Slashdot Mirror

Look up "Washoe". Being able to communicate, even if only by sign language, is important. The average chimp doesn't communicate much better than other ordinary animals, like dogs. And humans can fail to be communicative, look up "feral child". The point here is that humans are naturally prejudiced in favor of themselves, thinking that characteristics associated with personhood (like communicative-ness) are automatically/naturally associated with biological growth. But the fact is (at least here on Earth), communicative-ness at the person-class level is a result of Nurture, not Nature. As a result, if certain other organisms also receive appropriate Nurture (like Washoe did), then those organisms are as likely as a human to qualify for personhood. So now look up Koko the Gorilla and Chantek the Orangutan. Equally logically, any organisms that don't receive appropriate Nurture, including humans, are going to qualify more as ordinary animals than as persons. (The default Natural condition, per biological development only, for a human is to be just a clever animal.)

Three strikes law:

Harm. Bad.
Two harm. Go.
Three harm. Go far.

Could be taken directly from a gorilla:
http://www.koko.org/world/talk_aol.html

Koko has a tested IQ of between 70 and 95 on a human scale, where 100 is considered "normal."

Elephant outwits human on IQ test

I think this discussion should be worried about the potential for racist comments rather than the homophobic as you suggested. The biggest clue to this is the word "ook" being used in the summary.

The scientific potential in this is that researchers could learn to understand and quantify the simplicity of the behaviors which lead to the more complex. It brings us back into the days of Jane Goodall, Koko the gorilla, and the Save the Gay Whales campaigns of our childhoods.

Call me me weird, but the first thing I thought of when I read this was a specially reinforced ASR-35 Teletype (maybe ASR 33?) keyboard they had at Standford's Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences (IMSSS) for Koko the gorilla. Although she knew Ameslan, they also taught her to use a keyboard with pictures on the keys (apple, ball, etc.). I only met her once and wasn't there when this happened, but the first time they showed her how to use the keys she apparently enthusiastically made her first key press ... and pushed the key right through the bottom of the cast iron bottom of the teletype.

I don't know if this applies to toddlers. :-)

http://www.koko.org/images/journal/pj_2007-08-07.jpg

[sarcasm on]
oh yeah, apes are just faking it. and that koko has been reading picture books to herself at bedtime just like a school kid would do, it's only imitation. that she has the wish to express herself via paintings and drawings, that's no sign for intelligence. and that she invents new words is a sign for... what?

you, as many others, suffer from delusions of grandeur regarding human capabilities...

Most of the people who are, or will argue with you will likely cite art

I would direct them to here and here, for starters.

I'm not making any statements, just providing links. Believe whatever you want.

Whenever this topic comes up, I always think of the video I saw about Koko the Gorilla.

Koko was taught sign language, and appears to be able to communicate effectively, at least with her trainer. There are some videos of Koko signing here.

The most convincing part in the video I saw was when Koko was put through (essentially) a video dating session. Koko had voiced interest in wanting a baby. Her trainer played videotape of different Gorilla's she could mate with, and she would sign that she liked particular males, and even turned the tv off on one, signing that it was unattractive. Also, a co-werker had left for some time, and came back very pregnant. When Koko first saw her, she signed "baby" to say that she noticed she was pregnant.

If you are interested in this topic, I would highly recommend watching the movie about Koko, as it convinced me. (not sure where exactly to find it though).

Whenever this topic comes up, I always think of the video I saw about Koko the Gorilla.

Koko was taught sign language, and appears to be able to communicate effectively, at least with her trainer. There are some videos of Koko signing here.

The most convincing part in the video I saw was when Koko was put through (essentially) a video dating session. Koko had voiced interest in wanting a baby. Her trainer played videotape of different Gorilla's she could mate with, and she would sign that she liked particular males, and even turned the tv off on one, signing that it was unattractive. Also, a co-werker had left for some time, and came back very pregnant. When Koko first saw her, she signed "baby" to say that she noticed she was pregnant.

If you are interested in this topic, I would highly recommend watching the movie about Koko, as it convinced me. (not sure where exactly to find it though).

Though there are animals that can learn very basic linguistic abilities, though they are able to do many things that *look* like language, no chimpanzee, gorilla, or other (dolphins, etc) has ever been shown to actually use language.

I'm not sure which definition of language you're using -- spoken communication or communicating ideas and concepts through any means -- but Koko the gorilla is just one example of animals other than humans using language. You can easily find more by searching the Web.

This seems more impressive.
koko.org

We all know Bubbles was the mastermind behind the recent Jackson family assaults on our children and our public decency.

And you know that gorilla that uses sign-language? Well, when the researcher tells you Koko loves you, Koko is really outlining the Monkey Master Plan to overthrow humanity.

No wonder Heston joined the NRA...Those damn dirty apes...

Transmitted Behavior Patterns: Koko and Michael> the gorillas learning sign language is a fine example of animals learning.

Arts: the Bowerbird will Decorate it's nest, actively arranging objects in a way that suits his aesthetic.
Koko and Michael the gorillas are also known for their paintings.

Beliefs? This one is Tricky. I'll leave it up to someone else to tackle this for now. Although animals showing signs of mourning (evidence shown under institutions) forms a good basis for beliefs.

Institutions? Such as social hierarchy. That is found all over in nature... wolf packs, bee/termite hives...
And the "human" institution of mourning the dead? Let's see... koko again. And Elephants mourning their dead is a well documented phenomenon.

Transmitted Behavior Patterns: Koko and Michael> the gorillas learning sign language is a fine example of animals learning.

Arts: the Bowerbird will Decorate it's nest, actively arranging objects in a way that suits his aesthetic.
Koko and Michael the gorillas are also known for their paintings.

Beliefs? This one is Tricky. I'll leave it up to someone else to tackle this for now. Although animals showing signs of mourning (evidence shown under institutions) forms a good basis for beliefs.

Institutions? Such as social hierarchy. That is found all over in nature... wolf packs, bee/termite hives...
And the "human" institution of mourning the dead? Let's see... koko again. And Elephants mourning their dead is a well documented phenomenon.

Transmitted Behavior Patterns: Koko and Michael> the gorillas learning sign language is a fine example of animals learning.

Arts: the Bowerbird will Decorate it's nest, actively arranging objects in a way that suits his aesthetic.
Koko and Michael the gorillas are also known for their paintings.

Beliefs? This one is Tricky. I'll leave it up to someone else to tackle this for now. Although animals showing signs of mourning (evidence shown under institutions) forms a good basis for beliefs.

Institutions? Such as social hierarchy. That is found all over in nature... wolf packs, bee/termite hives...
And the "human" institution of mourning the dead? Let's see... koko again. And Elephants mourning their dead is a well documented phenomenon.

This widespread claim is not fully accepted by the scientific community. Cecil Adams notes at http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030328.html that those who work with the animals are receptive to the idea, but linguists dismiss it as nonsense.

I've read some of these so-called "conversations", and none of them even begins to approach the level of a child at 30 months. At 30 months my kids were all capable of completely innovative sentence structure and word formation ("allbody hug", "everystuff", "may you pick me up please?").

Go read the discussion at http://www.koko.org/world/talk_aol.html and then visit a daycare center for an afternoon. Tell me if you honestly believe that Koko "talks" in anything even approaching the level of a child at 2 1/2.

The claimed conversations that Koko engages in remind me of nothing so much as "facilitated communication", a delusion that spread through the psychiatric community, sucking down millions of dollars and wrecking people's lives with phony claims of sexual abuse -- claims supposedly made by autistic children whose random motions were interpreted as communication. Go visit http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/t ranscripts/1202.html and see if that doesn't look suspiciously like the conversations that Koko is supposedly having.

They should try him with sign language like Koko.

Some have compared AllTheWeb's results to those of Google.

Chimps can drive!

And use a computer!

And even go to the Moon --or at least get pretty high!

Hey man, Koko makes art too.

...then I'd think about moving them onto the same level with us.

Luckily, it's not up to you.

> But I can tell you what's most special. Art. As soon as a chimp can draw a picture of their house, or of their parents or of anything else; then I'd think about moving them onto the same level with us. This is the clearest place where we see that humans differ from animals by type, not just degree. A human doesn't carve a sculpture well and a chimp does it badly. A human does it well and a chimp can't do it at all. This ability to imagine, mentally conceive and create is the genesis of all that makes humans unique.

> Art is the signature of man.

Check out Koko's paintings. I'm especially fond of the bird.

But Koko's a gorilla rather than a mere chimp...

I suggest they skip the mice and put put the gene in a gorilla. We've already seen they can learn sign language. I'm sure koko would love to have a baby that can speak.

-

Koko can already talk. She was taught sign language, and has a vocabulary of over 1000 signs, and can understand over 2000 spoken engligh words. Which is far more than many posters on slashdot.

Koko can already talk. She was taught sign language, and has a vocabulary of over 1000 signs, and can understand over 2000 spoken engligh words. Which is far more than many posters on slashdot.

This gene:

may have played a central role in the development of modern humans' ability to speak
could have given them a critical advantage
may at least partly explain why humans can speak and animals cannot

The /. headline is misleading. It is suspected that this mutation in the FOXP2 gene is responsible for language development and not necessarily speech. Some birds can "speak" but they do not have language abilities.

The confusing part to me is the fact that gorillas obviously have language ability, as seen in Koko, a gorilla that is able sign. So the mutation in this gene does not determine whether a species has the capacity for language or not, perhaps it only determines the proficiency in language.

you said you'd show how human interaction affects any lifeform I asked
You must have missread my post. I went back and got it exactly:
&GT If you can give me all the current species functions without humans, I'll give you the you the the entwined function. :) I claim the difference is relatively trivial. (Emphasis added) My point was that the first problem is infinitely large(as specified in last paragraph below), and would imply the ability to solve the second problem.

&gt I'll dig up a gorilla to debate the point with you :)
Please
Okey, here. I dug up the gorilla, but it's up to you to learn sign language and arrange an interview :)

That would depend is you define evolution as only genetic evolution
I think we are discussing 4b:
a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
Other meanings are valid, but I think mixing them will only will increase confusion.

On that note, we might make progress if we try to define what we are talking about. I think (feel free to dissagree) it started with my statement "The rules of evolution apply until we start choosing our own DNA." But what rules are we talking about? I'll take a stab at it and you point out where you dissagree or what rule doesn't apply to humans? It should clarify my position and assumptions.

1) Individual starts with fertilization (or division) and consists of that cell and anything it consumes and integrates.
2) Enviornment is everything outside the individual.
3) Genes/nature determines potential and inclinations, and is present in the individual from the start.
4) Experience/nurture is any interaction between individual and envionment beyond the control of the individual. It determines possibilities and influences.
5) Behavior is any interaction between individual and envionment controled/initiated by the individual.
6) Behavior is determined by Nature+Nurture a.k.a. Genes+Experience.
7) Behavior and experience are a tightly bound feedback loop.
8) The sole criteria in evolution is weather or not the indiviual's genes perpetuate into the future.
9) Fitness is equated (cause/effect ambigous) with interactions resulting in the individual's genes sucessfully propagating into the future.

As far as a "fitness function", it would necessarily be composed of 2 parts - the individual and the enviornment. By definitions above the second part is larger and makes it pretty much insoluable in nature, except in the past tense.

Take a peek at Koko the Gorilla.. It certainly sounds like she is using words in an original manner that would imply she understands concepts behind the words.