Jump to content

Talk:Cetacean intelligence/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

I have sectioned the discussion so a TOC shows up ... -- Miguel

Khranism

Dolphins can create air bubble rings and helices in water.

Where did this picture come from? I ask because i suspect it might not be suppoerting the above assertion. I've seen a tv program ( sorry cant remeber anymore than that) where a human blew the wiered bubble and the dolphin watched it rise. I suspect that this photo might by of a similar incident. Theresa knott 11:26, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A quick google for (dolphin bubble ring) came up with [1] which seems pretty good to me. There was a load of other possibles also. Phil 11:58, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
Wow! I stand corrected. Thanks Phill. Theresa knott 14:04, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I removed the link to the 8-fold theory of Leary because it was hidden, which is generally bad form, and I couldn't perceive of a reason to connect the two ideas. I assume the contention is that dolphins are capable of perception higher on the scale than humans, but if so, this idea should be stated outright and credited to its proponents, not insinuated by subtle linking. I also removed the link to quantum mechanics for similar reasons. If there is a link between the subject of dolphin intelligence and quantum mechanics, then that link should be described.

I also removed the following:

AquaThought Foundation and David Cole have found that after humans are in contact with dolphins, the dominant human brain frequency drops from beta to alpha, closer to the frequency of the Schumann resonances of Earth, and the hemispheres of the human brain become synchronized, in that brainwaves of the left and right hemispheres are in phase and of similar frequency.

Because it seemed tacked-on to the end instead of integrated, and doesn't make much sense to me. What are the implications of this? Tuf-Kat 09:22, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

I subtley linked other articles to this one because it encourages people to make the connections themselves, based on their own ideas, thus increasing the level of originality in their thought-patterns.

Wikipedia is not the place to do this. Tuf-Kat 06:40, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by it being 'tacked-on to the end', and I don't see what doesn't make sense about it to you... Perhaps you should try making some connections yourself--perhaps then it will begin to make sense. (isn't that the whole point of asking questions? The entire purpose of science? to seek answers which you do not yet have, rather than merely ignoring the paranormal (e.g. the EPR paradox)?) Khranus

It doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain what alpha and beta waves are, what kind of contact is required (proximity, touch...), what else, if anything, can cause this change, what the Schumann resonances are and why anybody should care about their brain waves being in sync with them, or why and in what way parts of the brain can become synchronized (or unsynchronized) and what the connection is between the frequency of the brain approaching the Schumann resonances and the harmonization of the left and right hemispheres of the brain. Most importantly, it makes no claims regarding any real-world effects of these changes -- does this make people angry, sad, happy, tired, dead, blind, stupid, smart...?
In response to your requests, the purpose of an encyclopedia article is not to encourage people to do anything. If you want to make an encyclopedia that has the added use of raising people's ability to make connections, you have my blessing. That is not Wikipedia. Here, statements should mean exactly what they say, no more and no less. A paragraph that throws jargon around to describe a study, leaving the implication only that it somehow proves that dolphins are smart, or make people smart or some other vague assertion, has no place in this article. Tuf-Kat 06:40, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

What is factual accuracy?

Just curious, but why, exactly, is the 'factual accuracy' of this article disputed? And where exactly is this dispute? I don't see any evidence of a dispute on this talk page--merely a couple explanations for edits... Perhaps you just don't personally like it? In that case, the notice at the top of the page should be removed... Khranus

If it's cited sources you want, some of this information comes from the research of Dr. John C. Lilly... A large amount of it is commonly known among marine biologists who study dolphins... Khranus

Yes please! Cites would be good. -- The Anome 01:11, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

So is it merely a personal issue, or what? Does anyone besides you have a problem with this article? Khranus

I agree with the disclaimer's presence. Tuf-Kat 06:40, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I do have a problem with this article. It is largely a collection of speculative ideas and poorly documented assertions about the anatomical features. See below and see my changes to the article. I have not researched the matter (may try to find out more if I find the time), but if even the basics (what's a "sub-brain", please? In anatomy, there are hemispheres and lobes) are that inaccurate and poorly documented, I don't expect much insight here. Kosebamse 07:30, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Some specific criticism below. Kosebamse 07:30, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The two eyes of the dolphin are each connected to one of the two sub-brains, just like other mammals have one eye connected to each hemisphere. (removed from article)


Very unclear and way too simple. The optical tract cannot accurately be described by saying that each "sub-brain" (intendend to mean hemisphere?) is connected to one eye.

Sometimes you have to simplify. Sometimes, if you don't, things get very convoluted, and not very interesting. And in terms of the word 'sub-brain', please, don't be such a formalist. Sometimes you just have to make up new words--that's how language was invented to begin with (and Shakespeare made up quite a few words, last time I checked)Khranus
But you don't have to oversimplify. You can't describe the optical tract without mentioning the chiasma opticum and its function. And in describing the anatomy of a brain, it's best to use appropriate terminology instead of fuzzy neologisms so that experts can understand what you mean. Kosebamse

Dolphins may be able to use focussed sound to produce cavitation.

Or they may not. References, please?

Based on the effect given. If you don't even know what cavitation is, I suggest you don't speak up about it. Khranus
I know what cavitation is. Where and how has it been documented that dolphins can do this? Kosebamse
I think it's a case of "Khranus thinks they do, or thinks it would be amusing if they did." I'm fairly sure they don't use it for cold fusion though. --Pakaran 05:43, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Their brain consists of two hemispheres divided into four lobes—very different from the human brain.

Judging by the picture attached, it seems that the basic structure is quite similar. There are two hemispheres (bottom) and a cerebellum (top). You might even mistake that picture for a human child's brain. Where does it come from, by the way?

If you could mistaken THAT picture for a human child's brain, I highly suggest you refresh your knowledge of anatomy. Khranus
At first glance, yes, it can indeed be mistaken for that. Could you please elaborate on the structure of dolphin brains (with illustrations please) to demonstrate in what way they differ from our brains? Kosebamse

Dolphins may need to have 2 brains because the maximum size for a single brain may be about 10^11 neurons, the size of the brain of single-brained humans.

Or they may not. References, please?

The GRW Dynamical Decoherence time Tgrw, which sets a threshold for consciousness phenomena at Tgrw_N = Tgrw / N, since GRW Dynamical Decoherence scales as 1 / N. Use the value Tgrw = 3 x 10^14 sec. You can find the intersection point of the Tgrw_N function with the T_N Tubulin Back-Reaction function by setting
T_N = (1 / 10 ) T_electron / N^(5/3) = 10^25 / N^(5/3) = Tgrw / N

so that the number of Tubulins N_BRgrw at the intersection point is

N_BRgrw = ( 10^25 )^(3/2) Tgrw ^(-3/2) = ( 10^25 )^(3/2) ( 3 x 10^14 )^(-3/2)

=

= ( 3 x 10^10 )^(3/2)
= 5 x 10^15 Tubulins.
From the above table, N_BRgrw Tubulins roughly corresponds to: 0.1 seconds, so that shorter-term phenomena must operate on a sub-conscious level; EEG alpha waves, about 4 x 10^9 Neurons (or about 4 percent of the 10^11 Neurons in a human brain); and a part of the brain about 1/6 of a centimeter in size. Khranus
Very well. Where is that from? Would you kindly explain what that means (without references to hidden knowledge or higher dimensions, please) so that an encyclopedia reader can understand it? Kosebamse
Decoherence is a well-established phenomenon in quantum theory. However, the idea that consciousness is related to quantum effects is very controversial and not substantiated by any evidence. -- Miguel
As a transhumanist, I run across these ideas all the time. The consensus seems to be that it's hard to be sure where consciousness "is" without resorting to religion. It may involve quantum phenomena or some kind of computation that is infeasible without quantum computing, or it may not. It's very hard to be sure. -- Pakaran 05:43, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In order to proceed from claims and assertions to facts and discussion, one may also wish to review http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Myths/br-be-an.htm . 217.85.39.185

higher dimensions of reality

Perceiving higher dimensions of reality does not imply superior intelligence to humans overall... It has little to do with New Age beliefs, as well. There is evidence that bees perceive higher dimensions of reality, but no one thinks that they're smarter than humans, at least not on the individual level. Khranus

Very well. Would you mind answering my questions/comments above? Kosebamse 22:30, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'll second that request plus add another of my own because I'm curious. What evidence is there that bees perceive higher dimensions of reality ? I mean how could we ever know anyway, what a bee perceives ? Please cite a reference theresa knott
In mapping a six-dimensional figure onto two-dimensions, Mathematician Barbara Shipman recognized the pattern as that of the honeybee's ritual dance. To her, this implies that bees can sense the quantum world, since it is in that realm that six-dimensional geometry has real meaning. The bees use the dance to communicate to others in the hive the location and distance of a pollen source:

"the dance that honey bees do to tell their hivemates where they have found a good food source. The bees change the form of the dance acording to the location of the flowers that constitute the source. The surprising thing is that there may be a deep mathematical reason for how the dance changes form. The reason is related to a space in symplectic geometry known as a "flag manifold." Although no one is suggesting that honey bees understand flag manifolds, it is possible that the instincts which control their behavior are wired in such a way that the principles of this kind of geometry apply."

- Khranus

I don't really care about the facts as long as everything is properly attributed. Who says dolphins are smarter than people? Ivan Tors, the creator of Flipper? Who says they have ESP? Who says they have language?

Dr. John C. Lilly, a prominent biologist who studied dolphins, as well as altered states of consciousness. Khranus

I dimly remember an experiment in which some researchers claimed they proved that one dolphin could communicate well enough with another to describe how to solve a puzzle. Something like, "press the red button to get the fish". Can someone dig that up?

Here's one of many perspectives on the matter: Dolphin Mental Abilities Paper Khranus

Hey, don't get me wrong: we all like whales and orcas and dolphins, and I'd love to have one for a pet. All I'm saying is let's divide "common knowledge" - which needs no references or citations - from controversial or novel claims - which need references and attribution. --Uncle Ed 23:04, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I suggest that people open their minds a little more... It seems that there are a lot of closed-minded people on this site (some often very irrational people)... It would definitely be beneficial to this site if more people would be more open-minded...

Well, Atom has a pretty good site for summarising some concepts which are very well backed-up, but not so socially accepted--in general higher circuit material (stuff that's popular among philosophers, high-end scientists and mathematicians, but not nearly widely-known enough among the general populous)

FusionAnomaly

- Khranus

In terms of higher dimensions of reality and intelligence, one must only reference the olfactory abilities of the dog in relation to its overall creative intelligence in comparison to a human. Clearly it is leagues ahead of us in olfactory intelligence, but we are ahead of dogs in creative/abstract intelligence. There really isn't such a thing as 'general intelligence', only specific intelligences. (humans are very stupid in terms of most of our senses, and only moderately good even at our best sense, vision, but we are excellent at creating imaginary realities with our will/consciousness.) Khranus

Humano-centric POV

The main thing that appears fascinating about dolphins is their degree of intelligence in one of our own particularly good areas--language. They may even have a more complex potential for language than us (though we ourselves are tending toward a more visual/synaesthetic language, apparently), but of course probably haven't used it in the same manner that we have. It appears that dolphins are a rather backward species, despite their age (at over 20 million years), with no intentions to build cities or travel to other planets. One of the reasons for studying dolphin intelligence is to figure out ways of developing advanced technology for use by humans that expands our consciousness (think of how much an echolocation headset could help a diver in murky water, for instance. We need to listen to sci-fi writers more often, methinks) Khranus

I think that a lot of the controversy on this page arises from a simple human folly that pervades Western thought these days. That being--the folly of Humancentrism. Humans assume that they are top dog on this planet, and some go as far as to say that we are the ultimate species in the universe. All these claims seem ridiculous to me. First we must assume that tool-making is somehow the ultimate skill (which in itself is rather ridiculous), then we must assume that we are the ultimate toolmakers ever to evolve on this planet (for which there is evidence against. see Reptilian humanoid.), then we must assume that humans in general are equal in toolmaking ability to such great toolmakers as Tesla...

A great, holistic, spiritual way of viewing this folly is the work of Buddhist Priestess and Philosopher Ryoju Kikuchi (aka Tamo Samma, Tamo-San):

Moor the Boat

that they are equal or superior to humans in some form of intelligence. The popular television show Flipper, created by Ivan Tors, portrayed a dolphin in a friendly relationship with two boys, Sandy and Bud; kind of a sea-going Lassie, he seemed to understand human speech: "Go tell Dad we're in trouble, Flipper! Hurry!" The show's theme song contains the lyric no one you see/is smarter than he.


The connection, Khranus, is the claim that dolphins rival humans in intelligence. The show is an illustration of that claim.

People yearn for connection with a benevolent intelligence, whether it's God, space aliens, beings from a higher dimension, or aquatic mammals.

Many articles in Wikipedia are combination of speculation and hard fact. The trick is to classify them properly. If we can do that, we can foil the "corrupt" leaders who want to hide the truth! --Uncle Ed 23:46, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Fine... I don't believe in 'hard facts', however. Everything is subject to change when new perceptions arise. Khranus
Scientists generally do believe in hard facts. We talk about a lot of beliefs as beliefs here. See the article on any religion, or articles on things like free software or communism. Science may never discover exactly how dolphins think, but if things are speculation, we should report them as such. -- Pakaran 05:43, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Khranus, despite all your philosophical arguments about openmindedness, sixth-dimensions and whatnot, it would be nice if you could answer my questions/comments above so that we can go on elaborating facts to include in an encyclopedia; I'll rephrase them in short:

  • What evidence is there that The two eyes of the dolphin are each connected to one of the two sub-brains, and how can one describe the optical tract without explaining the function of the chiasma?
  • Where and how has it been documented that dolphins can deliberately produce cavitation?
  • What are dolphin "sub-brains" and how do they relate to the established concepts of hemispheres and lobes? Could you please elaborate on the structure of dolphin brains (with illustrations please) to demonstrate in what way they differ from our brains?
  • What is the evidence for the claim that Dolphins may need to have 2 brains because the maximum size for a single brain may be about 10^11 neurons, the size of the brain of single-brained humans. What does your math mean? (And by the way, what's the size of an elephant or sperm whale brain? Just curious)

Thanks, Kosebamse 06:40, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

    • In the case of the sperm whale, it has a brain that weighs something like 7.8 kg, the largest known. This would, I might suspect, tend to make it unlikely that there's a weight limit on a single brain (if there were such a limit, my personal belief is it would relate to the ability of the blood to carry away heat and carry in oxygen - which is to say the limit would be in the hundreds of cubic meters, and tied to the size of the overall animal). -- Pakaran 05:43, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Post-Khranism

From the page:

"Some people, including many New Agers, have claimed that dolphins are capable of perceiving higher dimensions of reality, or that they are equal or superior to humans in some form of intelligence.
It has been long-theorised that they have a complex language, which may consist of visual symbols as interpretations of high frequency sound waves."

Yes and, some people, including many medieval Christians, have claimed that cats are the familiars of witches. And some people, including many militia-men, have claimed that the Trilateral Commisiion secretly controls all world governments.

And, it has long been theorized that phlogiston is essential to combustion and burning.

Without some evidence beyond "lots of lay persons made guesses that X exists", this seems more suited to a page on New Agers or on speculative cognitive science/linguistics. orthogonal 01:17, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I will reinsert the accuracy dispute note pro tempore. Reason: it is not accepted anatomical terminology that is used here, indeed the language is so fuzzy that it is impossible to discuss facts as long as it is not clarified what exactly we are talking about (see my questions above). I might try to clarify this later, but for now I think the note should stay. Kosebamse 16:44, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

User:Pakaran has tried valiantly to hedge some of the more outrageous claims in the article, to wit:

Dolphins may need to have 2 brains because the maximum size for a single brain may be about 10^11 neurons, the size of the brain of single-brained humans. However, this is doubtful because creatures like elephants have only one brain, much larger than that of a human, as do the true whales.

I thank Pakaran, but, well, adding caviar to crap just wastes caviar. One could have other claims, and otehr hedges:

Dolphins may need to have two brains because one is hollow, and is used as a hideout by the Keebler eleves. However, this is doubtful because no other animal, for example chimpanzees have eleves hiding in their crania, not to mention the Keebler elves would not have room for their cookie factory in there. Which is just my way of saying that qualifying "New Age" mumbo-jumbo with the sort of sober sketicism applicable to real but unlikely scientific hypotheses doesn't fix this page.

The real solution is to delete the page. It isn't fixable.

Agree. There may be some bits that can stay, but the article needs to be rewritten from scratch. When I tried to argue with Khranus it was because a deletion of the page would have caused even more trouble with him (and also to to give him a chance of demonstrating his attitude to facts, scientific method etc., which he gratefully accepted, see above), but now he's gone it would be less work to rewrite. Also, I am not sure where the images are from, and they are not really needed, so methinks they should stay out. Kosebamse 07:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The dolphin really is a part of New Age beliefs as well as some coastal and island people. They are also, as I understand it, the smartest aquatic animal. So, the subject deserves information, but I don't see why it can't be at dolphin, until such time as a separate article is needed. Tuf-Kat 07:28, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)
Agreed. I've been having a hard time understanding why so many people want to rewrite it; I just don't know that there's enough real information about dolphin brains to justify it. Perhaps I'm wrong, or perhaps the idea is a defensive/blocking rewrite, so that a New Ager doesn't find an empty place into which to insert another dolphin brain article, but instead encounters an existing article that can be defended or reverted to.
Of course this is entirely separate from the beliefs of various peoples: if someone wants to write a page on Beliefs associated with Dolphins or The Centrality of Dolphins in New Age Thought or Dolphins and the Mythos of Coastal Peoples, then (conceivably), all the Dolphin brain bunkum might well be an accurate assessment of those beliefs.
But Dolphin brain discredits Wikipedia; had it been the first page I'd seen here, I'd have chuckled and never come back, thinking that Dolphin brain was what passed for "accuracy" at Wikipedia. And it's a double-edged sword: while warning away the careful, it serves to attract the credulous claimants of concocted counterfactual or conjectural creeds.
So let's rewrite it. And perhaps we should make it a pro tempore redirect to dolphin until there is something better? It is really bad PR for Wikipedia. I really don't know where to find good information for a rewrite and I don't know anything about non-human brains, but http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Myths/br-be-an.htm that I mentioned above (sorry could not log in then) could serve for a start. It loks like a nice article, but is published by an Norwegian organisation that seems to be pro-whaling, so should be reviewed with care. Another point: it might make sense to move to Cetacean brain or Whale brain, but I'm not sure about this. Kosebamse 09:23, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've re-written the top half of the article, duplicating/confirming some of the information, and I have interspersed citations. I can't confirm the "two brains with separate blood supplies" but neither can I refute it. Blood supply to the whole brain does differ from terrestial animals, as it's supplied through the fused vetebrae, rather than via the neck, probably to avoid constriction on neck arteries during deep dives. Since this is tangential to brain qua brain, I've included it here and not in the article proper; if somebody feels it belongs, include it and try to dig up the cite. orthogonal 10:59, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Here's something that looks like it might be informative, though I have no access to it: McFarland WL, Jacobs MS, Morgane PJ. Blood supply to the brain of the dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, with comparative observations on special aspects of the cerebrovascular supply of other vertebrates. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 1979;3(Suppl 1):1-93
      - Someone else 11:07, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that too, and I too have no immediate access to it. orthogonal 11:26, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Since some of the information is duplicated in my treatment, I (for the moment, anyway) leave it to others to structure the article to their tastes. I don't think the "Function" section really needs to stay, as it's not about the brain per se but about the mechanical fucntion of creating noise -- as if an article on the human brain went in to a treatment of the lips. On the other hand, some will argue that it's all tied up with communication (bad speculation, in my opinion) or sensory modalities (more defensible).
  • I do (continue to, Cartago delenda est) think the left-field speculation section needs to be dumped. orthogonal 10:59, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Agree with that, would suggest dump almost all of the Khranistic stuff, even in it's quasi-NPOV form it's just bogus; the anatomical details might warrant some scrutiny though.Kosebamse 11:21, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hey, I did my bit. ;) Get out your pruning shears. orthogonal 11:22, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I found some more at PubMed, here are the abstracts: [2] [3] [4] [5] Will try to get more from the library, or perhaps somebody can get these articles elsewhere? Kosebamse 11:35, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The first ("[2]") is about how to CAT scan fossil cetacean skulls. Probbaly not really germane. The second ("[3]") is about sperm whales. Related but we can't really generalize from sperm whales to dolphins (scientists might, we can't). The third ("[4]") is about morphogenesis in harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena); again, I'd be afraid to generalize. The fourth ("[5]") is about Monodontidae, that is Narwhals and Beluga whales. All these might be useful for an article on cetacean brains in general. orthogonal 12:09, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Quite right, and I would not have suggested to use them as sources, but I guess there might be useful references in them (which don't show up in the abstracts, alas). And as I said before, we might be better off writing about cetacean brains in general, else we might end up by saying "the harbor porpoise has so and so may neurons but this and that dolphin has so and so many". What do you think? Kosebamse 12:17, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ugh. I will not be writing about the cetacean brain. I just wanted to drop-kick Dolphin brain to /dev/null. You and others were determined to salvage it, and you were right, and I learned a little Googling for verifiable content. But frankly I'm out of my depth on this. I'm not a biologist, I'm not a comparitive neuroanatomist, and I'm not a cognitive scientist. (As an aside, my life is a pathetic catalog of failure -- but anyway.) I just noticed that Khranus's concoctions were way out in left field, and embarrassing, and I wanted to be rid of them. orthogonal 12:30, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Too bad. I'm neither a biologist etc. and don't feel particularly qualified to write more on the matter. It would help a lot if an expert came along and digged through this. And I would not burst in tears if this article were killed, but after all, it's not uninteresting, only seriously flawed in its current state. Kosebamse 12:37, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's gotten a lot better than I'd thought possible a mere 24 hours ago. I may try posting on usenet if the rest isn't cleared up in a few days. The other reason I'm not big into a cetacean brain entry is just that I worry it would have a tendency to fall into naive anthropomorphism or kookery: people would tend to write of cetacean brain and cetacean behavior in terms of human braisn and behavior, or they'd decide the "noble whale" transcended "mere humanity" and ergo, must be in contact with the 8th dimension. Especially given that dolphins are echo-locators like bats, it's good to keep Nagel's "What Is it Like to Be a Bat?" in mind. (Not that I actually argee with Nagel's belief in irreducible subjectivity.) Doing any sort of comparitive behavior or camparitive neuroanatomy I think requires an adaptationist approach: it's like this because it's an adaptation to these forces in the species' evolutionary history. And that has to wait for competent scientists, not amateur encyclopediasts. You're a Bob Dylan fan too?

I totally agree that competent scientist are needed here - we currently have nothing more than a collection of factoids and Khranus' bogus. But I guess many will believe that this should stay because it is something instead of nothing. I am not so sure, though, but I am just another scientifically biased deletionist, so my view should not be regarded too relevant. Posting on usenet might be a good idea (is usenet still alive? I thought it's all drowned in spam). Let's just give it some more time, I'd say. And Dylan, Dylan rocks. Cheers, Kosebamse 13:12, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Hmm. The first version of this article seems to have been copied wholesale from http://www.organelle.org/organelle/orgrandom/OracleBeta85.html , making this article a copyvio. A look at the current revision shows little or nothing that looks like the first version, but we should root out anything that is even partially derived from the above. -- The Anome 22:29, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good find! But not a wholesale copy: the orginal Wikipedia article didn't include this gem:
John Lilly also reported that on one occation he mentally asked questions of Dolphins, who appeared to him to respond by linking him with a dolphin group-mind, which, in turn, linked him to a larger Cetacean group-mind.

Where to go from here

I propose removing the remaining unverified business; if anyone wants to put it back in, and is willing to do what it takes to verify it and show their work, let them do so. orthogonal 23:02, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)


While I agree there was a need to cut the speculation out of the original article, I rather think you have gone to the other extreme away from a sensible discussion of the dolphin brain or intelligence. Some comments
Firstly, The article ought to be called Dolphin Intelligence. Most people entering Wikipedia will be interested in an article on Dolphin Intelligence, not the Dolphin brain.user:Jwrosenzweig is correct that there is a need for an intro etc.
Second the article does not add any positive information in favour of high intelligence which does exist: ability to learn tricks, versatility, social skills, sign language, brain size/body weight comparisons to other species which puts Dolphins ahead of chimps though some way behind homo sapiens. etc.
Third any conclusion to the article will state that it is difficult to compare land dwelling species to ocean going species, and that dolphin intelligence is somewhere between humans and dogs, but we don't know.: ChrisG 17:51, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The point of Wikipedia is not, I think, to enumerate all the arguments for and against a controversial belief. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present verifiable and commonly accepted facts. So I'm not worruied about the lack of "positive information in favour of" a particular opinion. Enumerating arguments belongs only on a page that addresses Controveries over animal intelligence, not on a Dolphin brain page.
Modern science very much avoids making linear "ranks" of intelligence; this is a vestige of the medieval "Great Chain of Being", and simply has little basis in biology. So "ahead of", "between" and so forth are lay person's terms, and essentially a matter of opinion. Far more useful is to enumerate the various faculties of the species: it can do this, it doesn't do that, etc. This has the signal advantage of being concrete and verifiable.
As to learning "tricks", behaviorists are famous for teaching sophisticated "tricks" to rats and pigeons -- correlating this with "intelligence" is simply sophistry that re-defines the word "intelligence" without explicitly saying so.
I am unaware of any studies evaluating dolphin proficiency at sign language; I am also unaware of any limbs the dolphin would use to sign with. Chimp use of sign language is entirely controversial, with most mainstream scientists finding studies purporting its use by chimps at best unconvincing. orthogonal 18:37, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

(response to Orthogonal interspersed)

The point of Wikipedia is not, I think, to enumerate all the arguments for and against a controversial belief. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present verifiable and commonly accepted facts. So I'm not worruied about the lack of "positive information in favour of" a particular opinion. Enumerating arguments belongs only on a page that addresses Controveries over animal intelligence, not on a Dolphin brain page.orthogonal 18:37, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Orthagonal, Wikipedia does explain controversies and therefore arguments for and against. The point is that you can do this or at least after knocking an article back and forth you can do this with NPOV. It is factual after all to say that an argument exists. It is hard to state facts about dolphins because they are so inaccessible in the natural domain. In order to say anything interesting to you have to express the different arguments: ChrisG 19:23, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Modern science very much avoids making linear "ranks" of intelligence; this is a vestige of the medieval "Great Chain of Being", and simply has little basis in biology. So "ahead of", "between" and so forth are lay person's terms, and essentially a matter of opinion. Far more useful is to enumerate the various faculties of the species: it can do this, it doesn't do that, etc. This has the signal advantage of being concrete and verifiable.orthogonal 18:37, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
True as far as it goes. But in arguing that you are heading along the road of preventing any form of comparison of anything at all. Brain size/body weight is no longer considered a definitive indicator, because of flaws, but it remains a highly suggestive one. And are facts, and as long as the limits of such comparisons are pointed out are useful to the reader. : ChrisG 19:23, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
As to learning "tricks", behaviorists are famous for teaching sophisticated "tricks" to rats and pigeons -- correlating this with "intelligence" is simply sophistry that re-defines the word "intelligence" without explicitly saying so.orthogonal 18:37, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I agree, but it is still a form of intelligence, though obviously not a seriously important one from the example of birds. However, as I mention in the article there are studies that dolphins are capable of learning to learn, which are far more suggestive, thogh again these studies are controversial:ChrisG 19:23, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I am unaware of any studies evaluating dolphin proficiency at sign language; I am also unaware of any limbs the dolphin would use to sign with. Chimp use of sign language is entirely controversial, with most mainstream scientists finding studies purporting its use by chimps at best unconvincing. orthogonal 18:37, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The studies I remember relate to the dolphins ability to understand us, not the other way round. And yes such studies are controversial, and so it should be stated, and the caveats made, but such studies do exist. :ChrisG 19:23, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

My proposal

While not a scientist, I have done some amount of reading in cognition, and so I attempted to rework the page (using much of what was there)--it can be seen here. Please change it if you like. Major changes: I added an introduction (current page sorely lacks), clarified and simplified much of the body, moved a source credit to the end because it interrupted the flow, and cut a lot of stuff about how dolphins talk because dolphin language is a related but seperate issue. I'm hoping enough of you wil like it (and edit it, too!) so that it can be pasted here. Thanks! Jwrosenzweig 00:21, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • No offense, but your version still contains some problem speculation. I've noted one in its discussion page. orthogonal 01:20, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • This is a belated response to Jwrosenzweig proposal. I very much support his proposal. See above. I began editing the article yesterday merging the best bits from his version, and most of them were IMO better than the existing text which was just a list of facts with no connecting structure. I apologise for not distinctly stating I was using his version in the page history. : ChrisG 20 Nov 2003
  • I don't like the title: it is easier to be factual and stick to the NPOV when talking about the dolphin brain than about dolphin intelligence. Mind you, I do believe that dolphins are highly intelligent, and if you push me I'll say that they might actually be sentient, but I wouldn't write an encyclopedia article about dolphin intelligence. On the other hand, an article about the brain seems reasonable to me. -- Miguel 2003 Nov 20


I did a quick review of some literature and thought these two links might be useful for someone who can actually decipher them [6] [7] and this one just because its interesting - [8] Melody 09:30, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Melody, those links are password protected, proabbly because your uni's license to distribute them only extends to students and faculty at qut. orthogonal 06:52, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

With all due respect for User:ChrisG's intention's, I think the conclusion, while perhaps appropriate in a report. is inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Nor do I think we need to bend over backward to admit the mere possibility of unproven assertions by New Agers. Let's take a "just the facts" approach, and let the reader speculate as he will. orthogonal 18:20, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


From Votes for Deletion:

unverfied speculation, pseudo-scientific nonsense. An embarassment to Wikipedia. orthogonal 15:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Speaking as a non-expert on neurophysiology, it seems to me totally legitimate, mostly composed of neuroanatomy facts and maybe a little speculation at the end. History shows some edit wars that have since settled on an evidently acceptable form. And as a wannabe scientist, it doesn't seem in the least "pseudo-scientific nonsense". At18 19:28, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Can you show me in what scientifically reputable publication there is evidence for
      • Dolphin brains appear to be composed of two similar sub-brains, each of which has two hemispheres, so dolphins might be said to have 4-lobed brains....each of the two dolphin sub-brains has an independent blood supply. orthogonal 22:20, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Hmm.. it appears that I was too quick. A Google search turned out many peculiar sites but nothing legit. I retire my vote. At18 23:00, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. "Dolphin brain" is a legitimate topic for an article. Correct any factual errors, but don't delete. The article already contains a notice that the factual accuracy is dispute. -- Miguel
    • Seems like we have to keep the article. Probably just needs work to remove any non-factual material - Marshman 04:36, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Agreed. It has a LOT of Khranal influence, though. I'll try and work on it tonight... the problem is knowing what is and isn't true... -- Pakaran 04:42, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems reasonable to keep, but I suggest we cut out anything suspect and let the article build up again. DJ Clayworth 15:24, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I have posted a semi-major rewrite here and noted it on the Dolphin brain talk page also. Please comment me on my talk page or just edit the replacement--perhaps it will resolve the deletion issue. Jwrosenzweig 00:25, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC) Never mind--another user took half the good stuff I wrote and added it into the article, and the other half ain't worth bothering about. <sigh> Jwrosenzweig 00:32, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, but please fix. Daniel Quinlan 00:39, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

"suggestions that dolphins are even superior to humans in their mental abilitie": who is suggesting this? Cite please. orthogonal 07:54, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Self-awareness vs. conciousness

I am moving the following paragraph here from the main article:

Moreover, even if one accepted the conclusions drawn from the research it is not clear what self awareness really means. Does self awareness equate to consciousness? Consciousness and self awareness are scarcely understood qualities of human beings, and so it is difficult to make meaningful comments about self awareness between species. Nevertheless, only human beings, great apes and dolphins have been shown to exhibit self awareness in any scientific studies.

I agree with what I think the paragraph is trying to say, but I would avoid the issue of consciousness entirely because it is too muddled, even for humans. Self-awareness as defined by the "test" is a clear, empirical question, and the controversy over the validity of the test can be easily and succinctly summarized. -- Miguel

In the literature the three themes - brain size and mass, cognitive skill and behaviour in the wild are treated under the name "intelligence" (or lack of it as the case may well be). So it is best to have this article there. Of course, the redirect is kept. Also "dolphin brain" seems to be quite an ugly phrase.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cetacean_intelligence/Archive_1&oldid=351720424"