usual suspect wrote:

>>> Glorfindel wrote:

>>>> It's difficult to discuss animal cognition

>>> It's an issue which continues to be debated among researchers:

>> And some people still claim the earth is flat.

> I'm not one of them. The fact remains that you choose to *believe* in
> something,

Yes, I believe the years of evidence are quite conclusive.

> and even lie that it's *established*,

I do believe it is established in the field in general,
and certainly among most laypeople. We are so close in
every biological, social, and genetic aspect to the great
apes, particularly the chimpanzees, that I can't see how
they could be completely unlike us in ability to communicate
with us and with each other. The amazing thing is that they
communicate with us in *our* language; I don't see many
humans, except perhaps Jane Goodall, trying to communicate
with them in their language. They, like parrots, are working
at a major disadvantage.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> MUCH
> OF THIS THORNY DEBATE CENTERS ON THE DEFINITION OF "LANGUAGE"
> ITSELF.

This is an important aspect of the controversy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> SOME DETRACTORS OF THE APE LANGUAGE PROJECTS POINT OUT THAT THE
> SUBJECTS ARE PRONE TO MERELY REPEATING A SENTENCE OR PART OF A
> SENTENCE THE TRAINER HAD JUST SIGNED.

So are young kids. The same criticisms have been leveled at
parents whose children are just learning to talk. But no one
suggests children aren't capable of learning to talk because of
that.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Alex apparently
> is able to "request, refuse, identify, categorize, or quantify"
> more than 50 items, and label them according to color, shape,
> and material. He also has learned concepts of sameness and
> difference. Shown a red triangle and a blue triangle, Alex will
> say they are same in shape and different in color. Alex uses
> some syntax, always saying "green wood" not "wood green" for
> example. HOWEVER, PEPPERBERG ADDS, "UNTIL ALEX GIVES TALKS FOR
> ME, IT'S NOT REALLY LANGUAGE...."

Sounds like language to me -- and there's definitely evidence
on abstract set concepts there.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> [C]OMPLEX COMMUNICATION DOES NOT A LANGUAGE MAKE.

A matter of definition again. Language is an ability
to communicate meaning, especially in new situations,
and there doesn't seem to be any real disagreement
that many non-human animals can do that.

We can't judge other species by how successful they are
at being humans, unless you are willing to judge human
intelligence by how successful we are at being chimpanzees
or parrots.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>