
Apes may be closer to speaking than many scientists think - adamnemecek
http://news.wisc.edu/23941
======
jonnybgood
This Slate article is worth a read, concerning the science involving Koko.

"Critics also allege that the abilities of apes like Koko and Kanzi are
overstated by their loving caregivers. Readers with pets may recognize this
temptation; we can’t help but attribute intelligence to creatures we know so
well."

[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/08/koko_kanzi_and_ape_language_research_criticism_of_working_conditions_and.html)

~~~
Retra
We attribute intelligence to humans, most of which are barely able to parrot
what they hear from each other. I don't see why being generous to animals is
any kind of a problem...

I have a _very_ strong suspicion that our idea of intelligence basically boils
down to "can you communicate with it easily?"

~~~
salmonfamine
> We attribute intelligence to humans, most of which are barely able to parrot
> what they hear from each other. I don't see why being generous to animals is
> any kind of a problem...

Barely? Humans have an incredibly unique ability to constantly create new
sentences, infinitely many of which can express the same idea. That is a
unique facet of the human brain.

Being snide about humans doesn't make apes any more intelligent. They simply
don't have the same linguistic capabilities.

~~~
grecy
> _They simply don 't have the same linguistic capabilities_

Which has nothing to do with them being intelligent or not.

It would be awesome to see aliens land here with _blatantly_ superior
technology, but they have no linguistics at all. Finally everyone would stop
thinking you can't have intelligence without linguistics.

~~~
stan_rogers
That only makes sense if you conceive of language as primarily an instrument
of communication rather than of thought; that is, language is merely
communication turned up to eleven. What inclines you to believe that's the
case? That isn't to say that a "mechanism" for symbolic thought needs to
resemble _human_ language in any particular way, at least as far as
serialization goes.

~~~
panic
The entire concept of a "symbol" is a very human thing -- there are no natural
symbols outside the human mind (except maybe inside of a computer, a human
invention). Do you need to use symbols in order to organize matter into
"technology"?

Edit: it occurs to me that DNA/RNA are made of natural symbols, which is a
pretty good argument for symbols being important.

~~~
Scarblac
Bee dancing (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waggle_dance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waggle_dance)
) is a clear example of symbolism.

------
ohsnap
A lot of skepticism is in order with anything Koko. No skeptical scientists
have been allowed to 'communicate' with Koko. Thus only believers, people who
are willing to provide very generous interpretations of the ape's behavior are
allowed to work with her.

~~~
sandworm101
I think only a believer would get so physically close to such an animal. She
isn't a person, nor a pet. I can understand her keepers not wanting unfamiliar
people around if they might upset her. Or she, like humans, may not display
the same behavior around strangers.

~~~
ohsnap
The Gorilla Foundation has no problem granting access to celebrities (e.g.
Robin Williams) or the media. Critical behaviorists or linguists have had no
such luck in access. In the videos I have seen the trainer acts like a tarot
reader: Koko will make a bunch of signs/movements and then the trainer will
interpret for you what it means. So long as you want to believe it all makes
sense.

------
sandworm101
Someone thought that apes couldn't control their breathing well enough to
vocalize? Really? All mammals have pretty advanced control over their airways,
otherwise we would be constantly inhaling nasty things. Carnivores need
control to sniff (see wolves) and herbivores need to hold their breath to be
quiet enough to hear the wolves (see deer).

I'm about ready to say that all animal and human science from the 30s through
the 50s should be tossed. From all birds mating for life, belly-dragging
dinos, to apes that cannot hold their breath ... were they just making stuff
up?

~~~
grecy
_Science from the 30s through the 50s should be tossed... ... were they just
making stuff up?_

I've come to realize that science is always _wrong_ , when viewed with a long
enough lens. It does the best it can at the time - i.e. let's spray everyone
with DDT, or let's put lead into paint and gasoline, or let's introduce
species x to control species y then x becomes a problem, etc.

Then years later science figures out those were terrible ideas, but shockingly
everyone just says "NOW we know better, forget about before, trust us THIS
time".

Does anyone else not realize it's exactly the same thing, and ~50 years from
now science will know that lots of what we're doing today is a really bad
thing to be doing? In 2050 someone will say _" Science from the 1990's - 2020s
should be tossed, they were just making stuff up"_

~~~
snowwrestler
You're focused on science learning what science previously got wrong, but I
think there is a deeper conflict at work when it comes to animal capabilities.

Before science started correcting itself, it was correcting perceptions based
on religion and culture. For example, the germ theory of disease ran headlong
into the older idea (not based on science) that doctors couldn't have dirty
hands because they were gentlemen.

The belief that animals do not share capabilities with man arises from
culture, specifically Western Christian culture. God made man in his own image
and gave man dominion over the dumb beasts of the world. Man ate the fruit of
the tree of knowledge, which set him apart from animals.

This still dominates theoretical thinking of animal behavior. If scientists
went purely off of observations, most questions would have this answer: we
don't know yet. Instead observations are climbing uphill against preconceived
notions.

Studies of consciousness run into the same thing. The distinction between
brain and mind goes back to the body/soul distinction from thousands of years
of religion and culture. There is no evidence at all to suggest that minds
exist apart from brains. Yet the question of "where consciousness comes from"
is still asked seriously by people who think of themselves as serious
scientists.

~~~
pessimizer
Religion also affects the study of climate change. There are many evangelical
Protestants who believe that is blasphemous to imply that anything that humans
could do could change the weather in any way, because God created the weather
and runs it as He sees fit.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>evangelical Protestants who believe that is blasphemous to imply that
anything that humans could do could change the weather in any way //

As someone who you might fit in to the category "evangelical Protestant" I
find it hard to believe there are "many" relative to the whole set. Any
sources?

Cloud seeding is pretty widely known; most people seem to be convinced that
there is a human element to current climate change.

The concept of "stewardship of creation" is pretty widespread amongst
evangelical Christians, that God handed over the world in to our care and that
we've largely screwed it up. One of the largest Protestant communities, the
Church of England, for example have altered their investment policy to avoid
companies who are involved in activities that they see as contributing to
unwanted climate change. (eg [https://www.churchofengland.org/media-
centre/news/2015/07/ur...](https://www.churchofengland.org/media-
centre/news/2015/07/urgent-action-needed-on-climate-change-urges-synod.aspx))

Often I hear that it's "loony USA evangelicals" but at least the USA National
Association of Evangelicals [which seems to be a large and influential body]
accepts some climate change has human origins and that we should act to reduce
our negative impact whilst simultaneously acting to aid the poor who are
disproportionally affected by current changes in climate (eg
[http://nae.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Loving-the-
Least-o...](http://nae.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Loving-the-Least-of-
These.pdf)).

------
rickdale
There was a monkey experiment called Project Nim with a documentary about. The
footage in that movie is amazing. They used to sit in smoke circles and pass
the joint to the chimpanzee. Ultimately the story turned sad when the funding
for the research was pulled and I know this is about apes, but I am just
saying animals are capable of much more than we think.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1814836/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1814836/)

~~~
ggreer
I found that movie fascinating, but not for the science value (of which there
was none). Above all else, two things amazed me:

1\. That people thought chimps could use complex language. If they have the
capability, why don't they use it in the wild? It'd be a huge advantage.

2\. That no human was killed by Nim. Everyone managed to emerge alive (though
not unscathed).

Gwern's review of Project Nim echoes my sentiments:
[http://www.gwern.net/newsletter/2015/03#filmtv](http://www.gwern.net/newsletter/2015/03#filmtv)

~~~
Someone
They may not have used it because being taught something is easier than
inventing it. A famous example: the knowledge of opening milk bottles wasn't
independently discovered by all blue tits, but it spread in the population
([http://www.britishbirdlovers.co.uk/articles/blue-tits-and-
mi...](http://www.britishbirdlovers.co.uk/articles/blue-tits-and-milk-bottle-
tops),
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/03766357940...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037663579400051H)),
presumably because one smart bird invented it, and others copied him.

Also, even if a single smart chimp discovered complex language on its own,
what good would it do? (S)he would also have to know another smarter-than-
average chimp who was smart enough to pick it up, and then, the knowledge
would have to spread to a larger group fairly soon in order to survive.

Chimps could be relatively close to the brink of learning complex language,
needing only a relatively small push to get over it.

~~~
mef
Your point actually reinforces ggreer's -- if a species is capable of an
advantageous behaviour like complex language, _eventually_ one of the species
will figure out how to use it to gain an advantage, like the birds you refer
to.

The idea that apes have this ability but none ever figured out how to use it
in order to gain an advantage is akin to the idea that mice could fly to
escape predators but just never got the "small push" to figure it out.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
In a similar vein, if (just throwing this out there off the top of my head)
the last common ancestor of apes and humans was 4 million years ago, why
haven't apes evolved speech and tool making in those 4 million years?

~~~
sliverstorm
Different habitats lead to different selective pressures.

If the last common ancestor of apes and humans was 4 million years ago, why
haven't apes lost all their body hair and developed the ability to run on hind
legs?

Because they don't live on the open Savannah, of course.

Speech & advanced tool making is more complicated, but we can surmise similar
ideas apply.

For example, maybe human pack endurance hunting in the Savannah increased the
value of social structure and sophisticated communication.

FWIW, apes do use simple tools.

------
nogridbag
Interesting... I was just browsing Koko's wikipedia page and assumed someone
had vandalized the "Life" section [1].

"Koko enjoys seeing human nipples and will request her female caregivers to
show them to her on occasion."

But after some googling it appears to be true..

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)#Life](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_\(gorilla\)#Life)

------
AndrewKemendo
Just assuming for a moment that this capability increases enough for an ape to
say something that humans would find "profound", I wonder if humans would give
more weight to what an Ape had to say than a fellow human.

~~~
omouse
"He's a gorilla, of course he knows what he's doing! Just sell off all our
assets, I'm sure nothing will go wrong!"

~~~
AndrewKemendo
You joke but people took this seriously:

[http://www.ibtimes.com/octopus-made-better-world-cup-
predict...](http://www.ibtimes.com/octopus-made-better-world-cup-predictions-
goldman-sachs-photos-1613882)

------
juliann
Wow, really impressed when watching those videos, wasn't expecting such human
looking movements and gestures when blowing his nose.

------
freyr
Some apes have already learned to speak. We call them humans.

------
jonah
The embedded videos show some good mimicry but not much understanding.

    
    
      Handler: How about coughing?
      Ape: Sneezes.
      Handler: That was good!
    
      Handler: Koko, can you sneeze?
      Ape: Blows Nose.
      Handler: ...
    

Not impressed.

Just because something (ape breath control) looks like something else (speech
prerequisites), doesn't mean theyre the same thing...

------
mortenjorck

      "She doesn't produce a pretty, periodic 
      sound when she performs these behaviors, 
      like we do when we speak," Perlman says. 
      "But she can control her larynx enough to 
      produce a controlled grunting sound."
    

If the innumerable worlds within the billions of galaxies in our universe are
indeed sprinkled with life, I can't help but feel my hypothesis reinforced
that we must be within the top 0.01% of evolutionarily-developed planets.
Gorillas themselves would have to be in the top 1%, maybe fish in the top 10%.

Of course, this doesn't discount the vaguely terrifying idea of a top 0.001%.

~~~
bweitzman
How are you coming up with these numbers? Humans, apes, and fish are all
equally evolutionarily developed considering that our species have been
evolving for the same amount of time (assuming we have a common ancestor).

~~~
mc808
I don't think the concept of "more" and "less" evolved is really valid in
general. Drop a human into the middle of the ocean and suddenly it will seem
"less evolved" than nearly every living thing for thousands of miles.

We could go with a purely information theoretic notion of genetic complexity,
but that's not ideal because genomes with a lot of random accumulated cruft
would seem more complex than they really are.

Maybe with the benefit of hindsight, we could say an organism was more evolved
if its lineage remained relatively stable over long periods of time or across
different environments. By that measure, it's still too soon to say whether
humans are more evolved than cyanobacteria or the crocodile, but at least we
have a chance.

~~~
bweitzman
Complexity, evolved-ness, and adaptability are three different things.

Evolved-ness refers to amount of time that something has been evolving.

Adaptability refers to the ability of an organism or a species to survive in a
new environment.

Complexity, like you said, more or less corresponds to genome size.

Rice is actually genetically more complex than humans are, so assuming humans
and rice have a common ancestor, we are equally evolved but not equally
complex. It is debatable whether or not rice is more adaptable than humans.

------
csours
Have Great Apes ever been domesticated?

~~~
nkoren
Sure. I see one in the mirror every morning.

~~~
csours
I think I failed the interview =(

------
maehwasu
related: [http://www.theonion.com/article/scientists-teach-sign-
langua...](http://www.theonion.com/article/scientists-teach-sign-language-to-
gorilla-suit-wea-34329)

------
sergimansilla
I read this first as "Apples". I was very confused.

------
known
Animals talk/communicate to each other; Is this news?

