4 ms·

From the tagline: A recent study suggests they’ve got the voice but not the brains. As pointed out early in the article, I had always read it was the other way

From the tagline: A recent study suggests they’ve got the voice but not the brains. As pointed out early in the article, I had always read it was the other way around; their brains are advanced enough for rudimentary speech, but they lacked the vocal "hardware" that humans developed over time. The fact that they can learn to sign and show true understanding of a non-verbal language seems to contradict the article's gist.

gxx 8y ago
The article says that apes can't talk because of limitations in the part of the brain that controls the muscles of the mouth. Their ability to sign shows they do have the mental capacity to learn to communicate but with their hands. This may not extend to speech specifically for the reasons discussed in the article.
- jobigoud 8y ago
  > because of limitations in the part of the brain that controls the muscles of the mouth That makes it sound like it might be feasible to "fix" this. Maybe by implanting electrodes to stimulate these specific muscles and have the electrodes controlled by unrelated moto-neurons (or maybe capture the sign language and apply the correct stimulus). How far are we from this, are there any research team working on this? Is it ethical to do it? Is it ethical not to do it if we have the means?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
mannykannot 8y ago
The experiments on teaching sign language to chimpanzees actually suggests the opposite, because it shows that, even if you take the physical inability issue off the table, the chimpanzees do not make much use of their language skills - they do not enter into extended conversations with their handlers or one another. The evidence that they 'truly' (perhaps we should ask 'how deeply') understand language is controversial, especially given the recent evidence as to the extent that computer programs can give the superficial impression of having more understanding than a more thorough study of their abilities reveals. It is sometimes argued that we do not know enough about their motivations to make that call, but it is hard to imagine there being no situations in which they would find language useful, and even harder to imagine not being able to devise experimental situations in which a greater use of language would be the only way to achieve goals they manifestly desire. Ultimately, the argument about different motives is one about different mental capabilities, anyway. Personally, I think it probable that species other than Homo Sapiens made good use of language, but we seem to be the only one around at the moment.

gxx 8y ago

The article says that apes can't talk because of limitations in the part of the brain that controls the muscles of the mouth. Their ability to sign shows they do have the mental capacity to learn to communicate but with their hands. This may not extend to speech specifically for the reasons discussed in the article.

jobigoud 8y ago
> because of limitations in the part of the brain that controls the muscles of the mouth That makes it sound like it might be feasible to "fix" this. Maybe by implanting electrodes to stimulate these specific muscles and have the electrodes controlled by unrelated moto-neurons (or maybe capture the sign language and apply the correct stimulus). How far are we from this, are there any research team working on this? Is it ethical to do it? Is it ethical not to do it if we have the means?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

mannykannot 8y ago

The experiments on teaching sign language to chimpanzees actually suggests the opposite, because it shows that, even if you take the physical inability issue off the table, the chimpanzees do not make much use of their language skills - they do not enter into extended conversations with their handlers or one another. The evidence that they 'truly' (perhaps we should ask 'how deeply') understand language is controversial, especially given the recent evidence as to the extent that computer programs can give the superficial impression of having more understanding than a more thorough study of their abilities reveals. It is sometimes argued that we do not know enough about their motivations to make that call, but it is hard to imagine there being no situations in which they would find language useful, and even harder to imagine not being able to devise experimental situations in which a greater use of language would be the only way to achieve goals they manifestly desire. Ultimately, the argument about different motives is one about different mental capabilities, anyway. Personally, I think it probable that species other than Homo Sapiens made good use of language, but we seem to be the only one around at the moment.