5 ms·

I don't know how anyone who would watch the videos of Koko interacting with her human friend could think what you state. To me it's undeniable that Koko is inde

I don't know how anyone who would watch the videos of Koko interacting with her human friend could think what you state. To me it's undeniable that Koko is indeed using sign language to express herself.

yanslookup 8y ago
You are convincing yourself of what you want to see. Yes, Koko could reproduce various signs with her hands, but she did not have anything near language.
- coldtea 8y ago
  You seem to be convincing yourself just fine as well.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- srean 8y ago
  Can you prove or disprove that she did not have a language ?
  - smt88 8y ago
    I'd say the burden of proof is on those who claim she did have language. If you watch the videos, her interpreter takes very simple words, changes them, adds context, turns them into longer sentences, and basically forms Koko's language for her. I firmly believe Koko had complex and nuanced thoughts and desires, but I don't believe the interpreter was practicing science or interpreting honestly. There's evidence of this in the sexual-abuse allegations against the interpreter, where she admitted to changing "nipple" to "people" and explained it away as, "Nipple sounds like people!"
    - srean 8y ago
      I have no problems believing that her handler may have been charitable, but the question whether Koko had or did not have a language is far more difficult to answer than the typical authoritative claims make it sound. Does a 3 yr old human child have a language ? Do the Sentinelese [0] have a language. Are we applying the same standards to animal language/intelligence that we apply to humans ? Or is it that we rely heavily on the edge case that we share a common language, and selectively extrapolate. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese
      - foldr 8y ago
        >Does a 3 yr old human child have a language ? Yes. >Do the Sentinelese [0] have a language. Yes. (Why do you think they don't?)
        srean 8y ago
        > Why do you think they don't I don't. The points are (i) how do you prove that without invoking the 'humans have language" as an axiom or "I can talk to a human' privilege and (ii) does one use the same standards to prove or disprove that Koko had or did not have a language. You would need a scientific experiment capable of proving or disproving that the subject possesses a language but the inference procedure does not use the 'human' privilege. If you do need the privilege the experiment is incapable of proving a non-human has language even when they do.
        foldr 8y ago
        It's not an "axiom" that humans have language. We have overwhelming empirical evidence that all human societies have languages. You might as well doubt whether the Sentinelese fart. Koko did not have language because, inter alia,she could not form sentences with a hierarchical structure, something which all cognitively normal humans are capable of. So yes, judging by the exact same standards, we have language and she doesn't. The reason that you have the "privilege" of talking to humans and not to gorillas is simply that humans can talk (and/or sign) whereas gorillas can't. This is all entirely clear cut and uncontroversial, whatever a few silly newspaper articles might have said.
gugagore 8y ago
I'm curious if you know any sign languages. I think you have to have some proficiency with the French sign language family (e.g. ASL) (beyond beginner because beginners are very brittle to changes in accent and style) to judge Koko's abilities for yourself
Accacin 8y ago
You mean like when Koko would get the sign wrong about 5 times in a row and her owner would be like "Oh you're so silly" instead of admitting Koko had no idea what was going on? These videos are all highly edited to show what they want you to see.
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
The claim was that Koko could use ASL (American Sign Language). This is not even supported by the main researcher's, Francine Patterson's, own work: Even at the level of hand shapes, the degree of correspondence is questionable. An unspecified number of Koko’s hand shapes were reduced or modified from the citation forms in ASL because of the ape’s lack of manual dexterity and other limitations. From Patterson’s discussion (pp. 80-86), it appears that she modified Koko’s signs extensively, and that the resulting formational criteria for any given sign were quite loose. She states, “For example, water and rubber are simplified from the W and X hand configurations [in ASL], respectively, to a forefinger extended from a loose or compact fist” (p. 80). It is clear that Patterson tolerated variations in the form of an individual sign which in ASL would change its meaning entirely. Note that signs modified in this manner are not ASL signs. More importantly, her examples lead one to question how she could unequivocably determine the “meaning” of a particular hand shape. How, for example, did she determine whether Koko was signing water or rubber? Similarly, many of Koko’s signs were apparently formed by merely pointing (e.g., this, that, there, you, etc.). How were these signs differentiated? Patterson glossed one hand movement as the sign “comegimme.” Come, give, and me are three semantically distinct words; in ASL they are physically distinct signs. It appears in this case that Koko used a beckoning gesture which was compatible with both “come” and “gimme” interpretations. Patterson’s hedging on the interpretation of this behavior is inconsistent with her assignment of very specific meanings to other signs (e.g., pound, in the sense of striking something), and her fine distinctions between highly semantically related signs (e.g., candy and sweet). From: On the evidence for linguistic abilities in signing apes; Laura A.Petitto, Mark S.Seidenberg. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0093934X79900476 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0093934X79... The claims that Koko learned sign language seem to have been the result of very subjective interpretations of her behaviour.

yanslookup 8y ago

You are convincing yourself of what you want to see. Yes, Koko could reproduce various signs with her hands, but she did not have anything near language.

coldtea 8y ago
You seem to be convincing yourself just fine as well.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
srean 8y ago
Can you prove or disprove that she did not have a language ?
- smt88 8y ago
  I'd say the burden of proof is on those who claim she did have language. If you watch the videos, her interpreter takes very simple words, changes them, adds context, turns them into longer sentences, and basically forms Koko's language for her. I firmly believe Koko had complex and nuanced thoughts and desires, but I don't believe the interpreter was practicing science or interpreting honestly. There's evidence of this in the sexual-abuse allegations against the interpreter, where she admitted to changing "nipple" to "people" and explained it away as, "Nipple sounds like people!"
  - srean 8y ago
    I have no problems believing that her handler may have been charitable, but the question whether Koko had or did not have a language is far more difficult to answer than the typical authoritative claims make it sound. Does a 3 yr old human child have a language ? Do the Sentinelese [0] have a language. Are we applying the same standards to animal language/intelligence that we apply to humans ? Or is it that we rely heavily on the edge case that we share a common language, and selectively extrapolate. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese
    - foldr 8y ago
      >Does a 3 yr old human child have a language ? Yes. >Do the Sentinelese [0] have a language. Yes. (Why do you think they don't?)
      - srean 8y ago
        > Why do you think they don't I don't. The points are (i) how do you prove that without invoking the 'humans have language" as an axiom or "I can talk to a human' privilege and (ii) does one use the same standards to prove or disprove that Koko had or did not have a language. You would need a scientific experiment capable of proving or disproving that the subject possesses a language but the inference procedure does not use the 'human' privilege. If you do need the privilege the experiment is incapable of proving a non-human has language even when they do.
        foldr 8y ago
        It's not an "axiom" that humans have language. We have overwhelming empirical evidence that all human societies have languages. You might as well doubt whether the Sentinelese fart. Koko did not have language because, inter alia,she could not form sentences with a hierarchical structure, something which all cognitively normal humans are capable of. So yes, judging by the exact same standards, we have language and she doesn't. The reason that you have the "privilege" of talking to humans and not to gorillas is simply that humans can talk (and/or sign) whereas gorillas can't. This is all entirely clear cut and uncontroversial, whatever a few silly newspaper articles might have said.

gugagore 8y ago

I'm curious if you know any sign languages. I think you have to have some proficiency with the French sign language family (e.g. ASL) (beyond beginner because beginners are very brittle to changes in accent and style) to judge Koko's abilities for yourself

Accacin 8y ago

You mean like when Koko would get the sign wrong about 5 times in a row and her owner would be like "Oh you're so silly" instead of admitting Koko had no idea what was going on? These videos are all highly edited to show what they want you to see.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

The claim was that Koko could use ASL (American Sign Language). This is not even supported by the main researcher's, Francine Patterson's, own work: Even at the level of hand shapes, the degree of correspondence is questionable. An unspecified number of Koko’s hand shapes were reduced or modified from the citation forms in ASL because of the ape’s lack of manual dexterity and other limitations. From Patterson’s discussion (pp. 80-86), it appears that she modified Koko’s signs extensively, and that the resulting formational criteria for any given sign were quite loose. She states, “For example, water and rubber are simplified from the W and X hand configurations [in ASL], respectively, to a forefinger extended from a loose or compact fist” (p. 80). It is clear that Patterson tolerated variations in the form of an individual sign which in ASL would change its meaning entirely. Note that signs modified in this manner are not ASL signs. More importantly, her examples lead one to question how she could unequivocably determine the “meaning” of a particular hand shape. How, for example, did she determine whether Koko was signing water or rubber? Similarly, many of Koko’s signs were apparently formed by merely pointing (e.g., this, that, there, you, etc.). How were these signs differentiated? Patterson glossed one hand movement as the sign “comegimme.” Come, give, and me are three semantically distinct words; in ASL they are physically distinct signs. It appears in this case that Koko used a beckoning gesture which was compatible with both “come” and “gimme” interpretations. Patterson’s hedging on the interpretation of this behavior is inconsistent with her assignment of very specific meanings to other signs (e.g., pound, in the sense of striking something), and her fine distinctions between highly semantically related signs (e.g., candy and sweet). From: On the evidence for linguistic abilities in signing apes; Laura A.Petitto, Mark S.Seidenberg. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0093934X79900476 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0093934X79... The claims that Koko learned sign language seem to have been the result of very subjective interpretations of her behaviour.