Alright, so I'm fucking confused.There's an argument I sometimes come across when it comes to animal-to-human communication and it goes something like this:>they don't really know or understand what they're communicating. They're just going though the motions to get what they want.So if I understand correctly, you're telling me Koko didn't know the combination of hand movements signifying "I want food" means "I want food." He just did it whenever he wanted food because people would give him food when he did it?Am I taking crazy pills or something? They're literally describing communication and language comprehension. He learned a way to signal he wants something and used that signal whenever he wanted the thing. >I'm not stealing. I'm just taking shit that's not mine.>I'm not eating. I'm just grinding food with my teeth and swallowing it.>I'm not raping. I'm just having sex with someone who doesn't want it.That's what this argument sounds like to me. Am I misding something here?
>>17019978you'd be surprised what animals can be trained to do using just food and reinforcement.
>>17019978>Am I misding something here?Yes. You're missing just about everything. A child doesn't understand complex morality when you tell it something is wrong. It only understands the pattern that if it continues, it'll be beaten. Koko doesn't know what the words "I want foods" means.
>>17019978Can Koko design blueprints for skyscrapers? If not tabula rasa is false
>>17019983I get that. But that's not really the point here.Koko learned, through conditioning, that [sign A] results in [thing A]. So when Koko wanted [thing A], she performed [sign A] hoping to get [thing A]. She's literally communicating her desires to someone who would be able to give it to her using language as a mediator.>>17019986Koko doesn't know what the words "I want food" means but she just used them to indicate her desire for food? I feel like you guys are attributing way too much depth to the concept of meaning and communication. Koko obviously knew what those hand signs mean given she'd reliably use them to indicate her desires. Even if she didn't have some deep internal monolog about it she definitionally understood the intent she was broadcasting with those signs.
>>17019978>and similar cases
>>17019991That's communication but not language. Koko never built more complex statements out of the individual signs.
>>17019978koko is evidence that higher primates like gorillas have incredibly rich and complex emotional lives. She adopted a cat for fucks' sake, and there are videos of her cradling it and using only the lightest touch with that cat. She cried when they showed her its dead body after it got hit by a car. Many animals can grasp emotional concepts like grief, suffering, compassion, love, etclanguage ability is something completely different, the closest thing we've found is dolphins, who have signature whistles indicating their names
>>17019978It's a chinese room type of deal. The gorilla doesn't understand the communication on a level deeper than I do X and then Y happens, it doesn't even have to be language or sign you can teach the same trick with a button or expression or series of dance moves. In the literal sense that's of course communication but it's not understanding. For instance I could go into China and learn a quick phrase that lets me order pizza trough a phone, me hungry -> me do X -> food magically appears but in that scenario I do not speak Chinese, I just go trough motions that work most of the time. I can't for instance diagnose a problem if the ping pong on the other end says ching chong to me nor could I express myself if the food was not what I ordered for instance. Trained animals like this can't similarly use their "language" dynamically.You can take the same line of thought to the extreme, does your phone "understand language" and knows "how to communicate" when it beeps about low battery. It wants to be plugged in, it beeps and you plug it in. It's the same thing. I would argue that your phone doesn't understand what it's doing when it beeps but perhaps you disagree and that's an allowed position to take, you just have to be aware of what each position implies. Things like this are a spectrum which is why word choice matters. Proper understanding in communication and language requires at least I know you know I know and you know I know you know type of scenario and trained animals don't reach that level.
>>17020028>Koko never built more complex statements out of the individual signs.She never got a solid grasp of syntax and grammar. But that takes years for most human children.What she could do is attach basic verbs like "want" with nouns to indicate intentions. I agree the Koko story was 90% marketing and her communication skills were overblown. Most of the mote complex ideas she reportedly communicated were the selective interpretation of the researchers.But Koko was using language, albiet not "properly." The argument just doesn't make any sense.
>>17020040>She never got a solid grasp of syntax and grammar. But that takes years for most human children.Children go from saying words to saying phrases to saying simple sentences within about a year.
>>17020034does this mean that chimps who tear their owners' faces off have been building a deep-seated grudge for many years and just hiding it? Or maybe after enough time using his arms and exploring that environment, he realizes he can do harm to the entity they're mad at?
>>17020034do you really think Koko cried when they told her Robin Williams died?
>>17020048And Koko did say simple sentences. As I said it was the grammar and syntax she struggled with but there were a handful of comprehensible sentences she could form.
>>17020057No, koko didn't say any sentences. Gorillas lack the vocal chords to produce human sounds.
>>17020057yeah like Koko really fuckin said>Fix Earth. Help Earth. Hurry
>>17020062The climate "speech" was a shameless marketing stunt. That doesn't change the actual point.
>>17020066What sentences did koko say?
>>17020066That wasn't a marketing stunt, nobody was selling anything. It was a propaganda stunt, like Koko has always been.
>>17020068I concede that point. I took a Wikipedia blurb at face value and the source it cited didn't really say what it claimed.>>17020076Patterson was using Koko to raise funds. Her whole research venture went under and she had to sell off a bunch of chimps for animal testing (which is morbidly hilarious). So by "marketing" I mean Koko was a fundraising prop for the most part.
>>17020034here's the footage of koko "crying"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQCOHUXmEZg
