Talk:Cetacean intelligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Cetaceans
 This article is part of WikiProject Cetaceans, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use cetaceans resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Cetaceans To do:

This page was created amid great chaos. One user created an nonsense article that was slowly but fantastically converted into a reasonable article by several users. The talk that made that happen is now archived at Talk:Dolphin_intelligence/archive1. The page was in a respectable condition by the end of November 2003.

Contents

[edit] Suicidal dolphins?

Are dolphins intentionally causing their own death, (via mass strandings as in recent and not so recent news or otherwise)?

"Mass suicide of the whales" (actually delphinidae)
"In situations of great stress in captivity they have been known to commit suicide by starvation, battering against walls, or drowning." ([1] and also [2])

How can this behaviour be interpreted? Are they aware that cessation of life would mean cessation of physical (or existential) pain? Does it imply a consciousness level comparable to ours?

It seems very unlikely (from an evolutionary standpoint) that this behaviour could be genetically induced, and I know of no other animal capable of contraddicting so directly the survival instinct. --Michele Bini 21:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I think it's quite similar to panic. From an evolutionary standpoint, since they're going to die anyway, they might as well do something they haven't done before, even something fatal. --Ihope127 6 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)

[edit] converting subjective "seems to" into objective fact

"they can breathe above water while sleeping." If you know anything about how this fact was discovered, please add it to the article. (Or is this just one of those urban legends like "ostriches put their head in the sand" ?) --DavidCary 04:11, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


http://whale.wheelock.edu/whalenet-stuff/sleeppage/ mentions "While sleeping, the bottlenose dolphin shuts down only half of its brain, along with the opposite eye. The other half of the brain ... watch[es] for predators, obstacles and ... signals when to rise to the surface for a fresh breath of air. After approximately two hours, the animal will reverse this process, resting the active side of the brain and awaking the rested half. This pattern is often called cat-napping."

[edit] Non-Sequitir

"However, though [Dolphins learning to perform their own novel and original tricks] impressed researchers at the time, experiments by Neuringer(1992) and others have shown that other animals like pigeons and rats can likewise be trained for variability of response, which given time can result in apparently original behaviour. Whether there is a clear case for dolphins showing real creativity in this experiment is therefore questionable."

I hate to nit-pick, but this really needs to be elaborated on. It seems what is being said is:

"Dolphins have shown themselves to be capable of original behavior. Other animals like rats and pigeons have shown themselves to be capable of original behavior as well. Therefore, it is questionable if dolphins are capable of original behavior."

This doesn't make a lot of sense. I realize that the reader is probably supposed to assume that rats and pigeons are not capable of "real creativity", but without explaining this, the paragraph in question doesn't flow logically. Secondarily, why is there the assumption that rats and pigeons are not capable of "real creativity"? Why would correlations in creative ability between dolphins and rats indicate that dolphins are not creative, as opposed to indicating that rats are creative?


EDIT: I think what they are saying is they are unsure of their own observations. They might be saying they have observed the same (or similar) behavior in rats and pidgeons, and are unsureof the indicated intelligence. Just a thought.

I know that this is an encyclopedic entry and not an essay, and by no means am I attempting to make a case for rat or pigeon creativity (although people who've owned pet rats and trained pigeons might be inclined to make such a case). But a statement which essentially says "dolphins appeared to be creative, until pigeons and rats were shown to also be creative, so now it's somewhat doubtful if dolphins are creative" just doesn't make any logical sense. It's as if the article were to say "Tom is smart. Dick once seemed to be almost as smart as Tom. Now we know Harry also seems almost as smart as Tom. Therefore, it is doubtful if Dick is nearly as smart as Tom."

This will leave many readers asking: "How the heck do you draw that conclusion?" It needs to be explained why Harry appearing to be smart makes Dick less intelligent. --Corvun 02:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ocean Energy?

Is the claim that dolphins can harness 'ocean energy' through cavitation-induced cold fusion akin to the claim that there is an invisible green man standing in the corner of the room? I can't see him, but I have it on excellent authority that he is there.

A claim as wild as this needs a convincing citation, surely? Compared to the cold fusion claim, the suggestion that dolphins have a 'higher level of consciousness' (with a link to...quantum mechanics????) seems merely excentric.
This is a question (I changed it into a question mark). The only statement is that there is an invisible man, which is really not that weird if you think about it too much. So no, I doubt the claims are akin. >:-)

[edit] Communication

I'm moving the to-do list from the "Communication" paragraph to here, since it doesn't really belong in the article, and I've filled up some of that paragraph anyway.

Should be a sub section of communication abilities

  • sign language
  • echolocation
  • body language
  • some studies have made wild claims.
  • need to criticise methodology as well.

LjL 20:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


Also, this article Title is Cetacean intelligence, but it only discusses dolphins.

[edit] Non-sequitor still needs clarification

I've moved this to the talk page until someone can explain this better. As it stands, it's a horrible logical fallacy.

"However, though this impressed researchers at the time, experiments by Neuringer(1992) and others have shown that other animals like pigeons and rats can likewise be trained for variability of response, which given time can result in apparently original behaviour. Whether there is a clear case for dolphins showing real creativity in this experiment is therefore questionable. Arguably the quality of the dolphins' response was far superior, but further research is required in this area to test this."

Now, in case my previous explanation was not clear enough, I'll walk y'all through this step-by-step:

"...experiments by Neuringer(1992) and others have shown that other animals like pigeons and rats can likewise be trained for variability of response, which given time can result in apparently original behaviour."

Okay, all's good. So not only are dolphins capable of creativity, but so are rats and pigeons. Got it.

"Whether there is a clear case for dolphins showing real creativity in this experiment is therefore questionable."

Huh? This is the part that throws me, and leaves me asking, "How the heck do you come to that conclusion?" It's completely illucid.

To be specific, these are the points that need to be explained:

  • If species A shows evidence of creativity, why should similar evidence of creativity found in species B and C cast doubt on the creativity of species A?
  • Is the reader supposed to assume that species B and C do not have creativity, and that the appearence of creativity in species A, if it is proven using a technique or test that indicates creativity in species B and C, is therefore a mere illusion?
  • If so, why is the reader supposed to make that assumption? What is this assumption based on? Why, rather than being a case for rat and pigeon intelligence, would it be a case against cetacean intelligence?

If no one has an answer to this, then I suggest the phrasing of the paragraph in question be altered to point out these logical errors before its reintroduction into the article. --Corvun 14:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd leave it simply as
"However, though this impressed researchers at the time, experiments by Neuringer(1992) and others have shown that other animals like pigeons and rats can likewise be trained for variability of response, which given time can result in apparently original behaviour. Arguably the quality of the dolphins' response was far superior, but further research is required in this area to test this."
This leaves it to the reader, in the Wikipedia spirit, to judge the implications on the definition of "creativity" and/or the importance of "creativity" as a factor in "intelligent" behavior, whatever that it. LjL 15:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I'd agree to that. Excellent suggestion, and much better than taking up space per my original suggestion by pointing out logical fallacies and making the article look like a talk page. Might I also suggest:
""However, though this impressed researchers at the time, experiments by Neuringer(1992) and others have shown that other animals like pigeons and rats can likewise be trained for variability of response, which given time can result in apparently original behaviour. Whether there is a clear case for dolphins showing a degree creativity closer to humans than to these other species is therefore questionable. Arguably the quality of the dolphins' response was far superior, but further research is required in this area to test this."
Either way is fine with me, really. Though, neutralizing the sentence like this makes it seem a bit superfluous, so your suggestion is probably the better of the two. --Corvun 23:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Further contradictions

This article seems to be full of non sequiturs along the lines of the above example. It goes out its way to cast doubt on brain mass as co-relating to intelligence and in the same breath claims "if dolphins were equipped with brains notably smaller than those of humans, it would make a powerful case against their having intelligence." Which is it? Marskell 09:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's a symptom of the over-all problem, which is that articles like these have a tendency to degrade into one person adding a pro- to the last peron's con- and vise-versa until the article ends up looking like a talk page. This has happened here before. Then someone like me comes along who simply wants to know how cetaceans compare to other mammals, or possibly even to the alarmingly intelligent corvids, and can't find any genuinely useful information because the whole thing looks like a fight broke out between people who want to believe that dolphins are part of some super-intelligent Atlantean race and skeptics who are trying to "debunk New Age nonsense".
If you're looking for a Neutral Point of View, you probably won't find it here. It looks like this article is eternally doomed to be two opposing points of view constantly fighting for dominance. It sucks, it's depressing, but it doesn't look like it's going to get any better. --Corvun 09:40, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Don't despair. Surgery sometimes works wonders. I think I'll have a go at this one later today or tomorrow. Just finished a good, recent book which discusses dolphin (and chimp) intelligence in terms of orders of intentionality; I'll look at the bibliography.
The problem here (and not just here) is that attempts at appropriate qualification turn into temporizing and contradictions. "The relationship between brain mass and intelligence is a shaky one, at best." That's not truly really. Brain mass is crude indicator of intelligence but it is an indicator none the less. Organisms don't waste metabolized resources on over-sized organs for no reason. I actually came here because I was thinking of adding a Cephalopod intelligence article and of course their large brains are rightly viewed as an intelligence marker. Marskell 12:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Very cool. An article on Cephalopod intelligence would be truly awesome!
Brain mass is definitely an indicator of intelligence, and like you say, a crude one. Birds like crows and parrots, for example, are a lot more intelligent than their encephalization ratio would seem to indicate, at least when compared to mammals, so by this it may seem that encephalization is a poor indicator of intelligence, but it works just fine when comparing birds to other birds and mammals to other mammals. (I wouldn't be surprised if the higher intelligence relative to brain mass of birds is just a side effect of having evolved a more efficient nervous system to aid them in powered flight, which requires more exacting control of their muscles. This would give them the unique advantage of being able to develop much higher intelligence without costing them as much brain mass as a mammal or non-avian reptile. But I don't know what the current theories are on avian intelligence, so I could easily be wrong.) And there's always the issue of what 'intelligence' is, and the fact that other species could seem surprisingly intelligent in certain areas at the cost of being counter-intuitively unintelligent in other areas -- for example birds seem very intelligent when it comes to language and have an amazing sense of aesthetics, but if one expects that they be proportionately advanced in other areas, one would likely be very disappointed by their problem-solving skills. So judging the intelligence of any species by the standards of humans might be a fundamentally flawed approach, as humans themselves could be lacking in certain areas that we haven't even thought to factor in. I came to this page because I was interested in seeing if recent research into Cetacean intelligence had reached a rough idea of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Cetacean mind, but it looks like this is still a long way from happening, and the arguing between the two extreme POVs is probably hindering productive research more than helping it. --Corvun 01:15, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Learning and memory

Removed this section until these points can be expanded. I know all pages are works in progress but notes-to-self and others and talking points shouldn't be on the main page.

Learning and memory

Should be a section on learning skills. Scientific tests relevant to:

  • Learning tricks - dolphins have been taught extremely complicated tricks.
  • Lying and subterfuge - there are some studies which suggest ability to use subterfuge. Dolphin training the trainer suggestions
  • Learning to learn - there was a study on the ability to learn that a variable response was required to get a reward. Did similar study on humans and compared.
  • Long and short term memory
  • Ability to abstract
  • Need to criticise the methodology of these studies Marskell 15:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Have any studies been done on dolphin cognition? I mean, show a dolphin a square, transmit "square" in ultrasound, then show a circle, transmit "square" in ultrasound, & see what the dolphin responds? (Yeh, it's thinking, "What's human for, 'You're stupid'?") Trekphiler 00:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV: US Navy

Neutral point of view is questionable on comments on the US Navy. Ideally someone should research public knowledge on this topic, to see if it is directly relevant to "cetacean intelligence".

I suspect that the Navy primarily conducts sensory and physiological research, in addition to training for deployment-related purposes such as mine tagging. However none of these topics are relevant to "intelligence".

The existing text explictly uses terms such as "allegedly" and "unsubstantiated". Therefore the specific comments covered by these descriptors are hearsay, and not encyclopedic with NPOV.

Recommend deleting all of these references, unless information obviously relevant to cetacean intelligence can be found, and written with NPOV. Santaduck 08:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Research Difficulties

Continuing with the discussion on NPOV/US Navy above, the entire section resides in a section called Research Difficulties'. IMHO this entire section is rather inaccurate, or perhaps misleading through fault of not being specific.

In full, the text reads: Research difficulties

Knowledge about the capabilities of the dolphin brain is limited because of major research difficulties. Research of cetacean behavior in the wild is among the most expensive and difficult to carry out, owing to the nature of the environment they inhabit. There have therefore been relatively few scientific studies of dolphins in the wild, and most direct observations are anecdotal. Studies based on captive dolphins have limits because it is not clear how natural their behaviour is under those conditions.

In addition, the United States Navy has allegedly carried out a substantial amount of research which has not been put in the public domain. The U.S. Navy does acknowledge that its dolphin program has trained dolphins to search and tag mines and warn of divers approaching installations. Rumours circulate about less benign uses, but these are unsubstantiated.

Some comments:

  • What is the use of having a section on "research difficulties". In other words, what does the content illuminate about the parent topic, which is cetacean intelligence? More useful might be a categorical listing of the broad types of research methodologies or paradigms, and their typical aims, as well as any interactions between these methodologies. Also useful might be why dolphins (in particular Atlantic Bottlenosed) were chosen for intelligence research in the first place (large brain, fissured brain, behavioral complexity/plasticity in wild, social complexity in wild, relatively abundantly available species, social behavior in relatively small groups that can be displaced to captive situations and even human animal trainers, social differences between pacific vs. atlantic bottlenosed).
  • The comment on expense is not accurate, as it makes no relative comparisons with other types of reseach. For example research on sperm whales is more expensive. Research on bottlenose dolphins in shallow water areas (e.g. sarasota, bahamas) is likely less expensive than open ocean research. Specifically, research on the intelligence of certain species other than bottlenose dolphins is impractical for many reasons, for example social issues (spinner dolphins), rarity (river dolphins), or issues of expense and practicality (e.g. no one studies the cognition of blue whales!). In comparison, research with bottlenosed dolphins is quite economical and practical, which is exactly why it is one of the most commonly-researched cetacean species. However, if an article on expense were justified, then it should instead provide verifiable evidence such as the cost of keeping the animals: feed, veterinary care, and a salt-water environment (which for example is much more expensive in an inland area such as The Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas than an area adjacent to the ocean where salt water may simply be pumped in). Also there is the cost of doing the research: faculty costs, grants, graduate students, university overhead, equipment, staff, and other such details which probably do not merit a wikipedia entry specific to dolphin research.
  • The comment about research in the laboratory is also misleading. Research in the lab and in the wild may have similar, or very different aims. Often, there is interplay between the two (such as research on synchronous behavior, creativity, and language/signature whistles, echolocation). Some types of research are nearly impossible to do in the wild ( for example echolocation ), whereas others are impossible in the captive situation (broad social patterns of fission/fusion society). "Accuracy" to the natural situation is an issue which may be raised, but by no means is universally relevant, nor universally a measure of the research's validity. Calling all field research "anecdotal" is recklessly inaccurate.

Will be deleting the entry for now.Santaduck 07:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Communication cleanup

Began preliminary cleanup in communication area. Some gross errors were here, such as the length of echolocative pulses are a 'fraction of a millisecond' in length, which is incorrect by perhaps 3 orders of magnitude. Also removed significant text which implied that the general consensus is that echolocation is the primary communicative modality-- In fact this notion seems to be peppered throughout this article (see also refs by Jerison elsewhere in this artice) with undue encyclopedic emphasis given to what is explicitly noted to be speculation. Also removed speculation on Lilly-esque notions that there might be a full-blown human-equiavelent language "out there", although I didn't have time to check the article (with Russian coauthors), so I simply moved the reference to the overall article's reference section. Retained the information on the studies of Xitco and Herman for now, although these refs had initially been tagged onto the end of comments on echolocation, comments that have now been removed-- however the acoustic spotlight, as well as visually-mediated pointing are definitely communicative issues. I also reordered the article so that the click/whistle distinction begins the communication section, and added a few mentions of specific species, e.g. orca, bottlenosed. I retained earlier rough notes on sig whistles, but these need significant cleanup and expansion, as well as mentioning critique from (academic-source) skeptics of the sig whistle hypothesis.

All in all, this section is still unsuitable. I spent perhaps 10 min here, but the visual communication mode is really undeveloped, and information on well-researched species such as spinners, white-sided, spotted, orca, beluga, etc. should receive more attention.

Entire article outside of communication also requires huge expansion and cleanup, especially the comparative cognition area. The references and external links should also be re-evaluated and completely redone, to reflect academic rather than popular sources.

[edit] More NPOV

URL from author K. LeVasseur removed from External Links section, despite added note that the article was written in a "scientific manner," which served as a flag that NPOV or encyclopedic value might actually be an issue. Article has little direct academic relevance to the topic of "cetacean intelligence", and the author is most well known as an anti-captivity activist rather than a cetacean researcher. Details of his arrest and conviction for which he is most well known in the late 70s are available. I Googled one example here: [3] . A news article on his continued activism and employment in the transit industry is available here: [4]. Note: have not systematically gone through all other external links entries for encyclopedic reference and NPOV. These external references should be cleaned up in general, and categorized, as someone has already done for "self-awareness" references.

[edit] Social complexity

Hello, I am a little skeptical of the statement, "It is notable that second-order alliances in bottlenose dolphins are the most hierarchically complex social structure observed in the animal kingdom, excluding the human species." To me it appears that there are many animals with arguably more complex social structures than bottlenose dolphin secound order alliances. What about ant and bees and termite. Ants have queens, multiple types of worker, soldiers, young, this seems more complex on some levels to me. Or chimpanzees, they can form similarly sized complex alliances. I have added 'arguably one of'. Without references the original statement is too strong. Nicolharper 18:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who added it, but I'll help look for a cite. —Viriditas | Talk 21:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dolphin Names

I just saw an article, [5], which talks about how dolphins actually refer to each other by names. Does somebody want to say more about that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PhoenixSeraph (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC).

New Scientist [6] and others are covering the story, but I can't find the journal article as of yet. —Viriditas | Talk 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
If you need access to the article once it's published (it hasn't been yet, only advance notice went out to the media), let me know, I have access to the online abstracts and articles. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed a recently-added section ("Use of names") about this, which read like the following:

As of 2006, scientists have observed many dolphins using what could only be described as a "name" for another dolphin. Using variances in pitch and frequency, dolphins have been observed directing communication at specific individuals and third and fourth parties.

I'm not sure how this is different from signature whistles, which are already talked about in the article. If there is a difference, please re-add and reference. LjL 21:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cerebral cortex--40% bigger than humans?

Absolute or relative to brain/body size proportion?


[edit] Alternative explanation for brain size

Paul Manger of Johannesburg's University of the Witwatersrand has recently published a very widely publicised article on this subject (peer reviewed), in the Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (An examination of cetacean brain structure with a novel hypothesis correlating thermogenesis to the evolution of a big brain). Basically, through a study of cetacean brain structure, he's been able to determine that the main component is "glia", which is used primarily to produce heat and (in this case) maintain the brain's temperature in a cold water environment. The main thrust of his study is that the brain size of water dwelling warm blooded creatures is not so much determined by intelligence, but simple insulation. OzoneO 14:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IQ isn't same as EQ

Dolphin tend to do badly in problem solving test which is better indication of intelligence. You might notice that almost all the evidences presented as indication of dolphin intelligence is to do with its social aspect (such as recognising oneself in the mirror). Sure, they are very social and friendly to human. This shouldn't be confused with intelligence. I notice the same cultural bias in the West where dogs are considered intelligent simply because they can do tricks and are good pet. This kind of elementary errors shouldn't be included in encyclopedia. You might be suprised to learn that Octpus, for example, is extremly intelligent. Vapour

[edit] Dolphin, Chimpanzees, orangutangs

Is there any simple comparison of there intelligence that the ordinary person can understand.Muntuwandi 05:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/e/t/Talk%7ECetacean_intelligence_cbdd.html"