-White-1998.pdf)
In my personal opinion, the research clearly shows that dolphins are extremely intelligent, and we are becoming limited in how effective our invented languages to communicate between species is, which limits our understanding of just how intelligent cetaceans are. The concept of a "bill of rights" is a bit drastic, though. I think it's pretty much come out of the blue, and a lot of people are trying to use standard reactions.
So far I've seen
Of course they should have the right to life! We are all God's creatures!
This can also come in secular flavors.
They are such beautiful and majestic creatures! They need to be protected!
Oh, right, we left Dolphins be considered people, and now all the animals are people, too, aren't they?
This is just some animal rights activists and some 'scientists' and some people who call themselves 'philosophers' trying to hug the trees as hard as they can.
These responses all steer clear of the actual implications of what's going on. We are, for the first time, dealing with a species that may be as intelligent, or even more intelligent, than ourselves. True, there are some clear examples of animal intelligence, and a lot of research has gone into the study of the Great Apes, but those are more often than not a case-by-case basis. Most of the anecdotal evidence supporting intelligent cetaceans come from random encounters or odd occurrences that seem worth mentioning, rather than the diary of a person who continually trained a single member of the Great Apes. This means the species as a whole may already be at the point that it takes months or years of training other animal species to reach.
The implications of such a thing means that humanity has to reconsider a lot of things. How do we deal with not being the only intelligent species on the planet? How do we come to view other intelligent species? Should they be individuals? How far should we go out of our way to protect them? Can we learn from them? This group is trying to deal with most of the confusing parts by blanketing them with a bill of rights: they will be considered individuals, they should be treated as equals, they should be protected, etc. Whether or not that is the correct course of action could perhaps be debated, but trying to give a trained auto-response such as "tree-hugger drivel" or "all animals are equal" is entirely the wrong way to go about this business.
Now that I've stated the news and laid out the foundation (and adding my handful of change), anyone feel like starting up some General Discussion?
-
The conference heard that dolphins are self-aware – they can recognise themselves in the mirror.
Minor thing, but I absolutely despise that recognizing yourself in a mirror is considered a measure of self awareness. Frankly I think self-awareness is a fairly BS term in general.
-
I am and have been all for granting higher intelligence mammalian species a protected status that disallows hunting them, but calling them "non-human persons" is just plain silly.
-
The conference heard that dolphins are self-aware – they can recognise themselves in the mirror.
Minor thing, but I absolutely despise that recognizing yourself in a mirror is considered a measure of self awareness.
There's a bit more research into that than they let on in the general-purpose news article. That test is also pretty much the best that we've got right now. So many species fail that test, which means that we can focus on refining to what degree are the species that succeed self-aware, which is a lot harder to figure out.
-
The conference heard that dolphins are self-aware – they can recognise themselves in the mirror.
Minor thing, but I absolutely despise that recognizing yourself in a mirror is considered a measure of self awareness.
There's a bit more research into that than they let on in the general-purpose news article. That test is also pretty much the best that we've got right now. So many species fail that test, which means that we can focus on refining to what degree are the species that succeed self-aware, which is a lot harder to figure out.
Yeah, but how is recognizing yourself in a mirror a test of self awareness to begin with? It sounds more like a test of visual perception.
A better test would be to kick an animal, and see if the animal cares or not. If it doesn't like being kicked, it probably is somewhat aware of itself.
-
I would argue against the term 'higher intelligence' and similar. It implies that intelligence can be effectively compared on a linear scale, which I object to heavily.
-
dealing with a species that may be as intelligent, or even more intelligent, than ourselves
I'm all for respecting cetaceans and stopping the butchering of whales and dolphins, but I think that's going a bit too far.
-
"non-human person" should we apply laws governing persons to whales and dolphins now?
So do you suppose we should arrest them if they come into territorial waters? Fishing without a permit?
-
Yeah, but how is recognizing yourself in a mirror a test of self awareness to begin with? It sounds more like a test of visual perception.
They put a spot on the animal's head and see if they try to remove it when they see it on their reflection.
-
Yeah, but how is recognizing yourself in a mirror a test of self awareness to begin with? It sounds more like a test of visual perception.
They put a spot on the animal's head and see if they try to remove it when they see it on their reflection.
I still don't see how that shows anything other than the animal can recognize an image of itself. To me, being able to recognize an image or picture of myself doesn't make me self aware.
-
Yeah, but how is recognizing yourself in a mirror a test of self awareness to begin with? It sounds more like a test of visual perception.
They put a spot on the animal's head and see if they try to remove it when they see it on their reflection.
I still don't see how that shows anything other than the animal can recognize an image of itself. To me, being able to recognize an image or picture of myself doesn't make me self aware.
Being able to recognize yourself doesn't make you self aware? Just what definition of self-awareness are you operating under here?
-
While 'non-human-persons' sounds silly, it also sounds kinda awesome. :P
In all honesty, I'm just gonna wait and see. I know it's fun to theorize, but...I just..meh.
On a related note, this 'self-awareness' test also seems a tad silly. Figuring out that a mirror shows the stuff looking at it or what have you does not seem to constitute 'self-awareness', IMO.
On the other hand, I have no clue what I'm talking about.
-
The conference heard that dolphins are self-aware – they can recognise themselves in the mirror.
Minor thing, but I absolutely despise that recognizing yourself in a mirror is considered a measure of self awareness.
There's a bit more research into that than they let on in the general-purpose news article. That test is also pretty much the best that we've got right now. So many species fail that test, which means that we can focus on refining to what degree are the species that succeed self-aware, which is a lot harder to figure out.
Yeah, but how is recognizing yourself in a mirror a test of self awareness to begin with? It sounds more like a test of visual perception.
True, an assumption is made that we can see the same image on the mirror that any other animal sees. However, if that assumption holds true, then when, say, a parrot looks at the mirror, gets confused, and pecks at what it should recognize as itself (not from ever having seen itself, but because it should recognize that its actions are the same as those on the mirror), then the parrot is probably not 'self-aware' in the terminology that is used to judge intelligence.
A better test would be to kick an animal, and see if the animal cares or not. If it doesn't like being kicked, it probably is somewhat aware of itself.
Not necessarily. Even plants react to external stimuli, but they have no central nervous system. Animals are just able to verbalize it and perhaps retaliate. It is aware that it is experiencing external stimuli that its instincts determine to be hostile or at least unfavorable. Perhaps, though, this is simply a difference in the conceptualization of the term "Self-aware."
I would argue against the term 'higher intelligence' and similar. It implies that intelligence can be effectively compared on a linear scale, which I object to heavily.
Not necessarily. Such terminology is used to broadly define self-awareness, language, spacial recognition, etc. Are you saying that because it's such a blanket-term, it gives the impression that species are either "not intelligent at all" or "highly intelligent"?
-
Yeah, but how is recognizing yourself in a mirror a test of self awareness to begin with? It sounds more like a test of visual perception.
They put a spot on the animal's head and see if they try to remove it when they see it on their reflection.
I still don't see how that shows anything other than the animal can recognize an image of itself. To me, being able to recognize an image or picture of myself doesn't make me self aware.
I suppose this test doesn't apply to computer software either, does it? I imagine you could program a computer to recognize it's self, but I wouldn't call that self-awareness, it wouldn't go all sky-net on us if you did. It does seem like a dodgy test of self-awareness.
-
But living things are evolved, not programed, so the test is being applied under different standards.
-
I suppose this test doesn't apply to computer software either, does it? I imagine you could program a computer to recognize it's self, but I wouldn't call that self-awareness, it wouldn't go all sky-net on us if you did. It does seem like a dodgy test of self-awareness.
Good point. It wouldn't be hard to make a supposedly self aware computer that can recognize its actions in a mirror.
A better test would be to kick an animal, and see if the animal cares or not. If it doesn't like being kicked, it probably is somewhat aware of itself.
Not necessarily. Even plants react to external stimuli, but they have no central nervous system. Animals are just able to verbalize it and perhaps retaliate. It is aware that it is experiencing external stimuli that its instincts determine to be hostile or at least unfavorable. Perhaps, though, this is simply a difference in the conceptualization of the term "Self-aware."
I'd still say its a much better test than the recognize yourself in a mirror test. Recognizing that you are in danger or verbalizing that you have been hurt both seem like self awareness to me.
If the animal just reacted and then promptly forgot about it (like some bugs seem to) then I'd have an easier time believing that it wasn't self-aware.
-
So..I'm guessing I won't eat *dolphin steak*....ever.
I'll support legislation that let's us hunt down and eat the smart little buggers, its them or us.
-
But living things are evolved, not programed, so the test is being applied under different standards.
The brain can be thought of as type of computer, it's a physical object that computes and calculates things and you could say it's programmed through experience and whatnot.
Humans fail the mirror test until they are about 18 months old, after all. So is something about self-awareness learned? Or is it inherit?
-
The human brain isn't even finished at 18 months old. It doesn't stop physical growth until you're 25 years old (and continues to change after that until you die, even if it remains the same size). That's part of why we have such a long and arduous development and maturation process.
-
Save the whales, before this turns into that goddamn star trek movie.
-
Good point. It wouldn't be hard to make a supposedly self aware computer that can recognize its actions in a mirror.
You could design it to specifically pass that one test, yes. But dolphins aren't designed to specifically pass the mirror test. You could throw similar tests of self-awareness at them and they would pass, while your computer-program-designed-to-cheat-one-test would fail.
-
Good point. It wouldn't be hard to make a supposedly self aware computer that can recognize its actions in a mirror.
You could design it to specifically pass that one test, yes. But dolphins aren't designed to specifically pass the mirror test. You could throw similar tests of self-awareness at them and they would pass, while your computer-program-designed-to-cheat-one-test would fail.
That is true...
But I still think the mirror test is a lousy one. :P
-
~Snip
Good luck telling the Japanese that.
Well, at least they are making the world a safer from potential under water rape murders...
-
Yeah... if they are sentient...
Well, they rape and murder.
-
Good point. It wouldn't be hard to make a supposedly self aware computer that can recognize its actions in a mirror.
You could design it to specifically pass that one test, yes. But dolphins aren't designed to specifically pass the mirror test. You could throw similar tests of self-awareness at them and they would pass, while your computer-program-designed-to-cheat-one-test would fail.
You could program the computer to pass those tests, too. Or it was sufficiently complex to appear self-aware no matter what tests that could be devised. That'd probably make it more self-aware then a human adult, as a human is not even aware of the vast majority of it's own brain functions. At least a computer could spit out some indication of everything it is computing at any given time.
In a sense, if a brain functions as a computer and either can pass tests giving the appearance of self-awareness, who's to say a dolphin is truly capable of thought such as "I think, therefore I exist, as a thing that thinks." or is it just some sort of instinctual or behavioral adaptation? What with the underside of a water's surface tension being reflective and all.
-
Eh, yer taking it too far. No real way to test that other humans are capable of "I think, therefore I exist, as a thing that thinks." If you program something that can pass every test of self-awareness a human can, it's as self-aware as a human is. Simple as that ♪
If an animal can pass most or even a fair amount of the self-awareness tests that humans can, then it's at least that self-aware. What we can say, then, is that a mature dolphin is more self-aware than humans at certain stages of development, which is a pretty big thing, really.
-
While yes, you could design a computer program to pass a specific test, I think that at this point it is a stretch to assume you can program a computer to recognise itself. Partly because the test would exist on the computer, so the mirror would be part of itself, so seeing itself in the mirror would mean it failed the test as it saw the mirror as separate from itself.
That isn't even touching on the reality of programming issues that would be thrown at you.
-
The human brain isn't even finished at 18 months years old. It doesn't stop physical growth until you're 25 years old (and continues to change after that until you die, even if it remains the same size). That's part of why we have such a long and arduous development and maturation process.
-
While yes, you could design a computer program to pass a specific test, I think that at this point it is a stretch to assume you can program a computer to recognise itself. Partly because the test would exist on the computer, so the mirror would be part of itself, so seeing itself in the mirror would mean it failed the test as it saw the mirror as separate from itself.
That isn't even touching on the reality of programming issues that would be thrown at you.
I was thinking robotic arm and a webcam pointed at a mirror. That much I'm pretty sure I could do.
-
I guess it would be possible to make it learn what it is, in the same way living things do... Or at least teach it that anything it does, the mirror arm does. After all, what is the difference between a robotic arm and a mirror, and two robotic arms on the same circuit that mirror each other?
-
Eh, yer taking it too far. No real way to test that other humans are capable of "I think, therefore I exist, as a thing that thinks." If you program something that can pass every test of self-awareness a human can, it's as self-aware as a human is. Simple as that ♪
If an animal can pass most or even a fair amount of the self-awareness tests that humans can, then it's at least that self-aware. What we can say, then, is that a mature dolphin is more self-aware than humans at certain stages of development, which is a pretty big thing, really.
Well, say a computer is programmed as such to pass self-awareness tests at least as well as a dolphin, does that computer become a 'non human person'? Can you really point to a dolphin and claim it understands the metaphysical concepts related to 'self' and deserves personhood because it can recognize its self in a mirror? What really makes a person, a person anyways, if a 12 month old child can't pass such a self-awareness test? Or perhaps a severely brain damaged adult human?
While yes, you could design a computer program to pass a specific test, I think that at this point it is a stretch to assume you can program a computer to recognise itself. Partly because the test would exist on the computer, so the mirror would be part of itself, so seeing itself in the mirror would mean it failed the test as it saw the mirror as separate from itself.
That isn't even touching on the reality of programming issues that would be thrown at you.
Well, I was thinking that a computer could probably be programmed to recognize itself if you pointed it's webcam at it with something like facial recognition software on it, or used a mirror. "Yep, I'm looking at a Dell Optiplex 9900, serial number ect, ect, which is me, because that's my serial number and my warranty expires in 2 months." Doesn't seem like it would be that complicated, but I'm really just using this as a hypothetical example because if it's not possible today it will surely be possible in the future.
-
Well that sounds like a lot of it is already in its database of what things are, and what it is, and it just needs to match the two, as opposed to what biological lifeforms do, that is learn to recognise themselves.
-
People aren't wearing enough hats!
-
What really makes a person, a person anyways, if a 12 month old child can't pass such a self-awareness test? Or perhaps a severely brain damaged adult human?
Both philosophy and the science that was born from it have been trying to answer that question since the BCs. We don't have an answer yet (Well, we have shittonnes of answers but nothing definitive. Same thing, really.). Behavioral tests are the best we can do, and will have to suffice, really, at least until we figure out some facsimile of telepathy.
The personhood of children or the brain damaged has actually been a long running battle, though. It's a question a lot of people really don't like being asked, huhuhu.
Well, say a computer is programmed as such to pass self-awareness tests at least as well as a dolphin, does that computer become a 'non human person'? Can you really point to a dolphin human and claim it understands the metaphysical concepts related to 'self' and deserves personhood because it can recognize its self in a mirror?
FTFY :P Considering a significant amount of humans don't even know what the blazes metaphysics are or actually have much of a self-reflective understanding of the self, well...
In any case, hell, sure, if a computer can pass the same self-awareness tests a dolphin can pass, it's as self aware as a dolphin. Self-awareness isn't the only qualifying point for person, though, non-human or otherwise.
-
The personhood of children or the brain damaged has actually been a long running battle, though. It's a question a lot of people really don't like being asked, huhuhu.
In any case, hell, sure, if a computer can pass the same self-awareness tests a dolphin can pass, it's as self aware as a dolphin. Self-awareness isn't the only qualifying point for person, though, non-human or otherwise.
Well, fair enough, I think my point was how do you define 'person' and self-awareness seems pretty important to that aspect to most people.
The concept of personhood and how it's defined is really rather important.
Corporations and now dolphins and whales are considered people, but a human fetus and particularly dumb/tasty animals and sophisticated computers are not. How the determination is made on how to define personhood does seem to hinge on it's ability to recognize itself and perhaps file litigation against other people.
What other aspects are there to personhood and how do they apply to whales and dolphins, exactly?
-
To me true self-awareness is knowing that you can die.
That is, progressing from "I think therefore I am" to "If I stop thinking, then I no longer exist" (that is, your body might still be there but 'you' are gone.)
-
To me true self-awareness is knowing that you can die.
That is, progressing from "I think therefore I am" to "If I stop thinking, then I no longer exist" (that is, your body might still be there but 'you' are gone.)
That's a tough bar, I don't think the majority of human beings even grasp that concept.
-
To me true self-awareness is knowing that you can die.
Does that mean that something that can not die can not be self aware?
-
To me true self-awareness is knowing that you can die.
Does that mean that something that can not die can not be self aware?
Everything in the universe will cease to exist, thus cease to think, at some point down the timeline.
-
Actually, IIRC, it's been believed for a while dolphins and other animals are more intelligent than humans, but couldn't 'evolve' their intelligence due to a lack of opposable thumbs.
Hang on JUST ONE MOMENT.
When it comes to intelligence, brain size to body size, IQ or however you want to measure it, humans come first, bottlenose dolphins come second. Thumbs = Ability to create tools.
Tools + Collective knowledge = civilization
Dolphins = civlization not yet
Dolphins aren't any less evolved than people, they've just followed a different evolutionary path, in the same way that dogs simply devote more of their brain to their senses.
To me true self-awareness is knowing that you can die.
Does that mean that something that can not die can not be self aware?
That was his own personal opinion, and so far humans seem to be the only species that worry about death :/
Plus, we haven't found something that cannot die yet ^-^
-
Everything in the universe will cease to exist, thus cease to think, at some point down the timeline.
That is a very bold assertion. Sort of a white swans fallacy.
-
Everything in the universe will cease to exist, thus cease to think, at some point down the timeline.
That is a very bold assertion. Sort of a white swans fallacy.
I mean anything capable of thought eventually must cease to exist at some point in the future. Heat death of the universe and all that.
-
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but this is a conference funded by the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society and the Brittish Helsinki Group (an independant and somewhat dubious offshoot of the Helsinki Human Rights Watch) whose findings were published in the Daily Mail rather than in a scientific journal of some sort. The "supporting evidence" comes from Doplhin.org, Wilddopphinproject.org and a time magazine article by Eugene Linden, who, to my knowledge, has no scientific credentials at all.
Perhaps a bit more skepticism is due?
-
Perhaps a bit more skepticism is due?
It's the daily mail, every single one of their topics is basically them saying everyone is stupid but us, here's why.
-
After all, what is the difference between a robotic arm and a mirror, and two robotic arms on the same circuit that mirror each other?
Voltage drop. =P
The "supporting evidence" comes from Doplhin.org, Wilddopphinproject.org and a time magazine article by Eugene Linden, who, to my knowledge, has no scientific credentials at all.
Perhaps a bit more skepticism is due?
Did you take the time to look at Dolphin.org? It's a research facility that is funded by tourism. Just because they have the website name doesn't mean you can immediately discredit them. These are also the only things that I dug up, I can't remember all of the websites I've been to over the years that show evidence of higher intelligence. I can point to Naval Military training of marine mammals if you'd like, or try and find the studies where it shows that cetaceans have their own languages, dialects, and even have distinguishable names. Research into cetaceans has gone on for a long, long time; this isn't just some sudden conclusion being drawn, I think it's just people are being more brave to state it.
-
That you can train dolphins to tag mines and such doesn't mean that they're equal in intelligence to humans, let alone superior. This is not to say that they shouldn't be respected, or that I don't rage at whale hunting, but I think that to make such claims is antrophomorphize these animals too damn much.
-
It's a research facility that is funded by tourism.
This.
The DRC has a strong monatary incentive towards backing whatever sort of dolphin-related research will get the dolphins the most press, as the more people think about dolphins, the more likely it is that they'll consider going to their dolphin park and spend money. There should be a healthy does of skepticism from any sort of controversial findings they support.
Basically, what I'm saying is that the Daily mail is a trash rag and that I'll beleive it when I see the journal article.
-
As for the mirror test:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test)
Dolphins aren't exclusively the only animal that pass it.
(it is interesting read btw)
Edit: Fixed the broken link.
-
As for the mirror test:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
Dolphins aren't exclusively the only animal that pass it.
(it is interesting read btw)
I don't believe anyone said that. I've known for quite some time that elephants are also able to pass the test.
It's a research facility that is funded by tourism.
This.
The DRC has a strong monatary incentive towards backing whatever sort of dolphin-related research will get the dolphins the most press, as the more people think about dolphins, the more likely it is that they'll consider going to their dolphin park and spend money. There should be a healthy does of skepticism from any sort of controversial findings they support.
Basically, what I'm saying is that the Daily mail is a trash rag and that I'll beleive it when I see the journal article.
*sigh*
You're missing the point then. The thing with the Daily Mail is simply something that is generating interest currently. You can find it on other websites and media. That's the one I linked to. Apparently, the next time I post something with a headline, I should make sure to include the thirty other possibly more reputable places which host similar-if-not-verbatim information.
Beyond that, the group the Daily Mail article is talking about is simply referencing the research. They are the ones taking the opinion that there's enough evidence to conclude that humanity should recognize cetaceans as individuals, to some related capacity that we view members of our own species. They do not claim they have made scientific breakthroughs themselves (As far as I am aware).
As for scholarly journal entries, is this perhaps more to your liking? (http://colinallen.dnsalias.org/Secure/TCA/herman-final.pdf) The author would seem to know what he's talking about. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Herman)
Perhaps you should look for the journal articles yourself, instead of insinuating that they somehow don't exist because you haven't seen them. That may sound harsh, but that is what it seems like your argument boils down to to me. They do exist, I just don't feel like trawling the entire internet for information on the subject; I've poured over most everything years ago, so this is not much of a learning experience.
-
The minute we give dolphins equal rights is the minute they take advantage and annex our civilization.
Don't be a stepping stone for limbless beings.
-
.
-
If they actually do end up rising to power and try to usurp us, I think humans are gonna win.
or will they??
-
This sort of shit is what happens when they let elves have science.
They are unable to do shit about it, fuck them, dogs are smart doesnt mean they are people, apes got thumbs dont mean they get to be people, if they cant stop people from doing things to them by using intelegent communication they arnt good enough to be people.
when a dolphin asks me for freedom I'll change my mind.
-
I for one welcome our new cetalucean overlords.
when a dolphin asks me for freedom I'll change my mind.
Do you speak dolphin? One probably could if you could understand them.
-
I think it's incredibly racist that octopii are completely unmentioned in this.
-
It probably has something to do with how they look. Octopi aren't as cute as dolphins and the like.
Which reminds me, why do people think dolphins are cute again?
-
I think it's incredibly racist that octopii are completely unmentioned in this.
But, with their lifespan we'd barely enculturate and educate them before the generation dies off. Better to just pretend they're not intelligent.
-
try and find the studies where it shows that cetaceans have their own languages, dialects, and even have distinguishable names.
I don't want to get into the argument, but I find that very interesting. I would like to read those studies !
If dolphins do have a language, all this could easily be solved : we just have to learn it and talk to them.
-
If its not at least trying to speak human it doesnt count, animal languages mean nothing important, and learning it is stupid, we have better control over the world, they should learn our language.
-
Three claims are being made by the conference:
1. Dolphins are as smart as humans.
2. Therefore, they should be counted as people.
3. Therefore, we should afford them the same rights as other people.
Number 1 isn't backed up by much evidence. The journal article linked on this page says that dolphins can understand simple but grammatically novel instructions from their trainers. Admittedly, that is rather impressive for an animal, but parrots can also do that, as can computer programs. That's not enough to justify saying that dolphins are as smart as humans, let alone that they should be thought of as people.
Number 2 is also out. Even if we assume, despite the lack of evidence, that dolphins are as smary as any human, that's not enough to call them people. As crudely as rarborman put it, being able to do things that a person can do does not a person make: There is no parity between a person and a dolphin. The dolphin cannot teach a person to communicate with it, holds no power over any human and makes no attempt to reform its behavior based on moral concerns.
Even Number 3 is unsupported. Male dolphins gang-rape female dolphins in order to reproduce. They murder infants born to other dolphins and kill porpoises for no known reason. If we provisionally assume that dolphin are as smart as people and that dolphins should qualify as people, the correct and moral response would be to immediately imprison the entire population until such time as we can communicate with them and introduce the sort of social contract and justice system that keeps humans from acting like complete monsters. Because if they actually are people, and you're not using that as a backformed justification for why they should be protected (as I suspect the conference is), than dolphins should be the world's biggest 'human'-rights violation to date.
-
I think this raises a much better question. If dolphins should count as people because of their intelligence, does that mean anything with intelligence above a certain threshold should be counted as a person?
And if so, does that mean that humans below said threshold should not count as people? Doesn't this line of logic provoke the very concerning notion that people with a severe mental disability do not count as people because they do not meet what ever standard that we set for something to count as a person?
Perhaps it would be ideal to set other standards for what we count as a person... I don't think I am wise enough to recognise what these are, but I'm sure the question of what makes us who we are has been tackled by philosophy for a while without prevail.
-
The cynical answer is that the definition of personhood is 100% political. Way back in history, slaves were not people because they had nothing to offer those in power in exchange for being considered people. Slavery only got outlawed because there was enough of a public outcry that the politicians could get votes in echange for freeing the slaves. Mentally disabled people still count as people because they have family that are people who would be very upset with you if you said their brother or whatever was a non-person. Dolphins aren't people because dolphins have nothing to offer us culturally, materially, or technologically and don't vote.
-
Ah, so a person is a person because of their political sway, be it directly or because of those that show empathy for them.
Nice work, age old argument solved! I think we can tell the philosophers they can stop being pretentious pricks now...
-
The cynical answer is that the definition of personhood is 100% political. Way back in history, slaves were not people because they had nothing to offer those in power in exchange for being considered people. Slavery only got outlawed because there was enough of a public outcry that the politicians could get votes in echange for freeing the slaves. Mentally disabled people still count as people because they have family that are people who would be very upset with you if you said their brother or whatever was a non-person. Dolphins aren't people because dolphins have nothing to offer us culturally, materially, or technologically and don't vote.
But of course, someone will attempt to argue that point somehow. :P
-
The Japanese already gave us sushi, and toddlers already gave us blowing bubbles. Call me culturally insensitive, but what else is there?
-
Quick, someone get those dolphins to start up a band.
-
Why is self-awareness such a big deal? I though capacity for abstract thought is what sets humans apart.
-
It's one of those things that have for a long time in the world of philosophy been what's considered one of many markers of intelligence. Self-awareness is a necessity due to the basic concept of "ME" being vital for identity. There's also as I recall the need for recursive thinking (thinking about thinking about something) and being able to relate oneself to the world around. It's not really a winner takes all affair, so the argument for dolphin person-hood still needs a lot more going for it before we can seriously begin a discussion.
-
Number 1 isn't backed up by much evidence. The journal article linked on this page says that dolphins can understand simple but grammatically novel instructions from their trainers. Admittedly, that is rather impressive for an animal, but parrots can also do that, as can computer programs. That's not enough to justify saying that dolphins are as smart as humans, let alone that they should be thought of as people.
Seriously? Like I said, go out and do your own research on the subject. I'm not going to supply you with all of the information on the subject just so you can draw more-educated conclusions. Stop acting like all the information that exists is what I've linked to on this thread thus far.
Number 2 is also out. Even if we assume, despite the lack of evidence, that dolphins are as smary as any human, that's not enough to call them people. As crudely as rarborman put it, being able to do things that a person can do does not a person make: There is no parity between a person and a dolphin. The dolphin cannot teach a person to communicate with it, holds no power over any human and makes no attempt to reform its behavior based on moral concerns.
I imagine it would be difficult, given a dolphin's anatomy, to teach humans other languages. While we can gesture and bring whatever object we wish to reference to the dolphin, the dolphin cannot do much back.
I don't see how "holds no power over any human" supports the dolphin being considered a 'person' or individual.
You're also assuming that any sufficiently intelligent creature has the same morality as humanity. A good portion of discussion has been about how, if dolphins were considered 'persons', then there would be a huge rights violation attitude about the whole thing. What can be said, then, about the altruistic tendencies of dolphins, such as to help drowning swimmers?
Even Number 3 is unsupported. Male dolphins gang-rape female dolphins in order to reproduce. They murder infants born to other dolphins and kill porpoises for no known reason. If we provisionally assume that dolphin are as smart as people and that dolphins should qualify as people, the correct and moral response would be to immediately imprison the entire population until such time as we can communicate with them and introduce the sort of social contract and justice system that keeps humans from acting like complete monsters.
Because we are the perfect moral compass, aren't we? I'm not trying to spread some sort of bias that "Oh, humans are so bad!" by saying that, I just think you're being pretty extreme with that viewpoint, as if it's perfectly acceptable that all of the horrors that have occurred with humanity are a-ok, but don't let any other species do that, that's just not morally right. This isn't to say that I'm trying to justify gang-rape or infanticide, it just seems like, under the assumption that dolphins can be considered 'persons', as you use in that paragraph, they are somehow so much more evil than when humanity commits it on itself.
That said, I do somewhat agree with you. If it can be determined that they qualify, then next step after establishing some sort of constant language for standard communication should probably be introducing them to the concept of individual rights and seeing how they react to that.
Because if they actually are people, and you're not using that as a backformed justification for why they should be protected (as I suspect the conference is), than dolphins should be the world's biggest 'human'-rights violation to date.
I suspect that the conference definitely has that motivation. I believe there are at least a few that genuinely have drawn the conclusion that cetaceans should be considered individuals, though. Nothing to back that up, of course, just wishful thinking. I'm not using any of this as justification for why they should be protected. I've just spent a good deal of time reading up on the cognitive abilities of dolphins and have drawn my own conclusion that they classify as highly intelligent. I'm in no real position to say whether or not they should be considered persons, but the thought and the implications are intriguing.
Why is self-awareness such a big deal? I though capacity for abstract thought is what sets humans apart.
It's far more difficult to test whether an animal has the capacity for abstract thought than it is to create thought experiments about self-awareness.
-
Dolphins, dogs, animals, drug addicts, children, mentally deficients, gamblers, criminals, minorities; the list of non people is very long if you start fiddling with the standard of what people is defined as.
I dont consider a lot of what is considered people by others as people, I have a pet drug addict, and consider children as pets...
DF does strange things to your opinions.
-
What can be said, then, about the altruistic tendencies of dolphins, such as to help drowning swimmers?
No matter how many drowning swimmers someone saves, if they gang-rape someone or kill a baby, they're still a monster. And that sort of thing is business as usual for dolphins, so there's a pretty good chance that any given dolphin that's saved a drowning swimmer is also a child-killing rapist dolphin.
I'm in no real position to say whether or not they should be considered persons, but the thought and the implications are intriguing.
If you want intriguing, consider the notion of aphid personhood. They're born pregnant and die horridly of a ruptured abdomen shortly after giving birth.
-
If you want intriguing, consider the notion of aphid personhood. They're born pregnant and die horridly of a ruptured abdomen shortly after giving birth.
Is there any evidence that aphids have enough intelligence to be considered on par with humans? The thought is intriguing (and by intriguing, I mean it'd probably be a sociopolitical nightmare that's difficult to imagine), but I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near as plausible.
-
Dolphins, dogs, animals, drug addicts, children, mentally deficients, gamblers, criminals, minorities; the list of non people is very long if you start fiddling with the standard of what people is defined as.
I dont consider a lot of what is considered people by others as people, I have a pet drug addict, and consider children as pets...
DF does strange things to your opinions.
You're trolling. Congrats.
Even Number 3 is unsupported. Male dolphins gang-rape female dolphins in order to reproduce. They murder infants born to other dolphins and kill porpoises for no known reason. If we provisionally assume that dolphin are as smart as people and that dolphins should qualify as people, the correct and moral response would be to immediately imprison the entire population until such time as we can communicate with them and introduce the sort of social contract and justice system that keeps humans from acting like complete monsters.
Because we are the perfect moral compass, aren't we? I'm not trying to spread some sort of bias that "Oh, humans are so bad!" by saying that, I just think you're being pretty extreme with that viewpoint, as if it's perfectly acceptable that all of the horrors that have occurred with humanity are a-ok, but don't let any other species do that, that's just not morally right. This isn't to say that I'm trying to justify gang-rape or infanticide, it just seems like, under the assumption that dolphins can be considered 'persons', as you use in that paragraph, they are somehow so much more evil than when humanity commits it on itself.
That said, I do somewhat agree with you. If it can be determined that they qualify, then next step after establishing some sort of constant language for standard communication should probably be introducing them to the concept of individual rights and seeing how they react to that.
Are you sure he isn't using this as an argument against dolphins counting as people?
-
What can be said, then, about the altruistic tendencies of dolphins, such as to help drowning swimmers?
No matter how many drowning swimmers someone saves, if they gang-rape someone or kill a baby, they're still a monster. And that sort of thing is business as usual for dolphins, so there's a pretty good chance that any given dolphin that's saved a drowning swimmer is also a child-killing rapist dolphin.
So any particular dolphin is a rapist if another dolphin is? Can I be the first to call out on dolphin racism?
-
Since when has intelligece been a requirement for personhood, lots of people are brainless tools used by other people.
-
Since when has intelligece been a requirement for personhood, lots of people are brainless tools used by other people.
That isn't very nice. And mostly not true, if I understand what you're getting at. The mindless masses are not, in fact, mindless. As far as I can tell. They're just uneducated. Big difference there.
-
Also not trolling, I'm as serious as can be; I dont consider certain humans to be people, I get over feeling strange about it by letting others call me a monster.
When I say internet words I mean them.
-
So. Can you elaborate on who you consider to be beneath person status? What's your criterion?
Hmmm... I'll think about a response to my own question. I'll respond to it soonish. It's only fair. (Such a difficult question omg)
-
Are you sure he isn't using this as an argument against dolphins counting as people?
He's still making the assumption that they are, even if it is against dolphins counting as 'persons' (not necessarily 'people'. There's slightly different connotations there). "If they can be considered persons, then we'd have to round them up and have a big chat about how they aren't moral." That's what I got out of what he was saying, anyway.
-
Wait, rarborman isn't being facetious?
That's kinda terrifying.
-
Wait, rarborman isn't being facetious?
That's kinda terrifying.
He's maximum trolling for this reaction out of the entire world. Subconsciously. (true fact)
-
No trolling, I'm not sorry if you find it terrifying, its just my real belief, you can be human, a person, a monster; they are not exclusive you can be one or all three.
-
"I'm not sorry if you find it terrifying"
...
Maybe funny.
But anyway, what is personhood to you? And what is the criteria?
-
So any particular dolphin is a rapist if another dolphin is? Can I be the first to call out on dolphin racism?
It's a statistical fact, like saying "Most bears have killed and eaten another animal before." or "Most tadpoles will not survive to adulthood in the wild.", not some sort of 'dolphin racism' thing. The simple fact of the matter is that the majority of dolphins will, at some point in their life, rape or attack another member of their own species. Wild canines are the same way, as are most pack animals. Animals in general are terrible moral role models and regularly do things that would get a human a lengthy prison sentence in most parts of the world.
-
Why is self-awareness such a big deal? I though capacity for abstract thought is what sets humans apart.
It's far more difficult to test whether an animal has the capacity for abstract thought than it is to create thought experiments about self-awareness.
That's like using presence of eyeglasses to gauge somebody's education level.
-
I've never really writen it down, I'm too afraid it'll turn into a manifesto, and make me want to kill myself for no longer being able to be a person. Yeah a bit scary.
-
Yeah a bit scary.
He even agrees with me!
-
'She' and beliefs can be scary, just look at religion.
-
So any particular dolphin is a rapist if another dolphin is? Can I be the first to call out on dolphin racism?
It's a statistical fact, like saying "Most bears have killed and eaten another animal before." or "Most tadpoles will not survive to adulthood in the wild.", not some sort of 'dolphin racism' thing. The simple fact of the matter is that the majority of dolphins will, at some point in their life, rape or attack another member of their own species. Wild canines are the same way, as are most pack animals. Animals in general are terrible moral role models and regularly do things that would get a human a lengthy prison sentence in most parts of the world.
Do you have statistics to prove dolphins are more likely to engage in rape and murder, and how does that account for factors such as poverty and other social influences? You could very well be labeling dolphins unfairly due to the pre-tribal culture they grow up in.
'She' and beliefs can be scary, just look at religion.
You're not even subtle about trolling. I usually see you trying these ham-handed tactics and it's what I remember you by. Do you want to be known as the "Bad Troll" raborman, do you? Can you face that sort of social stigma?
-
TBH I'm willing to accept she's not trolling, as she'd have nothing to gain. No one's giving amusing replies, and I doubt it's helping her image (as you pointed out).
If she's trolling, she's being highly illogical about it. Spock would be bemused.
-
Alright. Really now. Can we please go back to talking about brain fish? Not the status of humans as humans (and trolling)?
I feel that even if they are intelligent, they are still not human. We should deal with them with respect, but not more so than we should for any other critter.
-
I agree they should be treated respectfully, just dont think about calling them anything but dolphin, sorry if my beliefs sound like trolling, but I say dolphins being people, even with the loosest defineition sounds like trolling to me.
-
So, can I have links to the works done on dolphin language and how they have names and all ? How was this discovered ? Have we tried to communicate with them already ? If so, what have we managed to say to each other ? Do they talk about abstract stuff ? Or are they very limited in the information they exchange ?
Somebody mentioned it earlier and said he could dig up the sources if asked, so I ask.
-
I wouldn't mind seeing some sources on their communication skills.
I also think that they should be treated with respect, but until we figure out how to communicate directly with them we shouldn't be granting full equal rights. Releasing them from captivity would be a good first step though.
Yes, they are rapists and child killers, but it's built into their society. There have been some societies in the past that kill their own ritualistically, it's entirely possible that they're doing it for reasons that we simply don't understand. I'm not saying that it's morally right, but we shouldn't judge them until we know what's going on.
-
I'm all for cetacean rights, personally.
Though strictly speaking, cephalopods have a higher rate of cognitive development. They're just hamstrung by their short lifespans.
Also, the mirror thing got me to wondering---does this mean humans weren't self-aware until we invented mirrors? ???
-
Nah, reflection doesn't necessitate mirrors. We might not have been self-aware until we found water, though :P
-
Why do we need to regard animals as "people" when people are animals?.... I just confused myself.
-
People are animals lulz.
No.
First off, because we are people. I don't actually think a dolphin would care about me. The question I guess is should it? Obviously if we grant them rights they would have to grant us the same.
Secondly, we may be animals but we are clearly better brain wise.
-
Eh, dolphins are murderous assholes (see: beating baby porpoises to death sheerly for the lulz)
That said, I'll be willing to concede the issue... as soon as a marine mammal *asks*. I've been following the communications projects, and looking at the research papers there's a hell of a lot of wishful thinking there.
The evidence isn't nearly good enough for the conclusion.
-
People are animals lulz.
No.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. People aren't animals?
-
Yeah, that's an odd distinction to make. We're certainly not plants or minerals. We're a mostly clever set of highly adaptable apes with far less body hair.
-
I sincerely hope that isn't related to the "Humans aren't animals because god says we're special!" thing. We are animals, and for the purposes of this discussion, "people" can probably be used as a blanket term for any intelligent, self-aware individual. So in other words, all people are animals, but not all animals are people. And possibly at some point in the future we might encounter plants who are people.
-
That's like using presence of eyeglasses to gauge somebody's education level.
*points back to the large amount of animals that fail the test*
It's a decent start.
Alright. Really now. Can we please go back to talking about brain fish? Not the status of humans as humans (and trolling)?
I feel that even if they are intelligent, they are still not human.
No one is saying they are human. The thread title is even "Non-Human Persons". There's also similar misconceptions that saying "Persons" or "People" = humans. The term 'People' shouldn't really even be used; 'Persons' is the closest because 'individual' can apply too broadly to have enough of a connotation for what is meant.
So, can I have links to the works done on dolphin language and how they have names and all ? How was this discovered ? Have we tried to communicate with them already ? If so, what have we managed to say to each other ? Do they talk about abstract stuff ? Or are they very limited in the information they exchange ?
Somebody mentioned it earlier and said he could dig up the sources if asked, so I ask.
Ready for some research spam?
Some of this has to be taken with a grain of salt. Some of this was done by not-necessarily-scientists, some of it has been supported by scientists, some of it was conducted by actual scientists, etc. It's a mixed bag of information, some of it only tangentially related to what you were asking. I've actually not seen this research in its article form before, I was referencing a documentary I had watched and some references to such things in other research that I've read before. It's also not the only research on the topic, but it's what I could dig up for the time being. Also take note that not all of this research has been done in the last decade; there have surely been advances since.
http://wakeup-world.com//2011/11/28/the-discovery-of-dolphin-language/
http://www.marinemammal.org/pdfs/Deecke98.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/289/5483/1355.full.pdf?sid=fa580097-4f24-46cd-be10-e5df8f0ed1c6
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01828.x/full
Interesting stuff: http://www.globalanimal.org/2011/09/30/tail-walking-wild-dolphins-learn-to-river-dance/23568/
Documentary aired by PBS. Can't say what's inside, I haven't watched it, but it might contain some useful information. From what I gathered, it focuses on conservationists, so again with the grains of salt. http://video.pbs.org/video/1099394282/
-
I don't really care whether or not they are seen as people, this planet is simply one giant clusterfuck of life, divided into different organic structures perhaps, but it's all a part of the same massive clusterfuck.
I instead judge others by their actions and intentions, as those two things are always present, regardless of what species they belong to, or their level of intelligence. It's why I'm a supporter of cannibalism, and why the "Hurr durr humanz are better than everything else becuz we are" attitude I see so often can shift my mood from placid to pissed off in an incredibly short amount of time.
Also, in regards to dolphins being immoral and whatnot, let's make one thing clear:
All of nature, you, me, the plants, animals, bugs, microscopic organisms, everything, is an asshole. To varying degrees, of course. But assholes nonetheless. No creature survives on this planet without being an asshole to some extent, so pointing the finger at dolphins as a whole for doing immoral things, that humanity itself has practiced(and continues to practice) for almost its entire history, without even completely understanding the dolphins' reasoning first, only makes you an even bigger asshole then you previously were.
The important thing to remember is that, as contradictory as it sounds, just because everyone has to be an asshole sometimes, doesn't mean they can't also be generally good individuals.
-
I don't really care whether or not they are seen as people, this planet is simply one giant clusterfuck of life, divided into different organic structures perhaps, but it's all a part of the same massive clusterfuck.
Still matters though ^-^
All across Dolfinland, bright blue mammals are fleeing economic turmoil...
-
.
-
I instead judge others by their actions and intentions, as those two things are always present, regardless of what species they belong to, or their level of intelligence. It's why I'm a supporter of cannibalism, and why the "Hurr durr humanz are better than everything else becuz we are" attitude I see so often can shift my mood from placid to pissed off in an incredibly short amount of time.=
Other issues with your posts aside, do you not see the issue here? Humans by far have the most complex actions and intentions. And why?
Well.
Becuz we do. (Actually because we outnumber other species. Edit: With the only exception that springs to mind of that ant colony, but each part is so simple in that.)
-
Wow, this thing has gone to interesting places.
It's why I'm a supporter of cannibalism
Seriously, we just got an endorsement of cannibalism, anybody want to come out next and say we should give certain minerals more human rights?
-
I think we all know the evils pushed upon Corundum need to be stopped.
-
Oxide compounds are people too!
-
I instead judge others by their actions and intentions, as those two things are always present, regardless of what species they belong to, or their level of intelligence. It's why I'm a supporter of cannibalism, and why the "Hurr durr humanz are better than everything else becuz we are" attitude I see so often can shift my mood from placid to pissed off in an incredibly short amount of time.=
Other issues with your posts aside, do you not see the issue here? Humans by far have the most complex actions and intentions. And why?
Well.
Becuz we do. (Actually because we outnumber other species. Edit: With the only exception that springs to mind of that ant colony, but each part is so simple in that.)
By all means, please don't hesitate to point out these issues. I can't correct what I'm not aware of.
Of course humans are complex. I don't disagree with that. What I do disagree with, is people using that as an excuse to treat everything else like shit. That arrogance that makes people think that solely because of this higher complexity, a human life is by default more important than any other. That, is what pisses me off.
Wow, this thing has gone to interesting places.
It's why I'm a supporter of cannibalism
Seriously, we just got an endorsement of cannibalism, anybody want to come out next and say we should give certain minerals more human rights?
Done right, I think cannibalism could be quite useful to humanity, once you get over that whole morally unacceptable view of it.
-
Supports cannibalism.
Seeks to protect animal rights.
Dear Armok, we have an elf among us!
-
Oh, don't be silly. I don't try to protect the rights anyone. In fact, I find the very idea of rights of your own life being some sort of gift that must be given to you by an external entity to be despicable, which is why I'm also a supporter of anarchism. What I do seek to do, is make life in every form more balanced, responsible, and ever so slightly less fucking stupid.
And really, just think about it, cannibalism could be a great and productive alternative to funerals and cremations. Just because you devour human meat, doesn't automatically mean you'll go around gnawing on everyone you come across, which is what most people seem to assume when the subject comes up.
-
Not a theist, therefore... Anarchist? You haven't thought about this very much, have you?
-
Creutzfeldt-Jakob (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001792/) and similar diseases seem like perfectly good reasons to avoid cannibalism to me.
-
Shhh!!!
I wanted to see how far we could get on philosophical arguments alone!
-
I'm no great shakes at philosophy :P
Sorry.
-
Not a theist, therefore... Anarchist? You haven't thought about this very much, have you?
I've thought about it immense amount, actually. Just never been very good at elaborating it. I was referring more to organizations and other humans, rather than divine beings and the like.
-
Do you have statistics to prove dolphins are more likely to engage in rape and murder, and how does that account for factors such as poverty and other social influences? You could very well be labeling dolphins unfairly due to the pre-tribal culture they grow up in.
I'll admit, I laughed pretty hard at this.
-
It's funny because it's TRUE!
We need to teach these poor dolphins the error of their barbaric ways, and give them our culture and beliefs to straighten them out. Once they're like us, they'll be better.
-
Somewhere right now, somebody is hard at work translating the Bible into Dolphinspeak. Little do we know that the Dolphins already have Dolphin Jesus.
-
Somewhere right now, somebody is hard at work translating the Bible into Dolphinspeak. Little do we know that the Dolphins already have Dolphin Jesus.
You got it wrong!
Bible?
We need to teach them to play Dwarf Fortress!
-
That's like using presence of eyeglasses to gauge somebody's education level.
*points back to the large amount of animals that fail the test*
So what? It's still a meaningless metric. Heck, a more logical measure would be complexity of social organization, in which case ants blow dolphins straight out of the water.
But yeah, if you want a real comparison, I'd like to see how your average dolphin (with sufficient training, of course) would fare against your average human in a game of chess.
-
Somewhere right now, somebody is hard at work translating the Bible into Dolphinspeak. Little do we know that the Dolphins already have Dolphin Jesus.
You got it wrong!
Bible?
We need to teach them to play Dwarf Fortress!
DF would need more rape if you want dolphins to play it.
-
That's like using presence of eyeglasses to gauge somebody's education level.
*points back to the large amount of animals that fail the test*
So what? It's still a meaningless metric. Heck, a more logical measure would be complexity of social organization, in which case ants blow dolphins straight out of the water.
It isn't meaningless. If there is a group of animals that looks at a mirror and does not recognize that what it is seeing is an exact copy of itself, even after it repeatedly tries to interact with the reflection, then it can be said they are not entirely self-aware. If you want better examples of self-awareness tests performed with dolphins, I'll reshare this: http://colinallen.dnsalias.org/Secure/TCA/herman-final.pdf
Look towards the middle of page 9.
As for social organization, I don't see your point at all. Ants respond instinctively, especially to pheromones. Their social ties lie in "The hive must survive." Cetaceans form complicated groups and alliances that do not necessarily involve hunting or some other measure of survival. I'd have to say they trump ants every time, unless you know of some research on ants that show they can socialize beyond survival.
But yeah, if you want a real comparison, I'd like to see how your average dolphin (with sufficient training, of course) would fare against your average human in a game of chess.
Personally, I have confidence that dolphins would be able to play the game competently once they understand the rules and there is some capability in place for them to be able to play. That doesn't really mean anything, of course, but I agree; that would probably be a better comparison for intelligence.
-
If an animal can do something that humans can but many other animals can't, it doesn't imply at all that it's as intelligent as humans. Self-awareness is but a tiny fraction of what makes a human mind.
Complexity of social organization means the degree of specialization of individual members within society. Specialization is what got us from caves to skyscrapers. And it's virtually non-existent in dolphins.
As for chess, those articles of yours seem to be suggesting that dolphins are *more* intelligent than humans, in which case your average dolphin shouldn't just hold his own against your average human, he should pwn Kasparov. I somehow doubt that would happen, but feel free to prove me wrong.
-
Meanwhile the Dolphin Council says, "The land-things are capable of some ability to swim and to ride the giant metal fish. But they remain unable to play Krrkrrchrkkch and show no signs of being able to spot a fish on their own. They *might* be clever, but we're not sure about true intelligence yet."
-
The mirror test is miserable. A large portion of HUMANITY fails the mirror test, uncoached - turns out it's cultural!
It is one of those tests where a positive result means something (but not much) and a negative result means nothing, and yet people pretend that a negative result has some meaning.
It rests on several assumptions that have nothing to do with intelligence:
a) That an animal can recognize itself in a mirror. (This is the only part related to intelligence)
b) The animal cares about a dot on its head.
c) The animal wants to remove the dot.
d) The animal thinks it should remove the dot.
e) The animal thinks its okay to remove the dot.
f) A host of other unfounded assumptions having nothing to do with intelligence
A much better use of the mirror test is the COACHED mirror test - can an animal be trained to recognize itself in the mirror and point out a dot somewhere on its body, that it can't otherwise see? This is the only way to consistently get humans to pass the mirror test, after all. And, unsurprisingly enough, a great number of animals pass the test once they realize what it is we want them to do.
I'm sorry, the "mirror test", as stands, is about as meaningful as the rat-based "heroin test" that proved people would destroy their lives due to heroin given the chance. Or the LSD tests where they stuck someone in a bare room in a hostile environment and determined the large number of negative responses meant all responses always were negative. Or the numerous studies that assumed that every person in the world is exactly like a USA psychology undergrad.
It's bullshit, and people using bullshit extrapolations from crappy tests and studies infuriates me.
All that said:
Dolphin's seem to be pretty smart. It's a shame there's no concerted effort to really find out how smart or in what way, that isn't plagued by morons pretending to know what they are doing. It's like the founding of psychology all over again up in here...
-
It's bullshit, and people using bullshit extrapolations from crappy tests and studies infuriates me.
Agree so much.
-
As for chess, those articles of yours seem to be suggesting that dolphins are *more* intelligent than humans, in which case your average dolphin shouldn't just hold his own against your average human, he should pwn Kasparov. I somehow doubt that would happen, but feel free to prove me wrong.
Deep Blue was a dolphin brain in a jar.
-
Not just outnumber us, out-biomass us.
-
Ah, I wonder, if you take the average processing power of the human mind times the number of humans on earth, vs the average processing power of another creature times its population, who comes out on top?
-
Ah, I wonder, if you take the average processing power of the human mind times the number of humans on earth, vs the average processing power of another creature times its population, who comes out on top?
Probably some bacteria. :)
-
Ah, I wonder, if you take the average processing power of the human mind times the number of humans on earth, vs the average processing power of another creature times its population, who comes out on top?
Probably some bacteria. :)
I don't think bacteria have any processing power to speak of. Gazillions of bacteria x 0 power each = 0.
-
How do they hunt food if their actions are directed by sporadic chemical impulses, as opposed to a more elegant function?
-
Eh, fine. There's no way they have very much though, at least not compared to a human (or any multicellular creature, really).
-
Thank you for the research and the links Chaoswizkid ! I haven't been able to access everything, but that's okay, I think I've got enough.
I find interesting in particular the video where a dolphin teaches what is essentially a useless dance move to other dolphins. If it is true (I won't make a definitive judgment on one internet video) then they have a way of communicating that is not limited to concrete descriptions and instinctive behavior.
It's a shame we don't know more about it. It's an interesting subject to study. And I still think that if they have a way of communication, a language, then we should learn it and talk to them ! That's my reaction to "we've met another intelligent specie" whether they're aliens or dolphins.
But as to treat them as "people" and, you know, the bill of rights thing, that's silly. Even if they happened to indeed be as smart as humans, they're still not humans, and not integrated into human society, and, as far as I'm aware, they have no desire to do so. Protection ? Fine. Rights ? They will never use them, and they will never be able to do so.
Still, I can't wait to see the day where Flipper the dolphin is considered racist and full of misguided intentions just like Tintin in Congo is :p
-
Eh, fine. There's no way they have very much though, at least not compared to a human (or any multicellular creature, really).
The argument you should be making is if we could the processing ability of a single cell, shouldn't we count the entire human body as a unit? White blood cells, for example, follow chemical trails of pathogens, but are not directed by cerebral activity, thus a human has significantly more potential than just what the brain can produce.
-
Honestly, the only reason I posted in this thread was the cannibalism thing, and now that it's permanently stuck on my subscribe list I feel like I have to chip in every once in a while. I don't really care about processing power of all humans vs all bacteria :/
I haven't even said anything about the thread's supposed topic!
-
My heart, it bleeds for you. Having to put up with a thread that you do not have a vested interest in, yet replied to, showing up in your subscribe list. We should all stop posting in this thread just for you! Would you like me to get you a cool drink while we are at it? Maybe a foot massage?
-
Your tone is not appreciated. I'm sure you've regretted posting in threads too. But whatever, I'll leave you to your fascinating discussions of brainless microorganisms.
-
Never, not once in my lifetime have I suffered the problem you are dealing with.
I don't use the subscribed threads list, I just remember what I am interested in.
-
If an animal can do something that humans can but many other animals can't, it doesn't imply at all that it's as intelligent as humans. Self-awareness is but a tiny fraction of what makes a human mind.
I don't think anyone's saying that because dolphins are self-aware, they are as intelligent as humans. Other factors have to come into play here, otherwise the research on dolphins would have stopped. Self-awareness is just a key component to determine if an animal is a candidate for having similar intelligence.
Complexity of social organization means the degree of specialization of individual members within society. Specialization is what got us from caves to skyscrapers. And it's virtually non-existent in dolphins.
And how much specialization can animals have without opposable thumbs? I think you're thinking of humans who farm, who build, who lead, who think, etc., and they specialize in those. In dolphins, they are all striving to survive, so they all hunt. There are scouts that report to their pod when they discover large amounts of food, and there is of course a leader in a pod. They can't build things, so that's out. However, you find in lots of animals that they have a dominant member of a group, and hunters. I think the largest distinction here is that humans are able to specialize in roles such as building and provide services in exchange for goods, whereas for other animals that doesn't really make sense since they can't build anything.
Also, I looked at ants, and I don't think they are such a valid case due to being born into castes. They might be social, they might break up into groups, but they aren't all born the same, and I'm not sure to what extent they 'socialize'. Dolphins, on the other hand, are known to play games just for fun, such as a game of 'catch' where they use a loop of seaweed and toss it to each other.
As for chess, those articles of yours seem to be suggesting that dolphins are *more* intelligent than humans, in which case your average dolphin shouldn't just hold his own against your average human, he should pwn Kasparov. I somehow doubt that would happen, but feel free to prove me wrong.
What part about them strikes you as supposing dolphins are more intelligent?
The mirror test is miserable. A large portion of HUMANITY fails the mirror test, uncoached - turns out it's cultural!
I don't think a large portion of humanity looks in a mirror for the first time, moves, and concludes it's looking at another member of its own species as opposed to itself, unless you're considering children (which might). Source?
The mirror test is miserable. A large portion of HUMANITY fails the mirror test, uncoached - turns out it's cultural!
It rests on several assumptions that have nothing to do with intelligence:
a) That an animal can recognize itself in a mirror. (This is the only part related to intelligence)
b) The animal cares about a dot on its head.
c) The animal wants to remove the dot.
d) The animal thinks it should remove the dot.
e) The animal thinks its okay to remove the dot.
f) A host of other unfounded assumptions having nothing to do with intelligence
What? That's certainly not true for the mirror test involving elephants. Elephants don't remove what's on them, nor is the test in any way designed for them to be removed. An elephant sees it has some tape or something on itself, then rubs its trunk on its own body to feel the tape as opposed to concluding it's looking at another elephant with some tape on it. Nothing to do with taking it off.
A much better use of the mirror test is the COACHED mirror test - can an animal be trained to recognize itself in the mirror and point out a dot somewhere on its body, that it can't otherwise see? This is the only way to consistently get humans to pass the mirror test, after all. And, unsurprisingly enough, a great number of animals pass the test once they realize what it is we want them to do.
Where are these coached mirror test results for animals? A google search couldn't turn up much for some reason.
I'm sorry, the "mirror test", as stands, is about as meaningful as the rat-based "heroin test" that proved people would destroy their lives due to heroin given the chance. Or the LSD tests where they stuck someone in a bare room in a hostile environment and determined the large number of negative responses meant all responses always were negative. Or the numerous studies that assumed that every person in the world is exactly like a USA psychology undergrad.
It's bullshit, and people using bullshit extrapolations from crappy tests and studies infuriates me.
You're complaining about one test as opposed to the numerous different types of tests, such as the television test, that have been used on dolphins. It's as if you're discrediting the entire thing because a mirror test was performed.
-
TL;DR: Just take a look at this spot on the Bonobo Kanzi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_opEeCllL1w), and his discussion and interactions with this reporter... or his attempt to act as mediator (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7IdghtkKmA&feature=related) and translator between another Bonobo and a person.
The "Personhood" of animals it's something I've studied and discussed frequently as a budding proto-scientist, since it's something that relates strongly to my studies (Anthropology is the study of what it is to be a person, while Biology is the study of life from a fundamental level on up). Bear with me... I've done a fair bit of homework on this.
The word "person" literally describes human beings, as separate from animals and other things in the world. It's a very old, very basic word that has been used to apply to "Us vs. Them" for as long as history records. We've stripped the word "person" from the physically deformed or mentally handicapped, from "inferior races of human", from foreign cultures we couldn't communicate or relate to, and more. However, when our understanding of these people grew, and we came to understand that these others had comparable feelings, cultures, desires, and senses of individuality as we did, we revised our definition to include them.
What is a person? We use it to describe other beings we communicate and interact with, on both shallow and deep levels, who exhibit "personality", who have an understanding and appreciation of culture and cultural experiences, and so on. Persons dance, speak languages, make music, show kindness toward others even when they don't stand to benefit, express anger and violence toward others, etc.
Now, over many years we've been learning that a great many animals exhibit signs of those same things. They care for others (http://www.helium.com/items/381102-group-behavior-of-the-meerkat) (even members of unrelated species (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/25964356/ns/today-today_pets_and_animals/t/dog-nursing-tiger-cubs-miracle-zoo-owner-says/#.T0lpI_Vcq5I)) at the expense of their own well-being, they communicate with each other (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7IdghtkKmA&feature=related), and can even relate complex or abstract concepts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=vBNwLf3CyiU) when given a complete enough language (http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=gXY7wKhmH3s). We've been finding evidence of individuality, culture, self-awareness, linguistic ability, and more among many animal species.
Considering an animal in the light of "Personhood" can be difficult; for some, it runs contrary to their religious beliefs. For others, admitting animal personality/personhood would come with admitting responsibility for exploiting, disregarding, and making use of animals as material things. Still, we shouldn't let these things prevent us from accepting the very real, very hard evidence that's before us, and we really do need to consider what that means for how we relate to other lifeforms on our planet.
-
Your tone is not appreciated. I'm sure you've regretted posting in threads too. But whatever, I'll leave you to your fascinating discussions of brainless microorganisms.
Bacteria have nuclei, RIGHTS FOR BACTERIUM EVERYWHERE!!! THIS IS BLATANT RACISM AGAINST OUR SINGLE CELLED FRIENDS!!!
-
And then there are people who, rather than letting information give them cause to reconsider their worldview, seek refuge in audacity and start harping on completely ridiculous things. Oh man, people... capable of such heights of greatness, and such depths of pettiness.
-
For your consideration:
http://speakingofresearch.com/2011/08/15/project-nim-the-untold-story/
-
I don't think a large portion of humanity looks in a mirror for the first time, moves, and concludes it's looking at another member of its own species as opposed to itself, unless you're considering children (which might). Source?
Ethology and Human Development. Rowman & Littlefield.
Much like the chimpanzees in the initial test, a human must learn both to understand the meaning of the mirror, and the appropriate response for noticing a spot once the mirror image has been determined to represent themselves. This is not an instant process, and the way the test is usually executed is very prone to false failures. Most human, barring training, will fail the mirror test - of course, most humans are thoroughly trained.
Even if we ARE properly exposed, there's definitely social issues involved that may or may not be present. For example, in Asendorpf, J. B., Warkentin, V., & Baudonniere, P.-M. (1996). Self-Awareness and Other Awareness II: Mirror Self-Recognition, Social Contigency Awareness, and Synchronic Imitation. Developmental Psychology, a study was conducted that showed children were failing not because they were unable to recognize themselves in the mirror, but because they didn't realize the spot was abnormal, nor that they should respond to it. They didn't actually care about the spot.
Only when they were coached before hand that spots should be cleaned (through doll play), did the children behave "as expected" by the test (in other words, by responding to it at all).
An animal who is self aware but simply holds no curiosity on this front fails the test.
Though to be honest, the initial mirror test Gallup did was actually pretty well set, and they learned quite a bit from it. I have nothing against the people who set it up, especially since the conclusions they drew didn't extrapolate without evidence much beyond the confines of the test environment.
What? That's certainly not true for the mirror test involving elephants. Elephants don't remove what's on them, nor is the test in any way designed for them to be removed. An elephant sees it has some tape or something on itself, then rubs its trunk on its own body to feel the tape as opposed to concluding it's looking at another elephant with some tape on it. Nothing to do with taking it off.
This... isn't actually any sort of refutation. The point was that the animal must have some impetus, beyond self awareness, to respond to the dot, or tape, at all.
Take the pigeon example: Long considered a "failure" of the mirror test, until it was demonstrated that the test simply wasn't set up right - the pigeons weren't failing because they couldn't recognise themselves in the mirror, but rather because those other assumptions I listed didn't hold up. Once they were modified, the animals passed.
Where are these coached mirror test results for animals? A google search couldn't turn up much for some reason.
Look up mirror test, pigeons, for the primary example.
You're complaining about one test as opposed to the numerous different types of tests, such as the television test, that have been used on dolphins. It's as if you're discrediting the entire thing because a mirror test was performed.
No, not really - just the researchers who implement their tests poorly and misrepresent the scope and impact of the results, and the reporters who take that and run away with it. I said, overall all, evidence of dolphin intelligence remains remarkably high.
-
Chimpanzees are not of the same mind as Gorillas are, nor Bonobos, nor Humans. Every lifeform is different, and a fair comparison of our capabilities can't be made. Besides, so much of what makes us human is the culture we've all created over thousands of years, (mathematics, language, and tools), not Nature.
For your consideration:
http://speakingofresearch.com/2011/08/15/project-nim-the-untold-story/
I agree with his first conclusion, that the chimpanzee Nim was quite possibly mimicking what he was seeing, rather than communicating. I would, however, disagree with his broad and unsubstantiated conclusion: that because one chimpanzee didn't learn language, that not only all chimpanzees, but all Apes lack a "Theory of Mind", or an ability to empathize or understand anything beyond their immediate wants and needs. When you consider Nim's conditions, he was never set up for language learning during his formative years. If you'd like to see what happens to humans who aren't exposed to language during their early development, consider the case of Dr. Itard's work with the "Feral Child" Victor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron#Jean_Marc_Gaspard_Itard). Without at least some exposure to language and socialization in our formative years, we just can't learn to use or comprehend language.
Luckily, we've come a long way since research done in the 70's. Consider Bonobos like Kanzi (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/assets/swf/1/audio-ss-type/audiogallery-mp3-37.swf?init_file=kanzi-bonobo/kanz), Gorillas like Koko (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdLfZsUMp1g&feature=related), and of course the natural Dolphin proto-language (http://www.speakdolphin.com/ResearchItems.cfm?ID=20) we've just begun to crack in the last few months.
-
Kanzi is amazing. He picked up language on his own and managed to vocalise his feelings- he got a keeper to perform the haka for him. All but Kanzi interpreted it as an aggressive display, but Kanzi indicated he wished to see the haka alone in a different room so as to not aggravate the other bonobos.
-
*research snip*
Ah, I understand now. Thanks for the information, I appreciate it. That's certainly quite interesting. I'm surprised there isn't enough backlash at the standard mirror tests, although I get the impression that since the mirror test isn't the end-all-be-all of gauging intelligence (I've heard there's been a decent amount of research done with parrots, for example), it doesn't do much for intelligence credibility.
What? That's certainly not true for the mirror test involving elephants. Elephants don't remove what's on them, nor is the test in any way designed for them to be removed. An elephant sees it has some tape or something on itself, then rubs its trunk on its own body to feel the tape as opposed to concluding it's looking at another elephant with some tape on it. Nothing to do with taking it off.
This... isn't actually any sort of refutation. The point was that the animal must have some impetus, beyond self awareness, to respond to the dot, or tape, at all.
My apologies, that point was somewhat lost on me. It seemed like you were focusing far too much on viewing the alteration as something negative that must be removed. That was not the case in the mirror tests I've looked at.
You're complaining about one test as opposed to the numerous different types of tests, such as the television test, that have been used on dolphins. It's as if you're discrediting the entire thing because a mirror test was performed.
No, not really - just the researchers who implement their tests poorly and misrepresent the scope and impact of the results, and the reporters who take that and run away with it. I said, overall all, evidence of dolphin intelligence remains remarkably high.
I understand what you mean, now. I agree that a fair bit has simply gone towards drawing not-necessarily-supported conclusions.
-
well, apparently dolphins rape, murder, and bully, that's what I heard anyway.
SOUNDS LIKE HUMANS IF YOU ASK ME.
-
well, apparently dolphins rape, murder, and bully, that's what I heard anyway.
SOUNDS LIKE HUMANS IF YOU ASK ME.
Maybe dolphins are humans.... or humans are dolphins?
-
The tree-shaggers are at it again. ::)
The moment they form an organized civilization, I'll recognize them as sentient.
As for recognizing them as equals? Hell no. Humanity is the master-race in my opinion, and I would be offended if someone compared me to a fish.
Humanity strong! Down with the fin-backs!
-
The tree-shaggers are at it again. ::)
The moment they form an organized civilization, I'll recognize them as sentient.
As for recognizing them as equals? Hell no. Humanity is the master-race in my opinion, and I would be offended if someone compared me to a fish.
Humanity strong! Down with the fin-backs!
I would be offended if someone compared me to a fish.
compared me to a fish
fish
-
Yeah, I just about had a Biology Aneurism when I read that.
I will have you know I have never shagged, hugged, or been either romantically or platonically involved with a tree. I'm a soon-to-be scientist. Humans are awesome. Dolphins (or apes) are not Humans. However, that doesn't mean that I feel we should disregard them or their well-being when we have clear, concrete evidence of their intellect, their emotionality, their personality, and the sono-pictoral language they invented for themselves, which we have begun to be able to use to communicate with them.
To do that would be asinine.
-
The tree-shaggers are at it again. ::)
The moment they form an organized civilization, I'll recognize them as sentient.
As for recognizing them as equals? Hell no. Humanity is the master-race in my opinion, and I would be offended if someone compared me to a fish.
Humanity strong! Down with the fin-backs!
As completely ridiculous as the first page of this thread is (concerning dolphins being as intelligent as/more intelligent than humans, whatever that's even supposed to mean), you're showcasing an astounding amount of tactlessness and ignorance here. That's a very bad combination.
-
I'm pretty sure Stas is being sarcastic. It looks like sarcasm to me at least.
-
Besides, I'd bet the dolphins would be equally if not more offended at the idea of being compared to lizards like us.
-
Besides, I'd bet the dolphins would be equally if not more offended at the idea of being compared to lizards like us.
Quiet so!
-
The tree-shaggers are at it again. ::)
The moment they form an organized civilization, I'll recognize them as sentient.
As for recognizing them as equals? Hell no. Humanity is the master-race in my opinion, and I would be offended if someone compared me to a fish.
Humanity strong! Down with the fin-backs!
As completely ridiculous as the first page of this thread is (concerning dolphins being as intelligent as/more intelligent than humans, whatever that's even supposed to mean), you're showcasing an astounding amount of tactlessness and ignorance here. That's a very bad combination.
Yeah, I don't think the same racist/ignorant bigot characterisation you might apply, doesn't really apply here, when talking about dolphins having equal status as human beings.
Dude is stating a parody as well as a rational outlook, it doesn't indicate ignorance.
-
Yeah, I just about had a Biology Aneurism when I read that.
I will have you know I have never shagged, hugged, or been either romantically or platonically involved with a tree. I'm a soon-to-be scientist. Humans are awesome. Dolphins (or apes) are not Humans. However, that doesn't mean that I feel we should disregard them or their well-being when we have clear, concrete evidence of their intellect, their emotionality, their personality, and the sono-pictoral language they invented for themselves, which we have begun to be able to use to communicate with them.
To do that would be asinine.
Above is my stance on this.
-
Yes! Finally!
I have waited for this moment! Dolphins and Whales absolutely possesses sentience!
Also, dogs should be considered a person. Anything capable of socially bonding with a person should!
This is a happy day in my life.
:-D
-
We should grant them the status of "rival". We must attempt to outdo them in every way. Only logical solution.
-
We should grant them the status of "rival". We must attempt to outdo them in every way. Only logical solution.
That sounds like we should destroy them before they destroy us. O.o
But yeah, I love to know more about what kind of things dolphins discuss.
-
I only consider something a person if at least one member of it's species is capable of basic calculus.
I'm looking at YOU, Jocks. You get off this time.
Also, dolphins, somebody get them a waterproof calculator with big, nose-bumpable buttons. We will see.
-
Oh be fair Heliman. No need to insult their intellect by providing them with a giant novelty calculator for some basic calculus. I'm sure they can find the gradient of a curve without electronic devices... Because if they can't, it is dolphin sandwiches for me!
-
Dolphin sandwiches are pretty good. But then again, it's dolphin the fish, not dolphin the aquatic mammal.
-
We should grant them the status of "rival".
I guess we picked the fire type as our starter, then...
-
Well, if you think about it too hard, humans basically are a fire-type. It was our first big cultural invention, and sorta the symbol for all technology and culture to come, from cooking food over embers and telling oral histories around a campfire, to internal-combustion-powered machines.
-
The leprechaun tells me to burn things.
-
The leprechaun tells me to burn things.
I like you.
-
Also, dogs should be considered a person. Anything capable of socially bonding with a person should!
This is a terrible idea. Dogs right now basically are slaves, granting them the rights of a person would seriously fuck with that, to the determent of the dogs. Although perhaps finding a way to communicate complex thoughts with them, then granting them such rights, might be a good idea.
Also: "Anything capable of socially bonding with a person should!" That is like... A lot of things. Rats for one. I don't think we are ready to consider rats people. Basically any critter that CAN socially bond can socially bond with humans.
-
So, is there any peer-reviewed literature supporting this?
-
Supporting what, exactly?
-
The OP, probably.
-
Although perhaps finding a way to communicate complex thoughts with them, then granting them such rights, might be a good idea.
To be fair, we do already grant most species with observable aspects of intelligence certain rights, hence why animal abuse is a crime.
-
Right. But. They certainly do not have a ton of rights. Like my dog is not even allowed to go outside without being on a leash and he is required for all times in his life to wear a collar. How fucked up would that be when applied to a human (Or "person")?
He also clearly has Stockholm syndrome.
-
At least he doesn't has the top of his skull replaced with a plastic cover. My brother performs mojo jojo on monkeys and I've seen his monkeys once. He says they don't really care but it looks pretty creepy.
-
Whhhhhhhat.
-
...the fuck?
-
He also clearly has Stockholm syndrome.
I wouldn't say that dogs have Stockholm Syndrome so much as they have a social psychology that is mostly alien to humans. Wolves, and by extension the dogs that evolved from them, live in pack structures without human intervention. The social rules of a pack, or at least the ones that we are capable of discerning, are very different from those in human society.
At least he doesn't has the top of his skull replaced with a plastic cover. My brother performs mojo jojo on monkeys and I've seen his monkeys once. He says they don't really care but it looks pretty creepy.
Well, I'm never going to the Netherlands now.
-
That is true, I understand that is how they act normally, but still. It actually really creepy sometimes, the submission and lack of... I'm not sure of the word, ambition? Freewill? Something like a cross between the two... At any rate it is a little creepy even in dogs, in something considered people it would be even more creepy.
Well, I'm never going to the Netherlands now.
Seriously.
Is this a thing? Anywhere? Is your brother some crazed scientist?
-
Is this a thing? Anywhere? Is your brother some crazed scientist?
You don't have to be crazy to do animal testing, which is what I'm guessing he was talking about
-
How is this testing? How? What? Who? When? Why?
-
How is this testing? How? What? Who? When? Why?
~o.o~
-
There is nothing which that is capable of proving if used as a test. Nothing.
-
There is nothing which that is capable of proving if used as a test. Nothing.
Unless they were testing something on the monkeys?
-
Testing how far they can go before being hauled off by the men in white coats?
-
Probably something to do with the brain, really. Easier access. Would be my guess, but it could also be something about testing/refining skull replacement techniques and materials or something. It's probably fairly legit, or it wouldn't be getting funding.
I mean... look. We've actually swapped heads on 'lesser' primates before, to see what would happen (Iirc, it worked out fine until the monkey was put down as per SOP). There's reasons, usually medical, that seem a bit odd when you don't know what they're after :P
-
Looking around, I have seen some mentions of removable plastic skull caps for animals where brain access is needed routinely. It sounds fucked up, but as long as it's sterile and doesn't hurt the monkey, it's probably less cruel than leaving the skull intact and just sawing through it regularly.
-
To me, Dolphins = Neaderthals.
They may be capable of achieving a culture and society, but we'll have to help them along a bit.
I say we give a dolphin some sort of underwater stove and see if it cooks food.
-
I say we give a dolphin some sort of underwater stove and see if it cooks food.
No thumbs :/
-
I say we give a dolphin some sort of underwater stove and see if it cooks food.
No thumbs :/
Big buttons it could push with it's nose?
-
I say we give a dolphin some sort of underwater stove and see if it cooks food.
No thumbs :/
Big buttons it could push with it's nose?
Underwater :/
-
I don't think they'd be able to form a civilization, even if they are sapient. No graspers means they can't use tools or modify their environment, and living in the open ocean raises some doubts about what kind of structures they'd build anyway.
I suppose it's possible, but I think octopuses would be a safer bet for underwater society.
-
I say we give a dolphin some sort of underwater stove and see if it cooks food.
No thumbs :/
Big buttons it could push with it's nose?
Underwater :/
Super-heating non-conductive heat element? Basically boil whatever was put over it?
Alright, I got nothing.
-
Right. But. They certainly do not have a ton of rights. Like my dog is not even allowed to go outside without being on a leash and he is required for all times in his life to wear a collar. How fucked up would that be when applied to a human (Or "person")?
He also clearly has Stockholm syndrome.
Actually a human with the intelligence of a dog would very likely not be allowed outside on their own and would be considered the absolute responsibility of the person who takes care of them.
-
Dogs are pretty intelligent in some aspects. My brother's dog is a manipulative bitch.
-
That is true, I understand that is how they act normally, but still. It actually really creepy sometimes, the submission and lack of... I'm not sure of the word, ambition? Freewill? Something like a cross between the two... At any rate it is a little creepy even in dogs, in something considered people it would be even more creepy.
Well, I'm never going to the Netherlands now.
Seriously.
Is this a thing? Anywhere? Is your brother some crazed scientist?
Hehe, totally forgot I posted this here.
My brother tests some stuff regarding 3d vision and he uses Macaques (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macaque) as test subjects. Initially they would 'only' get some sort of plastic rod on their head which would be used to fasten it to the scanner (MRI?) but later it turned out that his monkeys would get the normal procedure, and thus the skull/skin on top of their head was removed and replaced with a plastic cover.
He says that tests like this are getting rarer lately, mainly because of the high cute-factor monkeys have. He can regularly not come to his work because a few animal right weirdos.
He hasn't actually tested anything yet though, as the macaques need years of training before they can lie still for hours in an MRI. The macaques have it pretty good compared to the rabbits though. They are basically big living cancer bunnies.
-
Dogs are pretty intelligent in some aspects. My brother's dog is a manipulative bitch.
I swear that my first dog could manipulate the Force. She could stare into someone's eyes until it blanked their mind. Using this to get me and my family members to involuntarily drop food was something that happened more than once.
And every dog I've ever had eventually discovered how to manipulate door knobs.
-
Dogs are pretty intelligent in some aspects. My brother's dog is a manipulative bitch.
I swear that my first dog could manipulate the Force. She could stare into someone's eyes until it blanked their mind. Using this to get me and my family members to involuntarily drop food was something that happened more than once.
And every dog I've ever had eventually discovered how to manipulate door knobs.
My dog can barely figure out how to use the couch.
Lucky.
-
Right. But. They certainly do not have a ton of rights. Like my dog is not even allowed to go outside without being on a leash and he is required for all times in his life to wear a collar. How fucked up would that be when applied to a human (Or "person")?
He also clearly has Stockholm syndrome.
Actually a human with the intelligence of a dog would very likely not be allowed outside on their own and would be considered the absolute responsibility of the person who takes care of them.
That's a good point. What is humanity anyway? If we can take the rights of these people away.
But if we still consider them people, then how can intelligence be used as a metric for "personhood"?
-
I have a cat.
I'm not quite sure if it sees humans as intelligent species.
-
Right. But. They certainly do not have a ton of rights. Like my dog is not even allowed to go outside without being on a leash and he is required for all times in his life to wear a collar. How fucked up would that be when applied to a human (Or "person")?
He also clearly has Stockholm syndrome.
Actually a human with the intelligence of a dog would very likely not be allowed outside on their own and would be considered the absolute responsibility of the person who takes care of them.
That's a good point. What is humanity anyway? If we can take the rights of these people away.
But if we still consider them people, then how can intelligence be used as a metric for "personhood"?
Those rights are being taken away for their protection. I don't think anyone's ever been that bad, but they wouldn't be able to function as a normal citizen with full rights. They'd probably have to stay at some kind of institution.
-
I have a cat.
I'm not quite sure if it sees humans as intelligent species.
Of course not, at best we're mobile furniture that dispenses food. At worst, scratching post.
-
That's a good point. What is humanity anyway?
A misserable pile of secrets! But enough talk, have at you!
-
That's a good point. What is humanity anyway?
A misserable pile of secrets! But enough talk, have at you!
Great, no one can postulate on that subject ever again. Thanks a lot Castlevania.
-
This is waaay late, but that humans = fire-type is actually really accurate. We dp seem able to wreck forests and other grassy stuff.
-
This is waaay late, but that humans = fire-type is actually really accurate. We dp seem able to wreck forests and other grassy stuff.
But some forests require fires to continue existing.
-
If we can communicate with dolphins, I wonder if I will be able to negotiate with some of them to purchase the flesh of others.
This is waaay late, but that humans = fire-type is actually really accurate. We dp seem able to wreck forests and other grassy stuff.
But some forests require fires to continue existing.
Yes; it's more like we use fire to harness the chemical energy trapped in the veins of the earth to power our metal machine monsters. Ancient man is a creature balanced between nomadism and agriculture, at the mercy of the elements. Modern man is a master of the elements and among them fire his greatest tool and servant.
-
This is waaay late, but that humans = fire-type is actually really accurate. We dp seem able to wreck forests and other grassy stuff.
I think humans are probably more accurately a Fighting-Steel crosstype.
-
What about Amerindians or Eskimos or Aborigines or Tibetan monks? Are they excluded from elemental classifications of humanity? They'd probably be Grass-Psychic or something similar ;P
-
The mayas practiced extensive slash and burn agriculture, iirc. In a national geographic magazine they discussed that it might be behind their collapse
-
My dog has a taste of everything, collects fir items exclusively, leaves anything else out.
She stays when i listen to blues and runs away as soon as she hears even a tidbit of Gorjira, Vilhjarta or Meshuggah.
-
What about Amerindians or Eskimos or Aborigines or Tibetan monks? Are they excluded from elemental classifications of humanity? They'd probably be Grass-Psychic or something similar ;P
The mayas practiced extensive slash and burn agriculture, iirc. In a national geographic magazine they discussed that it might be behind their collapse
My dog has a taste of everything, collects fir items exclusively, leaves anything else out.
She stays when i listen to blues and runs away as soon as she hears even a tidbit of Gorjira, Vilhjarta or Meshuggah.
These are three consecutive posts in the same topic.
If you don't mind me, I will now begin vigorously questioning the concept of sanity.
-
What about Amerindians or Eskimos or Aborigines or Tibetan monks? Are they excluded from elemental classifications of humanity? They'd probably be Grass-Psychic or something similar ;P
The mayas practiced extensive slash and burn agriculture, iirc. In a national geographic magazine they discussed that it might be behind their collapse
My dog has a taste of everything, collects fir items exclusively, leaves anything else out.
She stays when i listen to blues and runs away as soon as she hears even a tidbit of Gorjira, Vilhjarta or Meshuggah.
These are three consecutive posts in the same topic.
If you don't mind me, I will now begin vigorously questioning the concept of sanity.
Sanity is the act of taking actions deemed logically sound and acceptable - rather sanity being the form of insanity we have universally agreed as being sane.
-
I'm not asking for it, I'm questioning (thesaurus: doubting, wondering about) it.
-
I'm not asking for it, I'm questioning (thesaurus: doubting, wondering about) it.
As was I ^-^