Jump to content

Koko has died


Brisketexan

Recommended Posts

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/21/622160278/koko-the-gorilla-dies-redrew-the-lines-of-animal-human-communication?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

Quote

Koko The Gorilla Dies; Redrew The Lines Of Animal-Human Communication

June 21, 20187:35 AM ET

BILL CHAPPELL

Koko, the gorilla who became an ambassador to the human world through her ability to communicate, has died. She's seen here at age 4, telling psychologist Francine "Penny" Patterson (left) that she is hungry. In the center is June Monroe, an interpreter for the deaf at St. Luke's Church, who helped teach Koko.

Bettmann Archive

"The Gorilla Foundation is sad to announce the passing of our beloved Koko," the research center says, informing the world about the death of a gorilla who fascinated and elated millions of people with her facility for language.

Koko, who was 46, died in her sleep Tuesday morning, the Gorilla Foundation said. At birth, she was named Hanabi-ko — Japanese for "fireworks child," because she was born at the San Francisco Zoo on the Fourth of July in 1971. She was a western lowland gorilla.

"Her impact has been profound and what she has taught us about the emotional capacity of gorillas and their cognitive abilities will continue to shape the world," the Gorilla Foundation said.

Throughout her life, Koko's abilities made headlines. After she began communicating with humans through American Sign Language, she was featured by National Geographic — and she took her own picture (in a mirror) for the magazine's cover.

That cover came out in 1978, seven years after Koko was chosen as an infant to work on a language research project with the psychologist Francine "Penny" Patterson. In 1985, the magazine profiled the affectionate relationship between the gorilla and her kitten: Koko and All Ball.

In 2001, Koko made a fast friend in comedian Robin Williams, trying on his glasses, showing him around and getting him to tickle her. Then they made faces at each other — and the gorilla seemed to recall seeing Williams in a movie. Years later, in 2014, Koko was one of many who mourned Williams' passing.

YouTube

Koko amazed scientists in 2012, when she showed she could learn to play the recorder. The feat revealed mental acuity but also, crucially, that primates can learn to intricately control their breathing — something that had been assumed to be beyond their abilities.

Her ability to interact with people made Koko an international celebrity. But she also revealed the depth and strength of a gorilla's emotional life, sharing moments of glee and sadness with researchers Patterson and Ron Cohn.

13.7: COSMOS AND CULTURE

How Human Should A Gorilla Be?

As Barbara J. King wrote for NPR about the BBC documentary Koko: The Gorilla Who Talks, when it aired on PBS in 2016:

"Famously, Koko felt quite sad in 1984 when her adopted kitten Ball was hit by a car and died. How do we know? Here is nonhuman primate grief mediated through language: In historical footage in the film, Patterson is seen asking Koko, "What happened to Ball?" In reply, Koko utters these signs in sequence: cat, cry, have-sorry, Koko-love. And then, after a pause, two more signs: unattention, visit me."

Dude.  Seriously, this makes me really sad.  I grew up reading about Koko, and the incredible discoveries of communication she shared with us.

One of my coolest professional moments came several years ago, when I deposed a Dr. in a case (it was a complex business case, not about medical issues).  But, he revealed that in his past, he was one of Koko's "assistants."  After the deposition (he was an opposing party witness, by the way, but a really engaging guy), we stayed in the conference room talking.  I asked him about his experiences with Koko, and his eyes lit up.  He was there when Koko got "all ball" (her kitten), and talked about how she loved that cat.  Koko would even comfort him when he was clearly sad or upset about something.  He said, with utter sincerity, that Koko was one of the kindest souls he had ever known.

This news sucks.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The belief that we have taught apes human language is one of the more persistent myths that many people still believe is valid science.  The truth is that neither Koko nor any other non-human primate came close to acquiring what linguists consider human language & grammar.  To give some background on this subject:

Starting in the 1950's and through the 70's, Noam Chomsky and other linguists gave a detailed definition of what constitutes human language & grammar and he demonstrated that only humans use this type of language.  Other animals communicate, but no other animal can learn & use language in the way that humans do, which relies on hierarchically structured expressions.  All other animal communication methods have been found to be based on simpler rules of linear order.  Many naturalists who subscribed to B.F. Skinner's behaviorism refused to believe this fact and set out to prove that that animals could learn and use language just as humans do.  To give an example:

“Since 98.7% of the DNA in humans and chimps is identical, some scientists (but not Noam Chomsky) believed that a chimp raised in a human family, and using ASL (American Sign Language), would shed light on the way language is acquired and used by humans.  Project Nim, headed by behavioral psychologist Herbert Terrace at Columbia University, was conceived in the early 1970s as a challenge to Chomsky's thesis that only humans have language.” - Roger Fouts, Professor of Psychology and primate researcher.

One famous experiment was conducted to prove the behaviorist thesis by the eminent psychologist Herbert Terrace with a chimp that was named “Nim Chimpsky,” a jab at Chomsky.  Nim was raised with professionals who strained to teach him human language skills via sign language.  With Nim, Terrace stated in 1975 that he would “nail to the wall proof that a subhuman primate can acquire a syntactical competence that at least overlaps with that of man …the age-old distinctions concerning man’s uniqueness would no longer hold.”  Needless to say, the team was unsuccessful in teaching Nim human language.  His longest recorded statement was “give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you.”

By 1979, after detailed analysis of Nim and other ape sign language projects, Terrace had completely reversed his position on the ability of apes to acquire language.  He published a paper which stated that “Much of the apes’ behavior is pure drill,” and that “Language still stands as an important definition of the human species.”  He also published a paper in 1982 titled Why Koko Can't Talk.  So why does it seem that Koko can communicate so well and has such fantastic & deep insights?  Because her handlers make things up.  Here is a transcript with Koko taking questions and her handler Patterson giving interpretations:

Question: What are the names of your kittens? (and dogs?)

LiveKOKO: foot

Patterson: Foot isn't the name of your kitty  

Question: Koko, what's the name of your cat?  

LiveKOKO: no  

Patterson: She just gave some vocalizations there... some soft puffing

[chat host]: I heard that soft puffing! 

Patterson: Now shaking her head no.

Question: Do you like to chat with other people?

Koko: fine nipple

Patterson: Nipple rhymes with people, she doesn’t sign people per se, she was trying to do a ‘sounds like…’

 

Most of her supposed thoughts are simply straightforward & blatant misrepresentation.  Here are some other thoughts from Chomsky on the failure of the ape language program:  https://chomsky.info/2007____/

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

The belief that we have taught apes human language is one of the more persistent myths that many people still believe is valid science.  The truth is that neither Koko nor any other non-human primate came close to acquiring what linguists consider human language & grammar.  To give some background on this subject:

Starting in the 1950's and through the 70's, Noam Chomsky and other linguists gave a detailed definition of what constitutes human language & grammar and he demonstrated that only humans use this type of language.  Other animals communicate, but no other animal can learn & use language in the way that humans do, which relies on hierarchically structured expressions.  All other animal communication methods have been found to be based on simpler rules of linear order.  Many naturalists who subscribed to B.F. Skinner's behaviorism refused to believe this fact and set out to prove that that animals could learn and use language just as humans do.  To give an example:

“Since 98.7% of the DNA in humans and chimps is identical, some scientists (but not Noam Chomsky) believed that a chimp raised in a human family, and using ASL (American Sign Language), would shed light on the way language is acquired and used by humans.  Project Nim, headed by behavioral psychologist Herbert Terrace at Columbia University, was conceived in the early 1970s as a challenge to Chomsky's thesis that only humans have language.” - Roger Fouts, Professor of Psychology and primate researcher.

One famous experiment was conducted to prove the behaviorist thesis by the eminent psychologist Herbert Terrace with a chimp that was named “Nim Chimpsky,” a jab at Chomsky.  Nim was raised with professionals who strained to teach him human language skills via sign language.  With Nim, Terrace stated in 1975 that he would “nail to the wall proof that a subhuman primate can acquire a syntactical competence that at least overlaps with that of man …the age-old distinctions concerning man’s uniqueness would no longer hold.”  Needless to say, the team was unsuccessful in teaching Nim human language.  His longest recorded statement was “give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you.”

By 1979, after detailed analysis of Nim and other ape sign language projects, Terrace had completely reversed his position on the ability of apes to acquire language.  He published a paper which stated that “Much of the apes’ behavior is pure drill,” and that “Language still stands as an important definition of the human species.”  He also published a paper in 1982 titled Why Koko Can't Talk.  So why does it seem that Koko can communicate so well and has such fantastic & deep insights?  Because her handlers make things up.  Here is a transcript with Koko taking questions and her handler Patterson giving interpretations:

Question: What are the names of your kittens? (and dogs?)

LiveKOKO: foot

Patterson: Foot isn't the name of your kitty  

Question: Koko, what's the name of your cat?  

LiveKOKO: no  

Patterson: She just gave some vocalizations there... some soft puffing

[chat host]: I heard that soft puffing! 

Patterson: Now shaking her head no.

Question: Do you like to chat with other people?

Koko: fine nipple

Patterson: Nipple rhymes with people, she doesn’t sign people per se, she was trying to do a ‘sounds like…’

 

Most of her supposed thoughts are simply straightforward & blatant misrepresentation.  Here are some other thoughts from Chomsky on the failure of the ape language program:  https://chomsky.info/2007____/

 

So in other words, Koko is in the top 7% of 2/3 of Austin public high schools.  Too bad, she coulda went to UT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Aphelion said:

The belief that we have taught apes human language is one of the more persistent myths that many people still believe is valid science.  The truth is that neither Koko nor any other non-human primate came close to acquiring what linguists consider human language & grammar.  To give some background on this subject:

Starting in the 1950's and through the 70's, Noam Chomsky and other linguists gave a detailed definition of what constitutes human language & grammar and he demonstrated that only humans use this type of language.  Other animals communicate, but no other animal can learn & use language in the way that humans do, which relies on hierarchically structured expressions.  All other animal communication methods have been found to be based on simpler rules of linear order.  Many naturalists who subscribed to B.F. Skinner's behaviorism refused to believe this fact and set out to prove that that animals could learn and use language just as humans do.  To give an example:

“Since 98.7% of the DNA in humans and chimps is identical, some scientists (but not Noam Chomsky) believed that a chimp raised in a human family, and using ASL (American Sign Language), would shed light on the way language is acquired and used by humans.  Project Nim, headed by behavioral psychologist Herbert Terrace at Columbia University, was conceived in the early 1970s as a challenge to Chomsky's thesis that only humans have language.” - Roger Fouts, Professor of Psychology and primate researcher.

One famous experiment was conducted to prove the behaviorist thesis by the eminent psychologist Herbert Terrace with a chimp that was named “Nim Chimpsky,” a jab at Chomsky.  Nim was raised with professionals who strained to teach him human language skills via sign language.  With Nim, Terrace stated in 1975 that he would “nail to the wall proof that a subhuman primate can acquire a syntactical competence that at least overlaps with that of man …the age-old distinctions concerning man’s uniqueness would no longer hold.”  Needless to say, the team was unsuccessful in teaching Nim human language.  His longest recorded statement was “give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you.”

By 1979, after detailed analysis of Nim and other ape sign language projects, Terrace had completely reversed his position on the ability of apes to acquire language.  He published a paper which stated that “Much of the apes’ behavior is pure drill,” and that “Language still stands as an important definition of the human species.”  He also published a paper in 1982 titled Why Koko Can't Talk.  So why does it seem that Koko can communicate so well and has such fantastic & deep insights?  Because her handlers make things up.  Here is a transcript with Koko taking questions and her handler Patterson giving interpretations:

Question: What are the names of your kittens? (and dogs?)

LiveKOKO: foot

Patterson: Foot isn't the name of your kitty  

Question: Koko, what's the name of your cat?  

LiveKOKO: no  

Patterson: She just gave some vocalizations there... some soft puffing

[chat host]: I heard that soft puffing! 

Patterson: Now shaking her head no.

Question: Do you like to chat with other people?

Koko: fine nipple

Patterson: Nipple rhymes with people, she doesn’t sign people per se, she was trying to do a ‘sounds like…’

 

Most of her supposed thoughts are simply straightforward & blatant misrepresentation.  Here are some other thoughts from Chomsky on the failure of the ape language program:  https://chomsky.info/2007____/

 

So I should just ignore the things the black lab next door is telling me to do ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

Sweet gorilla, this is sad. I loved that meeting she had with Robin Williams. You could really see the kindness in his soul, and that they made a connection.

[insert joke about how hairy they both are, blah blah]

Avatar checks out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Am I the only person that is regularly impressed with brisketexan’s ability to post while simultaneously bawling and on the verge of a full anxiety attack? 

 

He's sponsored a ledge, and has his name engraved on a tiny plaque 10 stories up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Noam Chomsky is a hell of an intellect, and also a giant killjoy.

I think Chomsky is an ideal model of how one should go about communicating and discussing ideas.  He discusses topics dispassionately and doesn't try to invoke emotion nor rely upon empty rhetoric.  He plainly gives support for his conclusions and discusses the relevant ideas.  Although I agree with almost all of his conclusions on language, I seldom agree with his political positions.  But I end up listening to and reading his thoughts more than anyone else's on matters of politics because of his style.    

Regarding the ape language experiments, they are sad when you read the full stories.  These researchers take apes and surround them only with humans at a very early age, so they do not know how to socialize with other apes.  This means it's not always feasible to simply introduce them to a zoo when the experiments are over, as they are not able to interact with other apes.  Since they are raised in such unnatural circumstances, interacting solely with humans trying to get them to do tricks, they all meet sad and lonely endings.  They become dependent upon their human caregivers, but it's expensive to have a team of humans care for an ape all day.  So no one knows quite what to do with them when the experiments are over.  They actually considered euthanizing Nim Chimpksy (which was probably the most humane option), but the researchers didn't want to go down that path and so they went another route which is pretty sad to read about.   In the case of Koko, she got to the point were she didn't even want to exercise and became obese.  

As for Koko's main handler, Francine Patterson, she likely started out with good intentions, but she ended up being either massively delusional or simply just a fraud.  She blatantly deceived people into believing that Koko could do things that she clearly could not all for the sake of receiving donations.

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

I think Chomsky is an ideal model of how one should go about communicating and discussing ideas.  He discusses topics dispassionately and doesn't try to invoke emotion nor rely upon empty rhetoric.  He plainly gives support for his conclusions and discusses the relevant ideas.  Although I agree with almost all of his conclusions on language, I seldom agree with his political positions.  But I end up listening to and reading his thoughts more than anyone else's on matters of politics because of his style.    

Regarding the ape language experiments, they are sad when you read the full stories.  These researchers take apes and surround them only with humans at a very early age, so they do not know how to socialize with other apes.  This means it's not always feasible to simply introduce them to a zoo when the experiments are over, as they are not able to interact with other apes.  They are raised in a completely unnatural set of circumstances surrounded by humans trying to get them to do tricks.  Since they are raised in such unnatural circumstances, they all meet sad and lonely endings.  They become dependent upon their human caregivers, but it's expensive to have a team of humans care for an ape all day.  So no one knows quite what to do with them when the experiments are over.  They actually considered euthanizing Nim Chimpksy (which was probably the most humane option), but the researchers didn't want to go down that path and so they went another route which is pretty sad to read about.   In the case of Koko, she got to the point were she didn't even want to exercise and became obese.  

As for Koko's main handler, Francine Patterson, she likely started out with good intentions, but she ended up being either massively delusional or simply just a fraud.  She blatantly deceived people into believing that Koko could do things that she clearly could not all for the sake of receiving donations.

 

maxresdefault.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

I'll see you in hell you filthy, lying ape. 

 

 

This is true but Koko also admitted to damaging the sink so that the cat would not get in trouble.  Koko knew that whoever did it was in trouble but accepted responsibility afterwards.  When they asked her why she told the truth she said she didnt want the cat to get in trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PRONG HORN said:

This is true but Koko also admitted to damaging the sink so that the cat would not get in trouble.  Koko knew that whoever did it was in trouble but accepted responsibility afterwards.  When they asked her why she told the truth she said she didnt want the cat to get in trouble.

Wrong. The researchers did extensive experiments on the cat because it apparently had super strength and then killed the cat and dissected it. Koko's plan worked perfectly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Wrong. The researchers did extensive experiments on the cat because it apparently had super strength and then killed the cat and dissected it. Koko's plan worked perfectly. 

The cat knew the truth and had to be eliminated.

- Dolemite

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, PRONG HORN said:

This is true but Koko also admitted to damaging the sink so that the cat would not get in trouble.  Koko knew that whoever did it was in trouble but accepted responsibility afterwards.  When they asked her why she told the truth she said she didnt want the cat to get in trouble.

More likely she said something like “nipple candy toilet nipple devil nipple” which they miraculously “interpreted” as accepting responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...