Nim & Noam: Skinner, Chomsky and the Chimp

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Nim & Noam: Skinner, Chomsky and the Chimp

Postby American Dream » Fri Jul 22, 2011 8:18 am

http://www.counterpunch.org/young07222011.html

Skinner, Chomsky and the Chimp

Nim and Noam

By CHARLES M. YOUNG


"Project Nim" is a twisted mirror image of "Grizzly Man." The former is about a guy who thinks he can make a wild animal human by raising it in civilization. The latter is about about a guy who thinks he can make himself a wild animal by living in the woods. The former gets tenure. The latter gets eaten. Both want to be famous.

"Grizzly Man", a 2005 documentary by Werner Herzog, concerns one Timothy Treadwell, a suicidal misfit who goes to live among grizzly bears in Alaska every summer for 13 years. He videos his encounters with grizzlies and concludes that because he hasn't been eaten yet, he is one of them. He also sees himself as their protector, even though they are already protected in a national park. And then the bears decide to eat Treadwell and his girlfriend.

Moral: Bears will be bears.

The tragic hero of "Project Nim," a 2011 documentary by James Marsh, is Nim Chimpsky, a chimpanzee who is raised by humans who think they can teach him to communicate using sign language (chimps don't have the throat structure to talk). The alpha scientist of the project is Herbert Terrace, a Columbia psychology professor who acquires Nim at the age of two weeks in 1973. Nim is violently separated from his distraught mother at the Institute for Primate Studies in Oklahoma and shipped to New York. It is clear in the movie that Terrace hadn't given the experiment or his chimp much thought. If he had, he probably wouldn't have given Nim to a family of rich, vaguely bohemian intellectuals with seven children on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. They seem like nice people, but nobody knows anything about chimps or sign language. This is also true of the press, who do a lot of soft features on the project.

For 18 months, Nim wrecks the home and marriage of his surrogate parents, and becomes dangerous as he gets larger and stronger. No "science" is getting done, so Terrace moves Nim to a country estate north of the city, from which Nim commutes to a classroom at Columbia. Various student assistants try to teach Nim sign language and are lucky to escape with their lives. Fearful of getting sued, Terrace decides that he's got enough data in 1977 and sends Nim back to his birthplace in Oklahoma. He sees Nim a year later to have his picture taken for an anecdotal memoir bragging about all the sign language Nim learned. In 1979, he changes his mind and publishes an article in Science saying that Nim had learned nothing, that chimps can't learn language.

After the trauma of adjusting to life in a cage with other chimps, Nim gets lucky for a while. One of his keepers is a hippie Deadhead named Bob Ingersoll who appreciates Nim for his essential ape-ness. They play a lot in the woods and smoke dope together. The reserve closes because of financial problems, and Nim is sold to an NYU lab where vaccines for hepatitis are being tested on primates. It is also a medieval torture chamber. Ingersoll lobbies to get him purchased and moved, and Nim ends up in Cleveland Amory's private animal prerserve, where he has a few happy years and finally dies of a heart attack at the age of 26 (about half of his expected lifespan) in 2000. Since Nim's favorite foods in New York were ice cream and pizza, one wonders if his handlers ended up killing him with arteriosclerosis.

Moral: Chimps will be chimps.

A large gap in "Project Nim" is that the origin of the name Nim Chimpsky is not explained, which means Terrace's motives—other than to be the first man to talk to an ape— are not explained. The viewer leaves the theater wondering, "Why did he want to tweak Noam Chomsky?"

Well, Chomksy trashed B. F. Skinner on several occasions, that's why. Perhaps America's most influential psychologist then and now, Skinner was the chief proponent of "radical behaviorism" which held that the behavior of any organism was completely determined by its history of rewards and punishments. From his experiments making pigeons do odd tasks in prison-like devices known as Skinner boxes, he advocated "cultural engineering" for humans along the same principles. When Skinner's grand statement Beyond Freedom and Dignity came out in 1971, Chomsky applied basic principles of logic to Skinner's grand vision and demonstrated that Skinner's scientific claims were trivially true or absurd and his philosophy compatible with a "well-run concentration camp." The review, reprinted as "Psychology and Ideology" in The Chomsky Reader, is one of Chomsky's greatest essays and one of the few that is laugh-out-loud funny.

Central to their argument was language. Chomsky said we were born with it, that the brain is a language producing organ which makes everything else possible for us as humans. Sentences, given their infinite variety of meaning and construction, are indicative that human beings are unique among animals and probably do best in conditions that maximize freedom and creativity. Skinner said language was all conditioning, that environmental input determined human output, and that the brain was a blank slate. If the brain was indeed blank at birth and therefore infinitely malleable, the smart people in a given society should engineer young brains for the happiness of all, and they could engineer any kind of brain they wanted. Traditional concepts of freedom and dignity were obsolete.

Terrace, it turns out, got his Ph.D at Harvard and was mentored by Skinner. The most effective way to restore the reputation of Skinner and behaviorism would be to prove his foremost critic wrong. Said the foremost critic: "It's about as likely that an ape will prove to have language ability as there is an island somewhere with a species of flightless bird waiting for humans to teach them to fly."

It's easy to see why a documentary with time constraints would skip a debate between two intellectuals about the nature of the brain and human freedom. Fortunately, the documentary is based on a fascinating book, Nim: The Chimp Who Would Be Human by Elizabeth Hess, which adds a lot of telling detail to a story that is sometimes a Monty Python routine and sometimes a Greek tragedy. Its mostly flat tone makes the bizarre events stand out even more starkly.

On the Monty Python side, imagine you're a student assistant in Primate Studies and your job, as mandated by your professor, is to make a young chimpanzee hang up his coat, sit at a desk in a college classroom and learn sign language for hours at a stretch. Suppose further that the chimp is regularly howling, hitting, wrecking stuff, ripping chunks of flesh out of you and breaking your bones with his teeth, and smearing his feces all over the walls. Why would anyone think sign language necessary to communicate with such an animal? Do you have to be Dr. Doolittle to understand that the ape is saying, "I'm having a dysphoric experience with your teaching methodology"?

What is more absurd--a fundamentalist Christian trying to cure a gay man of his homosexuality with Bible verses or a behaviorist trying to cure a chimp of his ape-ness with language?

How much of science is this silly?

On the Greek tragedy side, Nim really was a social animal of high intelligence and pretty much the full range of human-like emotion. His trainers all loved him, despite the frequent marathon tantrums. What seemed to bother Nim the most about his learning experience was that his classroom was next door to a laboratory and he could hear the experimental rats screaming. One day he escaped the classroom and let all the rats out of their cages. It's only an anecdote, but it's certainly indicative of empathy, inborn desire for freedom and animal solidarity in pursuit of liberation.

Perhaps the saddest aspect of Nim's life is that after Terrace concluded in Science that Nim was using sign language only as as sophisticated form of begging, which had the effect of killing most chimp research at the time, Nim spent the rest of his life living in cages and desperately signing to people. He even taught sign language to his fellow chimps. When approached by an unfamiliar human, Nim would sign his desire for food, freedom and companionship (what else is there?). If the human signed back, Nim was thrilled. If the human didn't know sign language, he would lapse into passive depression.

While Nim was never able to formulate a sentence, he did show great promise as a poet. When he wanted erotic stimulation, for example, he signed "pull" and "tickle." Perhaps his life would have had a happier outcome if he had just been allowed to switch his major from Psychology to Creative Writing.

So Chomsky won the debate. Chimpanzees can't make sentences. If they could, they would have come out of the trees 150,000 years ago, learned to cooperate at a high level, mastered fire, invented agriculture, built great cities and sent a chimp to moon. The only ape to accomplish those feats was the human one.

The spirit of B.F. Skinner is nonetheless everywhere alive and inspiring the cultural engineers, whether they call themselves behaviorists or not. Every time a corporation talks about "incentivizing" its customers with rewards and punishments, every time a prosecutor talks about "incentivizing" witnesses with shorter prison sentences, every time an educator talks about "incentivizing" teachers with merit pay and students with grades and test scores, the underlying idea is something that started with a starving pigeon in a Skinner box.

George Wald, the Nobel laureate biologist and antiwar activist, ran into one of Skinner's minions at Harvard back in the 60s and reported this encounter: "One day he said to me, his face just shining, 'Give us the specifications and we'll make the men.' I'm aftraid I lost control a little, and my first reply was, 'Not if I can shoot you first.' That seemed to irritate him."

Moral: Human beings have choice, and the choice right now is between being a pigeon dancing for food pellets or Nim Chimpsky wrecking the specifications of his engineers.



Charles M. Young is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, the new independent, collectively-owned, journalist-run, reader (sort-of) supported online alternative newspaper, now beginning its second year of daily publication
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nim & Noam: Skinner, Chomsky and the Chimp

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Jul 22, 2011 8:43 am

American Dream wrote:
Moral: Human beings have choice, and the choice right now is between being a pigeon dancing for food pellets or Nim Chimpsky wrecking the specifications of his engineers.



I'm sorry but having a choice is one thing..... being enlighten enough to know that's even a possibility is another



on edit

I just ran across this quote at The Young Turks

"No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
- George Orwell, Animal Farm, Ch. 10
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Nim & Noam: Skinner, Chomsky and the Chimp

Postby Stephen Morgan » Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:00 am

seemslikeadream wrote:"No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
- George Orwell, Animal Farm, Ch. 10


We taste like pigs too, apparently. At least, so says the local butcher.
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia
User avatar
Stephen Morgan
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:37 am
Location: England
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Nim & Noam: Skinner, Chomsky and the Chimp

Postby OpLan » Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:18 am

but Noam, what about Kanzi?
User avatar
OpLan
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:40 pm
Location: at the end of my tether
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nim & Noam: Skinner, Chomsky and the Chimp

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:38 am

American Dream wrote:What seemed to bother Nim the most about his learning experience was that his classroom was next door to a laboratory and he could hear the experimental rats screaming. One day he escaped the classroom and let all the rats out of their cages.


Whuh. Talk about a lesson in Language as Communication, huh? Chimp must have figured the humans were all deaf monsters...what with the sign language and the torture chambers.

The Nova Express is coming for everyone, though. Enjoy those burgers while you can.

This was a great read, one of the more enjoyable pieces I've read this year, really appreciate this.

Edit always related:

Image

Surprised the synchromystics haven't started unpacking the nexus surrounding meta-apologist and species traitor Doctor Rat. This was a formative book...insofar as it fucked my head up early enough to really mean something.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nim & Noam: Skinner, Chomsky and the Chimp

Postby wordspeak2 » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:17 pm

Fascinating subject. I'm confused at to why the author of the original article says Chomsky "won the debate." Nim was taught 125 ASL signs; isn't that "learning language."

And then there's the Kanzi case; I watched the video. *Clearly*, chimps can learn to understand language. I'm not sure what that means for the broader debate.

Chomsky flipped the field of linguistics on its head. It can't be exaggerated how monumental that was. His early work was funded by the Pentagon, which most people don't know. He proposed to re-define linguistics as the study of a "natural object," a module of the brain which he theorized is responsible for speech. This hasn't been proven. He also proposed the creation of a machine that could speak grammatically in all languages, which would be the end result of the study of the human language module. Obviously, this hasn't happened yet, and presumably Chomsky is still working towards this end. Chomsky essentially made linguistics the opposite of what it had been; i.e. it was about how society influences and molds languages, and he declared that that premise is false, that language is "mechanical," 100% a product of nature, not nurture, per se. A number of progressive linguists argued throughout the years that this was an anti-political stance, that it failed to see peoples' collective influence on each other. Neither side has yet "won" the debate, but "generativist," i.e. Chomskyian linguistics is generally more accepted and better funded. Within it linguistics is a science, not a humanities field. I'd say in no other academic field is there such a diametrical split. Generativist linguistics continues to be supported by defense-related grants, and therefore one is to conclude that the military apparatus sees a use for it... I believe that it has a lot to do with artificial intelligence.

Here's a really excellent article on the history of Chomsky's linguistics, which I've posted before. It's too long to post in entirety, but I think it gets at the rather bizarre objectives of Chomsky's career: http://www.chrisknight.co.uk/wp-content ... homsky.pdf
wordspeak2
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:20 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nim & Noam: Skinner, Chomsky and the Chimp

Postby Stephen Morgan » Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:36 pm

wordspeak2 wrote:Fascinating subject. I'm confused at to why the author of the original article says Chomsky "won the debate." Nim was taught 125 ASL signs; isn't that "learning language."


No, it isn't, it's learning vocabulary. No syntax or grammar means no language, chimp-sympathiser.

And then there's the Kanzi case; I watched the video. *Clearly*, chimps can learn to understand language. I'm not sure what that means for the broader debate.


A dog can learn a few words. I heard on say "sausages" once. And they can understand even more than their primitive vocal apparatus allow them to convey. Lots of different meats. But find me a poodle which will correct my grammar!

Chomsky flipped the field of linguistics on its head. It can't be exaggerated how monumental that was. His early work was funded by the Pentagon, which most people don't know. He proposed to re-define linguistics as the study of a "natural object," a module of the brain which he theorized is responsible for speech. This hasn't been proven. He also proposed the creation of a machine that could speak grammatically in all languages, which would be the end result of the study of the human language module.


Something I've always thought will constitute the only way to create hard AI.
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia
User avatar
Stephen Morgan
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:37 am
Location: England
Blog: View Blog (9)

Re: Nim & Noam: Skinner, Chomsky and the Chimp

Postby wordspeak2 » Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:32 pm

"No, it isn't, it's learning vocabulary. No syntax or grammar means no language, chimp-sympathiser."

I stand corrected (and guilty of chimp-sympathizing). But how would one come to understand that a chimp knows grammar or syntax? I mean, how would that be expressed by the chimp, without actual oral language? I suppose the chimp would be able to write, huh? No chimps writing books out there. But there are chimps understanding language very well, down to: "Could you please get the lighter out of my pocket." What's the difference between comprehension and expression?

You believe that Chomsky's lifelong wet dream project, this "mechanical language," is the only way that "hard AI" will ever be created? How is "hard AI" defined, anyway? I know very little about AI, but I intuit that there's something extremely important in this, having to do with the so-called "technological singularity."
wordspeak2
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:20 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nim & Noam: Skinner, Chomsky and the Chimp

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:30 am

A hard AI won't take no shit from no one and that includes you.

Ere, wait a minute, didn't you kill my brother?
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nim & Noam: Skinner, Chomsky and the Chimp

Postby Stephen Morgan » Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:36 am

wordspeak2 wrote:"No, it isn't, it's learning vocabulary. No syntax or grammar means no language, chimp-sympathiser."

I stand corrected (and guilty of chimp-sympathizing). But how would one come to understand that a chimp knows grammar or syntax? I mean, how would that be expressed by the chimp, without actual oral language?


Sign language also has grammar and syntax.

I suppose the chimp would be able to write, huh? No chimps writing books out there. But there are chimps understanding language very well, down to: "Could you please get the lighter out of my pocket." What's the difference between comprehension and expression?


Well, they understand "get lighter", anyway.

You believe that Chomsky's lifelong wet dream project, this "mechanical language," is the only way that "hard AI" will ever be created? How is "hard AI" defined, anyway? I know very little about AI, but I intuit that there's something extremely important in this, having to do with the so-called "technological singularity."


Well, proper language is the defining fact of human sapience. To create a thinking and self-aware computer system it would need to be based on an understanding of language.
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia
User avatar
Stephen Morgan
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:37 am
Location: England
Blog: View Blog (9)

Re: Nim & Noam: Skinner, Chomsky and the Chimp

Postby Simulist » Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:44 am

The former is about a guy who thinks he can make a wild animal human by raising it in civilization.

I'm not sure "civilization" has ever really been tried, because humans have not achieved it yet.

The bestial state of our current "civilization" stands as evidence of that, it seems to me.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nim & Noam: Skinner, Chomsky and the Chimp

Postby wordspeak2 » Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:42 am

"Sign language also has grammar and syntax."

Ah, I get it now.


"Well, proper language is the defining fact of human sapience. To create a thinking and self-aware computer system it would need to be based on an understanding of language."

Exactly. Will it ever be achieved, and what on Earth are the consequences if it is? Btw, what you call "hard AI" is apparently traditionally called "strong AI." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_AI
Machines with intelligence equal to or greater than human intelligence. Machines with consciousness or self-awareness? That may be a longer shot.

I'm seeing that central to all this is the field of "natural language processing": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_la ... processing
wordspeak2
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:20 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Nim & Noam: Skinner, Chomsky and the Chimp

Postby Stephen Morgan » Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:34 pm

wordspeak2 wrote:Exactly. Will it ever be achieved, and what on Earth are the consequences if it is? Btw, what you call "hard AI" is apparently traditionally called "strong AI." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_AI
Machines with intelligence equal to or greater than human intelligence. Machines with consciousness or self-awareness? That may be a longer shot.

I'm seeing that central to all this is the field of "natural language processing": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_la ... processing


When there is a computer that can sleep and dream, then I'll be impressed. The human mind is the most impressive thing humanity has ever encountered, yet we haven't even begun to understand or replicate it.
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia
User avatar
Stephen Morgan
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:37 am
Location: England
Blog: View Blog (9)

Re: Nim & Noam: Skinner, Chomsky and the Chimp

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:41 pm

Stephen Morgan wrote:The human mind is the most impressive thing humanity has ever encountered, yet we haven't even begun to understand or replicate it.


Lucky for us, it's also the only thing humanity has ever encountered.

Image
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 156 guests