4 ms·
I think its rather binary. Koko could either form complex thoughts into rudimentary sign language or she could not and was simply mimicking what her trainers ex
by philipodonnell 8y ago
I think its rather binary. Koko could either form complex thoughts into rudimentary sign language or she could not and was simply mimicking what her trainers expected of her in a Pavlovian way.
You and I may have different opinions of Koko based on our differing experiences and it is right and fair that we hold those opinions, and we may always be faced with this uncertainty, but the "truth" whatever it may be, is probably not somewhere in the middle. :-)
- drb91 8y agoWhat makes you think that language is binary? That strikes me as absurdly unlikely.
- arcticfox 8y agoEither Koko could communicate complex thoughts, or she was just spamming nonsense and the trainers are deceiving us. That's the binary part. Surely a lot of what she signed was garbage, and surely she could communicate some of the simplest things regardless (like a dog can). But if she legitimately communicated even one complex thought with signs, that's a binary difference from the rest of the animal kingdom.
- JackFr 8y ago> Either Koko could communicate complex thoughts, or she was just spamming nonsense and the trainers are deceiving us. That's the binary part. That's a false dilemma. "Either Koko could communicate complex thoughts, or she could not." That is a binary choice. And even that is contingent on precise definitions of complex, communicate and thought.
- drb91 8y ago> Either Koko could communicate complex thoughts, or she was just spamming nonsense and the trainers are deceiving us. If there is a worldview where it makes sense to structure thinking of communication as a dichotomy between "complex and nonsense", I cannot see it.