Human Geniuses versus Sapient Nonhuman Animals -- The Unfair Comparison
Sometimes, when I argue that some nonhuman animals are sapient, and present evidence, people point out by way of reply that Koko's ability to create little couplets or Alex's to know his numbers is hardly proof of sapience such as possessed by humans. They point out that gorillas and grey parrots are not capable of creativity on the order of Einstein, Shakespeare, or Aristotle. And this is probably true. But ...
What's happening here is that top-of-the-form human cognition is compared against average, or subnormal, animal cognition. For instance, it is often argued that signing apes are merely learning routines to get what they want, rather than thinking about what they sign. In other words, that it's all just Stimulus-Response, rather than a "real" use of language.
First of all, this is obviously not the case when Koko puns (at least not the first time she thinks up a pun) or when Kanzi or Panbanisha ask unprompted questions or provide unsolicited information regarding their social environment. It's only in the planned experiments that this is possible, because the planned experiments involve lower levels of thought than does "real life."
Secondly, it's true that a lot of what signing apes say are routines, but then this is also true for us. When you go into the diner to order a cup of coffee, do you really invent a new way of asking for the coffee every time? Of course not! You use the routine that has always worked for you, and you get your coffee. Most of what humans say, most of the time, is routine.
Is Koko using language with the complexity of Shakespeare? No. Are you or I? I wish I was, but then even Shakespeare spoke mostly in routine, in his everyday life. Comparing what a (mentally average) signing ape does in a very scripted experiment with what one of the most brilliant human wordsmiths ever did when deliberately being creative is unfair: it's like arguing that humans are incredibly slow compared to the big cats by comparing a lame human ambling along a path with a cheetah putting forth all its effort in a sprint. Humans are slower than the big cats, but that particular comparison exaggerates the difference.
And I think that some of these comparisons are intentionally unfair. Some scientists do all sorts of things to apes, in particular, that would make them very uncomfortable if they started thinking of the apes as "people." Maintaining a qualitative, rather than merely quantitative, distinction helps them sleep easier at night.
What's happening here is that top-of-the-form human cognition is compared against average, or subnormal, animal cognition. For instance, it is often argued that signing apes are merely learning routines to get what they want, rather than thinking about what they sign. In other words, that it's all just Stimulus-Response, rather than a "real" use of language.
First of all, this is obviously not the case when Koko puns (at least not the first time she thinks up a pun) or when Kanzi or Panbanisha ask unprompted questions or provide unsolicited information regarding their social environment. It's only in the planned experiments that this is possible, because the planned experiments involve lower levels of thought than does "real life."
Secondly, it's true that a lot of what signing apes say are routines, but then this is also true for us. When you go into the diner to order a cup of coffee, do you really invent a new way of asking for the coffee every time? Of course not! You use the routine that has always worked for you, and you get your coffee. Most of what humans say, most of the time, is routine.
Is Koko using language with the complexity of Shakespeare? No. Are you or I? I wish I was, but then even Shakespeare spoke mostly in routine, in his everyday life. Comparing what a (mentally average) signing ape does in a very scripted experiment with what one of the most brilliant human wordsmiths ever did when deliberately being creative is unfair: it's like arguing that humans are incredibly slow compared to the big cats by comparing a lame human ambling along a path with a cheetah putting forth all its effort in a sprint. Humans are slower than the big cats, but that particular comparison exaggerates the difference.
And I think that some of these comparisons are intentionally unfair. Some scientists do all sorts of things to apes, in particular, that would make them very uncomfortable if they started thinking of the apes as "people." Maintaining a qualitative, rather than merely quantitative, distinction helps them sleep easier at night.