Do Dolphins have a religion?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe Chimpanzees and Gorillas can learn some sign language, although the Gorilla in question apparently didn't use grammar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_%28chimpanzee%29

Stephen Pinker addresses these very examples. Mastery of signs is not mastery of language as we understand, and it's also an insult to those who speak sign language which in all of its different forms does involve very complex inflections, declensions and phrase structure rules.

Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorum
Stephen Pinker addresses these very examples. Mastery of signs is not mastery of language as we understand, and it's also an insult to those who speak sign language which in all of its different forms does involve very complex inflections, declensions and phrase structure rules.

Saying that other apes have learned a simple sign language is not an insult to humans
that use much more complex and subtle one's.

It is not claimed that dolphins or the great apes use, or can learn, a language as complex
and subtle as ours.

That doesn't mean that they can't, don't, and aren't using language.

In fact pretty much the only way you can say that they don't use language is to define language
in a hugely specific way specifically to make it unique to us.

Like almost everything we do, our [mental based] abilities are not unique, just taken to new
extremes and levels of complexity.

Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorum
Stephen Pinker addresses these very examples. Mastery of signs is not mastery of language as we understand, and it's also an insult to those who speak sign language which in all of its different forms does involve very complex inflections, declensions and phrase structure rules.

Is it an insult to human intelligence that a 6 year old boy cannot distinguish subtle word play or some such? Of course not.

The same with Simians, the great apes have a much smaller brain than humans so the surprise is they can do as well as they have been proven to do,

There is no insult here, more like amazement apes can learn even a limited sign language.

Besides, there are dogs who understand hundreds of commands, pick up the BLUE turtle. Which they do. They have to have a certain understanding of language to be able to do that.

Again, how would you call that an insult to human ability? It's amazing dogs can do as much as they can in the area of language.

And the fact that Dolphins have names for themselves and we cannot find other examples of language there is an indication of the limitations of HUMAN intelligence, not Dolphin.

We may never be able to understand dolphin language without the analysis capability of computers a trillion times faster than human brains.

Does that then mean that those computers are an insult to human intelligence or the other way round?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Saying that other apes have learned a simple sign language is not an insult to humans
that use much more complex and subtle one's.

Yes it is. Sign languages are enormously complex languages that do not merely consist of signs for things in the world but have a very rich morphology and grammar. Ignorant people tend to think that sign languages are a combination of a 'spelling' of English words and various mimetic signs, but while sign languages may have these things, they're actually sophisticated languages in their own right. Sign languages are not easy to learn.

I wouldn't find it insulting to discover any animal could learn a sign language. This would be an enormous discovery. I'm not a speciest. I just don't think 1) that any animal has actually shown such an ability, and 2) those who think that animals can master sign language have an insultingly low standard of what sign languages are. The zooligists who think they can teach sign language are embarrassingly ignorant of what sign language is.

Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorum
Yes it is. Sign languages are enormously complex languages that do not merely consist of signs for things in the world but have a very rich morphology and grammar. Ignorant people tend to think that sign languages are a combination of a 'spelling' of English words and various mimetic signs, but while sign languages may have these things, they're ...[text shortened]... sts who think they can teach sign language are embarrassingly ignorant of what sign language is.

HUMAN sign languages may be hugely complex and subtle, like most human languages are.

But a language doesn't have to be hugely complex and subtle to be a language.

These apes don't speak, they use signs.

They use these signs to convey meaning.

Therefore they are using a simple language, and as they sign it they are using a sign language.

The only way you can believe that the above is an insult to people who use sign language is by being a moron.

Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]HUMAN sign languages may be hugely complex and subtle, like most human languages are.

But a language doesn't have to be hugely complex and subtle to be a language.

These apes don't speak, they use signs.

They use these signs to convey meaning.

Therefore they are using a simple language, and as they sign it they are using a sign languag ...[text shortened]... you can believe that the above is an insult to people who use sign language is by being a moron.[/b]

I disagree. Use of signs does not constitute use of language. There are many ways in which we use signs that are not linguistic - traffic signs, street signs, etc, and we can train dogs to recognise these. They convey meaning to things of minimal intelligence, and it is not really productive to call them a language.

I think that the minimal criterion (and I am an out Chomskian here) is some kind of structure. A language needs to have deixis, conjunctions and subordination, not just to signify things in the world, but to be able to make an infinite number of unique sentences. I would think then that an animal possesses something special and linguistic.

Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorum
High intelligence is itself a sign of religion?

Putting the cart before the horse, you are.

Man is the only animal to develop religion because man is the only animal with sufficient higher reasoning to be able to comprehend realms beyond our own.

So no, high intelligence is not a sign of religion. Religion is a sign of higher intelligence. Given that, it's not outrageous to think that perhaps dolphins may have thinking ability beyond that we may perceive that they have.

Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorum
(and I am an out Chomskian here)

Then this may be part of your problem.

Contrary to what you may think, it is not necessary to be obfuscating and inordinately intricate in order to perceive higher meaning.

Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorum
I disagree. Use of signs does not constitute use of language. There are many ways in which we use signs that are not linguistic - traffic signs, street signs, etc, and we can train dogs to recognise these. They convey meaning to things of minimal intelligence, and it is not really productive to call them a language.

I think that the minimal ...[text shortened]... unique sentences. I would think then that an animal possesses something special and linguistic.

Where do you get your opinions? Are you a linguist? Do you have a Phd in comparative anthropology or some such? Or are you just parroting theories from some amateur science dude giving speeches on youtube?

Originally posted by sonhouse
A bit snippy today, eh. It would be very interesting to know regardless of my personal beliefs. One thing we are pretty sure of is they seem to have names for each other and remember each other's names even not seeing each other for years. It is very likely humans won't be able to suss out much of their language without the help of the most powerful compu ...[text shortened]... of figuring out the language of any real aliens we may find if and when we ever go interstellar.

Yes, perhaps I was being snippy. Eh, it comes with the territory, I guess. I agree with what you say here. I think the reason we seem unable to understand them (or other sea mammals' language, like that of whales) is because we cannot put ourselves in their place and see the world as they see it. No doubt our vocal apparatus would be very different if we lived in the water as they do, instead of developing language meant to be conveyed through air. Not to mention their sonar equipment in their heads (next to the brain, hmmmm). We have to realize they are still animals, far closer to nature than we are. Most of their language should involve satisfying basic needs, but it appears likely that their curiosity of the world indicates some ability for higher thinking skills.

What we need is a Universal Translator, as on Star Trek. 🙂

Originally posted by sonhouse
With our so-called high intelligence, we can't even begin to understand dolphins, could they already have a religion? Could we understand it if we could decipher their language?

Another stupid post.

Originally posted by Suzianne
So no, high intelligence is not a sign of religion. Religion is a sign of higher intelligence. Given that, it's not outrageous to think that perhaps dolphins may have thinking ability beyond that we may perceive that they have.

So my question then is how would you be able to identify a religious dolphin if intelligence itself is not a sufficient criterion?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Where do you get your opinions? Are you a linguist? Do you have a Phd in comparative anthropology or some such? Or are you just parroting theories from some amateur science dude giving speeches on youtube?

No, I merely pointed you and twitehead to a fairly well-known book by a fairly well-known scientist that touches on the subject of language. I do not know if you are engaging me in a substantive way, so I will leave it at that.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Is it an insult to human intelligence that a 6 year old boy cannot distinguish subtle word play or some such? Of course not.

The same with Simians, the great apes have a much smaller brain than humans so the surprise is they can do as well as they have been proven to do,

There is no insult here, more like amazement apes can learn even a limited sign ...[text shortened]... that then mean that those computers are an insult to human intelligence or the other way round?

Is it an insult to human intelligence that a 6 year old boy cannot distinguish subtle word play or some such? Of course not.

I don't think you understand my point. I would not at all be insulted if an animal or a computer showed linguistic competence superior to a child or any other person. As I said, I would consider this remarkable and a great discovery. What I find insulting is the idea that a gorilla (or indeed anything) mastering a set of signs knows a sign language. This is an insult to the complexity of sign language which is just as sophisticated not just in vocabulary but in grammatical structure as any other language.

Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorum
[b]Is it an insult to human intelligence that a 6 year old boy cannot distinguish subtle word play or some such? Of course not.

I don't think you understand my point. I would not at all be insulted if an animal or a computer showed linguistic competence superior to a child or any other person. As I said, I would consider this remarkable a ...[text shortened]... just as sophisticated not just in vocabulary but in grammatical structure as any other language.[/b]

Not meaning to offend, I thought maybe you were coming off a bit pedantic. Do you do sign language? Just wondered if this was a personal issue. I don't think any of those scientists involved in training the great apes in signing are claiming they know sign language as the deaf knows it, of course it is a very complex language in the hands of experts.

You have to give it a name I would think. What else would you call it? Simple sign?

It IS signing. If they stick out their middle finger at you, you get the drift....

Nobody would be saying an ape could write a book using sign, they just know a minimum number of signs to communicate simple concepts. They wouldn't be able to talk philosophy for sure.

But getting back to dolphins and the naming they use, the ultrasonic waves they use are extremely complex, even for things like 'Hey Joe, howzit hanging'?

They have an ability to send an identifying chirp to a buddy in the midst of a school of dolphins because they can aim the direction of the transmission of the sound with great precision. They can tell the difference between a ball 1 inch in diameter V a ball 1.125 inch in diameter at 100 yards. That is much better than humans can do with their eyes.

Of course, that means a much larger portion of their brains are devoted to analyzing those ultrasonic waves than anything in the human brain and that might make the rest of the brain less able to process higher thoughts like humans. That is just my conjecture though, it may prove they actually do have a complex language but that is for the future to decide.