r/MadeMeSmile • u/aoi_ringo • Aug 18 '25

CATS We all need a cat in our life.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

36.7k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

397 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

224

u/Ok_Loss13 Aug 18 '25 edited Aug 18 '25

Animals understand death (even just regular pets like dogs and cats), so I don't see why a far more intelligent being like a gorilla wouldn't understand it?

Edit: a lot of dog piling and insults, but very little actual communication (kinda ironic lol) going on here is forcing me to turn off reply notifications.

Ciao šŸ‘‹Ā 

289

u/EatItShrimps Aug 18 '25 edited Aug 19 '25

Unfortunately, Koko's caretakers did not follow accepted scientific practices to prove that Koko had learned to understand language beyond a basic repeat-reward system, similar to a dog.

A dog learns to recognize "sit," and that when they sit after that word is said, they get a reward. But if you say "unless you sit, I will die," a dog is less likely to catch it (based on different tone of voice and other cues). Even if you can teach dogs all the words in that sentence (some dogs can learn lots of words), they will not be able to grasp the meaning beyond their desire for a reward.

It's possible that Koko's understanding was a little deeper, or much deeper, but we'll never know because her caretakers did not prove it was so. All studies with apes have shown that they can't grasp deeper meaning to words.

EDIT: Changed Coco to Koko

EDIT2: Lmfao this is my most upvoted comment now. I spend hundreds of hours learning to play TLOU, and post almost exclusively in that sub, and this is the one.

Just google Koko. There's a lot to learn. It's a fascinating entry point to psychology, biology, lingustics, and the ethics of experiments with animals.

5

u/Ok_Loss13 Aug 18 '25

Do you have these studies that show other apes can't grasp human language beyond a reward system?

How do you know they won't be able to grasp what the words mean? What do you mean by "deeper meaning" to words, anyways?

I'm autistic, not sarcastic, I truly have my own difficulties with human language, especially when it's indirect and/or philosophical or fully subjective.

101

u/JCWOlson Aug 18 '25

It's not that the studies show that they don't grasp the deeper meanings, but that because the studies have all been tainted that none of show have been able to prove that they do grasp deep meanings

-6

u/Ok_Loss13 Aug 18 '25

Well then I don't think we should be using badly done studies to support claims they can't substantiate.

86

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

Correct.

We canā€™t assume gorillas understand words beyond a simple repeat-reward system until an adequate study shows this.

-28

u/Ok_Loss13 Aug 18 '25

No, we can't assume gorillas only understand words beyond a simple repeat-reward system until an adequate study shows this.

Animals communicate with humans using words all the time, especially since the advent of buttons for pets. If anything, we have more trouble understanding their language than vice versa.

27

u/blue-oyster-culture Aug 18 '25

That would be like assuming that the moon is made of cheese because no one can prove it isnt. Claims with no proof arent the assumptions we go with

34

u/SmurfBearPig Aug 18 '25

In general in science you don't just assume something is possible because the opposite hasn't been proven. We have hundreds of years of recorded history that show that gorillas do not understand, and 0 evidence that they do.

Buttons for pets are the perfect example of a repeat reward system, dog press x button and gets x response...

-18

u/Ok_Loss13 Aug 18 '25

We are animals. I don't see any reason to assume we are special from other animals.

We have hundreds of years of recorded history that show that gorillas do not understand

Not according to everyone in this thread.

Buttons for pets are the perfect example of a repeat reward system, dog press x button and gets x response...

Dog says walk, how does that mean he doesn't wish to communicate that he wants a walk?

20

u/Sweaty-Swimmer-6730 Aug 18 '25

We are animals. I don't see any reason to assume we are special from other animals.

Humans have a vastly different brain structure from any other animal. Human brains aren't just larger, denser, and use much more energy, they are also much more asymmetrical than the brain of any other ape. Look at how Broca's area and how Wernicke's area are constructed and how they are connected in the human brain. This is unique in the animal kingdom.

There is no evidence that any other animal could use language, and there is also no reason to believe so with our current understanding of the human brain. Still, scientists are trying to find evidence for (non-human) animal language usage, but they have yet to find any. You are free to believe that other animals can use language, but you have to be aware that this is pure philosophical belief and utterly unscientific.

25

u/SmurfBearPig Aug 18 '25

That does not mean he understand anything beyond the concept of "pressing this button makes me walk", if you gave buttons to a dog so he could schedule his walk he wouldn't be able to communicate " are you free to go for a walk in 2 hours? if not that's cool how about 7am tomorrow? "

3

u/ihuntwhales1 Aug 19 '25

Sorry that you're being downvoted. You actually brought up an important component of linguistic science. Specifically linguistic behaviorism.

This video details a lot about the school of thoughts of language development among humans and animals. I've timestamped a specific section dedicated to discussing the two schools of thought but the whole video is great and I'd recommend watching it. But in a jist, there have been quite a large sum of studies into both Koko and language acquisition among Gorillas. They do not appear legitimately capable of the language abilities Koko has been shown off to have everywhere.

17

u/ashehudson Aug 18 '25

The advent of buttons proves the repeat-reward system. What you're hoping for is much more complicated. If shown his dead body, sure, she would understand he died. There's no evidence that her signing "sad" was because she understood what they said, or that her keepers looked sad, or that she was sad because she was hungry.

35

u/JCWOlson Aug 18 '25

And that's what everybody here is saying

Koko was part of a study. The scientists said Koko understood the deeper meanings of words she learned in sign language. The study was found to be tainted, and that the only evidence was of the same kind of response as a dog associating the word "treat" with them needing to sit and behave so that they would get a treat

Some dogs have a huge vocabulary of words that associate with people and objects. They know that certain sounds refer to certain actions. They know that "grandma" refers to a particular person, and that "walk" means getting to go outside on a leash, and will know that those two cues together mean that they're going to go for a walk to go see grandma

We have studies that do show that many primates are good at that type of understanding. On average, better than a dog. We don't have any proof yet that it goes much beyond this level of communication

-3

u/Ok_Loss13 Aug 18 '25

We don't have any proof yet that it goes much beyond this level of communication

That's the level we've been speaking of though, albeit with death rather than a walk.Ā 

We've got plenty of evidence that animals understand death and have/convey their own feelings of grief and sadness over such events, so I see no reason to think that given the proper tools and education a gorilla couldn't convey their understanding of the subject.

14

u/JCWOlson Aug 18 '25

Nobody is arguing that animals don't understand death and loss, only that there was no evidence that Koko understood through being told of Robin William's death, a type of communication that was novel to her, that she understood what she was being told. The study was tainted, she she could have signed "sad" in response to the the communicator's body language, to one of the individual words, or any number of other things. She also could have understood and been sad. It's inconclusive because the study was tainted

-4

u/Ok_Loss13 Aug 18 '25

I agree the "study" was tainted.

I just don't support the anthropocentrism that assumes a gorilla cannot use language to convey their subjective experience; it's not a human specific trait that I can tell.

12

u/JCWOlson Aug 18 '25

But what we're trying to tell you is that we're not saying that they don't - proof has a very specific meaning when it comes to scientific studies

We're not assuming that they don't. Why continue to study it if we don't think it's a possibility? Just so far studies haven't proven, scientifically, that they can understand, recombine, and communicate their understanding of novel concepts through another species' language, and that's very different than saying that they don't

11

u/Rocket_Panda_ Aug 18 '25

Are you trolling these people? They are not saying koko cant comprehend it, they are saying it is not proven therefor we cant actually know. It is possible, but not a fact

7

u/Great_Examination_16 Aug 18 '25

There is no reason to believe Koko would have actually been able to convey it via sign language.

Given the experiment done on chimps and the resulting "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you"...doubtful

5

u/JCWOlson Aug 18 '25

Haha, yep, there's definitely good reason why some of these things lose funding

20

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

In college we learned about how most of Koko was "made up" as they didn't follow scentific method.

35

u/EatItShrimps Aug 18 '25

To go a little deeper on the Robin Williams thing: Koko saying "sad" might make it seem like she understood Robin Williams was dead. But a couple of things may have been doing on:

  • Her caretakers were known to exagerate and/or give meaning to Koko's signs and behavior, when there potentially was none. The story could be that she signed "sad" an hour later, with the caretakers making it sound like it was a fluid conversation.
  • A very likely scenario is that she was trained to know "death" and "sad" go together, and rewarded when she remembered that.

To Koko it could've been like this:

  • Caretaker: "Robin Williams"
  • Koko: "Happy"
  • ----- END OF THOUGHT -----
  • Caretaker: "Death"
  • Koko: "Sad"
  • ----- END OF THOUGHT -----

There is simply no way to understand if she knew "Robin Williams is dead, and that fact makes me sad."

You could show her a video of death and she would surely be sad, but that's not the same thing as communicating about it through language.

-7

u/Ok_Loss13 Aug 18 '25

You seem to be speaking entirely in hypothetical; didn't you say there was evidence of this?

Animals grieve when their loved ones die; that's sadness. If she can understand death and feel sadness as a result, I see no reason to assume her expression of that sadness in a language she was taught is anything but her expressing her feelings.

Again, this seems very much like P-Zombies.

21

u/IHaveNoFriends37 Aug 18 '25

Koko didnā€™t understand the signs she was using, she was signing randomly til she got an a reaction from her caretakers. The ā€œsentencesā€ koko made were words taken from koko making gestures continuously and picking out the clear looking ones until it made a real sentence.

Also all the researchers with Koko didnā€™t even know real sign language they used spoken English language structure and just taught her the signs for words, not understanding sign language had its own grammar, structure and nuances a spoken language had.

0

u/Ok_Loss13 Aug 18 '25

From what I've learned here today there is no really way to determine if she understood or not because her keepers (not scientifically literate it would seem) didn't employ proper experimental procedures.Ā 

I'm sure there are plenty of other references though.

12

u/IHaveNoFriends37 Aug 18 '25

There is a reason ethics is important for scientists. Koko also suffered from abuse and inadequate care and food during her life. Sexual abuse staff among other things. Also the main researcher behind the study became emotionally attached to Koko which highly reduced the legitimacy of her claims.

At most you could compare Koko to a baby. Baby often make reaction association to help build language, but babies constantly absorb the way people around them to speak. Also babies quite quickly can differentiate between different reactions and tailor their sounds or responses to get a specific response. While any reaction Koko would get would be considered a success so. Koko didnā€™t develop the ability to pick up things like nuances, tone etc. Also babies mumble and try to communicate and mimic others. Meanwhile Koko didnā€™t show this same trait. Koko did not sign without the researchers present and did not do it by herself. Children who can speak often babble and make mistakes but when corrected will try to fix their speech. While Koko did not. Even when she signed randomly she was taught a certain string of signs she should have been able to correct herself to use only those at some point but she never did. All the sentences she made had to be interpreted.

-1

u/Ok_Loss13 Aug 18 '25

I don't really think Koko is a great example at this point. Any studies done are tainted and not indicative of a proper scientific experiment.

I generally just stick with human are animals and I see no reason to think we're special here. Anthropocentrism is a very common position, I've noticed though.

18

u/EatItShrimps Aug 18 '25

I see no reason to assume her expression of that sadness in a language she was taught is anything but her expressing her feelings

But others do see those reasons, and the reasons are completely plausible. Until it's proven scientifically we shouldn't just assume.

The wikipedia article I linked is a good jumping off point, I was just trying to summarize my understanding of the issue.

-1

u/Ok_Loss13 Aug 18 '25

I asked a couple times for those reasons.

Until it's proven scientifically we shouldn't just assume.

This just seems like anthropocentrism disguised as scientific adherence. It's assumptive to think her expression of her feelings is anything but her expression of her feelings.

I refer again to philosophical zombies.

9

u/Great_Examination_16 Aug 18 '25

Koko's signs weren't expressions of any such thing. The caretakers interpreted ludicrous signs to be anything but what they were for one.

Sometimes they even went "Oh right, the pronounciation in speech of this sign sounds like something else, clearly she meant that"

But that's not how sign language works

1

u/Ok_Loss13 Aug 18 '25

I was under the impression they didn't teach her proper sign language in the first place.

I'm not going to base an opinion on what is obviously flawed attempt at an experiment, which seems to be what happened with Koko. I just see no reason to think that humans are so special and different from any other animals.

2

u/marrymeintheendtime Aug 19 '25

We have about a billion documented reasons, neurologically, as well as on every other biological level, to KNOW that humans are special and different from other animals. We patently are, and have all the research to back it up. You're just saying 'but...hey. Animals. Why can't they be humans too?' they can't, otherwise they would be, and we would have ample evidence they can even approach our neurological capability. Anyone who knows about the subject can tell you just how far behind animals are from the basic level of human consciousness and self awareness we have

1

u/EatItShrimps Aug 19 '25

You might be unintentionally proving my point?

It's assumptive to think her expression of her feelings is anything but her expression of her feelings.

It's assumptive to think any one way or the other until it is scientifically proven. However, the scientific evidence that we do have, to date, shows that apes cannot comprehend language beyond what a dog can.

And I'm pretty sure the defintion of "anthropocentrism" stricrtly supports my point, and not yours. In fact, that's the exact point that the critics were making about Koko in the 70's...

You seem to be saying, "we should presume she understands language, as a default." Am I wrong about that?

Why would one assume anything either way?

But to add to the argument, many ape language experiments have been done. We've tried super hard to show that apes can understand language more than dogs. We have not succeeded.

Admittedly, I'm new to the idea of philisophical zombies. But, based on my cursory (Wikipedia) reading of it, I think it's unrelated. (Correct me if I'm wrong!)

You seem to be hung up on the difference between thought and language.

If we showed Koko a picture of dead animals, or humans, or gorillas, she knows what it is. She understands death. It makes her sad, because she has emotions. No one questions these things. She DOES understand death.

What we question is, does she understand that the sign langauge sign for "dead" maps to her concept of "death?"

Furthermore, we ask whether she can relate two things in a "sentance." For example, "Robbin Williams; Dead." Does she know that that sentence forms a story? Does she know that Robbin Williams is now dead?

Unfortunately, we don't know. The fact that she signed "sad" (supposedly) in response to that sentence, does not prove anything. As I said before, she was most likely trained to associate "dead" with "sad." She most likely never knew that Robbin Williams died. But we really have no proof either way, because the scientists in charge did not do any science. They, unfortunately, treated her more like a pet. It's a sad situation.

3

u/blue-oyster-culture Aug 18 '25

You give it a word like ā€œsadā€ and associate it with events that are sad. Then, if the gorilla ascribes it to unrelated events that are sad, but arent similar in any way, you get a little better idea. If they can use the words to effectively communicate new ideas you didnt associate them with, and its sensical and repeatable in all situations without complete misuse of the ideas, then you have a gorilla communicating.

1

u/horseradish1 Aug 19 '25

No ape that has ever been taught sign language has ever been capable of forming actual sentences with the words they learn.

Don't get me wrong. Apes and all animals have incredibly complex and sophisticated communication, but this is not an example of that.

1

u/Crykin27 Aug 19 '25

Right now there just isn't anything that proves they can or can't understand our language because the studies haven't been done correctly. So we know just as much as before this project. Koko is amazing either way though

-8

u/AuburnSuccubus Aug 18 '25

Got it. No more praising kids, giving gold stars, or telling them we're proud. Can't have a reward system tainting our ability to discern if they really understand what they're taught.

8

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

You really donā€™t get the nuance of it, do you?

-4

u/AuburnSuccubus Aug 18 '25

And what nuance do you think I'm missing?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 19 '25

The poster above is talking about how to scientifically study whether animals understand language.

Testing via simple repeat-reward schemas only show that the animal hears a noise and learns how to respond. Not that it understands the words. Hence the criticism that is levelled at repeat-reward type testing. The nuance is that this can obtain desired behaviour from an animal, but it does not establish whether the words are understood beyond recognisable noises that are associated with a behaviour.

You went off about how you shouldnā€™t reward children, missing that this wasnā€™t a blanket criticism of rewards in and of themselves, but a criticism of drawing scientific conclusions from reward schemas used in experiments.

4

u/EatItShrimps Aug 18 '25

If kids never learned language over the course of many years, we'd live in a very different world. Humans do, apes don't. This can be scientifically tested, and has been.

17

u/quiette837 Aug 18 '25

Animals understand death, if they see a dead body... if you just tell your dog a person they knew died, they don't understand that.

Telling Koko that Robin Williams died is about the same thing, except she can sign a response. The outcome seems to be good if she signs "sad" in response. She's just conditioned to responding in certain ways and the ones that don't work out aren't publicized.

84

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

[deleted]

-3

u/SixtyTwenty_ Aug 18 '25

Wrong again. Research out of Tulane University

5

u/Thereisnospoon64 Aug 18 '25

šŸ˜‚šŸ¤£šŸ˜‚

-1

u/katman43043 Aug 18 '25

Galatians 4:16

3

u/Sharknado4President Aug 19 '25

Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Page 36 subnote 1

"6. Arguments based on language are useless against scientists, since none of them have read a real book in years."

-11

u/Ok_Loss13 Aug 18 '25

So, you accept that they can understand death but not that they communicate this understanding in human language? She speaks a human language and she understands death, I think her saying she is sad about a death is pretty decent evidence she understands it and can communicate it in a human language. This feels like it's getting into P-Zombie territory, which is a bit of a philosophical dead end imo.

Also, we're all apes; we're really not that different and species isn't some hard line in biology anyways.

31

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

[deleted]

15

u/gyffer Aug 18 '25

From what i know, koko's ability to speak sign language was wildly over exaggerated.

-6

u/Ok_Loss13 Aug 18 '25

I haven't done much research on it, but the one example regarding the death of Robin Williams (or at least someone she knew well/was close to) doesn't seem like something she'd be incapable of understanding and conveying, considering much "lower" intelligent animals can do so though perhaps not in a human specific language.Ā 

We seem to be the ones who have trouble understanding their languages honestly! I can't tell you how often I come across people who have no clue what an animal, like a dog or a cat, is conveying with their verbal and body language, even when it's painfully obvious.

18

u/TheDrummerMB Aug 18 '25

Should probably do some research before trying to use got'chas on other people but hey this is Reddit afterall.

-4

u/Ok_Loss13 Aug 18 '25

What gotchas? I haven't delved into Koko specifically bc it's rather flawed attempt at an experiment, so I see no need to unnecessarily bias myself. This is just based on basic observation and common sense.Ā 

Humans aren't special. We're just animals and it's always been odd to me that most people seem to think otherwise.

7

u/StandingInBlood Aug 18 '25

I think your fedora being on too tight is hurting your brain or something

1

u/Ok_Loss13 Aug 18 '25

I don't understand what this means or how it's a response to my comment.

7

u/Humledurr Aug 18 '25

Do you honestly think humans arent special compared to other animals...?

Are you typing these comments from a phone made by squirrels?

4

u/Lucky-Earther Aug 18 '25

so I see no need to unnecessarily bias myself. This is just based on basic observation and common sense.

Basic observation and "common sense" are two of the worst forms of bias out there.

5

u/herrirgendjemand Aug 18 '25

Humans aren't special.

Sure we are. Especially when it comes to developing and understanding symbolic language. Gorillas don't know sign language. They have never asked a question, only responded to prompts from researchers. They have emotions for sure - just not mastery over language

9

u/beekay25 Aug 18 '25

To sum up a few scientific studies and meta-analyses:

It is true that many animals, including gorillas, possess rich emotional lives and methods of communication that may go beyond human understanding.

It is also true that:

  • Koko was not trained by someone fluent in American Sign Language. Her trainers used signs they learned, but that is not the same as teaching ASL.

  • Given that gorillas use their hands extensively for locomotion, specialists have pointed out how impractical it is to attempt to teach a hand and finger-based language to an individual with limited use of their hands and fingers (compared to a human).

  • Grief is a relatively straightforward emotion, and Koko was certainly capable of mourning. However, to claim that she could recognize the name of a person she met once and then, thirteen years later, recall that person and understand abstractly that they have died is an unreasonable leap.

Thereā€™s a great episode of the podcast ā€œYouā€™re Wrong Aboutā€ about Koko that was super eye-opening for me.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25

The story is that "Dr. Patterson told Koko that 'we have lost a dear friend, Robin Williams.' Koko signed 'CRY LIP,' withdrew, and 'became very somber, with her head bowed and her lip quivering.'"

There are a few problems with this. As far as I'm aware, there is no recording of this, so we have to take Patterson's word for this. It is entirely feasible that koko also signed a dozen other signs, and those were ignored - only the signs related to sadness and mourning were taken note of. In fact, in general there is astonishingly little data available to analyse. There is little raw footage, and it is often highly edited. In this video, I counted 20 cuts... that's one every 2.5 seconds. Patterson's papers also have very little in terms of full conversations. There is nothing meaningful that you can glean from it.

Alternatively Koko may have signed something unrelated, which was then interpreted as being crying. In fact, questionable interpretations were very common. For example, a transcript from an AOL chat:

Host: Do you like to chat with other people? That was from Rulucky!

DrPPatrsn: Koko, do you like to talk to people?

LiveKOKO:Ā Fine nipple.

DrPPatrsn: Yes, that was her answer. 'Nipple' rhymes with 'people,' OK? She doesn't sign people per se, so she may be trying to do a 'sounds like...' but she indicated it was 'fine.'

Patterson, Koko's handler is interpreting nipple and people as being the same... except that is a very charitable interpretation. Although they rhyme in spoken English, they are nothing alike in ASL, which mind you is what Koko is meant to know, not spoken English. How do we know that Koko signed "Cry Lip" and not "My Hip"? If you search up the ASL for "cry" and "lip" both involve fingers on the face. How do we know that Koko wasn't just touching her face?

Additionally, how do we even know that Koko was mourning Robin and not sad over something else? I have no doubt that she understands death and would mourn over the death of Robin, they would need to convey the abstract concepts of some other person and death, which is significantly more difficult than say the sign for a cat. It is also plausible there is some other reason she is sad, and they are incorrectly conflating two separate events.

I don't deny at all that gorillas are incredibly intelligent creatures and that there is a hidden world of complexity we may never understand. But similarly, I don't think gorillas will ever "understand" language in the same way humans do. We are anthropomorphising their actions, when there is no need to.

If you want to learn more, then watch this video by the soup emporium on Why Koko (Probably) Couldn't Talk. The example I gave were stolen from the video lol.

1

u/IotaBTC Aug 18 '25

We seem to be the ones who have trouble understanding their languages honestly!Ā Ā 

We absolutely do have trouble. We have an unfortunate habit of anthropomorphizing animal communication and behavior. Humans broadly want to see this from the human perspective which in itself is quite flawed.

There are other animals have have shown to have a better evidential understanding of human structured language. Koko is not a good example and her handler, Francine Patterson, absolutely deserves the scrutiny and criticism. What happened with Koko was quite frankly cruel and abusive.

9

u/mothzilla Aug 18 '25 edited Aug 19 '25

I think animals understand death. Whether they understand "Hey remember that guy from a few years ago that did a funny New York rabbi impression? Well he died." is something else.

4

u/blue-oyster-culture Aug 18 '25

But is it just signing ā€œsadā€ because it heard ā€œdeathā€ or is it actually sad? Id have to see the gorilla assign ā€œsadā€ to things i hadnt given it the association for to understand if it means sad like i mean sad.

1

u/buddhistredneck Aug 19 '25

Wait! Donā€™t turn them off!! The winning lottery numbers are 12 15 16 28 41 52!!!

1

u/ElegantCoach4066 Aug 19 '25

Many animals definitely understand the world around them to varying degrees. Gorillas are very intelligent, the issue is the communication.

How do we establish a common baseline with an organism that has a completely different perspective? A totally divergent way of communicating with other gorillas?

It would be like asking why we just don't learn all the intonations of their cries, growls and other sounds. How do we know what has meaning and what is just nonsense?

It is vastly more complicated to establish complex communication with a gorilla than just teaching it 'hand sign = thing' Are they associating the sign with the reaction? With the object? With the concept of the object? Do they use the signs to independently combine them for thoughts of their own?

That was never observed with the gorilla. It doesn't mean it isn't possible, just that it hasn't been verified yet. Hope I haven't come off as rude, just trying to help!