posted
Bev and Noemon, I've actually thought about that sentience question before. How *would* we know if we encountered a sentient species? Communication can't be the answer, because it might be impossible to tell that an animal is communicating. Of course, all animals communicate - they just speak a language that we don't always understand. And who's to say that simply because our language is different that it's better?
I don't have any answers, but the question itself is both fascinating and scary. If we do have sentient animals on this planet how much do we have to be ashamed of? I look forward to continued research with dolphins and parrots, just to name a few.
posted
I don't see how there can be any answer besides communication.
Imagine a human being with no method of communication. How can we tell if they are sentient or not? We can't. We might be able to tell that they are pretty bright by solving puzzles we put in its path, but that's not the same thing.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, mph. I suppose I meant that the answer can't be *only* communication.
space opera
edit: Now I'm really interested. Bev said that her idea of sentience might be communication and understanding. Apes (which she mentioned) have proven that they can learn and understand ASL. Parrots have not only learned speech, but are able to identify colors and shapes. Is this sentience, close to sentience, or nada?
[ January 05, 2005, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Space Opera ]
Posts: 2578 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having studied and being fascinated by language, I am very interested in animal communication. I know that apes have shown limits to the concepts they are able to put into "words", but they are still pretty darn clever.
I am curious about the intelligence of certain birds. It was only a few years ago that I became aware of their high intelligence. But might their "high intelligence" be more about expert mimickry and association rather than communication?
But I also think that many animal-lovers make the mistake of over-anthropomorphizing animals. We assign motives and emotions like our own to our pets. I tend to think that the mind of animals is more "alien" than that, but that it comforts us to think of them that way. (Note, "alien" does not necessarily mean "lesser".)
Guinea pigs will almost always run away from you skitterishly when you try to pick them up. People who see this assume that guinea pigs don't like to be held. But when held, they appear to enjoy the comfort and warmth of a secure embrace. I am of the opinion that their instinct to run away from "claws from above" is so strong that they aren't "thinking" about whether or not they'd like to be held when someone reaches out to them. But since we don't have that instinct, we are more likely to assume motives that make more sense to us.
But I am aware that many animals have complex emotions, particularly social animals that need society to survive. Certainly we are social beings. So social animals are more likely to have emotional make-ups similar our own. That doesn't mean their motives and emotions are like our own.
I find it endlessly amusing how cats appear to have such arrogance. The cat I had as a teenager would fall ridiculously from a high perch, and act really annoyed, but "pretend" like nothing happened. We assume it is arrogance, because that is what it looks like to us. Is it really? I don't know.
quote: Apes (which she mentioned) have proven that they can learn and understand ASL. Parrots have not only learned speech, but are able to identify colors and shapes.
This isn't true. While apes (and the rare parrot) *have* been able to learn some vocabulary words, none of them have ever been able to grasp syntax. ASL is a full-fledged language, and one that no animal has ever learned.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you arguing that they haven't been able to grasp syntax of any kind, Porter, or just that they haven't been able to grasp the full complexity of ASL?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm fairly sure that that isn't the case, but I'll have to dig up some articles on the subject to confirm it. I'm thinking specifically of Kanzi, the Bonobo chimp who has proven to be something of a linguistic prodigy.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If any ape has been shown to grasp syntax, I have never heard of it. And I would certainly like to know about it too.
Edit: But if it is true, and there is some prodigy out there, and he/she were bred for his/her ability to communicate expertly, we very well might find ourselves approaching "The Planet of the Apes" situation--Apes as common servants or slaves. I would hope humanity would be better than that, though.
posted
Hmm. I'll have to go the route of Noemon and do some research as well. In particular I remember a documentary that showed a parrot being quizzed about shapes and colors.
posted
I'll see what I can turn up. I could be mistaken, but I don't *think* I am. Anybody else familiar with the research done on Kanzi? It may be a little while before I have the time to dig up anything.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The parrot you're thinking of, Space Opera, is likely the African grey parrot Alex. He is able to identify color and shape, but that isn't necessarily the same thing as have a grasp of syntax.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, Kanzi wasn't bred for his linguistic abilities. In fact, he wasn't even to focus of the researcher's studies, initially. When he was an infant the researchers were trying to teach his mother to communicate (with very little success), and he was simply alowed to be in the room with her. He began communicating spontaneously, much to the researchers' surprise.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't think he was bred for it. But *he* could be bred in order to pass on his genes to a new race of "prodigy apes". That was what I was referring to.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
So the emphasis seems to be on symbol to symbol recognition. What about humans without a written language? Obviously humans have the capacity to learn written language...but picture them first beginning to learn. To me that would be very much like observing Kanzi.
posted
Kanzi is a prodigy among apes. His most amazing feat was to comprehend words spoken. (I assume other apes require humans to use guestures or symbols to get meaning across? I dunno.) But even he appears to have his limits when it comes to language comprehension.
The human brain does indeed appear to be hard-wired for language. A human child soaks it up like a sponge. Takes to it like a duck to water, you might say.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In addition to single words, Kanzi has demonstrated unequivocal understanding of thousands of novel spoken sentences with syntactically complex structures including embedded phrases, pronouns, case markers, and absent referents. His comprehension of spoken language is at least equivalent to that of a 2-1/2 year old child. Examples below illustrate test sentences given to Kanzi in a formal test (monograph). His comprehension of these different sentences illustrates his understanding of complex grammatical issues.
The "examples below" referred to in that quote are:
posted
Cool, according to this article, Kanzi does have some syntactical understanding. In all seriousness, if Kanzi's descendents are similarly gifted, this could lead to a race of language-comprehending apes.
posted
We never have nailed down what we mean when we use the word "sentient" in this context though. Obviously we don't just mean "responsive to or conscious of sense impressions"--by that definition virtually any animal could be said to be sentient. Are we talking about self awareness? The understanding of one's self as distinct from the other beings around them? Is possessing the ability to model the minds of others a necessary element of sentience?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Except that it would seem that breeding isn't necessary. Based on the information on this page, it would seem that Kanzi's early exposure was the key. His species, given the proper childhood environment, seems to pick up rudimentary language skills fairly effortlessly.
I'm curious about his manufacture of stone tools. Do other bonobos exhibit this behavior? If not, I wonder what the relationship between language and tool use might be? This is just idle speculation, by the way--it just popped into my head.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've also defined sentience as self-awareness and the knowledge that one is a distinct being. I like how you put that, Noemon. Of course, by that definition, babies aren't sentient, are they? I remember reading that for awhile babies believe they and their mother are the same person.
posted
I think one of the reasons it is so hard to define sentience is that there is no "line" between sentience and non-sentience. One could argue that there are humans among us that are non-sentient due to disease, defect, or injury. Some apes may be sentient or near-sentient.
I do think that an understanding of self is an important part of sentience--the ability to analyze oneself. It is about age 2 that human children begin to be able to do this. And this is about the level that some apes reach in their development.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Early exposure is the key? Hmmm. But many chimps have been exposed to human language in captivity from a very early age, if not from birth, right? Why wouldn't we have seen this elsewhere?
Edit: You know what I would *really* like to see is an ape parent teach language to an ape child. That would be wicked cool.
quote:I think one of the reasons it is so hard to define sentience is that there is no "line" between sentience and non-sentience.
As a side note, this is true of most definitions of words we use all the time. Knowledge, various colors, patient, and so on.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Of course, by that definition, babies aren't sentient, are they?
It is my opinion that babies are *not* sentient. Not at all. They are animal bundles of instincts and sponges that soak up input and stimulation. But they have the "birthright" of sentience. It is their destiny.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
With our kids, we get excited when we can say "our kid is finally as smart as a dog!" or "our kid is finally as smart as a monkey!" or "our kid is finally becoming a person!".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do think that considering the sentience or near-sentience that certain apes show, we as humans should deeply respect that.
I thought it was interesting in OSC's "Homecoming" series the people talked of eating the local apes as being tantamount to cannabalism. They showed a higher respect for the sentience of these creatures. It made me think.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know! I would *love* to observe that (or read about others observing it). Panbanisha, Kanzi's step sister (who according to the article I linked to above is apparently more linguistically able than Kanzi, much to my surprise) has given birth to Nyota (by the way, Sara, you may be interested to read about Panbanisha's experiences with ultrasound and with the delivery itself on the page I just linked to--fascinating stuff), so it's possible that we'll get to see exactly that, although it is also possible that Nyota may have some brain damage given the circumstances of his birth. I wasn't able to find more information about him by googling his name--everything else seemed to be about Lt. Uhura from the original Star Trek.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While not understanding language on the same level as a great ape, our older Lab does recognize over 80 words/phrases. (Most of them have to do with familiar foods, places, objects, and people.) We didn't teach most of them to her -- she taught herself. She recognizes them regardless of our tone of voice -- my husband and I can be discussing, for example, going to the store, and she immediately starts jumping and squealing to let us know that she would like to go along.
Once we were talking about an ear infection, and she got very excited. We weren't sure why, until we realized that to her, "ear" means "pig ear," her favorite treat.
She understands the difference between "bring my sneakers" and "bring my slippers." If I tell her to bring an object, she will search for it, unless I tell her which room it is in -- then she will head straight for that room. If I tell her "bring your [food] dish," she does, unless she can't find it, in which case she has been known to bring one of our plates instead, although we never taught her that our plates are "dishes."
If she wants something, she will come up to us and whimper. We then go through a list of things she is likely to want ("water," "to go out," "to play"--we don't mention food because she always wants that). She barks when we guess correctly.
I'm not sure why she understands so much speech, although I think it's because we've been talking to her since she was a puppy. She somehow made the conceptual leap that the noises humans make have very particular meanings, of which she can understand some if she tries.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was absolutely fascinating. I loved the description of the use of ultrasound. It really sounds as though Mama at least somewhat understood that it was a picture of her baby.
posted
I completely agree with you guys that babies are not sentient at birth, using the definition of sentience we're going with here. They have the potential for sentience, but are not there yet.
On the question of testing for sentience, Porter said
quote:I don't see how there can be any answer besides communication.
Imagine a human being with no method of communication. How can we tell if they are sentient or not? We can't.
I'm not at all sure that I agree. What do you think of the "paint spot" test that has been used on some non-human primates?
Also, I find Panbanisha's behavior during her ultrasound (the business of watching the monitor, then touching the corresponding place on her abdomen) to be at the very least highly suggestive of sentience. Do you?
posted
Yhozik, that's really, really cool. I'd love to meet your older lab. She sounds like one of the brightest dogs I've heard of, probably even brighter than the white german shepherd I had in the 90s.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
This will sound silly, but have you ever wondered about what animals are thinking? I mean, in some cases - like with Kanzi - we've been able to *teach* them our language to an extent - but as far as I know we've never really figured out an animal language. We can make educated guesses, of course, such as a dog barks when he is upset. But we've never truly been able to probe the mind of an animal. Do any of them think beyond "food, shelter, etc.?"
I know there are dogs who have saved their families from fire, etc. by barking because they sensed danger. Don't you ever wonder how much farther their thought process went, if it went at all beyond, "danger...get my people out."
Jenny G. said something ages ago about communicating with the mosquitos in her woods - not verbally, but through electro-chemical signals (Jenny, correct me if I'm wrong!). Is there a way to communicate with animals using their own language? I know we can't produce the sounds, but is there another way?
quote:Is there a way to communicate with animals using their own language?
Well, one way dogs communicate is through body language, which we can decipher and emulate to some degree. For example, dogs invite other dogs to play through a body posture known as a play-bow. By imitating this posture (except for the tail position, since I don't have a tail), I've often reassured strange dogs that I am friendly.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
