Sentient Gorillas?

[Farsight one]

I figured the debate board could use a change.

So, check out this article on Koko the gorilla: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_%28gorilla%29"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_%28gorilla%29[/url]
and this article on Koko's pet cat: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Ball"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Ball[/url]

I find them both extremely fascinating due to the implication of a basic level of sentience. What do you think? Does this cross the line into sentience? Should an animal such as this be given certain rights? Do you think that God might/would start giving such creatures eternal souls?

P.S. - I know wikipedia is not usually the best source, but I've read about Koko before, and the stuff is accurate.

[Aloysius]

koko does not use grammer, and thus does not use language. it is frankly insulting to deaf people to claim that primates can use their language but not ours... they cannot. koko cannot speak American Sign Language; he can use nearly 600 signs to indicate to his studiers what he wants, but he cannot string them together into complex grammer like human users of American Sign Language can; and he certainly cannot contemplate their meaning. I would be giving him the benefit the doubt if I said that he simply used signs to indicate simple things in response to immediate instincts and desires. I do not even think it is that advanced, but that is the most it could be from what he does.

It's funny how the hours of video where he does not use signs is not seized upon; only the few times he does do something that indicates he understands the meaning of a sign.

[hoosieranna]

Dr. Patterson does a lot of "interpretation" when translating for Koko. I'm not a biologist and will not make claims about Koko's sentience or non-sentience. That said, Dr. Patterson's translations leave something to be desired. She's made herself powerful as the only one who does translate.

[Mercy me]

God made tehm what they are. Had He chosen to give them eternal souls He would have. Our rudimentary understandiing of the Koko's intelligence has no bearing on God. It can only serve to change our laws. Our laws are not God's laws.

[Farsight one]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1361990' date='Aug 18 2007, 03:59 PM']koko does not use grammer, and thus does not use language. it is frankly insulting to deaf people to claim that primates can use their language but not ours... they cannot. koko cannot speak American Sign Language; he can use nearly 600 signs to indicate to his studiers what he wants, but he cannot string them together into complex grammer like human users of American Sign Language can; and he certainly cannot contemplate their meaning. I would be giving him the benefit the doubt if I said that he simply used signs to indicate simple things in response to immediate instincts and desires. I do not even think it is that advanced, but that is the most it could be from what he does.

It's funny how the hours of video where he does not use signs is not seized upon; only the few times he does do something that indicates he understands the meaning of a sign.[/quote]
Grammar is used in writing only. There are no punctuation in speaking or signing. Are you suggesting that people who cannot write do not use language?

When Koko compliments his trainer without provocation, I'd say that he doesn't sign only for things he wants.

He can also "create" words from other words. An example is when Koko once complimented his trainer's ring. Koko does not have a sign for "ring, but does have a sing for "finger" and for "bracelet", and formed them together himself, without ever having seen those signs used in conjunction like that before. That is proof that he can contemplate their meaning.

It is obvious that you didn't even bother to read the articles.

[hoosieranna]

I think it would be cool if there were some way we could absolutely prove her sentience. I don't know that we ever will be able to beyond doubt, but it would be neat.

I did read the articles, and I've also read other stuff about Koko.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1362335' date='Aug 18 2007, 10:16 PM']Grammar is used in writing only. There are no punctuation in speaking or signing. Are you suggesting that people who cannot write do not use language?

When Koko compliments his trainer without provocation, I'd say that he doesn't sign only for things he wants.

He can also "create" words from other words. An example is when Koko once complimented his trainer's ring. Koko does not have a sign for "ring, but does have a sing for "finger" and for "bracelet", and formed them together himself, without ever having seen those signs used in conjunction like that before. That is proof that he can contemplate their meaning.

It is obvious that you didn't even bother to read the articles.[/quote]

I begin by saying I did not read the articles. However, just by knowing Catholic theology one can say without a doubt that animals, no matter how clever, can never have immortal souls. This would be akin to saying that humans could have evolved from a lower form. However, we know that however much the human body may have changed, humans were always humans. We have always had the dignity that we possess now. Souls cannot change in that way. Also, we were given stewardship over creation, we are the high point of it. Neither gorillas nor any other animal can obtain what we have. Anyway, that is the Catholic viewpoint and regardless of how many signs an animal knows, it can never be equated with human dignity.

[Aloysius]

I did read the articals, and we've talked about this phenomenon in my anthropology classes, particularly linguistics when we were listing the unique charecteristics of human language. I imagine we will talk much more about it in my primatology class this coming semester.

I use "grammer" in the linguistic sense, the word is not limited to the laws of orthography in any particular language, it has nothing to do with whether it is written down. Any good linguist will tell you that it is one of the unique marks of human language: that it uses complex grammer.

he makes symbols for things he wants. if he indeed spontaneously compliments his trainers, he is merely making interpersonal communication with her by signs he knows she responds to the way any primate would interact with their fellow primates with gestures. there is no evidence he understands their human meanings, only that it is a gesture of affection towards his trainer, so I stand by what I said:

[quote]I would be giving him the benefit the doubt if I said that he simply used signs to indicate simple things in response to immediate instincts and desires.[/quote]

I saw that about him forming words. This is interesting, I'll give it that. If he was truly describing a ring with those two symbols, it is quite interesting. But it is leaps and bounds away from even remotely resembling human language, which is grammatical by nature; and there remains no evidence that he can contemplate meaning in any way.

[abercius24]

[quote name='Nadezhda' post='1362011' date='Aug 18 2007, 04:28 PM']Dr. Patterson does a lot of "interpretation" when translating for Koko. I'm not a biologist and will not make claims about Koko's sentience or non-sentience. That said, Dr. Patterson's translations leave something to be desired. She's made herself powerful as the only one who does translate.[/quote]

This is very true. I did a study on the 3 apes as part of a Primate Behavior class in college. Dr. Patterson is very emotionally involved in the whole project, and she lets her enthusiasm betray her scientific judgement all too often. You should pick up some of the videos Stanford University has published and watch them with scientific eyes. You'll notice how hard it is to stay objective given that you end up wanting these apes to be what they are not, just as Dr. Patterson does. Don't get me wrong; Dr. Patterson is doing phemonenal work. I just don't think she is the right person to draw conclusions from the results of her work. Besides, she is making TONS of money off the whole project, which is another bias she should fight against more carefully. The communication is real. The abstract thinking they are trying to infer is not. Even "finger bracelet" is not truly representative of abstract thinking. Koko could easily have been saying she wanted the bracelet on her finger. That's not the same thing as what Dr. Patterson makes it out to be. You are right, though. If these animals attain sentience at some point, then we will have to assume that God has granted them a sentient soul, and our approach to THOSE WHO HAVE SENTIENCE would have to change. That would not change how we approach apes as a whole, though, since sentience is not natural to them by design.

Edited August 19, 2007 by abercius24

[Farsight one]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1362455' date='Aug 18 2007, 11:09 PM']If he was truly describing a ring with those two symbols, it is quite interesting.[/quote]If I remember correctly, the exact phrase signed was "nice finger bracelet" and Koko then pointed to the trainer's ring.

p.s. - what do you say to the apparent expression of emotion at the death of Koko's cat? He is recorded as signing the words "cry" and "sad", which implies an understanding of powerful emotions.

p.p.s. - I gotta say(in the nicest way possible), while Koko's trainer may be biased for Koko, some of you seem to be biased against the idea of sentience because you don't want it to be true.

[abercius24]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1362585' date='Aug 19 2007, 01:37 AM']If I remember correctly, the exact phrase signed was "nice finger bracelet" and Koko then pointed to the trainer's ring.

p.s. - what do you say to the apparent expression of emotion at the death of Koko's cat? He is recorded as signing the words "cry" and "sad", which implies an understanding of powerful emotions.

p.p.s. - I gotta say(in the nicest way possible), while Koko's trainer may be biased for Koko, some of you seem to be biased against the idea of sentience because you don't want it to be true.[/quote]

Still, that could mean "i want that nice bracelet on my finger." That's the problem with limited grammar, it can mean anything if its just two or three words. The interpreter has to put a lot of their own understanding into play, and that is not a very scientific way to understand something. Again, even if it did mean what Dr. Patterson says it means, that is not necessarily an expression of Koko's ability to grasp abstract thought, which is a quality exclusive to sentient beings.

Yes, I saw that video on Koko's cat (I think she called it "smoke" or some cute name like that). Yeah, there is no doubt she was very sad about the loss of her cat. Contrary to popular belief, though, the existence of emotions within animals is not a quality exclusive to sentient beings. The ability to love unconditionally is exclusive to sentient beings, but that is not so much of an emotion as it is a supernatural commitment to the care of others -- a quality God Himself has chosen to share with us.

Regarding us not wanting other creatures to be sentient, yes that is probably very true. There are some very difficult ramifications to our society's way of life that would have to occur if this came about. You have to remember that most limitations that are put on society do not just affect the rich and middle classes (who can probably tolerate such change more), but they make the lives of the poor that much more difficult. And unfortunately, those who are proponents of apes being classified as sentient beings seem to care more about the apes than about the poor human beings of the world. And that's a very disturbing situation. If apes were classified as sentient, then we would have to respect their rights to property ownership. Then we would have to punish people for infringing upon their rights -- probably poor farmers who are trying to survive by expanding their crops. Are you ready to make the lives of the poor more difficult because Koko likes somebody's ring? I think Dr. Patterson is. And I don't think she has the big picture in mind when pushing her agenda for these creatures. We need a balanced and fair approach here, which animal rights activists are unfortunately not willing to take yet.

By the way, Koko is a female. The other two are males, Michael and Ndume. Koko is the one who has shown an impressive ability to communicate with sign language. The other two have not progressed as far as she has.

Edited August 19, 2007 by abercius24

[Farsight one]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1362615' date='Aug 19 2007, 02:34 AM']Still, that could mean "i want that nice bracelet on my finger." That's the problem with limited grammar, it can mean anything if its just two or three words. The interpreter has to put a lot of their own understanding into play, and that is not a very scientific way to understand something. Again, even if it did mean what Dr. Patterson says it means, that is not necessarily an expression of Koko's ability to grasp abstract thought, which is a quality exclusive to sentient beings.[/quote]But the implication of the ability to grasp abstract thought doesn't come from Koko's true intent. Psychologically, it comes from her ability to put two unrelated words together to accurately describe something.

[quote]Yes, I saw that video on Koko's cat (I think she called it "smoke" or some cute name like that). Yeah, there is no doubt she was very sad about the loss of her cat. Contrary to popular belief, though, the existence of emotions within animals is not a quality exclusive to sentient beings. The ability to love unconditionally is exclusive to sentient beings, but that is not so much of an emotion as it is a supernatural commitment to the care of others -- a quality God Himself has chosen to share with us.[/quote]The point was that it obviously felt sad, and knew to use the sign for sad. The only ways that she could know to use that particular sign is either A. - actual comprehension of the word, or B. - seeing her trainer use the word while outwardly expressing the same emotions that Koko did. If it is B, then it still implies understanding of complex concepts, just not the same ones. It would imply that Koko can "convert" human emotional expression into gorilla emotional expression.

[quote]You have to remember that most limitations that are put on society do not just affect the rich and middle classes (who can probably tolerate such change more), but they make the lives of the poor that much more difficult. And unfortunately, those who are proponents of apes being classified as sentient beings seem to care more about the apes than about the poor human beings of the world. And that's a very disturbing situation. If apes were classified as sentient, then we would have to respect their rights to property ownership. Then we would have to punish people for infringing upon their rights -- probably poor farmers who are trying to survive by expanding their crops.[/quote]This is a dangerous mentality. Honestly, I see a correlation between this manner of thinking and the way some people decided that blacks weren't deserving of the same rights. It's almost placing the personal desire of one over the life of another.

[quote]By the way, Koko is a female. The other two are males, Michael and Ndume. Koko is the one who has shown an impressive ability to communicate with sign language. The other two have not progressed as far as she has.[/quote]*sigh* I always seem to get genders wrong when referring to animals...even when I already know the gender...

[hoosieranna]

Not an intentional hijack, but how is the difference (if any) between sapience and sentience being defined?

[abercius24]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1362637' date='Aug 19 2007, 03:21 AM']But the implication of the ability to grasp abstract thought doesn't come from Koko's true intent. Psychologically, it comes from her ability to put two unrelated words together to accurately describe something.

The point was that it obviously felt sad, and knew to use the sign for sad. The only ways that she could know to use that particular sign is either A. - actual comprehension of the word, or B. - seeing her trainer use the word while outwardly expressing the same emotions that Koko did. If it is B, then it still implies understanding of complex concepts, just not the same ones. It would imply that Koko can "convert" human emotional expression into gorilla emotional expression.

This is a dangerous mentality. Honestly, I see a correlation between this manner of thinking and the way some people decided that blacks weren't deserving of the same rights. It's almost placing the personal desire of one over the life of another.

*sigh* I always seem to get genders wrong when referring to animals...even when I already know the gender...[/quote]

Wow, that went a bit far for me. We are talking about animals "hypothetically" having sentient qualities. This has yet to be proven in Dr. Patterson's three gorillas, let alone the rest of the gorilla population. Blacks on the other hand have always been recognized as sentient beings because they are no less sentient than you and I. The slave owners simply denied that reality out of selfish convenience. Nobody is denying any proven reality as far as gorillas are concerned. Furthermore, rich people owned slaves, not poor people. I was speaking in the defense of the poor. Wow, I really can't describe the icky feeling I have right now trying to explain to you why its wrong to compare blacks to gorillas. That's just not right. I appreciate your zeal, but you gotta be more careful with your analogies.

Edited August 19, 2007 by abercius24

[Jaime]

[quote]The ability to love unconditionally is exclusive to sentient beings, but that is not so much of an emotion as it is a supernatural commitment to the care of others -- a quality God Himself has chosen to share with us.[/quote]

I might agree with you on this one abstractly. But when my Australian Shepherd gives me a kiss as he heads off for a nap, my agreement goes out the window. I like thinking he loves me unconditionally.