Hello.
This specific place might look strange for posting this, but because I don't want (psychologically) to post at old places basically well known there things..may be here it will be new and useful for thinking about!
For most humans dolphins (and also, say belugas, and other ceti cetacea) are quite far away type of beings. I was (un)fortunate enough to try and find out what really hidden behind all those contradicting talks about dolphins. There was dolphinarium, where I was sort-of volunteer. And this lead me to path I only can describe as painful and one I simply can't drop even if I tried several times (including deleting my mailbox after specific heated exchange with some 'dolphin scientist'. ) I know being 'unstable' is sort of wrong label to put on yourself - yet fact is..I'm unstable now, more than ever, and things not going to change for better...
But I will try to explain a bit more. I mostly looked at dolphins (and belugas, who also were captive there) from head end first and foremost...In other words thinking, sapiency, intelligence..nothing 'paranormal' happened to me in all of those years, I preferred to be deadly critical about myself, and guess my 'reputation' among few humans who know me quite bad due to my constant preference to stay on non-human side...so, I'm 'extremist in some sense, trying to be as far from usual antropocentrism as possible..but apparently not really successfull at this!
I hate (dolphin, cetacean, and animal captivity in general, in any form and shape. I come to serious dislike of current en of scientists who labeled as 'dolphin/cetacean researchers' - because they all strongly prefered to stay on human side, even if it means something really bad for dolphins. (dolphins here and below not just tursiops, just poor captive tursiops were ones who broke me right way, other non-humans followed..as ones worth real, not rethorical respect...). Eh, problem is ...most of 'language research' on non-humans happened in captivity of one sort or another. I've read some excellent books like Eugene Linden's trilogy, ending with quite dark but very important "Silent partners" (the legacy of ape language experiments). Also I've read Savage-Rumbaugh articles and book ("kanzi's primal language"), and also Irene Pepperberg "Alex and me", as well as some usual amount of Lou Herman, McCowan, (Konrad) Lorenz, and other less known figures all interlinked via 'references' sections in various works. So, my conclusion after reading all this was relatively simply: yes, some non-humans can talk (for real, not as in circus), yet our society via specific humans much prefer to really not hear them. Entering dolphin specific part...Recently I saw here interesting discussion about communication. Of course it is big problem/question for me, because while I started from usual discourse about communication (with non-humans, at abstract/lingustical level) as scientific activity to prove their thinking,self-awareness and other 'advanced' abilities - over recent years (2013-2015+) I come to conclusion real 'human-level' communication needed not just for upping their status among those humans who wish to be their friends , and in much more anti-animal-ish (de-facto) human society - but also as way to avoid all/most of this animal cruelty we enforce on non-humans under justification 'but they can't say us' (particulary in medical matters). It really long topic in itself, but for now I mostly wanted to hear some fresh (rel. to our fairly stable circle) views on two-way communication between humans and non-humans. Not necessary dolphins, I learned to avoid near constant 'elitism' in all this talk about 'higher' and lower' animals, using intelligence as ticket for 'ethical' treatment..hopefully I'm past those traps. yet, dolphins are quite different in their behavior even from very sceptical viewpoint - may be you will read books by Wade Doak or Horace Dobbs, dealing with unusual, but quite consistent phenomen of libre ("wild) yet unusually sociable with humans dolphins..Eh, apart from books I obviously had real-world captive dolphins, they never 'talked' to me, yet I can only confirm they ...different. And while now I don't push some specific (little known, even 'censored' in sense) work by Vladimir Markov as some kind of proof on dolphin language question (still his work fits into bigger picture- as well as suppression of it by some now dead scientific figures!). Whole dark side of history on this research into non-human language/mind teached me there might and even most likely is a lot more than humans like to admit..in not just apes, dolphins, elephants.... So, may be even horses and wolves have their native languages - might be simple from our viewpoint, but real (as changing hierarchical communication system, theoretically endless, but in practice often not ...so-called open comm. system as opposed to very finite number of 'calls', not combinable.... Who knows. Even if native non-human languages still very rare - i don't want to drop them, and thus dropping ones who can talk into same pot with grey mass 'animals'. Again, without basing ethics on presense or absense of language ..just if it there - better not to cut it ..away from being! May be some artificial (human-created) languages can be used by non-humans too...if there will be unusual humans who made use of language....useful! In everyday life... But my problem not in those imaginable futures - but in fact now I come to very sad personal state when I barely want to talk with nearly anybody (modulo very few friends), I can't see any way forward, considering all those things I discovered about human societies, both by book (Ercih Fromms volumes for example) and from real life. Humans much prefer to talk about now good things can be, but in reality for non-humans it all remin mostly the same. Thus, all our talk is anthropocentered...because it targets and influencing humans only. And I can't even find some way to prove to myself at least some of my 'love' for dolphins still real and can help them. Non-helping love is not a thing for me, even if by saying this i highly doubt my real motives :/ Basically, I'm stuck. A lot of things may happen in my life, but nearly all of them have nearly only illusionary potential for changing things for real dolphins. (or other, much more common non-humans...once I was naive enough to assume "captive dolphin question" must be easier to solve due to rel. small size of captive dolphin population...haha :/ how naive I was - it turned out to be linked to some quite bold psychological motives in humans, including not only ones from so-called 'pro-captivity' side but also to my horror from other side as well! if not more ...).
I will try to explain things more, if there will be interest..I don't think this Contact problem will ever move inch forward so easily as by just discussing it in Nth time - but may be here I will find some views none of my friends were able to come with... [or at least unstuck a bit wrt expressing myself again]
You probably won't get anything very interesting from this group in regards to the fascinating subject that you have raised. Most zoophiles just think that animals should be animals according with the view of animals that humans naturally have of them. For most zoophiles, animals are just simple beings and the zoophiles want the animals to be that way. Pretty much all zoophiles believe that they "understand" animals but when you look at what evidence they have for understanding you find that they just interpret behavior, project their own feelings about animals onto the animals and/or they believe they have some kind of "god given," metaphysical or somehow spiritual ability to understand animals. Now in a secular society we should all know that such mumbo jumbo beliefs are all just based on personal feelings- rather than any actual evidence. You simply believing in fairies doesn't make them real. There is something quite charming about a nonhuman animal, that is for sure, but I don't believe that any human has any true access to the real inner hearts and souls of nonhuman creatures. That is a thing that our species has not attained as of yet.... not as of yet. I happen to not be a run-of-the-mill zoophile.
yeah, what is reality and where is our place in it quite ...damned question!
Surprizingly, I can't easily find now some links I've downloaded some time ago...
I started from this series - http://whales.org.au/published/levasseur/index.html and then looked up some key names and their works...
For example, Mark Bekoff, Collin Allen, Sue Savage-Rumbaugh and associated ..researchers. But now I'm trying to find for example "Is anyone a cognitive ethologist?" and only see links to pay-for-paper sources...I have this paper, among many others, sure... But apparently collecting all those books and papers was not minute task! Ken's view suggest one thing probably referenced in another thread here - different kind of "training", but if we step a bit away from human-centered perspective - we hopefully will see how this "training" idea is none the less but way about exposing how our language work by simple, but not artificially capped examples! It doesn't require captivity!
But my second big find was this one: http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/459/760 "Non-Anthropocentrism in a Thoroughly Anthropocentrized World" by Anthony Weston. Unfortunately, his views nowhere near realization - most humans too busy with 'usual' lines of living..One of most important quotations from this specific work - "Some environmentalists have tried to reclaim words like "conservative" for themselves while pinning "radical" on the other side, a strategy no doubt worth trying. But I am more concerned with the prior and more common problem that this "other side" very seldom emerges as a side at all. The usual categories presuppose a vision of "the world" that is ratified below the level of consciousness by the omnipresence of noise, trash on the beaches and jet trails in the sunset, the bodies of animals available for our consumption at every turn. Non-anthropocentric criticism then truly is "unrealistic," not merely because anthropocentrism defines the "realistic," but because "reality" itself is now so thoroughly anthropocentrized."
There is a lot of talk about 'dolphin/cetacean sanctuaries' recently - and I was also attracted to idea, until I found grim reality behind nicer word! And to my surprize I even have paper to back 'my' views now, even if it talks about so-called domesticated animals' - http://journals.lub.lu.se/index.php/pa/article/view/15045/13599 "Farmed Animal Sanctuaries: The Heart of the Movement?" by Sue Donaldson, Will Kymlicka (same authors wrote "Zoopolis" book - may be a bit weaker than Anthony's views, but still worth reading if you want to rethink some of commonly held ideas..and act on those changed views, too!).
But for now I mostly stopped reading those good, even excellent books because..I become sort of black hole, I suck books and papers and nothing come out?! Moreover, today one can hear a lot of talk (sometimes written on paper, too) - but actions continue to be in same league.."Age of unreason" as it was named in one of those 'undeground' articles.... Logical understanding of problem doesn't lead to even honest attempt at solving problem, humans fear reaction from other humans much ore than they want to change world for non-humans. All too one-sided compromises made, and they annihilate any real-world example of truely different course of action..Being alone doesn't work, because all those actions (starting from saving or attempting at saving dolphins from captivity or killing or just some justified harm) require collective work, and if collective prefer low road ...I found no magical talk/action to change it! So, in sense paradox - but running away from anthropocentered world I ran into neccessarity to change at least enough humans for making any further changes possible?!
Unfortunately, I also found no way to clearly 'teach' any of this essential critical thinking - because as it turned out even 'reputable source' need very careful examining, and probably only valid beakon is to try and follow even most painful possibilities, "negative" ones...
Ah, not sure if I have this Markov's paper online anywhere, but if you like it you can try to search for "Organization of Communication System in Tursiops Truncatus Montagu" - surely old (1991) and I obviously don't want to remake those captive experiments (but who said one can't "interview" libre dolphin(s), if of course some will find a way to become socially-important for them, with all unusual responsibilities and other duties). But "official" dolphin scientists in USA prefer to not see existence of this work, and as such they lost all credibility for me even by this fact alone. Anyway, despite this much-toothed "reproductability" of scientific works few humans actually can do this, even in relatively low-cost areas..beyond certain point (everyone can make electric motor or play with natural semidonductors and electricity and magnetism - nearly none can build most powerful termonuclear reactor, say...dolphins and their language hopefully relatively close to first group of things/phenomena - something humans can detect/use (eh...) without making unbelievable inventions..like universal 'human animal translator!).
I can go on and on for quite more space, but I better to check this link to see about what exactly it tried to talk..thanks for everyone who contributed his/her thinking to this forum - it still very much detectable..but unfortunately not enough :(
It´s rather shocking how low the number of replies is here.... Can it really be true that so called zoophiles are only interested in animal genitalia and the only depth they reach in trying to understand nonhumans is "balls deep"? I´m underwhelmed once again...
My guess is that it's because it's relatively hard to read and understand his language. I for one am a lurker interested in the (sadly missing) discussion here, because I'm not sure what to say about this all. And then I come here and see that you are only complaining about the others here and that apparently you don't have anything to say about the content either.
Links and names I tried to highlight quite long reads too {but in more correct English!}. I'm sure my search criteria (as 'seen' by Google) quite skewed, but when I tried to find some counter-arguments to way-too-widespread 'Karen Pryor' type of animal training - I found this article: http://samthedogtrainer.com/articles/why-i-don’t-believe-in-clicker-training/ but a) it still only leaves as 'valid' alternative just some sort of 'classical' dog training, and example with Elephants obviously not sounded right at all for me (I'm sure most of readers know about this little device called bullhook) b) It also references other works you better to check at minimum for seeing if author draw logical conclusion from it, or what was written there actually (because sometimes most used interpretation of work disagrees with now author him/herself said and reasoned things!).
so, it quite big intellectual load.
For myself I only can say I sadly not live up to my ideas in this area - my life with dog quite ordinary thing, no special experiments. Thing is.. Language barrier in this interspecies sense quite real, and level from where it started to be useful for both parties also quite high/far from start/ it seems.
Also, I was rethinking whole 'what is training" idea last night - while I'm sure if you read link to Ken's papers you will stumble upon quote by Savage-Rumbaugh making difference at intentions born inside beings themselves, not completely externally-driven by simple, repeating by experimentator stimuli (so, system become more self-supporting, when reasons to use it born inside individual, on variety of occasions). May be slightly other angle on same line - but probably training becomes too much goal in itself, end goals for all those 'training' sessions not even supposed to be linked inside non-human head? Overconcentration on simple, one-bit links between events to get just as simple one-bit outputs. Hard push for something making little sense. Attempts at making those 'language sessions' very repetitative for 'proving' something statistically was said to be quite big stress factor and even game breaker (as in: no language appeared!)
You probably heard word 'lexigram', some kind of special symbol one can use instead of real object, or word. There were at least two lines of language research with great apes - one with gestural symbols and other with those lexigrams. Second line was simpler to gather computable results, but first one obviously had advantage of not requiring to drag full bag of items (or computers, lately - but main works were done with just small items, computers come much later) in any place and each time you even foresee (or not) need for using them for communication!
back to relatively hand-less beings like horses (who also probably not as heavy sound users as dolphins and co - so for them acoustic output will be quite hard to use, too?) ...I think for them some kind of card-bases system of feedback may work (where symbols actually drawn for horse's vision - not sure about details, but obviously it hard to use something you barely can see!) - but again, what kind of situation it will require? And while all those previous experiments focused on objects (because we humans use all objects for our life, and it really big part of it?) - but I hope for dolphins and other less-manipulative beings ideas about language as way to more accurately showing 'internal' states and links between events (past->present->future) and detailing some social relations will be both more natural and more interesting than list of objects to memorize! But while for dolphins/cetacea (I hope) it still may play this role of groundbreaking news - both for ones who tried it and others - will it make any real difference for other beings, like horses, dogs, etc? Not as some fashion thing (like 'dog/horse training' today nearly become?) but as part of actually listening more to something humans previously missed? This is fairly big question I have no answer for.
Yea, the goal is not a language, but a simpler form of communication. The hope is that the dog will realize that they can use that form of agreeing or disagreeing not just for the stuff they do while training but use it to agree/disagree with other things too.
That said, "training sessions" on youtube etc. always look a bit weird to me. Always so hectic. I wish they would more try to appeal to the understanding the dog has of what is going on instead of training instinctive responses.
When it comes to horses I had to immediately think about this here I have read about some time ago: http://www.equitationscience.com/announcements/preferences-for-blanketing-press-release
edit: To be honest, I don't have a lot of personal experience with these things. Still working on my master's degree and when I get my own place, then I can finally "get a dog".
Thanks, fuzzyfurry. Unfortunately article you linked still talks about operant conditioning - will scientists ever grow out of it? But I found something potentially different - you don't need to buy it whole, but most generic idea seems sane - gestural language(s) exists, and you better to be able to speak with your body than with some additional devices.
http://www.dogster.com/lifestyle/teach-your-dog-sign-language-youll-learn-a-lot-about-your-dog
This was interesting and hard to read for my brain. I always wondered if the beautiful creatures in those big tanks ever gave their own opinions of how they felt. And it would be very interesting if they could tell us through some studies. Show them the ocean and see their reactions. I know how seaworld is really pushing for quests to come, knowing if anyone has seen the controversial movie about how sea world first got their Orcas and dolphins in their inclosure's would know. But who knows if their will be any new "good" studies about the beautiful creatures that live in those big tanks. There can only be good things if less people in society hate seeing Orcas and Dolphins in those tanks, right? Hopefully it will mean the end of sea worlds most popular shows. And the beginning of allowing those creatures to live free and unharmed. Im sorry if I missed a lot about your comment OP. I have a tough time reading English paragraphs to begin with. So my points may be useless here. Thanks for the interesting read though.