Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Chaoswizkid]

According to a joint group of scientists, philosophers and animal rights activists, enough conclusive evidence has been gathered to determine that members of the cetacean order (whales, dolphins, and other marine mammals) are able to rival human intelligence. Due to this high level of intelligence and displays of personality, these marine mammals should be viewed as non-human persons. The first step in this process is to introduce a bill of rights granting them the right to life and removing them from forced captivity, as well as granting them increased privacy from such human activities as whale-watching tours.

There's some pretty neat anecdotal and scientific evidence lying around on the net, and this isn't the first time this concept has come up before.

In my personal opinion, the research clearly shows that dolphins are extremely intelligent, and we are becoming limited in how effective our invented languages to communicate between species is, which limits our understanding of just how intelligent cetaceans are. The concept of a "bill of rights" is a bit drastic, though. I think it's pretty much come out of the blue, and a lot of people are trying to use standard reactions.

So far I've seen

Of course they should have the right to life! We are all God's creatures!

This can also come in secular flavors.

They are such beautiful and majestic creatures! They need to be protected!

Oh, right, we left Dolphins be considered people, and now all the animals are people, too, aren't they?

This is just some animal rights activists and some 'scientists' and some people who call themselves 'philosophers' trying to hug the trees as hard as they can.

These responses all steer clear of the actual implications of what's going on. We are, for the first time, dealing with a species that may be as intelligent, or even more intelligent, than ourselves. True, there are some clear examples of animal intelligence, and a lot of research has gone into the study of the Great Apes, but those are more often than not a case-by-case basis. Most of the anecdotal evidence supporting intelligent cetaceans come from random encounters or odd occurrences that seem worth mentioning, rather than the diary of a person who continually trained a single member of the Great Apes. This means the species as a whole may already be at the point that it takes months or years of training other animal species to reach.

The implications of such a thing means that humanity has to reconsider a lot of things. How do we deal with not being the only intelligent species on the planet? How do we come to view other intelligent species? Should they be individuals? How far should we go out of our way to protect them? Can we learn from them? This group is trying to deal with most of the confusing parts by blanketing them with a bill of rights: they will be considered individuals, they should be treated as equals, they should be protected, etc. Whether or not that is the correct course of action could perhaps be debated, but trying to give a trained auto-response such as "tree-hugger drivel" or "all animals are equal" is entirely the wrong way to go about this business.

Now that I've stated the news and laid out the foundation (and adding my handful of change), anyone feel like starting up some General Discussion?

[Levi]

The conference heard that dolphins are self-aware – they can recognise themselves in the mirror.

Minor thing, but I absolutely despise that recognizing yourself in a mirror is considered a measure of self awareness.  Frankly I think self-awareness is a fairly BS term in general. 

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I am and have been all for granting higher intelligence mammalian species a protected status that disallows hunting them, but calling them "non-human persons" is just plain silly.

[Chaoswizkid]

The conference heard that dolphins are self-aware – they can recognise themselves in the mirror.

Minor thing, but I absolutely despise that recognizing yourself in a mirror is considered a measure of self awareness.

There's a bit more research into that than they let on in the general-purpose news article. That test is also pretty much the best that we've got right now. So many species fail that test, which means that we can focus on refining to what degree are the species that succeed self-aware, which is a lot harder to figure out.

[Levi]

The conference heard that dolphins are self-aware – they can recognise themselves in the mirror.

Minor thing, but I absolutely despise that recognizing yourself in a mirror is considered a measure of self awareness.

There's a bit more research into that than they let on in the general-purpose news article. That test is also pretty much the best that we've got right now. So many species fail that test, which means that we can focus on refining to what degree are the species that succeed self-aware, which is a lot harder to figure out.

Yeah, but how is recognizing yourself in a mirror a test of self awareness to begin with?  It sounds more like a test of visual perception.

A better test would be to kick an animal, and see if the animal cares or not.  If it doesn't like being kicked, it probably is somewhat aware of itself.

[ed boy]

I would argue against the term 'higher intelligence' and similar. It implies that intelligence can be effectively compared on a linear scale, which I object to heavily.

[ChairmanPoo]

dealing with a species that may be as intelligent, or even more intelligent, than ourselves

I'm all for respecting cetaceans and stopping the butchering of whales and dolphins, but I think that's going a bit too far.

[Montague]

"non-human person" should we apply laws governing persons to whales and dolphins now?

So do you suppose we should arrest them if they come into territorial waters? Fishing without a permit?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yeah, but how is recognizing yourself in a mirror a test of self awareness to begin with?  It sounds more like a test of visual perception.

They put a spot on the animal's head and see if they try to remove it when they see it on their reflection.

[Levi]

Yeah, but how is recognizing yourself in a mirror a test of self awareness to begin with?  It sounds more like a test of visual perception.

They put a spot on the animal's head and see if they try to remove it when they see it on their reflection.

I still don't see how that shows anything other than the animal can recognize an image of itself.  To me, being able to recognize an image or picture of myself doesn't make me self aware. 

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yeah, but how is recognizing yourself in a mirror a test of self awareness to begin with?  It sounds more like a test of visual perception.

They put a spot on the animal's head and see if they try to remove it when they see it on their reflection.

I still don't see how that shows anything other than the animal can recognize an image of itself.  To me, being able to recognize an image or picture of myself doesn't make me self aware.

Being able to recognize yourself doesn't make you self aware? Just what definition of self-awareness are you operating under here?

[Twi]

While 'non-human-persons' sounds silly, it also sounds kinda awesome.
In all honesty, I'm just gonna wait and see. I know it's fun to theorize, but...I just..meh.
On a related note, this 'self-awareness' test also seems a tad silly. Figuring out that a mirror shows the stuff looking at it or what have you does not seem to constitute 'self-awareness', IMO.

On the other hand, I have no clue what I'm talking about.

[Chaoswizkid]

The conference heard that dolphins are self-aware – they can recognise themselves in the mirror.

Minor thing, but I absolutely despise that recognizing yourself in a mirror is considered a measure of self awareness.

There's a bit more research into that than they let on in the general-purpose news article. That test is also pretty much the best that we've got right now. So many species fail that test, which means that we can focus on refining to what degree are the species that succeed self-aware, which is a lot harder to figure out.

Yeah, but how is recognizing yourself in a mirror a test of self awareness to begin with?  It sounds more like a test of visual perception.

True, an assumption is made that we can see the same image on the mirror that any other animal sees. However, if that assumption holds true, then when, say, a parrot looks at the mirror, gets confused, and pecks at what it should recognize as itself (not from ever having seen itself, but because it should recognize that its actions are the same as those on the mirror), then the parrot is probably not 'self-aware' in the terminology that is used to judge intelligence.

A better test would be to kick an animal, and see if the animal cares or not.  If it doesn't like being kicked, it probably is somewhat aware of itself.

Not necessarily. Even plants react to external stimuli, but they have no central nervous system. Animals are just able to verbalize it and perhaps retaliate. It is aware that it is experiencing external stimuli that its instincts determine to be hostile or at least unfavorable. Perhaps, though, this is simply a difference in the conceptualization of the term "Self-aware."

I would argue against the term 'higher intelligence' and similar. It implies that intelligence can be effectively compared on a linear scale, which I object to heavily.

Not necessarily. Such terminology is used to broadly define self-awareness, language, spacial recognition, etc. Are you saying that because it's such a blanket-term, it gives the impression that species are either "not intelligent at all" or "highly intelligent"?

[Montague]

Yeah, but how is recognizing yourself in a mirror a test of self awareness to begin with?  It sounds more like a test of visual perception.

They put a spot on the animal's head and see if they try to remove it when they see it on their reflection.

I still don't see how that shows anything other than the animal can recognize an image of itself.  To me, being able to recognize an image or picture of myself doesn't make me self aware.

I suppose this test doesn't apply to computer software either, does it? I imagine you could program a computer to recognize it's self, but I wouldn't call that self-awareness, it wouldn't go all sky-net on us if you did. It does seem like a dodgy test of self-awareness.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

But living things are evolved, not programed, so the test is being applied under different standards.