And in it the author (who spent decades working with and teaching chimps) concludes that chimps have the intelligence to talk but not the vocal chords. They can understand humans talking (in the same way that a dog can understand verbal commands) but they cannot do much besides grunt or hoot back.
However when you change the conversation method to something else (such as sign languge) chimps can talk back exceedingly well. In the book mentioned above the author has video proof that the chimps can talk to humans (and each other) at the level of a two to four year old child.
The article suggests, based on some more-recent work, that primates can have "speech ready" anatomy. The article seems to be saying that both the intelligence for language and the anatomy for speech may be present, but not the necessary level of coordination between the two.
That kind of work was very poor methodologically and its results are best explained as the Clever Hans effect, as the animals generating random strings unconnected to a current context, or simply as over-zealous efforts to assign meaning to the animals' signing, by their handlers.
See for example this article regarding the work of Francine Patterson with Koko:
On the Evidence for Linguistic Abilities in Signing Apes
>> One of the major problems with Patterson's study is that it presents very little data. While several large corpora of the utterances of children have been published (e.g. Bloom, 1973), there is as yet no corpus of any ape's signing behavior. That is, Patterson fails to provide a substantial number of transcribed utterances. Rather, she relies upon individual examples to support her interpretations. In the absence of a corpus of utterances, however, these examples are impossible to interpret. One cannot determine whether they have the functions wich Patterson attributes to them, or whether they resulted from the ape acting as a "random sign generator" which happened to emit sequences that could be selectively chosen to illustrate particular points. This sampling problem vitiates Patterson's claim that certain combinations demonstrated that Koko possessed the ability to creatively combine signs into novel utterances. Those who assert that apes have shown linguistic abilities have invariably relied upon examples such as Washoe's signing water bird for duck. In the absence of a large corpus, however, these examples are subject to multiple interpretations. Patterson's claim that cookie rock was a creative description of a stale sweet roll loses much of its force if Koko also produced utterances such as cookie tickle, cookie hat, and toothbrush cookie in similar contexts. The largest corpus of utterances from any signing ape, that of Terrace, Pettito and Bever (1967a,b) shows that their subject, a chimpanzee named Nim Chimpsky, did in fact combine each vocabulary sign with a large number of other signs. Although each of the resulting combinations could be interpreted metaphorically, a simpler interpretation is that he merely combined signs randomly. The correct interpretation depends on other information--an accounting of the frequencies with which signs occurred in combination with one another, the contexts in which combinations occurred, the content of the teachers' signing--which Patterson fails to provide. Without this information, the importance of her examples cannot be ascertained.
>> Patterson's discussion of her cookie rock example provides some measure of this problem. She states, "Although Koko has produced uninterpretable strings (as do some children), most of her utterances are appropriate to the situation and some are strikingly apt" (p. 88). She then cites some "interpretable" examples, including cookie rock; the "uninterpretable" strings are not described. It is the case that only "interpretable" sequences are ever documented in the reports on ape signing. Only by presenting an unedited corpus of responses, however, could Patterson's assertion be validated.
Note also that one of the two authors in the quoted paper is Laura A. Pettito, one of the researchers that worked with Nim Chimpsky.
> That kind of work was very poor methodologically and its results are best explained as the Clever Hans effect
I think you might be overreaching here! Roger Fouts was (and still is) an expert and I fear you may just be regurgitating information from a study that is nearly forty years old.
The book I mentioned earlier was written twenty years after the linked article and explicitly mentions the bias he experienced in an entire chapter alone. It counters and logically explains away a lot of the conclusions that they falsely arrived at. If I remember correctly one of the main reasons that studies in the 70s and 80s liked to play down the intelligence of chimps is that it allowed the "for profit" chimp research centers to continue operating. A lot of these studies were published and financed by people who would lose out if they had to provide better (and therefore more costly) conditions for their "dumb testing subjects".
As for the clever hans effect, Roger was extremely careful to not to selectively extract words and interpret them during his research. He even invited officials from the ASL institute to verify his findings first hand.
The clever hans effect also cannot explain away why chimps started signing to each other (when no humans were present and the chimps were being monitored by video) or why sometimes the chimps would sign to themselves (much in the same way that humans occasionally mumble to themselves).
I implore you (if you have the time) to read Roger's book. It really is an eye opener and very well written!
The tone of your comment is unpleasantly aggressive- I'm "regurgitating" information, you "implore" me to read a book, etc? Could you please keep the tone down, from now on? I will not continue this communication otherwise.
In any case, the article is old because the research it refers to is old and that research is old because the majority of interested scientists consider the question about great apes' language answered, and in the negative. A few holdouts, of course, will always refuse to give up their preferred theories. That doesn't mean they're right.
>> The clever hans effect also cannot explain away why chimps started signing to each other (when no humans were present and the chimps were being monitored by video) or why sometimes the chimps would sign to themselves (much in the same way that humans occasionally mumble to themselves).
Sure, but there's nothing stopping the apes from signing to each other, or to themselves, at random, without the signing actually meaning anything.
The point of the article I cite is that there is no way to know that because of the shoddy methodology followed in most such experiments.
As to the Clever Hans effect, this is what Noam Chomsky has to say:
>> CHOMSKY: Interesting story about poor Nim. The experiment was carried out by a very serious experimental psychologist, Herbert Terrace. A convinced Skinnerian [student of Behaviorist, B.F Skinner], he expected that if an ape was brought up just like a human it would be a little human. He had some very fine assistants, including some excellent former students of ours, and others who went on to be leading figures in the field. The experimentation was done with meticulous care. There’s a book, called Nim, which describes it, with great enthusiasm, claiming at the end that it was a grand success and the ape is ready to go on to great things. Then comes the epilogue. When the experiment was over, a grad student working on a thesis did a frame-by-frame analysis of the training, and found that the ape was no dope. If he wanted a banana, he’d produce a sequence of irrelevant signs and throw in the sign for banana randomly, figuring that he’d brainwashed the experimenters sufficiently so that they’d think he was saying “give me a banana.” And he was able to pick out subtle motions by which the experimenters indicated what they’d hope he’d do. Final result? Exactly what any sane biologist would have assumed: zero.
Another commenter in the parent thread also posted a link to a video where Chomsky discusses the Clever Hans effect in the Nim Chimpsky research in more detail.
>> If I remember correctly one of the main reasons that studies in the 70s and 80s liked to play down the intelligence of chimps is that it allowed the "for profit" chimp research centers to continue operating. A lot of these studies were published and financed by people who would lose out if they had to provide better (and therefore more costly) conditions for their "dumb testing subjects".
Those are very strong allegations of scientific misconduct, which of course we're not going to resolve on HN. However, I note that the people who published great ape language studies would benefit even more financially if they had managed to show that great apes can learn sign language.
In fact, the amount of money one would imagine them making would positively dwarf any expenses to improve the conditions of their subjects.
I didn’t perceive the comment you replied to as aggressive or confrontational. I use implore very neutral manner, and interpret the comment as disagreeing with you, but without aggression. Given tone of voice is lost in text only communication, it’s often wise to adopt the principle of charity in Interpretation.
Of course I've made my mind up- and, I reckon, so must have you. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss our respective opinions. We'll both get something out of that- e.g. we may hear some new counter-point to our opinion that we haven't considered before.
Anyway, sorry you don't want to continue the conversation.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
Hindus believes apes did talk at some point, or atleast one species existed that did talk. They were called Vanara. They no longer exist but this literature might point to some species that are now extinct, no fossilised evidence though would be hard to guage from fossils.
Us Hindus also believe that one of those monkeys could fly, namely Hanuman. That doesn't mean it can be possible. A lot of Hindu mythology is pure myth. Do not even try to link it to science.
Supporting myth and superstition with pseudo-science has become popular these days in India, thanks to our PM and the rest of the ruling party indulging in such practice.
OMG, seriously, I am a Hindu and I don't believe apes did talk or we were flying around in pushpak vimanas. Anything that is described in mythology is mythology. Please enjoy reading it and read it to our kids, but tell them that it's a story. On the other hand if you want to do some solid work on bringing credibility to these mythical stuff mentioned in the stories, please do scientific research and try to back it with solid proof. Otherwise we will become a laughing stock in front of the scientific community.
p.s. There is a dark side version to the Vanara mythology, it was once told by my father and I have come to accept it as one possibility of how the name would have sticked. Here is one version: Vanara in sanskrit means Va-Nara? (question). It's like asking "Are you human"? So when Rama who was from north and when in excile came to contact with people in the south, he is said to have asked are you human? Va-Nara?
And don't forget all the gods then were Kings, which was so convenient isn't it? Rama was king but also is a god. Krishna is a king but also is a god, but oh wait Krishna is dark skinned, as he captured power from Kamsa and not of royal lineage, but in the story it was given a twist (even though he belonged to Yadav caste) that he was indeed of the royal lineage and of Brahmanical descent. Krishna wouldn't have minded that story himself.. So in all possibilities there were wars between two kingdoms (Sinhala and India) and the story is used to build the mythical story that we read now. Just enjoy reading it, but don't take it was written history or anything without solid backing.
p.p.s A comparable mythological story is Epic of Gilgamesh. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh). There are several elements in that story that is said to have inspired the Old Testament.
> Otherwise we will become a laughing stock in front of the scientific community
All peoples have mythology and legends. Very rarely does this create the expectation that those stories are fact. Religion in general being one of those major exceptions. And regular people believe all kinds of "unbelievable" stuff anyway. So I wouldn't worry too much about it as long as scientists don't start claiming (all?) mythology is science.
Greek mythology had a huge influence on many things in every field you can imagine but nobody really thinks it has more than maybe a grain of truth. Certainly not a basis for science.
From what I have heard Rama is not a god in the original ramayana by valmiki. He is only a maryada purshottam - a man of best dignity and character. He became a god several thousand years later.
It's also equally hard to trust give it's based on Hindu scripture, and the Wikipedia article itself states that they're considered mythical creatures.
Hmm. I am interested in this. Perhaps the modern forms have experienced enough predation that makes it difficult to follow this up. But we do such analysis often. Basically I would like to see if local ape populations continue to use our terms after a few isolated years.
So how is trusting authority working out for you so far?
It's a piece of the puzzle, these stories come from somewhere. The general idea is to use your brain to put the pieces together.
A very rich imagination? It's so easy to see something perfectly normal and imagine a whole new world around it. Even more so if at the time there is no "rational" explanation for it.
A three headed malformed dog? It must be the monster guarding the entrance to Hell.
Under the aegis of, Narendra "Ganesha is proof Hindus knew plastic surgery in vedic times" Modi, many self appointed spokesperson of what Hindu's believe in, have come out of the woodwork.
They are the western analogue of humans riding on flying dinosaurs. Its the same phenomena. Now, we have our own Ku Klux Klan -- the cow rakshak's who are on a murderous spree with an implicit promise from the government that they will be insulated from justice.
It seems around the world being unscientific and plain stupid is a great asset for winning democratic elections. We will be horrified if a well know professional speaks such rubbish but somehow okay with the facts that such people can handle countries with multi-trillion dollar economy
I used to find some comfort in the fact that Indian politicians were in some ways better than the types of Michelle Bachman. They knew enough not to flaunt their ignorance and knew when they were out of their depth. Apparently no more.
Those people saying the same things were always there. They just get more news time nowadays.
As long as the scientific progress is not hampered, I don't really care what the PM or some enthusiasts believe in. I think it's as harmless as people believing/not believing in God.
Huge difference. These are the decision makers of the country. These are the people who are going to decide which ideas to back, which institutes and projects to fund, what to turn a blind eye to.
As the famous advert goes -- there are many thing medicines cannot cure, for everything else there is cow piss. That's what will get funded.
Apparently the reasoning goes that there are a lot of vitamins and hormones in there. Last time I checked there is a lot in mine too. I wonder why dont they line up right here.
That would be tall task and full time work for a full group.
I am a single person with an unrelated day job. That said, here's a few:
Panchgavya project, coordinated by the Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi, internally approved 34 proposals for research into panchgavya ... to make cow urine capsules
"After its proposal to make floor cleaners using cow urine, the Uttar Pradesh government has decided to give a push to the use of cow urine in preparing medicines."
IIT Delhi is not a collection of extremist morons. I would much rather take somebody betting their career on something than the random opinion on the Internet.
Ayurveda has been an established practice for a long time. Somebody needs to bet their career on disproving it or else I will continue benefiting from it.
I don’t know why you bring up Jio Institute here.
I don’t know why you missed part of your own link where the scientist says “Scientists supporting the march say the need is to recognise the actual contributions made by ancient Indians, often whitewashed by the European school of science history, rooted in the Enlightenment period. However, this is getting lost in talk of interplanetary travel and cosmetic surgery during the Vedic ages. This had been publicly denounced by Indian Nobel laureate V Ramakrishnan Anne. He even refused to attend the Indian Science Congress last year.“
This is just storm in a tea cup. I don’t remember seeing any cutbacks on any of the scientific programs. In fact some of the long awaited research programs like the neutrino lab came up.
So again what exactly was important that was cut back?
> Panchgavya has a patent from the previous regime
Patent on what ? Let me leave this for you from the same article
"Vardhan, who was a member of Parliament from the Bharatiya Janata Party then, is now minister of science and technology. But in the years after the conference, the subject received no interest from the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance, which was in power till 2014. This changed when the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance came to power that year. And in November last year, Minister of State for Ayush Shripad Yesso Naik announced in the Lok Sabha that the government intended to undertake research and academic activities to promote the use of cow urine, especially its “anti-cancer and anti-infective” properties."
No IITD aren't morons but they sure no which way the wind blows and what research topics are favorite and which projects will have funds allocated at another projects expense.
Missed nothing from the quote you pasted. I agree with it.
Re Jio Institute, that's an example of an endorsement from the topmost level possible to an university that exists on paper.
If my examples dont convince you that those are mis-allocation of funds, continuing further is moot.
In case you have a change of tastes, just a reminder mine has vitamins and hormones too. Even the PM would be most cordially welcome.
I haven't done research, but one possible explanation I heard about cow urine (organic grass fed) is in helping balancing the stomach bacteria. We as modern humans have still not fully understood the effects and side effects of gut flora completely. Even recently gut bacteria is linked to heart diseases.(#1: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170711093012.h..., #2: http://sciencenordic.com/gut-bacteria-flora-linked-chronic-h...). So we definitely have a long way to go in understanding our own body, which our forefathers might have gotten a better understanding.
Cow urine is also prescribed as a drug by Ayurveda, which isn't an occult science or anything and have survived well into modern age. Several practitioners of Ayurveda used advanced surgical technologies, perhaps first in the world.
Nothing to do with politics. Everything to do with rationality. We need the likes of James Randi by the hordes here in India, especially when our own are getting bumped off frequently lately.
> I know you can link anything to a ideology
By the way I am not linking 'anything' tenuous, these are direct video quotes from the country's leadership -- the prime minister of India, and other ministers
That's not a Hindu belief, and is an overly modern reading of Hindu mythology.
Just like Hindu/Indo-European notions of asparas/wood-nymphs doesn't imply the existence of and rationalization of a tribe of forest women, this isn't really a belief among Hindus about a former state of monkeyhood.
Ancient people simply believed in literally supernatural/estoeric things - they weren't "secretly" technologically advanced with a strange vocabulary we now read as religious.
Many occult texts claim that the monkeys of today are a result of back crossing human DNA into monkey species long, long ago; and that they have been in regression ever since, turning less human with time.
I would find that unlikely considering how rarely cross-species reproduction is and we're not talking a different species, it's an entirely different family. Monkeys are largely not compatible enough to produce viable offspring, the last time that I am aware humans cross-bred with non-humans was with Neanderthals.
And that's not even mentioning the even remoter chance that the offspring is viable and can reproduce.
Laurency's The Philosopher's Stone is one I'm sure about, fairly certain I read the same thing in Blavatsky's Isis Unveiled. There are more but it's been a long time and I don't have the books available now.
Is it really that difficult to imagine? There are all sorts of traces and stories about more advanced civilizations before ours, and more advanced beings than us. As of talking monkeys, people with bird heads and feathers and so on.
I'm with Socrates, I don't know anything for sure about this world. What I do know is that the pieces we've been handed don't match up with my experience.
Some say that bonobo apes are layed back and less aggressive than chimps, but others say that in captivity they behave very differently than in the wild. Go figure ...
There is a stigma with the word race and in many places (i.e. Europe) we learn that there is only one Human race, and only one Human species, as opposed to several "ethnic groups". Although the difference between race and ethnic group is vague. I've always wondered if it was just a taboo or not.
Race is indeed an ambiguous term in general, as there are overlaps. But I have to wonder whether it's the stigma associated to the word especially post WW2 and Nazi eugenics that made some anthropologists reconsider and say "most differences are cultural". There are obvious aesthetic (not functional) differences between populations. These are enough to distinguish between races within other species so I'm having a hard time finding an authoritative explanation for why it would be different for humans.
I find no challenge in treating people as equals without the need to think they are the same race so such an argument based on sociology is not as convincing as a biological one.
My theory -> they're too smart! Maybe they realize that if they ever started talking back to us humans, we'd put them to work (more than we already do)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Next-Kin-Conversations-Chimpanzees-...
And in it the author (who spent decades working with and teaching chimps) concludes that chimps have the intelligence to talk but not the vocal chords. They can understand humans talking (in the same way that a dog can understand verbal commands) but they cannot do much besides grunt or hoot back.
However when you change the conversation method to something else (such as sign languge) chimps can talk back exceedingly well. In the book mentioned above the author has video proof that the chimps can talk to humans (and each other) at the level of a two to four year old child.
This is the main chimp in the book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_(chimpanzee)
This doesn't seem to just apply to chimps either. Gorillas (and other large apes) can do the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)