As Ioan said, age is not an issue, but Weaver's definition and your summary of it are problematic in many aspects. What is a mind (especially in non-human organisms)? Can you really treat it separately from its physical foundation (i.e. the body)? How do you define effect other than intuitively?

I myself have been leaning towards the view of Maynard-Smith which defines it in evolutionary terms: "any act or structure which alters the behaviour of other organisms, which evolved because of that effect, and which is effective because the receiver’s response has also evolved". Any other transfer of information is a cue, not a signal s. str. Cues are of course also important, but their functional and thus evolutionary implications are very different.

Did you read Scott-Phillips TC (2008): Defining biological communication. J Evol Biol 21:287-395? What are your thoughts about it?

Concerning Communication, the age of the definitions is not an issue, the problem is their mechanicist reductionism which makes them stupid, i.e. inadequate to understand the living subject and even less to foresee effects or to obtain results.

Moreover, the majority of the studies stressed the sender as paramount, described a linear transmission and looked down at receivers as mere passive recepients "injected" with "messages".

To be quick, communication definition depends on the point of view and the level at which you consider it:

In my own view, for the person who experiences communication, it is an environment of mediation representing the distal world, which the individual investigates, which also attracts his attention depending on his needs and interests.

For the broadcaster, communication is a purposeful structure, a collection of contents to promote and channels used to make those contzents available (and hopefully to validate and promote) specific informations, interpretations, definitions... The higher level broadcaster promotes an image of the world and a worldview.

I believe that before obtaining an operational definition you need to decide the point of view, the level and the usage you intend. Is your need an engineering one? Please expand and explain your own need. The autority of past books is less than important here.

Good courrage and kind regards!

Ioan

As Ioan said, age is not an issue, but Weaver's definition and your summary of it are problematic in many aspects. What is a mind (especially in non-human organisms)? Can you really treat it separately from its physical foundation (i.e. the body)? How do you define effect other than intuitively?

I myself have been leaning towards the view of Maynard-Smith which defines it in evolutionary terms: "any act or structure which alters the behaviour of other organisms, which evolved because of that effect, and which is effective because the receiver’s response has also evolved". Any other transfer of information is a cue, not a signal s. str. Cues are of course also important, but their functional and thus evolutionary implications are very different.

Did you read Scott-Phillips TC (2008): Defining biological communication. J Evol Biol 21:287-395? What are your thoughts about it?

In my study, it is necessary to make a case for the presence of communication as opposed to noise. I am not a scientist and most of my readers are laypeople, so I try to keep it simple. That is also what I ask of the academic community. The definition I use is "purposeful exchange of information."

That, as opposed to inadvertent transmission of an object's characteristic information. A rock, for instance, is sensed by a person because of the information it produces as a characteristic of its existence in the given environment.

If you are speaking in metaphysical terms, the development of perception in the mostly unconscious mind is thought to produce a signature which is experienced by the person's conscious self. But, the mostly unconscious perceptual process is also thought to produce an inadvertent signal into the environment. However, I do not consider the sensing of any inadvertent signals to be communication.

I think that Polajnar and Maynard-Smith have it about right. I would say simply that communication occurs when the behavior of one organism produces a stimulus that changes the behavior of another organism. That includes both behavior due to phylogeny and due to ontogeny. In particular, it includes verbal behavior. Disagreeing with Butler, I also would argue that an organism may communicate inadvertently. Think of Clever Hans the horse, for example. It's owner communicated inadvertently.

Thank you all for the contributions, very enlightening! Although Maynard-Smith's definition is indeed interesting, I feel uncomfortable with the idea of a communication dependent on evolution. First, how can one prove evolution to have occurred in a communication system? E.g. If I use the definition and wish to prove an communication system to be functional, I would have to prove the communication evolved? Not very operational. The ontogeny of the call, as well said by Dr. Baum would also be troublesome. As evolution operates thought genetic change, and learned calls horizontally transferred through Memes not Genes (sensu Dawkins), learned calls have not formally evolved, and can not be classified as communication. I find it odd. Two computers cannot communicate between themselves?

Most of all, you need to prove that communication provides a net benefit to both sender and receiver. That is usually much simpler than a genetic proof. It may not be easy, but if science was easy, everybody could do it. Learned calls are just another layer of complexity on top of its evolutionary basis.

As for computer science, the meaning of the word "communication" is simply a bit different in that field, altought it still involves change in behaviour.

First, while I appreciate Shannon-Weaver's perspective, I agree with William Baum on Maynard-Smith's definition on communication and celebrate Bradbury & Vehrencamp's variation:

Communication: "the provision of a signal (typically containing information) from one individual (the sender) to another

individual (the receiver), which can be used to make a decision."

• Selection will favor signals that elicit a response that benefits the sender (on average)

• Selection will favor responses that benefit receivers (on average). However, not all communication must do so

(e.g. manipulation/deceit)

• Sender ≈ Signaler ≈ Manager ≈ Manipulator

• Receiver ≈ Perceiver ≈ Assessor ≈ Mind-reader

Further:

Signal: a packet of energy or matter generated by one individual (the sender) which is selected for its effects in altering the behavior of a second individual (the receiver)

• In practice, we can only assess signal function via receiver response

• Note that signals are not selected to convey information, they’re selected to elicit a beneficial response (hence “manipulators”)...but receivers are selected to respond to signals that are informative, so over evolutionary time, informative signals will elicit more responses (hence “mind-readers”)

• Many argue that the concept of information causes more confusion than clarity, since it implies selection to inform (see Rendall et al.2009)

See: Bradbury and Vehrencamp, Web Topic 1.2. Information and Communication:

(http://sites.sinauer.com/animalcommunication2e/chapter01.02.html)

Second, I agree with Jernej Polajnar-- while not all vocalizations appear to serve an adaptive or functional role, I would not discount the evolution of communication and I highly recommend the read: "The evolution of Animal Communication" by Searcy and Nowicki. (https://press.princeton.edu/titles/8110.html)

Since receivers respond to signals, signaling systems inherently involve evolution.

'Selection acts largely at the level of the individual, so that behavior evolves toward what is best for the individual performing the behavior....'(Ch. 1, pg. 2).

Interesting discussion- Thank you!

Cheers,

Brandi Gartland

University of California, Davis

M.S. Avian Sciences

Doctoral candidate in Animal Behavior

I agree with Jernej Polajnar, that under Maynard-Smith's definition in order to show the communication system functionality we would "need to prove that communication provides a net benefit to both sender and receiver." And that's is actually one of my major concerns about such definition! In evolution the "benefit" would be the individual fitness, which is measured as the number of descendants an individual leaves! To measure that is not simple at all! For instance, a basic research within bioacoustics would be to describe species vocal repertoires. I have been doing this by recording the signals and observing the behavioral response. Under Weaver's definition of communication, such data would be enough to describe the communication system by describing the signals and the corresponding behavioral response. Not with Maynard-Smith's definition, however. Anyway, that you all for the references sent, I had read some, but not all. Most of all, that you all for the quite interesting discussion! Best.

I agree, it might be extremely difficult in practice, but I never experienced a reviewer who would demand such a comprehensive proof, especially not for describing a vocal repertoire of a species. To prove that signals are used e.g. in courtship, it is usually enough to prevent the subjects from calling, then demonstrate that they are unable to mate (or that they mate far less). Depending on the system and the question, it may be even simpler - for example in many insects it's easy to show that calling of one or both partners always precedes mating, if you do enough mating trials.

Communication is a process in which people irrespective of age share feelings, ideas with each other