[1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/16/opinion/sunday...
The existence of sonar as a highly evolved sensory experience already tells us about scale of possibility within the creative repertoire of biology. Our brain design is clearly influenced a lot by the sensory and communication tasks that are important to us.
For example, human smell is something unimpressive, by mammalian standards. We have smell and it affects us occasionally. It says 'don't eat that!' or somemsuch, sometimes. We also have some pheromones that are a basic scent communication method. Many mammals make 90% of mating decisions based on smell. Some species can react to a 6 day old pee stain the way humans react to strippers. Some find food from long distances away. They use highly developed scent based communication to transmit information about themselves (mostly) to one another. Something can smell scary, in a "Shit, that gave me a fright!" kind of way. It's not a stretch to imagine they dream or think in smells the way we do in words, sort of.
We communicate with sound in amazing ways. Right now we are communicating using sight (most of us) in a way that piggybacks on our brain's special design to understand words, which are sound based. This is fairly common in our biological branch, words... or so it seems. Anyway, the design is flexible to be used in various ways. You can learn language without having hearing. There is obviously a lot of potential for nature to be novel.
They may not be projecting shapes of actual objects, but if they are projecting shapes at all, it would probably be easy to record and reconstruct them visually for us to see, no?
They may not be projecting shapes of actual objects, but if they are projecting shapes at all, it would probably be easy to record and reconstruct them visually for us to see, no?
I'm thinking if they so use 3-D sonar communication, they probably have a vocabulary of geometric symbols.
For instance, with our vocal apparatus, we can imitate sounds like "bark bark" or "buzz", but instead we say "dog" and "bee". This allows us to talk about things that don't make sound, including abstract ideas.
Perhaps they have 3-D geometric symbols, analogous to our words. Instead of imitating the sonar reflection of a school of fish, they might just have a shape that means "school of fish".
It would be interesting to combine that paper's idea of analyzing source code with your idea of peculiar modes of thought and see if zipf still holds under those peculiar mental models for large enough code samples. For example does intermediate OCR API code follow zipf the same way as numerical analysis code, or some weird string theory code?
Going into the hard sci fi (or weird fantasy) arena of fictional writing, I think an elaborate yarn along the lines of ye olde fortune teller or program correctness prover or traveling salesman router, based on zipf and compression algos would make an entertaining story... "So back in the 22nd century when they proved 11 dimensional string theory was true because it was the only geometry where the DSL describing it followed zipf-law statistics, and everyone knows only real things that are true follow zipf therefore the simulation must be accurate..." I suppose the plot twist would be something along the lines of outright falsehood documents also follow zipf...
So failing to conform to Zipf's law doesn't prove a signal is not meaningful, but confirming to it is likely to be very strong evidence that a signal is a form of communication.
Then again, Zipf's law is known to describe many non-communicative, "natural" distributions like the sizes of grains of sand, the sizes of asteroids, and the populations of cities (one of Herbert Zipf's original objects of study). And conversely, many levels of representation of human communication have non-Zipfian distributions, like phoneme distributions. (See my comment history for references.)
Now, if they were intelligent, they would (as we do) come up with highly compressed encoding schemes that would have no apparent patterns to an outsider, except perhaps control signals at the start and end. But if they wanted to be heard by aliens, they would avoid using obscuring mechanisms like compression.
Anyway, I would argue, that wanting to allways remain in the same state of being, is not very smart, since the enviroment is going to change anyway ... so you got to evolve to adopt to new enviroment changes (ultimately the collapying of our sun)
Maybe one of the reasons we can't quite bridge the communication gap and "do inter-species communication" is that we feel that we are above the target species in question, evolution-wise.
Maybe this is a huge mistake to make to think that we have evolved to handle complexity, rather than devolved to avoid simplicity.. I don't know, but if I could talk to a dolphin about it, I really wonder what they'd say.
(Seriously, I've thought about this often, since I came to understand Zipfs Law in the 80's and listened to too many Devo lyrics..)
Its quite possible that we're surrounded by alien communication, but are too arrogant, as a species, to be able to recognize it. I'm fairly certain we have some significant evolutionary steps to take before we can 'work it out' ..
Every "creature" will have to use energy. Conservation of the energy means a linear optimization to minimal bandwidth. The channels (chemical, sonar, infrared, etc) and patterns are the most varied parts as different conditions produce different optimal expression.
It's certainly interesting that their language has statistical properties closer to human languages than that of other animals tested.
Did you just describe a word in a foreign language?
Let's take string of letters:" t e r v e - m a a n - a s u k k a a t "
Let's assume that I can somehow quantize that signal into syllables: ter-ve-maan-a-suk-kaat. Then hash table lookup against vocabulary: terve = hello, maan = earths, asukkaat = inhabitants.
Yes it looks like pure noise if you can't separate words from each other and message length is short compared to complexity of message. Also if you only see a pitch graph of me saying that stuff, it's even more indistinguishable of random noise. Exactly the same problems as in the article.