What makes homo sapiens "human"?

Forget Every Which Way But Loose, check out this evidence: Now custard, how can you continue to deny that apes have language (not to mention tool use) in the face of such indisputable proof?

case closed. Here's a picture of an even less evolved primate using language and tools: Homo StillerensusThis message has been edited by custard, 06-30-2004 01:40 PM

But seriously, folks... The above post made me recall the following report: I'm not saying this study directly refutes the arguments above, but I think it is a strong comment that non-human primates can (abstractly?) think at least in terms of "better" and "worse", since they are able to respond to inequity.Also, although it doesn't deal with the time issue, the study suggests that monkeys can deal with cause-and-effect above simple levels, given the underlying comparison to other individuals - perhaps 'awareness' of cause-and-effect in another individual, along with awareness of their own cause-and-effect situation hints at an ability to deal with abstraction such as better/worse and me/they - and thus inequity.Of course, there's no evidence of the monkeys communicating their thoughts to others, so this doesn't deal with the language issue...I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this study.

Do you have a link to more detail? I'd be better able to understand what their definition of 'refused to participate' and 'respond negatively' is if I could see more details of what the test(s) were, how many monkeys were involved, etc.

Unfortunatly, you need to have access to Nature to get the article. I checked the de Waal lab web page but it only had the abstract. Here's my summary of the technique:The monkeys are given tokens that they can exchange with a human experimenter for food - in this case either cucumber (acceptable) or grape (preferred). In the experiment two monkeys are placed in a divided cage and given tokens. The experimental monkey first watches an exchange between the other monkey and the human before offered an exchange of its own. Rejection was scored as refusal to barter or refusal to eat after bartering. Five experimental monkeys were used (plus control monkeys).In controls both monkeys are offered the same food reward. In inequality experiments, the first monkey is offered a grape, the second (experimental) is offered a cucumber. A more drastic inequality was produced by giving the first monkey a reward without requiring a token, then requiring a token from the experimental monkey - in this latter case the experimental monkeys displayed outrage, often hurling the tokens at the humans.The difference was quite drastic - in control experiments and other experiments in the de Waal lab, bartering occurs >95% for either food reward. In the inequality experiment this dropped to ~50%; in the effort inequality experiment it dropped below 10%.Hopefully this will be helpful. The authors don't make any mention of 'abstraction' - they stick to the terms 'expectations', 'inequity', and the 'emotionality' resulting from inequity.Here is a link to a pdf of another article from the de Waal lab that does a similar experiment:
Living Links | Page not foundThis second study shows that capuchin monkeys more readily share a food reward with a cooperative partner in obtaining that food reward, relative to sharing a food reward they obtained themselves. In a way it studies 'equity' while the first study I mentioned examines 'inequity.'

That seems to confirm many field observations. One thing often noted is that the act of sharing is far lower during foraging than when during a cooperative venture such as hunting.It would be interesting to find some references that might detail such behavior. Do you know of any specific ones?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If you are interested, there is a book called Good Natured by Frans de Waal (an anthropomorphism-free and agenda-free primatologist). The book focuses on animal morality, and covers some of the cooperation studies in captivity and in the wild. Some excerpts related to the subject at hand, since I don't expect anyone to run out and get the book: There are also more complex examples that are nothing short of political positioning - males using meat-distribution to specific individuals and groups to establish allies that maintain their rank when physical strength alone would not. de Waal's conclusion is that the shift from straightforward dominance to food sharing was a milestone in human evolution - "The result is the relatively equitable distribution of resources that our sense of justice and fairness requires."There is also some interesting comments on survival of the "unfit" in such social groups, and of human and neanderthal fossils of people with disabilities that lived to adulthood. An example is made of a congenitally handless macaque in a study group that was accepted and managed to live a long life, have many children, and participate in cooperation and politics. I believe (though am not postive) primates are unique in this aspect - non-primates shun or attack conspecifics with visible disabilities...

Greetings,Actually, these parrots really seem capable of actual conversation.Check out this amazing conversation with "N'Kisi" the African Grey, after he had been in a car for the first time -N'Kisi: "Remember, we went in a car"
Aimee: "Yes! Did you like it?"
N'Kisi: "I like that - wanna go out in the car"
Aimee: "We can't, wo don't have a car now"
N'Kisi: "Wanna go in a car right now"
Aimee: "I'm sorry, we can't right now - maybe we can go again later"
N'kisi: "Why can't I go in a car now?"
Aimee: "Because we don't have one"
N'kisi: "Let's get a car"
Aimee: "No Kisi, we can't get a car now"
N'kisi: "I want a car"
Aimee: "I'm sorry, baby, not today"
N'kisi: "Hurry up, wanna go in a car. Remember? We were in a car" This not mimicry - if you did not know this was a bird, it sounds just like a child that liked his first ride in a car and wants to go again.Early experiments with chimps (e.g. Washoe et al) have not lived up to hopes - these parrots are one of the hot species when it comes to animal communication these days.Iasion

Conversation is a misnomer here. I don't see a conversation. I see the parrot repeating its request over and over. No offense, but I don't see how this is significantly different than my dog licking my face until I feed him; or him ringing his bell because he wants to go outside.The parrot seems to be simply running through request actions, in this case sounds he has memorized, in order to get back into the car.The parrot doesn't demonstrate that it has any idea what 'we don't have a car' and 'I can't get a car' means. Even a child would ask 'why can't you get a car?' The parrot doesn't make this leap. It just keeps repeating its demand. Communication, yeah; but not language.Finally, I'd have to actually see & hear the tape before I believe the parrot's syntax is anywhere near as good as this. I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm just saying I'm a skeptic so I need more than hearsay. Do you have any links to this conversation?

Greetings,Its true the "conversation" does show some limits, yet he also seems to be able to understand and communicate some basic ideas -Aimee: "Yes! Did you like it?"
N'Kisi: "I like that - wanna go out in the car"Responding to a question and expanding it.Aimee: "Because we don't have one"
N'kisi: "Let's get a car"Understanding the statement and suggesting solution.Of course, you are correct that this is essentially ONE anecdote of unknown accuracy, indeed almost certainly biased - the woman started with the goal of showing animal communication.My immediate source is below (I have not checked the facts myself, sorry). I first saw it in a paper some months ago.http://www.animalsentience.com/news/2004-01-26.htmIasion

Dude,this sentence from that article makes me skeptical of every other claim therein:

quote:

---

Some new research has also shown that N'kisi's skills may also include telepathy.

​

As this study was strictly controlled against cues from any normal sensory means, and chance coincidence has been ruled out, these experiments provide compelling evidence of interspecies telepathy.

---

No wonder the parrots are so good at communicating... although one might think N'kisi might have been able to read Aimee's mind so she didn't have to explain why they couldn't get a car.This message has been edited by custard, 07-01-2004 06:27 AM

Whoops,turns out the telepathy angle seems to a big part of this story, even with the author, not just fringe web-sites.This seems to be the home page -
http://www.sheldrake.org/nkisi/Iasion

I checked out the 'peer-reviewed' journal the parrot-telepathy paper was published in - the Journal of Scientific Exploration.
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse.htmlIt includes other astounding articles like Unexplained Weight Gain Transients at the Moment of Death, where a person (without any instituitional affiliation) places sheep on a large balance, kills them by placing a plastic bag over their heads, and measures weight changes as they die. Definitely not the most ethical or scientific study I've seen.The journal is perhaps worth checking out solely for amusement...

Yeah, wasn't that experiment the basis of that movie 21 lambs?Ok bad pun.

Hey, SasqSorry to get into this so late. In other issues of my thinking I've been musing on sensory/motor life/awareness vs. conceptual/imagination. I'm thinking perhaps it's this increased conceptual activity leading to imagination and participation in shared imaginary worlds such as revealed religous concepts of spirits, heaven, etc. that is what distinguishes homo sap from the rest of the life forms on this planet.It's not what we do, it's all the dramatic imagining we add to our doing that makes us different. Whaddya think?peace,
lfen