A suggestion for dolphin communication.
|
|
Thread rating:  |
rgregoryclark@yahoo.com - 31 Aug 2005 11:50 GMT I was doing some digitizing of voice recordings when I found a surprising effect. The first zip file linked below is of a voice recording in MP3 format. The digital sampling rate was at the default 44khz. The second zipped file is the result when I applied the slower sampling rate of 8khz to the first file. I was surprised to note the effect of using the slower sampling rate was to give the recording the sound of whale song or dolphin speech. (Note: I copied below discussion of experimental evidence that dolphins do use a form of "speech".) This effect is more pronounced with longer recordings. I had to shorten these to upload them to the forum. To observe this, use a program for digitally recording audio, then sample a saved voice recording at a slower rate than it was originally saved at. There are several free programs available on the net that have this capability. I thought then perhaps the difficulty in interpreting dolphin speech was that we record them at a slower sampling rate than what they are actually produced at. However, it is known that dolphin speech extends into higher frequencies:
Oceanwide Science Institute's Research Page. "One of the main problems is the high frequency content of dolphin signals. Most dolphin species produce three types of signals: echolocation clicks, the faster paced burst pulse clicks, and whistles. Echolocation clicks are used by dolphins to detect and recognize objects in the water from the returning echoes. Burst pulse clicks and whistles on the other hand are thought to be used mainly for communication. Click signals are extremely short (50 microseconds) and broadband high frequency signals, ranging from 0 to over 200 kilohertz. Whistles are generally within human hearing range, but also have ultrasonic components called harmonics which can go up to over 100 kHz. However, conventional audio recording systems only go up to about 20 kHz (also the upper limit of human hearing), and therefore miss the major part of these signals." http://oceanwidescience.org/docs/4ch-UDDAS.html
The higher frequencies necessitate higher sampling rates to accurately record the analog signal. This is a result of the Nyquist theorem:
Nyquist's Sampling Theorem. http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/Dave/Multimedia/node149.html
So I presume that when we hear recordings of dolphin speech, they are recorded at these higher sampling rates, or certainly for purposes of scientific study they are. Then perhaps the problem is that our human hearing can not adapt to the amount of date contained in the audio at these high sampling rates, or their rate of modulation. So instead of using our audio sense to interpret dolphin speech why not use a sense that operates at (much) higher frequencies? I'm thinking of our visual sense. I suggest associating the sounds in dolphin speech with colors. To represent intensity of the sound you could use the brightness of the color but I think this would be better represented by elevation, that is louder sounds would be projected higher on a screen.
The idea is to use our ability to detect recurring patterns visually in color and form as the means to interpret dolphin speech. There are many different ways this could be implemented. In fact visual artists might be the best people to ask about the best ways to implement this and to be able to "read" the messages produced.
Bob Clark
Test6.zip (89.9 KB) http://physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4619
test6-8khza.zip (86.7 KB) http://physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4620
****************************************** Newsgroups: alt.animals.dolphins, rec.arts.sf.science, sci.anthropology, sci.cognitive, sci.astro.seti From: rgcl...@my-deja.com (Robert Clark) Date: 20 Jul 2001 21:46:15 -0700 Local: Sat, Jul 21 2001 12:46 am Subject: Communicating with dolphins.
The recent news of dolphins having the ability of self-recognition in mirrors previously believed to be restricted to humans and the great apes reminded me of a suggestion of Carl Sagan to demonstrate the communication abilities of dolphins.
Dolphins recognize themselves in mirror http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/biology/2001-05-01-dolphin-mirror.htm
Mirror self-recognition in the bottlenose dolphin: A case of cognitive convergence Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 98, Issue 10, 5937-5942, May 8, 2001 "The ability to recognize oneself in a mirror is an exceedingly rare capacity in the animal kingdom. To date, only humans and great apes have shown convincing evidence of mirror self-recognition. Two dolphins were exposed to reflective surfaces, and both demonstrated responses consistent with the use of the mirror to investigate marked parts of the body. This ability to use a mirror to inspect parts of the body is a striking example of evolutionary convergence with great apes and humans." http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/10/5937 [full text]
An earlier similar experiment is also available online:
Evidence of self-awareness in the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) "Conclusion "No single test presented here proves self-recognition in bottlenose dolphins. The tests were developed mainly from primate research paradigms, and their limitations for interpretations of dolphin behavior are apparent. Nevertheless, the data taken together make a compelling case for self-recognition in this species. Four of five dolphins apparently examined their marks in a mirror; most brought objects to the mirror and played with them in front of it, even moving the object back when it drifted out of view; and most of the mirror-mode television tests designed to distinguish self-examination from social behavior suggested self-examination. Not only did dolphins attend to their mirror (or television) images less than 1% of the time as compared to 100% for real dolphins, but they engaged in different behavior with mirrors than they did with other dolphins. The results obtained in the experiments presented here are consistent with the hypothesis that these animals are using the mirror to examine themselves. More definitive results, however, will have to come from methodologies developed specifically for dolphins." http://planet-hawaii.com/earthtrust/delbook.html [full text]
Sagan wrote about having visited a dolphin research center as part of his research in SETI communication. In his book, _The Cosmic Connection_, first published 1973, he suggested a means to test the idea that dolphins can communicate complex information among themselves:
"Dolphin anecdotes make marvelous cocktail party accounts, an unending source of casual conversation. One of the difficulties that I discovered with research into dolphin language and intelligence was precisely this fascination with anecdote; the really critical scientific tests were somehow never performed. "For example, I repeatedly urged that the following experiment be done: Dolphin A is introduced into a tank that is eqipped with two underwater audio speakers. Each hydrophone is attached to an automatic fish dispenser catering tasty dolphin fare. One speaker plays Bach, the other plays Beatles. Which speaker is playing Bach or Beatles (a different composition each time) at any given moment is determined randomly. Whenever Dolphin A goes to the appropriate speaker - let us say the one playing Beatles - he is rewarded with a fish. I think there is no doubt that any dolphin will - because of his great interest in, and facility with, the audio spectrum - be able soon to distinguish between Bach and Beatles. But that is not the significant part of the experiment. What is significant is the number of trials before Dolphin A becomes sophisticated - that is, always know that if he wishes a fish he should go to the speaker playing Beatles. "Now Dolphin A is separated from the speakers by a barrier of plastic broad-gauge mesh. He can see through the barrier, he can smell and taste through it, and most important, he can hear and "speak" through it. But he cannot swim through it. Dolphin B is then introduced into the area of the speakers. Dolphin B is naive; that is he has had no prior experience with underwater fish dispensers, Bach, or Beatles. Unlike the well-known difficulty in finding "naive" college students with whom to perform experiments on cannibis sativa [ahem], there will be no difficulty finding dolphins lacking extensive experience with Bach and Beatles. Dolphin B must go through the same learning procedure as did Dolphin A. But now each time that Dolphin B (at first randomly) succeeds, not only does the dispenser provide him with a fish, but a fish is thrown to Dolphin A, who is able to witness the learning experience of Dolphin B. If Dolphin A is hungry, it is distinctly to his advantage to communicate what he knows about Bach and Beatles to Dolphin B. If Dolphin B is hungry, it is to his advantage to pay attention to the information that Dolphin A may have. The question, therefore is: Does Dolphin B have a steeper learning curve than Dolphin A? Does he reach the plateau of sophistication in fewer trials or less time? "If such experiments were repeated many times and it were found that the learning curves for Dolphin B were in a statistically significant sense always steeper than those of Dolphin A, communication of moderately interesting information between two dolphins would have been established. It might be a verbal description of the difference between Bach and the Beatles - to my mind, a difficult but not impossible task - or it might simply be the distinction between right and left in each trial, until Dolphin B catches on. This is not the best experimental design to test dolphin-to-dolphin communication, but it is typical of a large category of experiments that could be performed. To my knowledge and regret, no such experiments have been performed with dolphins to date." _The Cosmic Connection_ Ch. 24., "Some of my best friends are dolphins", pp. 177-178, 2000 edition.
Sagan wrote this in 1973. Anyone know if such experiments have been performed since then?
Bob Clark
*******************************************
Newsgroups: alt.animals.dolphins, rec.arts.sf.science, sci.anthropology, sci.cognitive, sci.astro.seti From: rgcl...@my-deja.com (Robert Clark) Date: 24 Jul 2001 16:51:36 -0700 Local: Tues, Jul 24 2001 7:51 pm Subject: Re: Communicating with dolphins.
I was informed via email of research by Bastian and by Markov on the question of dolphin communication:
J. Bastian (1967) The transmission of arbitrary environmental information between bottlenosed dolphins. in: R.G. Busnel (ed): Animal sonar systems - Biology and bionics, vol 2, pp. 807-873 NATO Advanced Study Institute / Lab. de Physiologie Acoustique, France
A.V. Zanin, V.I. Markov and I.E. Sidorova (1990) The ability of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, to report arbitrary information in: J.A. Thomas and R.A. Kastelein (eds): Sensory Abilities of Cetaceans - Laboratory and Field Evidence, pp. 685-697 NATO ASI Series, Series A: Life Sciences, vol 196, Plenum Press, London and New York
After a web search I found a site by Kenneth W. LeVasseur that describes this research:
Dolphin Intelligence and the Captivity Issue http://whales.magna.com.au/POLICIES/levasseur/
To implement an experiment of the type Sagan proposes it would probably be better to test for simpler discrimination tasks at first than the one he mentions. However, I did find on the Dolphin Research Institute site an experiment that suggests dolphins might be able to make the complex melody form discrimination described by Sagan. I discuss it below. In the email I received, it was suggested that in the experiments of Bastain and Markov there was simple "binary information" exchange. I presume this means communicating something like a "yes" or a "no" to the other dolphin. Say for example when Dolphin B swims by the correct speaker, Dolphin A lets out an enthusiastic squeak but gives a muted response or no response when it swims by the other speaker. Another way to signal in a simple way would be for Dolphin A to position itself in front of the correct speaker if the speakers were aligned in front of the mesh screen. I think there should be ways to overcome these objections. One possibility would make a success a little more difficult by not releasing a fish unless a dolphin goes first to the correct speaker and does not visit the incorrect speaker. This would take a longer time to train but I think it should be doable. Also the speakers should not be placed so that Dolphin A can signal which is the right one by positioning itself. You should also increase the number of speakers the dolphin has to decide from rather than two. Also to increase the dolphins desire to visit a speaker you could have a fish visible and with its scent detectable attached to each speaker, only the fish is not released unless the dolphin visits the correct speaker. Then you could observe whether Dolphin B is able to directly go to the correct speaker. If it swims around but does eventually get to the right speaker and in a faster time than Dolphin A that might suggest it was yes/no information being communicated. Note that Dolphin A remembering how long it took for its own accomplishment of the task would have motivation for communicating directly which speaker to go to. Note that a success in fast learning for Dolphin B could mean the required discrimination was communicated or it could mean the number of the speaker to go to was communicated. However, even if it was number communicated I think that in itself would be significant. You would also want to do the experiment where some other specific behaviors need to be performed to receive the fish. One example might be: "bite the ball on top of the correct speaker." You would want the behavior to be something that dolphins would naturally be able to communicate if they did indeed have a natural language. If dolphins communicate naturally then you would expect the correct response would be communicated immediately. But in the Bastian experiment, it took several trials to get the correct response. LeVasseur makes the argument this was because they were quite young when captured. In the Markov experiments they did use older dolphins, but from the description it does not appear the communication was immediate here either. It's not made clear here whether the dolphins used were from a common group that would be expected to communicate if they indeed did have a natural language. The situation may be analogous to that of human beings where separate groups develop different languages. In future experiments it may be best to insure the dolphins are from a common group. Nevertheless, Markov et.al. did conclude that dolphins do have a complex language. Also, the research by Markov seems to show there is less communication under stressful conditions. Perhaps the experiments should be performed in the wild as well as ensuring that the dolphins are from a common group. You could probably train one dolphin in the discrimination task when it temporarily, voluntarily separates from one or more members of the group, suspending training when the second dolphin you want to train comes within view of the training. However, the strategy of training another dolphin while the first dolphin observes would be more difficult to implement without keeping the first dolphin in an enclosure. Perhaps one possibility in the wild would be like if there is an area separated from the open sea by a rocky crag. It takes some minutes to swim around the crag, but the dolphins are familiar with it and do it commonly. You carve an opening in the crag and place a screen across the opening so that a dolphin that happened to swim to the separated area would now be able to view his companions in the open sea. In some experiments, you might want it that when Dolphin B is being trained, Dolphin A is not able to see the position of the speakers so that the information communicated has to be of a more complex character to identify the correct speaker to Dolphin B. However, I recall reading that a dolphin can "read" the echolocation signals of another dolphin. So you might need to insure this information also can not be communicated.
The page from the Dolphin Research Institute that suggests dolphins might be able to distinguish melodic form is at:
Hearing Capabilities "Recognizing Different Melodies "Dolphins can recognize different melodies (Ralston & Herman, 1995). They possess an apparently unique ability among non-human animals to recognize familiar melodies across octave changes. "In contrast, songbirds appear to regard such changes as different melodies, focusing on the absolute pitch of the various notes rather than the relative changes in pitch." http://www.dolphin-institute.org/research/dolphinres.html#Dolphin Hearing Capabilities
This is discussed in:
Ralston, J. V. & Herman, L. M. (1995). Perception and generalization of frequency contours by a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 109, 268-277.
A nice review of the research on the dolphin communication question is on the page:
EARTHTRUST & SEA LIFE PARK HAWAII'S HUMAN-DOLPHIN COMMUNICATION PROJECT http://neoteny.eccosys.com/~bigtwin/MOON/moon02.html
On his page, Kenneth LeVasseur also suggests using other methods than operant conditioning with fish rewards to train the dolphins:
A THIRD PHASE ALTERNATIVE TO DOLPHIN CAPTIVITY http://whales.magna.com.au/POLICIES/levasseur/levass3b.html
Bob Clark
**************************************************
Dolphin - 31 Aug 2005 15:12 GMT Followup set.
#begin rgregoryclark@yahoo.com.exe (or was it rgregoryclark@yahoo.com.com) message <1125485454.250024.326950@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> reply:
> I was doing some digitizing of voice recordings when I found a > surprising effect. The first zip file linked below is of a voice > recording in MP3 format. The digital sampling rate was at the default > 44khz. <SNIP>
> Click signals are extremely short (50 microseconds) and > broadband high frequency signals, ranging from 0 to over 200 kilohertz. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > major part of these signals." > http://oceanwidescience.org/docs/4ch-UDDAS.html <SNIP>
Keep in mind that the sampling rate of audio cards, like 44kHz in your case, only represents the half-wave sampling, and the whole wave requires two samples to be recorded. Means the real recording frequency of that audio card is 44kHz / 2 = 22kHz. Enough for the generic human hearing range (20Hz-20kHz), but not enough to record high frequency signals of dolphins' whistles and clicks. For that task you will need a better than the average consumer-grade audio card. The later Creative Audigy cards can give 24bit/96kHz (48kHz wave) resolutions and might be ok for home use. For more serious works you might want to look for specialised cards. I am very pleased with the quality of "Audiophile 192" cards by M-AUDIO: http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/Audiophile192-focus.html 24bit/192kHz (96kHz wave), extremely low-noise (-113dB on record).
Dolphin.
 Signature URL: http://www.DolphinWave.org Mail: on the web page (no spam) ICQ: 6615461
rgregoryclark@yahoo.com - 31 Aug 2005 17:16 GMT This phenomenon might obtain as well in the realm of SETI communication, that is the sampling rate might be too high to detect any pattern in audio, but could be detected when translated into a search for visual patterns. Then an extension of the SETI@Home project might be to send out to the participants the translation of the received signals into visual color arrangements, with the participants actively analyzing the results for patterns. This is different than for SETI@Home currently in that this is only done by the participants computers and only looks for pulses.
Bob Clark
> I was doing some digitizing of voice recordings when I found a > surprising effect. The first zip file linked below is of a voice [quoted text clipped - 334 lines] > > ************************************************** imipak - 27 Sep 2005 04:27 GMT This is not dissimilar to the Optical SETI theories, and I don't see anything obviously wrong with it. Personally, I think that there may be easier ways to do the basic studies, but the idea of trying alternative methods of data presentation to make better uses of our senses would seem a logical enough approach.
I would offer some other thoughts, though:
1) The best analog-to-digital converters out there (that I know of) are 8-channel, 192 KHz, 26 bit. This is getting to the stage where we can accurately capture and process live data electronically.
You notice that I pointed out that the chips are 8 channel. This is because dolphins exist in an unrestricted 3D space. You only need 4 points to define something in 3D space, but processing data from a tetrahedral arrangement of sensors in a variable medium can get complicated. Having the sensors in the eight corners of a cube would make processing the data much easier.
Now, we would have not only the sound but the direction that sound was going at each point, in 3D space, over the time of the vocalization. This allows us to plot vocalization against motion. Most animals have some concept of body language, but dolphins have only a very limited way to exhibit this. This would suggest motion is a major part of their communication, so it should not be ignored in the processing of it.
2) There may be other non-vocalized communication. I've listed a few here. The first two are "maybes", the third is pretty certain.
2a) Bubbles
It is known that dolphins have amazing control over the muscle for their blow-hole. There are many photographs of young dolphins blowing bubble rings, then swimming through them. It is possible to imagine situations where vocalizations or "loud" movements would be counter-productive, so a stealthy means of communication certainly exists. Would bubbles serve? I don't know and I don't know if anyone has really done much research on the subject. I have seen nothing on covert communication between cetaceans, and the only references to the bubble rings come from aquariums.
When Orcas are hunting Porpoises, covert communication would seem to be essential. The Porpoise is in the same family, so presumably hears at a similar frequency. The Orcas would need some means of communicating that is stealthy enough to not give them away but be unmistakable to other Orcas. Of course, it's possible they just rely on surrounding an area and superior speed, but in the natural world, it's not unusual for hunters to exploit any capability that'll give them an edge.
2b) Sonar
This could be used in a number of ways. The most obvious is a simple application of the "angle of incidence = angle of reflection". If you have two dolphins at two distinct points, both facing a third point such that the three points make an isosceles triangle, then if one dolphin uses echolocation, the reflected sound would travel to the other dolphin. If a mother dolphin wanted to train a baby dolphin in echolocation, then this would be one possible way it could be done. (It's not the only way, but given that dolphins work in poor lighting and often forrage for food under sand, it would be safer than trial-and-error.)
2c) Surface Activity
Spy-hopping is good for observation, but there's always the possibility it communicates something too. After all, dolphins aren't likely to do much spy-hopping if they think the surface dangerous. It may, therefore, also communicate that it's safe up top. A useful thing to signal, if you need to surface to breath.
Breaching seems to be emphasis of some point made by other methods - it doesn't seem to signify anything in itself. A bit like an accent, or an exclamation mark.
All in all, I believe communication will remain impossible whilst we focus too much on one single dimension or one single aspect. People have tried specific areas and turned up little or nothing. Ergo, that must be the wrong approach, so something else must be necessary.
Clyde Spencer - 27 Sep 2005 23:58 GMT Speaking of optical SETI, how about trying to decipher cephalopod messages encoded in colors and patterns in the likes of cuttlefish and squid? Would we have a clue as to what an extraterrestrial intelligent being were trying to tell us if they 'spoke' with light? Clyde Spencer
> This is not dissimilar to the Optical SETI theories, and I don't see > anything obviously wrong with it. Personally, I think that there may be [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > have tried specific areas and turned up little or nothing. Ergo, that > must be the wrong approach, so something else must be necessary. imipak - 28 Sep 2005 23:10 GMT There has been some research in that area, but as far as I know, it's only really got as far as proving that the colour changes have information content. Research on the intelligence of cephalopods has demonstrated that cephalopods have some ability to reason (how much is unknown), have long-term memories (how long-term is unknown), are capable of learning skills (how complex is unknown) and comprehend long-term strategies that may involve short-term risks (such as climbing from one tank to another to get food).
This isn't really enough to get a useful idea of intelligence. It's enough to know that something that could be defined as intelligence is present, but to what degree or in what form?
To the best of my knowledge, Optical SETI is following a similar sort of approach - not bothering with actual interpretation or relation, but concentrating all efforts on a simple binary question of whether a given recording of an optical signal shows the presence of actual information (as opposed to being a carrier wave, a natural random signal, etc).
It reduces the complexity of the problem they're trying to solve, at the penalty of not really solving very much if they do ever find something. I guess it's assumed that it would then become Somebody Else's Problem. (As the late Douglas Adams noted, though, SEPs are effectively invisible.)
Robin Bruce - 05 Oct 2005 11:52 GMT If we found out Dolphins were really intelligent and had an enormous capacity for communication, would they really have anything to say?
I reckon it would just be fish, fish, fish, interspersed with the occasional discussion about who had dolphin sex with whom...
Robin
jillh10 - 05 Oct 2005 15:27 GMT I suppose the dolphins that the Americans trained to carry detonators and stick them on ships would be out thelling a few war tales too....can you imagine it?
Michael Ash - 05 Oct 2005 16:44 GMT In rec.arts.sf.science Robin Bruce <robin.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we found out Dolphins were really intelligent and had an enormous > capacity for communication, would they really have anything to say? > > I reckon it would just be fish, fish, fish, interspersed with the > occasional discussion about who had dolphin sex with whom... Sounds a lot like human conversation to me.
 Signature Michael Ash Rogue Amoeba Software
Joann Evans - 07 Oct 2005 03:53 GMT > If we found out Dolphins were really intelligent and had an enormous > capacity for communication, would they really have anything to say? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Robin If those were all the communicative demands their environment imposes on them, they'd not likely be highly intelligent to begin with. Large brains are also large metabolic sinks. You don't have them unless you're doing something highly survival-related with them.
Also, I suspect a failure of imagination here, as to what they might communicate about. (Not that humans don't devote signifigant communication time to eating, sex and other social information. Skim through cable channels, or a magazine stand, sometime...)
 Signature You know what to remove, to reply....
http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm
robin.bruce@gmail.com - 07 Oct 2005 14:18 GMT > > If we found out Dolphins were really intelligent and had an enormous > > capacity for communication, would they really have anything to say? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > communication time to eating, sex and other social information. Skim > through cable channels, or a magazine stand, sometime...) Yeah, I get the point about big brains being costly to run, and their having to be a real need for them to justify the large size. Maybe the core of it is that they've developed great reasoning abilities to understand and follow fish shoals. If we could understand them, maybe they have the most complex und in-depth understanding and experience of where and when to catch fish. I suppose with this brain they could turn their reasoning abilities to other things. Even If they were intelligent though, they'd still be appallingly ignorant about the world. You certainly couldn't introduce them to polite company and not expect them to make damn fools of themselves...
> -- > > You know what to remove, to reply.... > > http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm Clyde Spencer - 07 Oct 2005 23:26 GMT Besides being eminently trainable in captivity, which requires considerable intelligence, dolphins also demonstrate the ability to form alliances and work towards common goals. That is, they demonstrate political behavior. From our viewpoint they may have a parochial view of the universe, but on the other hand they could probably tell us a lot about the oceans that we don't know. Those of us who consider ourselves urbane, are quite incompetent when it comes to fundamental survival skills such as tracking and killing an animal for food, or knowing which wild plants are edible. It is a very different knowledge base that those living close to nature have compared to those of us who depend on a complex infrastructure to supply us with our necessities. That doesn't mean we would find what dolphins have to tell us any less interesting than what the last wild Indian in California, Ishi, had to say. What Ishi knew was probably not very germane to surviving in San Francisco of the early-1900's, but it was still of great interest to many people. Thanks for all the fish!
> > > If we found out Dolphins were really intelligent and had an enormous > > > capacity for communication, would they really have anything to say? [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > > > http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm Joann Evans - 10 Oct 2005 02:17 GMT > > > If we found out Dolphins were really intelligent and had an enormous > > > capacity for communication, would they really have anything to say? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > world. You certainly couldn't introduce them to polite company and not > expect them to make damn fools of themselves... Perhaps so, but that's just a matter of being ignorant of human social conventions. Something *all* of us are born not knowing. (And then you may travel to a place where they're different, and learn. 'Wnen in Rome...' and so forth.) As Mark Twain once said:
"It is better to be ignorant than to be stupid, because ignorance can be fixed."
 Signature You know what to remove, to reply....
http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm
feedbackdroids@yahoo.com - 17 Oct 2005 02:48 GMT > "It is better to be ignorant than to be stupid, because ignorance can > be fixed." This came up on another forum, so thought I'd pass it along. Infolding in dolphin neocortex is almost on a par with humans, and far more than in most other species, including chimps+apes.
http://brainmuseum.org/Specimens/carnivora/cat/index.html http://brainmuseum.org/Specimens/primates/squirrelmonk/index.html http://brainmuseum.org/Specimens/primates/chimp/index.html http://brainmuseum.org/Specimens/cetacea/dolphin/index.html http://brainmuseum.org/Specimens/primates/human/index.html
Also, according to the following site, dolphin c.cortex is (a) 40% larger than humans, and (b) relatively much more is devoted to sensory function than motor ... "the cetaceans greatly favor the sensory region (and are not very balanced at all between the two)". Dolphin sensory systems may be very highly refined. They don't have to balance, walk, learn to work 10 separate fingers, etc, so more of the brain can be devoted to other things. Interesting.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper3/Ball3.html
A Comparison of Primate and Dolphin Intelligence as a Metaphor for the Validity of Comparative Studies of Intelligence
By many of the physical methods of comparing intelligence, such as measuring the brain size to body size ratio, cetacean surpass non-human
primates and even rival human beings. For example dolphins have a cerebral cortex which is about 40% larger a human being's. Their cortex
is also stratified in much the same way as a humans(1). The frontal lobe of dolphins is also developed to a level comparable to humans. In addition the parietal lobe of dolphins which "makes sense of the senses" is larger than the human parietal and frontal lobes combined (1). The similarities do not end there, most cetaceans have large and well developed temporal lobes which contain sections equivalent to Broca's and Wernicke's areas in humans (1).
Another major difference between primate and cetacean brains is that the primate brain favors the motor cortex, while "the cetaceans greatly
favor the sensory region (and are not very balanced at all between the two)" (1). In the final measure of brain complexity, neural density dolphins also measure up quite favorable to humans. In certain areas of
the brain concerned with "emotional control, objectivity, reality orientation, humor, logically consistent abstract thought and higher creativity" dolphins have an higher ratio of neural density(1). This seems to be correlated with dolphins ability to maintain a healthy emotional state while in captivity; humans in analogous situations often don't fair as well emotionally.
Martin Leese - 17 Oct 2005 03:22 GMT ...
> Also, according to the following site, dolphin c.cortex is (a) 40% > larger [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > learn to work 10 separate fingers, etc, so more of the brain can be > devoted to other things. Interesting. Not really. Dolphins use sonar. This requires a lot of processing, so a lot of their brain is devoted to sensory processing. Yes, they don't have to balance, walk, learn to work 10 separate fingers, etc, but then humans just have look at the world through eyes. Your logic is flawed, here.
 Signature Regards, Martin Leese E-mail: please@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/
feedbackdroids@yahoo.com - 17 Oct 2005 03:54 GMT > ... > > Also, according to the following site, dolphin c.cortex is (a) 40% [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the world through eyes. Your logic is flawed, > here. Huh? What logic is flawed? That they have relatively more brain to devote to other things? That their neocortex is folded more on a par with humans, as compared to any other animals? And you know, bats have excellent sonar, can fly at high rates through a room full of fine filament wires, and guide themselves in the presence of literally *millions* of other bats .... and they have tiny little pea-sized brains, and they catch tiny little flying bugs like mosquitos. Quite a trick. When's the last time you saw a dolphin using his sonar in a school of a million dolphins?
http://www.texasmosquito.org/Bats.html
http://www.ponddoc.com/WhatsUpDoc/WildLife/BuzzMosquitoes.htm
Mosquitoes are a favorite food of bats and dragonflies. A single dragonfly can eat up to 600 insects a day. That number is dwarfed by the brown bat who can eat 1200 mosquitoes in an hour!
http://images.google.com/images?q=bats+flock&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images
===========
And what the heck does this mean? Oy??? ........... but then humans just have look at
> the world through eyes. Martin Leese - 17 Oct 2005 06:15 GMT >>... >>>Also, according to the following site, dolphin c.cortex is (a) 40% [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Huh? What logic is flawed? That they have relatively more brain to > devote to other things? Yes.
...
> And you know, bats have > excellent sonar, can fly at high rates through a room full of fine [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > trick. When's the last time you saw a dolphin using his sonar in a > school of a million dolphins? Bats and dolphins are not comparable. Water is a dirty medium, air is clean. By that I mean that a coherent sonar pulse (called a ping) will have its coherence disrupted simply by passing through the water column. In contrast, bats use high frequency echo location, the coherence of which is not disrupted by passage through the air.
Also, bats home in on the wing vibration of their prey. Picking this out from the background noise is relatively straight forward.
Finally, human tissue (and fish tissue) is mostly water, and is transparent to sonar. When a dolphin "sees" you using sonar, it see your lungs and your skeleton. When "seeing" fish it sees their swim bladders, millions of them when the shoal is large.
This all makes sonar processing a difficult problem. I used to write software to process sidescan sonar images of the sea floor. Sonar processing is tough.
> And what the heck does this mean? Oy??? > ........... > but then humans just have look at >>the world through eyes. Processing eye data is simple compared with processing sonar data. So less brain needs to be devoted to it. That's all. Dolphins are still smart when compared with other animals. The important questions are how smart, and smart in what ways?
 Signature Regards, Martin Leese E-mail: please@see.Web.for.e-mail.INVALID Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/
feedbackdroids@yahoo.com - 17 Oct 2005 16:42 GMT > >>... > >>>Also, according to the following site, dolphin c.cortex is (a) 40% [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > sidescan sonar images of the sea floor. Sonar > processing is tough. Of course, no one has yet solved the general computer vision problem, either, despite maybe 20-30 years of work on it.
> > And what the heck does this mean? Oy??? > > ........... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The important questions are how smart, and > smart in what ways? This is an interesting statement if true. General vision procesiing appears to be extremely difficult to accomplish. If you look at the visual cortex in higher mammals, you find something like 30 different visual areas, each preforming more or less speicifc computations on the visual input, plus something like 13-14 hierarchical levels, according to the neuroscientists doing the work. So, if dolphin vision processing truly is much simpler than dolphin sonar, its brain must have some incredible adaptations. Got any actual evidence of this? IE, research citations would be nice.
Regards, the last question, the implication of my original post was that the with the size of the neocortex, along with the degree of infolding, is the first anatomical indication of intelligence. There is a reason for the infolding.
feedbackdroids@yahoo.com - 22 Oct 2005 19:36 GMT > > >>... > > >>>Also, according to the following site, dolphin c.cortex is (a) 40% [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > infolding, is the first anatomical indication of intelligence. There is > a reason for the infolding. I see this thread pooped out fast, but I did find an interesting picture. Look at the "size" of the dolphin brain, as compared to Lori's hat-size.
http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=178963
And, as noted earlier, in fact it seems the amount of cortical infolding in dolphins is somewhat "higher" than even in humans. Interesting.
http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=178963
|
|
|