Is Eli a Person?

[a_contemplative_life]

Came across this little tidbit today and found it strangely appropriate...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/ ... ale-names/

Subtle variations in sperm-whale calls suggest that individuals announce themselves with discrete personal identifier. To put it another way, they might have names.

The findings are preliminary, based on observations of just three whales, so talk of names is still speculation. But “it’s very suggestive,” said biologist Luke Rendell of Scotland’s University of St. Andrews. “They seem to make that coda in a way that’s individually distinctive.”

Rendell, lead author Ricardo Antunes and their collaborators, biologists Hal Whitehead, Shane Gero and Tyler Schulz, have for years studied the click sequences, or codas, used by sperm whales to communicate across miles of deep ocean. In a study published last June in Marine Mammal Sciences, they described a sound-analysis technique that linked recorded codas to individual members of a whale family living in the Caribbean.

In that study, they focused on a coda made only by Caribbean sperm whales. It appears to signify group membership. In the latest study, published Feb. 10 in Animal Behavior, they analyzed a coda made by sperm whales around the world. Called 5R, it’s composed of five consecutive clicks, and superficially appears to be identical in each whale. Analyzed closely, however, variations in click timing emerge. Each of the researchers’ whales had its own personal 5R riff.

‘This is just the first glimpse of what might be going on.’
The differences were significant. The sonic variations that were used to distinguish between individuals in the earlier study depended on a listener’s physical relationship to the caller: “If you record the animal from the side, you get a different structure than dead ahead or behind,” said Rendell. But these 5R variations held true regardless of listener position.

“In terms of information transfer, the timing of the clicks is much less susceptible” to interference, said Rendell. “There is no doubt in my mind that the animals can tell the difference between the timing of individuals.” Moreover, 5R tends to be made at the beginning of each coda string as if, like old-time telegraph operators clicking out a call sign, they were identifying themselves. Said Rendell, “It may function to let the animals know which individual is vocalizing.”

Rendell stressed that much more research is needed to be sure of 5R’s function. “We could have just observed a freak occurrence,” he said. Future research will involve more recordings. “This is just the first glimpse of what might be going on.”

That individual whales would have means of identifying themselves does, however, make sense. Dolphins have already been shown to have individual, identifying whistles. Like them, sperm whales are highly social animals who maintain complex relationships over long distances, coordinating hunts and cooperating to raise one another’s calves.

Sperm-whale coda repertoires can contain dozens of different calls, which vary in use among families and regions, as do patterns of behavior. At a neurological level, their brains display many of the features associated in humans with sophisticated cognition. Many researchers think that sperm whales and other cetacean species should be considered “non-human persons,” comparable at least to chimpanzees and other great apes.

Compared to primates, however, studying the behaviors and relationships of whales is extremely difficult. They don’t take well to aquariums, and observations in the wild take place on their aquatic terms.

What’s been observed so far are just “the crude behavioral measures we get by following them in a boat,” said Rendell. “I’d argue that there is probably a vast amount of complexity out there in sperm whale society that we have yet to understand. As we get to know more about them, we’re going to continue to reveal complexities that we didn’t anticipate.”

[a_contemplative_life]

Sauvin said:

But it doesn't help me sort out my own impressions of Eli's status as "person". She's at least half human, and I personally tend to operate by the principle that "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck" - and since Eli had no trouble solving Oskar's Rubik's Cube, and since she had no problem evincing at least enough empathy for his plight to offer him practical advice on how to deal with his bully problem, the very worst "moral standing" I can impute her is that she's a "very odd duck".

Well, I agree. And by posting the article, I was not suggesting that somehow Eli fails any of the "tests" discussed. It just caught my interest because it discussed some of the concepts about how we think of ourselves as "persons" as opposed to animals or plants, etc. Self-awareness, or at least the future or past ability to have self-awareness, seems to be a big part of the equation, along with the ability to experience pain and pleasure. Beyond that, it all seems rather murky.

I think as science progresses, we might find that the dividing line between humans and animals is not as sharp as we thought. The future ramifications of this are unclear. It also occurs to me that if we are alive long enough (I mean really, really long enough), we might witness the evolution of a species other than our own into something we would have no difficulty calling "human," if nature favors increasing levels of complexity. I just sometimes doubt whether some other species will ever enjoy that opportunity.

Agent Smith had a great line in The Matrix: "I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure."

Sometimes I think there could be some truth to this.

[metoo]

Agent Smith had a great line in The Matrix [...] Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. ...

This is counterfactual. All organisms expand until limited by the resources, instinct has nothing to do with it. Humans, however, have the capacity to choose to limit the rate of procreation, and do that, too, on an individual basis.

[sauvin]

... by posting the article, I was not suggesting that somehow Eli fails any of the "tests" discussed. It just caught my interest because it discussed some of the concepts about how we think of ourselves as "persons" as opposed to animals or plants, etc. Self-awareness, or at least the future or past ability to have self-awareness, seems to be a big part of the equation, along with the ability to experience pain and pleasure. Beyond that, it all seems rather murky.

Yes, just a bit. I suspect it gets really murky because while we can be "speciesists" when push comes to shove, and only human interests matter, we can still get to be pretty upset when our cats, dogs and horses are imperiled, injured or killed. We anthropomorphise them, and in so doing, humanise them to an extent that no amount of "philosophy" can impact.

A movie called Splice investigated this to some degree by having the two major human protagonists react to their unhuman "child" in progressively different ways as the child matured into something obviously human-like enough to be sexually attractive. "Momma", who'd at first defended the nascent being with a very maternal ferocity and determination, became more and more hostile towards it in various ways as it become more obviously human, and more obviously a woman, whereas "Daddy", who'd initially wanted to destroy it (its very existence being contrary to a number of laws regulating genetic experimentation being only one reason), developed affection and compassion for "it" (her?), and not only because it evinced human-like intelligence.

There've been any number of works in science fiction that've explored the possibility of identifying nonhuman species as "human". If such species ever actually existed, I wonder... would they be insulted?

I think as science progresses, we might find that the dividing line between humans and animals is not as sharp as we thought. The future ramifications of this are unclear. It also occurs to me that if we are alive long enough (I mean really, really long enough), we might witness the evolution of a species other than our own into something we would have no difficulty calling "human," if nature favors increasing levels of complexity. I just sometimes doubt whether some other species will ever enjoy that opportunity.

The various different kinds of human that've existed over the ages haven't tended to fare well - Neanderthals, for example, survive only in 1-4% of our active genes, with another now defunct brand of human presently called Denisovan surviving in another 4% or so. Pre-modern Man was't [deleted]-bent for leather trying to poison the planet or devising bigger and better means to turn the planet into a cinder, either. I don't doubt we'll find some way of doing away with ourselves - and we may be the only species on the planet thus far to have done so, if so - but assuming we don't turn the planet into something no living thing can survive, it's not unreasonable to presume that eventually a big-brained sauroid or some supersized rat won't pick up where we left off.

I seriously doubt we'll be around to call them any names, though.

Agent Smith had a great line in The Matrix: "I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure."

From the 1968 Planet of the Apes: "Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death."

It was Man who created a Forbidden Zone from what used to be the metropolitan NYC area.

I found Smith's comparing us to a virus distinctly uncomfortable because it has a solid ring of truth to it.

Agent Smith had a great line in The Matrix [...] Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment...

This is counterfactual. All organisms expand until limited by the resources, instinct has nothing to do with it. Humans, however, have the capacity to choose to limit the rate of procreation, and do that, too, on an individual basis.

On an individual basis in some cases. Another movie called "Idiocracy" had another uncomfortable truth to share: the "brightest" couples seem to be the ones who have the smallest families, whereas the not-so-gifted whelp out whole litters. You are correct that most species' populations are governed by natural forces; our own is, too, but we're too stupid to realise it. Within my own lifetime, the earth's human population jumped from roughly three billion to about seven billion, a 230% hike in about half a century. The world can only grow so much food and so many trees; it has only so many easily exploitable energy sources. We may find the Idiocracy proposition unpalatably plausible, only, there won't be some average run-of-the-mill "genius" from the past to save us.

Edit: 5 Novembre 2011, replaced a "bad word" with [deleted] to comply with renewed restrictions on language.

[sauvin]

Gah, I can be such a morbid [deleted] at times. This is the LTROI movie section! Let's see if we can't be a bit more on-topic.

Hrm...

Oskar: "Are you a.... vampire?"

Eli: "I live off Soylent Green.... yea."

Edit: 29 Octobre 2011, replaced a "bad word" with [deleted] to comply with renewed restrictions on language.

[metoo]

On an individual basis in some cases.

On an individual basis in a sufficient number of cases to make a difference. The rate of the population explosion has decreased, because of this. Although still alarming, the future today is less bleak than it seemed in the 1970s.

[sauvin]

On an individual basis in some cases.

On an individual basis in a sufficient number of cases to make a difference. The rate of the population explosion has decreased, because of this. Although still alarming, the future today is less bleak than it seemed in the 1970s.

Has it decelerated enough?

[metoo]

Has it decelerated enough?

I don't know.

But check this:
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_s ... _seen.html

And his next talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_r ... verty.html

[Nicro]

I think I'm gonna stick this one out. Quite interesting though.

[sauvin]

I think I'm gonna stick this one out. Quite interesting though.

If you've not been on the forum for a long time, I guess we forgot to warn you it can get a bit thick at times. It's best to bring along hip waders and a shovel.