From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!psgrain!qiclab!nosun!hilbert!max Tue Nov 19 11:08:53 EST 1991
Article 1182 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!psgrain!qiclab!nosun!hilbert!max
>From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Animal Intelligence vs Human Intelligence
Summary: Behaviorists don't know language.
Message-ID: <1991Oct31.235402.12739@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com>
Date: 31 Oct 91 23:54:02 GMT
References: <37311@shamash.cdc.com> <1991Oct24.234823.7560@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> <37443@shamash.cdc.com>
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon
Lines: 68

In article <37443@shamash.cdc.com> map@svl.cdc.com writes:
>In <1991Oct24.234823.7560@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> dave@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (David Gray) writes:
>
>>In article <37311@shamash.cdc.com> map@svl.cdc.com writes:
>>>Knowledge hierarchy: senses -> percepts -> concepts deleted for space
>
>>>Human beings are the only form of life that can reach the conceptual
>>>level.        
>
>>Feh. Humanocentrist!
>
>>Washoe (a chimp taught sign language) used to 'non-automatically'
>>(whatever that means) tell LIES.
>
>>Howzabout if you review the literature, before making such
>>claims. Fair enough?
>
>Washoe experiment (and many others) was thoroughly debunked by a
>behaviorist by the name of Herb Tares (sp?).

But this is far from the whole story. Tool making behavior
and puzzle solving has been observed in chimps on many occasions,
which I feel really must be considered thinking of the highest kind.

As for your ref (sort of), I'll go check it out. But the behaviorists
didn't even see a reason to posit the higher mental functions in _humans_.
Their treatment of human language seemed aimed at similarly debunking the
idea that _WE_ have these higher functions as well... I suggest that
anyone that practiced in discounting all "higher mental functions", human
or not, has a bias against them. Not a good source for someone claiming
that ONLY humans have these - your source would claim you don't either,
perhaps.

Further, I have seen video tape where Washoe, confronted with her
doo-doo on the carpet, looks around and names various people as
the perpetrators. "Mark did it". "No, you did it". "Karen did it".
"No, you did it". "OK, I did it". This example of her behavior doesn't
seem to fit Tares description. Even if the signs might have been supplied,
consider the fact that others were blamed, and then finally, (apparently)
reluctantly admitting that Washoe herself(?) did it. 

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that
	1) she knew she would be punished for that, if someone
	   else knew.
	2) she knew if she could convince someone else that it wasn't her,
	   she wouldn't be punished.

I can't think of any simpler explanation for that exchange. Maybe
you can - share it with me? 

Sorry if I rashly assumed you an ignoramus. You made very strong
claims seemingly unsupported by evidence(at least in the posting)
 - and I reacted to that.

BTW, once I saw a behaviorist account of what is going on when
A guy asks a girl out in terms of simple stimulus-response pairs.
They would have had us believe that the whole dialogue is random
utterances shaped by reinforcement. I wish I could type it in for
you. You would never take a behaviorist seriously again - it was
_HILARIOUS_.

>--
>Mark A. Peters                              ****** ======================
>Control Data Corporation                    ****** == "What a save!!!" ==
>Internet: map@svl.cdc.com                   ****** == "What an idea!!" ==

Regards,
	Max


