3 ms·

The Person in the Ape

30 points by Petiver 9y ago

ape4 9y ago
I have ape in my userid.
- Terr_ 9y ago
  Hmm, and you can't really object with "I am not a number" either.
yters 9y ago
How much of human like attributes are true similarities between apes and humans, and how much is projection? It is hard to tell, as we have a great tendency to project our internal experiences on somewhat similar external forms. E.g. kids thinking of dolls as real people, à la Calvin and Hobbes.
- psyc 9y ago
  This tends to be the default objection in every discussion of the inner experience of non-humans. If a person has a mind to second guess interpretations of animal behavior as anthropomorphicizing, I can’t imagine what would satisfy that doubt. But I also don’t see what privileges the “it’s projection” stance over “they’re similar to us.”
  - yters 9y ago
    It's a hazy line, but there are clear examples. E.g. robots at Disneyland are projections, other human beings are similar. It appears to be anthropomorphizing when, for example, an ape learns to associate buttons with spoken words is considered to be "understanding" human language.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
> He got the first few wrong. “Kanzi, you got to listen, bud!” said Jared Taglialatela, one of the research directors. “Sometimes we can tell when he’s not really paying attention.” “Balloon!” the computer said. Kanzi pressed a red symbol that looked like an umbrella missing its handle. Two triumphant tones followed. “Gorilla!” Kanzi pressed on a yellow circle with a long, curling tail. Correct. “Cereal.” Right again. So he got a few wrong, but that was due to just not paying attention. Then he got 2 in a row correct and that was due to intelligence? I think a lot of the ape intelligence research is very biased by the fact that the researcher wants a certain outcome. Animals can be very good at reading non-verbal clues. These trials have to be double blind, or else the ape may be able to pick up the slight frown or smile on the face of the tester as he is about to push a certain button. In addition, humans are very good at seeing patterns where there is none, and a pattern of randomness does not look like what our intuition tells us. The communication of these non-human primates may be more the handler communicating than the primate itself.

30 points by Petiver 9y ago

ape4 9y ago

I have ape in my userid.

Terr_ 9y ago
Hmm, and you can't really object with "I am not a number" either.

yters 9y ago

How much of human like attributes are true similarities between apes and humans, and how much is projection? It is hard to tell, as we have a great tendency to project our internal experiences on somewhat similar external forms. E.g. kids thinking of dolls as real people, à la Calvin and Hobbes.

psyc 9y ago
This tends to be the default objection in every discussion of the inner experience of non-humans. If a person has a mind to second guess interpretations of animal behavior as anthropomorphicizing, I can’t imagine what would satisfy that doubt. But I also don’t see what privileges the “it’s projection” stance over “they’re similar to us.”
- yters 9y ago
  It's a hazy line, but there are clear examples. E.g. robots at Disneyland are projections, other human beings are similar. It appears to be anthropomorphizing when, for example, an ape learns to associate buttons with spoken words is considered to be "understanding" human language.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago

> He got the first few wrong. “Kanzi, you got to listen, bud!” said Jared Taglialatela, one of the research directors. “Sometimes we can tell when he’s not really paying attention.” “Balloon!” the computer said. Kanzi pressed a red symbol that looked like an umbrella missing its handle. Two triumphant tones followed. “Gorilla!” Kanzi pressed on a yellow circle with a long, curling tail. Correct. “Cereal.” Right again. So he got a few wrong, but that was due to just not paying attention. Then he got 2 in a row correct and that was due to intelligence? I think a lot of the ape intelligence research is very biased by the fact that the researcher wants a certain outcome. Animals can be very good at reading non-verbal clues. These trials have to be double blind, or else the ape may be able to pick up the slight frown or smile on the face of the tester as he is about to push a certain button. In addition, humans are very good at seeing patterns where there is none, and a pattern of randomness does not look like what our intuition tells us. The communication of these non-human primates may be more the handler communicating than the primate itself.