Bayliss speaks!

In My Humble Opinion
21

No. Not at all. But I would not consider it such anyways. Syntax (in this context) means the symbol has a different meaning depending on where it is used in the sentence. Or it can mean some sort of conjugation based on meaning.

Heck, the cat I’m talking about doesn’t even necessarily press the buttons around the same time. There can be large gaps. It often seems like she expects a reaction to a single button, doesn’t get it, so tries something else. The humans then assume that both buttons must be relevant.

22

Yep. Billi the cat. I’ve seen it. There are obviously edits in her videos.
And she does push the mad button often.

Her owner is a veterinarian in a zoo. I’m assuming she’s understanding the videos are a form of entertainment. Not scientific discovery of some kind.

23

This pomsky has the right idea:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=pomsky+talking+buttons

24

I think it would take some carefully designed experiments to distinguish between “cat is trying to communicate this idea by pushing this button” vs. “cat notices that humans react in a particular way when it pushes this button”. That is, the Clever Hans effect.

25

I hoping for just that.

If Bayliss pushes “love you!”

Guess what I’m gonna do?
I predict he’ll guess just as easily.

And I’ll be happy for it.

26

Seems to me that the whole premise is bass ackwards.

Aren’t we supposed to be the intelligent ones? Why then do we look for them to learn to speak to us in our language? Seems unreasonable if we can’t manage to speak dog.

27

Yeah, she’s said she knows she’s interpreting things, and that this isn’t a fully accurate scientific experiment. But, at the same time, she does think that it has helped with communication between her and Billi.

The edits are nearly always just fastforwarding, so we don’t have to wait so long. That way we know she’s not cheating.

Anyways, I hope that you also are able to communicate better with Bayliss. Even if she doesn’t quite understand what “love” means, if she uses it because you clearly enjoy it, that still communicates some type of love, doesn’t it?

28

So if “water” usually means “I’m thirsty please fill the water bowl” and
the “beach” button is broken so the dog gets mad for a moment but then hits “water” “outside”, does that not qualify as syntax by your definition?

If “tug” usually means playing tug-o-war, but the dog keeps saying “sound” “tug” then stops and starts using the new “talk” button you gave them instead, does that not qualify as syntax by your definition?

These are the kinds of things that I am finding breathtaking. I fully expected a dog to quickly learn which buttons would get them which responses. I did not expect combining words to create different ideas.

29

No, none of those are syntax. The meaning of the symbol is not changing based on the order it is being presented. It can still just be using two symbols that both individually apply.

I’m also don’t really see how “tug sound” would mean “talk.” I’d need some story about how the animal would somehow relate those two. “Game I like to play” + “I hear a noise” don’t seem to have much in common with the word “talk.”

None of this is saying this isn’t amazing. This level of communication is great. And I do think we are getting a better glimpse at how these animals think. I just don’t think it qualifies as language. There is no sign they understand these words as abstract entities.

30

I think the idea of ‘tug’ is the social back and forth. Sort of ‘fun thing we do together but with noises’. For me, that’s reading a lot into it. but I think the owners do read a lot into things, because they are working on the assumption that their pet is trying to communicate. (And we generally give children the same benefit of the doubt when they are learning to talk.)

31

Right. Playing tug-o-war with a dog involves the same sort of back and forth as a conversation. From the dog’s point of view, it’s also with the mouth.

And yes, of course the owner has to add context. But the dog knows the owner intimately and is clearly choosing useful context clues.

I find myself constantly wanting to ask “Have you ever had a dog?” and if so, “What breed?” because they do have very different wiring. A GSD is far more likely to tell you what she wants, while an Aussie is more interested in what everyone/thing around her needs. Huskies have very different body language and priorities than Bulldogs.

But just because these close partners are using context clues doesn’t mean the human is “Making things up.” Otherwise, the dog would not have stopped using “sound tug” when the “talk” button came and talking happened when he pressed it. It’s confirmed by the change in the dog’s behavior. We know we got it right in the same way that they know when they’ve got something right; the behavior changes.

I feel like there is deliberate avoidance of clear evidence whenever I try to discuss this with people. Maybe they just don’t have as much experience training and living with canines. Or maybe they have a block at the thought that they were missing this much from their beloved companions. Or maybe they just haven’t read all the studies with elephants and cuttlefish and African Greys.

32

No buttons yet. Coming tomorrow.

But this an example of a conversation I have with Bayliss almost daily.
I don’t speak much. I sign a lot. I’ve taught Bayliss hand signals. He comes, he speaks(as in short woofs) and he understands a sign for Little dogs (the Chihuahuas, they understand nothing)
So…I sign “come” to the back door. I sign “speak” and “Little dogs” he woofs. The Chihuahuas come to his woofs. I point outside. They go out and play and potty.
Never saying a word myself.

This is why I think he can learn these buttons.

ETA- I have no ideation of deep meaningful conversations. I just think it’s a very novel way of communicating between us. We are both in need of words to use. Maybe I’ll use them with Ivy and the grandkids too😊

33

Somebody couldn’t find it? Sorry. Had to go there…

All you wanna know about what That Dog is thinking is just a phone call away.

34

Bad, bad, bad

35

Buy her a very vocal breed like a husky or a schnauzer. Then you can listen to her scream with joy each time it utters anything.

36

Everything I’m saying comes from the studies like that. It’s not like I came up with the idea that language requires syntax on my own. There’s just a whole lot more to the study of language than most people are aware. And it is my understanding that the scientific consensus at this point is that non-human animals have not actually demonstrated language. They’ve used words to communicate, but that isn’t the same thing.

I know people who act like these videos are all “fake.” That’s not me. I think they’re real. I think they are genuinely communicating. As I said, I think we are getting a glimpse of how these animals think. Heck, we may even be changing how they think by giving them the tools to communicate.

But I also cannot help but notice overinterpretation. I can’t help but notice when a complex meaning is assigned when a simpler one is available. I can’t help but notice the long stints in between Billi’s use of the buttons, suggesting she thought that one button was enough to communicate what she wanted.

And I can’t ignore how humans who want something to be true will have confirmation bias. I can’t ignore all of the cases where people genuinely believed things were communicated that were not. I can’t ignore that Clever Hans’ intelligence was primarily in picking up on the non-verbal cues of his trainer, not knowing math. I can’t ignore all those autism “interpreters” who were actually only interpreting their own thoughts. I can’t ignore the N-rays. Humans are confirmation bias machines, especially when it comes to communication.

But there’s a danger in throwing it all out because of that. There does seem to me to be enough data to show some level of communication, beyond that which we normally get when we just try to interpret body language and the sounds these animals naturally make.

And, yes, for the context I am using it, using context clues is “making things up.” You are adding things to the communication that the animal did not actually say. There’s nothing wrong with this. We do it all the time with other humans. But I do think it is important to maintain the distinction, to help reduce cognitive bias.

Again, I very much hope that Beck gets some insight into Bayliss, and that they learn to communicate in ways that are better than they currently do. I do think this is very possible.

The purpose of my posts was primarily to address those who are skeptical. I agree with some of their skepticism, but not all. I do actually watch these videos, after all.

37

I always thought from your earliest posts about Bayliss that he was a smart dog. He’s so, so lucky to have you (and you’re lucky to have him – love is like that!). As smart as he is, he’ll never know that he beat incredible odds as a stray to have found you in this very big world!

I’m anxious to hear how this experiment goes, but I suspect it’s going to take a lot of work and patience. But since Bayliss loves to be around you, if nothing else, he will revel in the attention!

38

I’ll enjoy it as well. I need diversion in my life. And I have patience of Job.

39

I think it’s very important to a lot of people that they have some Bright Clear Distinguishing Line between humans and all other creatures.

Unfortunately for them, every time somebody formulates one, somebody else shows evidence that it isn’t so.

Yes, there’s a difference. But it’s not a bright clear line; it’s a really blurry fog. And the more attention we pay, the blurrier it gets.

Years ago, I lived with a houseful of humans, a couple of cats, and a husky.

One night in the middle of the night there was a commotion downstairs. All the humans piled out of bedrooms and stood at the top of the stairs, accompanied by the husky. We could clearly hear Something moving around in the kitchen.

Somebody decided that the dog should lead the way to investigate this further, and tried to push him into going down the stairs ahead of us. He resisted this, both by not going, and by emitting a long speech.

I swear that he said ‘I’m not going down those stairs first if you’re all afraid to go down those stairs first!’

He didn’t have the words, of course, but he surely had the intonation. And he surely got the point across. We all went down the stairs together, dog (willingly) in the middle.

(The Something in the Kitchen turned out to be a squirrel.)

40

This - and I think some people will twist themselves up in knots about it.

Researchers have biases too