The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

This one might really be original. In any case it is highly relevant so I'm back to naming things after me.

The following question is not purely theoretical or philosophical. It could, in principle, be answered perfectly. But it would take a long time.

Most people consider even the smartest animals not only dumber than us but different in other ways as well. Some say they have no soul. Some say they have no conscience, or consciousness, or the realization that they will die. They can't think abstractly. They have no morals. etc. etc.

Others speculate that the only differnces are intelligence and lack of language. Improve those problems and they could be similar to humans.

Koko the gorilla and Kanzai the chimpanzee are probably the closest animals to us. They are both smart and have a few hundred word vocabularly. But their vocal chords won't let them talk. Instead they use keyboards and computer screens. Meanwhile I believe they communicate this way mainly with humans. Perhaps they have also some dialogue with a few others of their species who have been trained similarly. Perhaps also they have done some experiments where the TRAINING of the language of a newbie chimpanzee was done by Kanzai.

Now supposed the worlds' scientists decided to embark on a mega year project where they somehow fitted every single chimpanzee at birth with a portable keyboard, an implanted screen and taught each chimp to the best of their abilies how to use them. Those chimps who could handle more words had more added to their computers. They also taught the chimps how to teach other chimps more words. (An alternative scenario would be to somehow surgically add a voiceboxes to each chimp and teach him to say, as well as understand, as many words as possible.)

As the scientists trained and kept close tabs on evey chimp, they also did the following.

1. Made the chimps environment less harsh so that food would be plentiful but not so plentiful that there was no reason to think.

2. Noticed which chimps were the very best at learning, communicating, and training.

3. Only let the cream of the crop have offspring.

4. Other actions that would enhance this project that I may not have thought of.

So the Sklansky Chimpanzee Question is whether such a project would ever result in a chimpanzee equal to an intelligent human, either in intelligence or the other attributes that people generally feel intelligent humans have, or both. (Specifically the project would be declared a success the first time a chimp registered for, and put a post on, the Two Plus Two Philosphy Forum). How long that would take is another good question. But the important question is whether it would happen at all. And what that would say about most religions if it could.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

Planet of the Apes on the Sci-Fi channel David? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

Please don't tell me that they did a similar experiment in that movie. I gotta have SOMETHING named after me.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

I think the final step of evolution would be chimps waxing their body hair, shaving their faces and starting to play poker.

Maybe they could even fake their own moon-landing [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/...eApes/apes.jpg

Currently the smartest chimps are supposed to have the IQ of a 4 year old human child. The question is of course if all of the really smart chimps participated in such studies. Maybe some of them didn't like the idea to help those stupid humans with their ridiculous experiements.

In my opinion it is realistic to assume that the smartest chimp is smarter than the most stupid human on earth - which may actually qualify him to be the major of Liverpool or similar towns.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Please don't tell me that they did a similar experiment in that movie. I gotta have SOMETHING named after me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has Gödel's "Incompleteness Theorem" been solved yet?

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

If we believe that humans evolved and that this evolution was heavily influenced by intelligence, that is if the smartest were able to better master their environment and breed.

Now you are asking if chimps have a intelligence that can be increased significantly through selective breeding.

My question to you and my answer is what would lead you to believe that if this was possible, it would not have already occured in nature?

I think that a species probably has a intelligence cap that no amount of selective breeding can get passed.

If it did happen, it would have very little affect on those who prescribe to religion.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

I think that if a chimp was proven to be as smart as a human then there would be a huge religious fiasco. Because how could something as smart as us not have a soul. Whoah, now the Catholic church takes a few more blows and finds a way to prove through the hidden new secret Apocrypha that "Oh yeah, And the lord said thine chimp will rise to heaven" The Planet of the Apes has completely warped my mind. Remember when the apes mocked us and said that humans don't have a soul.
"Beware the beast man, for he is the harbinger of death"

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

I dont think chimps have a certain lobe or something that would enable spoken language even if there was a voicebox operation. But anyway, selective breeding is astonishingly quick compared to natural selection. Breeding for intelligence might not take long at all depending on how lucky you are to get the right mutations along the way.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

Awesome post, very interesting stuff to chew on.

To say it would never be accomplished would be pretty ridiculous in my opinion. Given enough time, this would almost certainly work. They would be able to reach the levels of human communication in many ways, and perhaps even civilization. But would they be "on the level" with humans? Because by the time humans are able to do that, to test whether they are "on the level" would be to see if they could train a less evolved species to reach the levels of communication/civilization that they have already reached.

I believe a few animals have a larger cerebral cortex than humans (in relation to their body mass), whales and dolphins being some of them perhaps? In any case supposedly the cerebral cortex is the area of the brain that allows for this kind of advanced thought, the kind of thought that allows for high-level communication like language. Maybe we should try this with dolphins as well. Too bad they don't have fingers--I guess they're just going to miss out because of that.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think that a species probably has a intelligence cap that no amount of selective breeding can get passed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intelligence is one thing, but the ability to make use of previously unused regions of the brain is another. This is basically what we would be teaching the chimps to do.

[ QUOTE ]
If it did happen, it would have very little affect on those who prescribe to religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
I tend to agree.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

I'm not really adding anything, but this post reminded me of the Simpsons episode where Mr. Burns was showing off his sweatshop of millions of monkeys banging on keyboards. They were working on the greatest novel known to mankind.

One of them strolls over and hands Mr. Burns a draft of his work.

Mr. Burns reads aloud, "'It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times?!' Stupid monkey!"

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please don't tell me that they did a similar experiment in that movie. I gotta have SOMETHING named after me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has Gödel's "Incompleteness Theorem" been solved yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Godel solved that one.

chez

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
If it did happen, it would have very little affect on those who prescribe to religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only because they choose to live like ignorant chimps.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

It is funny how DS admits that proof of the resurrection would change his beliefs (as is reasonable), but proof of a monkey evolving into a sentient being with human-like intelligence will still not change the views of the religious.

Of course, that makes sense, since those views aren't reasonable to begin with.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is funny how DS admits that proof of the resurrection would change his beliefs (as is reasonable), but proof of a monkey evolving into a sentient being with human-like intelligence will still not change the views of the religious.

Of course, that makes sense, since those views aren't reasonable to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you claim a bit too much. Many religous people would change their views. I know religous people who have no problem with evolution or any other science, they don't believe bible stories are the literal truth.

chez

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

MMM peyote.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

From an article in Scientific American reviewing the Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowship.

"Clash in Cambridge", by John Horgan

"Take the exchange between biologists Simon Conway of Cambridge and Richard Dawkins of the University of Oxford. Morris contended that intelligence is not a freak occurrence but a recurring theme in evolution, appearing in dolphins, parrots and crows as well as primates. He speculated that any of these species might be capable of discovering God, but we had help--from Christ, whom God sent to Earth for our benefit. Dawkins, by far the most antireligious lecturer, praised Morris's evolutionary views but called his Christianity "gratuitous". Morris retorted that he found Dawkins's atheism "archaic" and asserted that the resurrection and other miracles attributed to Christ were "historically verifiable". After more give-and-take, Morris, crossing his arms tightly across his chest, grumbled, "Im not sure this conversation can go any further."

I threw in the last few sentances to show where these conversations typicaly wind up.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
...And what that would say about most religions if it could.

[/ QUOTE ]

For Christianity, it would simply be a matter of expanding the current definition of "neighbor". As Christians we should "respect" God's creatures to begin with. Now we should "love them".

Your question, for the Christian, leads to a follow-up. Would the Sklansky Chimp have a soul? Did it already have a soul before Sklansky “created” him?

Christians don’t believe animals to have souls.

But, when you create Little David – ironically, Jesus was “descended” from the line of David - we can discuss things with him. We would then have to go back and reinterpret the Bible. Little David does not necessarily make the Bible moot.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
For Christianity, it would simply be a matter of expanding the current definition of "neighbor". As Christians we should "respect" God's creatures to begin with. Now we should "love them".


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. BUT some Christians already do believe that animals have souls. Some believe that rocks have souls...Some believe that quarks have souls.

Anyone who understands evolution has to agree that it would be possible to make an animal species (eventually--I think it would take +1000 years of simple selective breeding—less with genetic manipulation) as intelligent as man.

So, just by contemplating this: yes, a traditional Christian must re-consider his belief that mankind is somehow favored over animals. A Gnostic just nods and continues about his business.

Again, there is a difference between acknowledging that humans are on par with animals Spiritually and acting as if we are equals. Practically we must continue to dominate other species for our own good. But as the David is pointing out, the difference between animal and human intelligence is only one of DEGREE not KIND. Soon we will solidify our understanding of the biological components of intelligence and begin to craft smarter people through gene therapy etc, so why not smarter monkeys too?

And I’m sorry to burst your bubble Mr. S, but they have already performed this experiment. It’s called Dog Breeding and it has been going on for thousands of years.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

A better question is, why aren't we doing this with people? ^_^

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
A better question is, why aren't we doing this with people? ^_^

[/ QUOTE ]

Because dumb chicks put out more.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

"My question to you and my answer is what would lead you to believe that if this was possible, it would not have already occured in nature?"

Because nature doesn't totally stop the breeding of the dumb and force the breeding of the smart.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

Would it be ok for them to believe in astrology?

It looks like you would create a super-trainable chimp, but you'd need to do a lot more than merely language training (if you could breed chimps that want to learn to play pinochle, that would be something). Even if you manage to increase the language center of the brain, there would still be an awful lot of distance between chimps and humans. More like breeding a pig to have a trunk and large ears. I don't see how it would threaten religion.

The scariest thing about this is what new fetishes would be unleashed ("Live XXX CHIMP-CHAT").

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
The scariest thing about this is what new fetishes would be unleashed ("Live XXX CHIMP-CHAT").

[/ QUOTE ] Who's your Sklansky!

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
This one might really be original. In any case it is highly relevant so I'm back to naming things after me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nh.

[ QUOTE ]
(Specifically the project would be declared a success the first time a chimp registered for, and put a post on, the Two Plus Two Philosphy Forum).


[/ QUOTE ]

It seems reasonable that one of the current wunder-chimps could effectively accomplish this feat already (although they may not really know what they are discussing or that they're engaging in a community with other beings).

This isn't really just a nit, but from your example I'm not exactly sure what it is you're asking. It doesn't seem you're asking that chimpanzees will gain an equal level of intelligence as most humans (after all, I could find numerous examples in this very forum of sub-human intellect). Or are you? In short, would the ability to use a computer in order to join and type some message on the internet be what you're after, or is it the ability to actually be able to engage in the discussions on a consistent basis and have some understanding of what is going on?

FWIW (male) chimpanzees have already exhibited a large propensity for accomplishing difficult feats in return for 'chimp-porn.' Think of the possibilities if female chimpanzees could be instructed to give chimp lap dances for a reward! It could be the breakthrough that would catapult your super smart chimp group to success.

Yugoslav

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
(Specifically the project would be declared a success the first time a chimp registered for, and put a post on, the Two Plus Two Philosphy Forum).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about Science/Math/Philosophy, but I strongly suspect that they've already posted in some of the other forums.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(Specifically the project would be declared a success the first time a chimp registered for, and put a post on, the Two Plus Two Philosphy Forum).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about Science/Math/Philosophy, but I strongly suspect that they've already posted in some of the other forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

NH

But, don't be so doubtful about here. You must be new to this forum.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think chimps have a certain lobe or something that would enable spoken language even if there was a voicebox operation. But anyway, selective breeding is astonishingly quick compared to natural selection. Breeding for intelligence might not take long at all depending on how lucky you are to get the right mutations along the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, It would be blazingly fast compared to natural selection, but how many orders of magnitude are we talking?


-blake

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

I don't know the answer. I'm inclined to say yes but that it would take many many many years (shorter than our natural evolution, much longer than the human lifespan).

I don't think this is original. In a neurosciecne class I took at cty camp when I was young we were supposed to come up experiments to propose if we had a million dollar grant. The question I came up with was not your but very similar. Essentially the question was would chimps taight sign language (or how to communicate in other ways), teach that to their offspring,a nd if so how effectively. I still believe this lies at the root of your question as well, because first, it doesn't matter what knowledge your species acquires if it can't pass it on, and second, the scientists could only fake it for so long and only so effectively. Anyway, I don't know if my idea was original or not, I went into physics instead and never did the research, but if I could come up with it at a young age I'm sure someone in the field has come up wiht a similar more sophisticated question.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

Hasn't it already happened?

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hasn't it already happened?

[/ QUOTE ]

More to the point, there are religious scientists who accept evolution. I know orthodox jewish neurobiologists.

People can rationalize anything.

I guess one question I have would be whether if the experiment worked, would you consider the resulting being to be any different than man?

Re: serious answer
 

David,
Both mutatgenic and selection processes are essentially chancy, i.e. stochastic. Claims about the outcomes of future chancy trials have no truth value prior to the end of the trial. So there is at the moment no answer to your question: it is neither true nor false that the selection regime you envisage would produce a chimp as smart or smarter (by whatever measure you like) than the average human.

But it is POSSIBLE that that such should occur.

POSSIBILITY: PROOF OF CONCEPT.
Chimp and human DNA differ both in number of chromosomes, the structure of those chromoses, and the particular neucleotide sequences occuring within structural bits. But by a sequence of changes, the chimp DNA can be converted into Human DNA.
Step 1: Chimps have 24 pairs, resulting (best guess) from a split in chromosome 2. By translocation the split chromosems can be rejoined.
Step 2: the remaining structural differences involve specific translocations (swapping bits of one chromosome into another)and transversions (flipping the sequence end for end within segment of a chromosome). Reverse translocations and transversions will rectify the structural differences.
Step 3: the remaining differences are single neuclotide substitutions and deletions. Point mutations at appropriate locations will rectify these.
Result: a chimp with human DNA and, presumably, human intellegence.
Provided two assumptions hold, there is a selection regime that favors each individual change in each step.
Assumption 1: No single change, in sequence, is lethal. Assumption 2: no single change, in sequence, destroys reproductive viability.
Given the assumptions, it is perfectly possible to devise a selection regime under which, if the requisite mutations happen, they will be favored at such a high probability that almost certainly the result will be a chimp as smart as a human (indeed, genetically indistinguishable from a human).
However, that selection regime is much more demanding than the general scheme you outline.

NO GO: FROM POSSIBILITY TO PROBABILITY
Whether a general selection regime favoring linguistic competence could or is likely to produce a human-smart chimp depends. First, on the range of mutations available for chimps that in fact increase both their fitness in context (i.e. expected reproductive success) and also their intellegence as measured. This is, to my knowledge, unknown (though some work on recent evolution in human brains has recently appeared in Science). Second, on the extent to which such mutations will break up currently co-adapted genetic complexes. Again, this is to my knowledge unknown. If such is likely, the chances for the evolution in question can be increased by inducing population structure within the subject chimps so that there is one large metapopulation composed of many small populations, each subject to drift and to slightly different selective regimes.

In short, producing an actual number for the probability is hocus pocus; one can say that under certain condtions (e.g. co-adapted complexes, lack of suitable genetic diversity) such evolution will not occur, while under others it is enormously likely, and the available evidence does not allow one to specify in any objective sense a probability distribution over the alternative sets of conditions.

Distributions for epistemic probabilities are of course possible. Given what I know about the history of breeding, and the fact that the total set changes amounts to a species change, I set the (subjective, epistemic) probability of success quite low ~.00001, given that the number of generations is < 10 K. But as with all epistemic probabilities, that is just a guess.

Regards, Bruce

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

LOL, genious!