5 ms·

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.
        srean 8y ago
        You are proving by extrapolation. That's no good when we want to use it to gauge whether animals have language. That line of argument will work only for humans. I used Sentinelese just as an example to bring out the fact that we would jump to the conclusion that they have a language just because they are human. Prove to me that Sentinelese have language without extrapolating. That is prove it without using "all humans have language. Sentinelese are human. Therefore Sentinelese have language". Nothing wrong with that line of reasoning, but its limited in scope. I am asking for specification of a scientific experiment that can be used to check with acceptable false positives and false negatives whether someone/something has a language that can work beyond the human species. From your tone of authority it should be a piece of cake for you.

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.
        srean 8y ago
        You are proving by extrapolation. That's no good when we want to use it to gauge whether animals have language. That line of argument will work only for humans. I used Sentinelese just as an example to bring out the fact that we would jump to the conclusion that they have a language just because they are human. Prove to me that Sentinelese have language without extrapolating. That is prove it without using "all humans have language. Sentinelese are human. Therefore Sentinelese have language". Nothing wrong with that line of reasoning, but its limited in scope. I am asking for specification of a scientific experiment that can be used to check with acceptable false positives and false negatives whether someone/something has a language that can work beyond the human species. From your tone of authority it should be a piece of cake for you.