Koko The Gorilla Mourning The Loss Of Robin Williams

[Fearless]

In 2001, Robin Williams met Koko, the gorilla who communicates in sign language, at The Gorilla Foundation in Woodside, Calif. The two immediately became friends.



“After the first call, Koko came to Dr. Patterson with an inquiring look on her face. Dr. Patterson explained that ‘we have lost a dear friend, Robin Williams.’”

“Koko was quiet and looked very thoughtful,” a spokesperson for the Gorilla Foundation said in a press release emailed in response to an inquiry from BuzzFeed...

“Koko became very somber, with her head bowed and her lip quivering.”



More photos at link: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/these-photos-of-koko-the-gorilla-mourning-the-loss-of-robin?bffb

-------------------



EDIT TO ADD: (And I can't believe I even have to add this!) Think about this anyone who thinks that it's abusive to tell a gorilla that someone they care about has died... Koko recognizes English. She is communicated with in English. SHE signs in American sign language to communicate back to humans. Do you really, REALLY think that an animal that can understand English and can communicate in return with THOUGHTFUL responses and not randomness isn't capable of understanding death and loss?? AND doesn't have the right to know when someone they cared about has died? If so, we're having a MUCH different discussion here. Likewise gorillas are not children. I don't even know why I should have to say this.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

1. wow.

I'm not eloquent enough to express my feelings.

I would be honored to be loved by Koko.

[littlemissmartypants]

7. ^ eom

[Uncle Joe]

2. Here is the video of their meeting.

Thanks for the thread, Fearless.

[lonestarnot]

5. That was rich and sad at the same time. Thank you for sharing.

[madfloridian]

9. That is a wonderful video. A treasure.

[BrotherIvan]

11. Thank you

A perfect tribute.

[hopemountain]

13. unconditional koko love

i know he never forgot that koko love.

thank you for sharing this very touching video.

[dawg]

66. I'm so glad that he got to do that.

It had to have been an amazing and exhilarating experience.

[Uncle Joe]

67. I agree, dawg, I'm happy Robin got to do it as well.

[lonestarnot]

3. And they only met once?

[Fearless]

4. I believe it was more than once

He had done a commercial to support their organization in 2004... They originally met in 2001.

[lonestarnot]

6. I wonder which of his movies she watched.

[littlemissmartypants]

8. Cool question. nt

[pinboy3niner]

30. I learned the answer to that on CNN this morning!

According to the researcher working with Koko, "She watched a documentary he did on dolphins and she watched 'Awakenings' over and over."

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

60. I challenge anyone to watch 'Awakenings' all the way to the end

without shedding a tear.

[tblue37]

10. If in fact she really understood, then it was unnecessarily cruel

to cause her grief over someone she had no regular interaction with. To make her think of sadness and loss for no useful purpose is just mean. To do so in order to wallow in sentimental self-congratulation, as I would consider this to be, is even worse.

If she understood that the topic was loss and death in an abstract sense, which she might have, since she had lost her kitten All Ball and grieved over him, then her sadness here would be cued sadness, not memory of or grief over someone she barely knew.

[Fearless]

12. I trust that the expert primatologists take good care of Koko

Gorillas like many animals are capable of understanding death. Mourning death is not a hurtful or grievous suffering, it is part of life for all of the animal kingdom.

[tblue37]

14. If she is mourning someone who is part of her life in a real sense,

then I have no problem with that. But to deliberately create sadness over someone whose death she would normally not even be aware of is unkind.

[Live and Learn]

16. So none of us should have been told either?

After all, most of wouldn't be aware except for the news either.

[tblue37]

17. Nonsense. KoKo understands quite a lot--but

not at the level of an adult human. Would you wake up a 3 or 4 year old child who has no real comprehension of who Robin Williams was and tell her, with a sad, sad face, that we have lost someone precious?

The child would probably not understand who or what was lost, but your sadness and your words would cue sadness for the child and make her feel a sense of free-floating grief that has nothing to attach to. She would be stressed and sad for no useful purpose.

I know that some people actually do that sort of thing--tell their little kid something sad that would not otherwise even be on the kid's radar, and then videotape the kid's sad reaction to post on FB to prove how cute and sensitive the kid is.

That is what this strikes me as.

Furthermore, the whole point of his doing this was to promote his own (sentimental) public image, not to offer any sort of identifiable benefit to KoKo.

What benefit does KoKo get from being unnecessarily prompted to feel sad about someone who probably is not really even on her radar?

[Live and Learn]

19. I don't think you can prompt anyone to feel sad about something that has

no meaning to them. Neither, do I think you should hide news from those that are capable of understanding it whether it makes them sad or not. Grief is a part of life, even for animals.

[tblue37]

21. Not so. Small children are easily prompted to be sad without understanding

why they feel sad. And a gorilla or chimpanzee can be innocent and emotional in the way children are.

[Live and Learn]

23. Then, we have had different experiences with small children and animals.

I have never witnessed a small child express grief simply because someone told them someone not close to them had died.

At most, you might get a rather astounding insightful question or thought (in light of their age) and then they will be back to playing.

If, for some reason it really hits them hard, it means the loss meant a great deal more to them than you thought and it is your responsibility to comfort them. For that too, is a part of the grieving process.

[tblue37]

24. No, they respond to the adult's expression of emotion about the death, not to the death itself.

Similarly, if you say to a little kid, in a super excited tone, "Guess what! We're going to have liver and onions for dinner tonight! YAY!", the kid will get all excited about it, too--as long as he has no idea what liver and onions actually are.

As for animals, some nasty dog owners get a kick out of telling their dog, "You are a bad, bad dog!" in a firm, punitive tone, even when the dog has done nothing wrong, because they think the dog's obvious upset is funny. You can easily affect the emotions of a small child or an animal even when they have no idea what the context really is.

[Live and Learn]

25. LOL We have had seriously different experiences.

No matter how enthusiastic my mother acted in her attempt to get us to like liver and onions, none of us ever fell for it.

And I have never known anyone that would treat a pet, a child or an adult like that but I believe telling either a child or an animal like that would be considered emotional abuse.

Surely you are not equating the simple act of informing either a person or an animal with the factual information of someone dying with that kind of emotional abuse?

[TDale313]

15. It sounded like...

Last edited Wed Aug 13, 2014, 03:16 AM - Edit history (1)

She saw the humans around her reacting to the news and wanted to know what happened, and they explained it to her. How much of her reaction was remembering him and how much was responding to their grief is open to interpretation, but I don't get the impression they were trying to make her grieve. She picked up on the fact that something sad had happened.

Still, very poignant, and I thought the video with Robin Williams was so beautiful. And it would not surprise me at all if she did remember and mourn him.

[cui bono]

20. That was my first thought too. There was no reason to tell her, no point in it.

If she understands enough to feel sadness and loss and grief then it's just mean since she rarely sees him.

[alphafemale]

26. Please. It is best to be told right away. Allow her to grieve.

It is not something you protect her from.

What?

You want her to randomly find out he died... Five years from now and for her to know no one cared enough to tell her?

What?

Grief is hard.

Grief five years after the fact and realizing people you thought were your friends...protecting you?

And animals are way more sentient than you are giving them credit for. Koko just has better ability to communicate her thoughts.

[magical thyme]

28. KoKo happened to be present when they first heard the news

and she knew something was wrong. They are her family. It would have been wrong to have lied to her.

Honesty is always best with both non-humans and children. They know when they are being lied to. It would have betrayed their trust and damaged the relationship. That would have caused her far more pain and the isolation of being shut out.

She was most likely going to find out sooner or later. Better to be up front so they could share their grief and comfort each other. That is what relationships are about.

[dilby]

46. I thought the same thing.

There was no reason to punish her with grief she never needed to feel for a person she met one time. It's like telling a 4 year old their Uncle just died, an Uncle they had only met one time and barely remembered.

Oh well it got them in the news and people to shed a tear for a poor Gorilla who is taught tricks for the amusement of people.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

18. she was likely reacted to the humans being sad

but, still, touching, and the video of her encounter with Williams is beautiful.

[MFM008]

22. we dont really know

what they understand.

[Autumn]

48. Koko understands a lot. She expresses herself a lot too.

[Sunlei]

27. Koko understands, she cried and had grief over the death of her very much loved cat

&feature=player_detailpage

[Damansarajaya]

29. This is interesting and important . . . the interaction

that Koko shows with humans clearly shows a deeper and more complex intelligence and emotional level than just about anyone could have imagined.

However, having studied linguistics, the consensus is that no non-human species really uses true language, and Koko is a good example of that.

She signs, "tickle," and her human handler jumps in and says, "she wants you to tickle her." Wait a minute. That's not Koko using language. All I saw was "tickle." That could mean, "something tickles me,""I want to tickle you," "I want you to tickle me," or "tomorrow at five, I want to have a tickle fight." Koko is not using language so much as throwing out a sign which her human handlers (who DO have language) then interpret based on their intuition and long experience with her. That's fine. That's interesting communication. However, that's NOT language.

She communicates well with humans who have experience communicating with her. So do I with my dog. But my dog doesn't speak English or any other language, not even "dog language" because dogs don't have language. They can communicate with verbal sounds, but that's not the same as language.

Let's compare animal calls with a language. In English, we can form a question by moving the verb to the beginning of the sentence--He is a teacher. can become Is he a teacher?. Now let's take a bird call . . . if the bird changes the call and puts the sounds at the end of the call at the beginning, does it transform into a question? No. Birds communicate with sounds, so do dolphins and whales and wolves. But each sound doesn't have a discrete meaning in a framework of grammar.

That would be language.

[BlindTiresias]

31. How long ago did you study linguistics?

The scientific consensus regarding animal language is pretty rapidly shifting.

[Damansarajaya]

32. Hehe, bs. nt

[BlindTiresias]

33. ??

Are you saying it isn't?

[Damansarajaya]

34. "He who proposes, must prove."

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/2007----.htm

On the Myth of Ape Language

Noam Chomsky interviewed by Matt Aames Cucchiaro

Electronic mail correspondence, 2007/2008

CUCCHIARO: As a prominent figure in the ‘Cognitive Revolution’ of the 1950s, you were quite vocal in your criticism against Behaviorism—the dominant academic field of psychology at the time. In your Review of BF Skinner’s Verbal Behavior, you challenged his belief that language is acquired through training and in principle could be learned by other animals as well. Joseph Ledoux, neuroscientist at NYU, says that 'during the Behaviorists reign, for example, it was assumed that psychologists could study any kind of animal and find out how humans learn the things we learn. This logic was not only applied to those things that humans and animals do, like finding food and avoiding danger, but also to those things that humans do easily and animals do poorly if at all, like speaking.'

CHOMSKY: He's correct, dramatically so with regard to "radical behaviorists," like Skinner, but pretty much across the board. A curious fact is that they did not seem to realize how remote their doctrines were from serious biology.

CUCCHIARO: In Daniel Gilbert’s (Harvard psychologist) recent bestseller, Stumbling on Happiness, he says that psychologists who’ve said that humans are the only animals who can use language were particularly well remembered when chimpanzees were taught to communicate with hand signs.’ I told him that you’d be interested to know about any examples of chimps using language, and he gave me a Wikipedia article to forward to you on ‘The Great Ape Language’.

CHOMSKY: Thanks. I'm well familiar with this work. It's an insult to chimpanzee intelligence to consider this their means of communication. It's rather as if humans were taught to mimic some aspects of the waggle dance of bees and researchers were to say, "Wow, we've taught humans to communicate." Furthermore, the more serious researchers, like Dave Premack, understand all of this very well.

CUCCHIARO: It seems that even after the numerous studies conducted in the 1970s -- and well beyond -- had clearly failed, the notion of chimps possibly learning language still persists. What do you think when researchers to this day, such as Susan Rumbaugh (ape trainer), claim that Bonobo chimps can draw signs and refer to it as language similar to humans’ ability?

CHOMSKY: It's all totally meaningless, so I don't participate in the debate. Humans can be taught to do a fair imitation of the complex bee communication system. That is not of the slightest interest to bee scientists, who are rational, and understand something about science: they are interested in the nature of bees, and it is of no interest if some other organism can be trained to partially mimic some superficial aspects of the waggle dance. And one could of course not get a grant to teach grad students to behave like imperfect bees. When we turn to the study of humans, for some reason irrationality commonly prevails -- possibly a reflection of old-fashioned dualism -- and it is considered significant that apes (or birds, which tend to do much better) can be trained to mimic some superficial aspects of human language. But the same rational criteria should hold as in the case of bees and graduate students. Possibly training graduate students to mimic the waggle dance could teach us something about human capacity, though it's unlikely. Similarly, it's possible that training apes to do things with signs can teach us something about the cognitive capacities of apes. That's the way the matter is approached by serious scientists, like Anne and David Premack. Others prefer to fool themselves.

This (idea that apes can learn language) is all sentimentality of the worst sort.

[BlindTiresias]

35. On the other hand, by Chomsky's own standard we are not so unique.

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/060426.starling.pdf

Like I said, more sophisticated research is coming out that challenges the notion of humans as being sole possessors of language.

[Damansarajaya]

37. Actually, I was wrong. This isn't interesting.

I read it more thoroughly, although I didn't waste time reading the entire thing.

Here's the bullshit line: "We trained 11 European starlings." And there you have the pseudo-science of animal language.

If, as Chomsky correctly pointed out about 50 years ago, animals like birds had the capacity for complex language, they would use it. If humans had the capacity to fly, we would fly. You don't have to teach humans to speak and you don't have to teach birds to fly.

Any study that includes the words "we trained" has already failed to show anything interesting about language.

[BlindTiresias]

39. Kind of misrepresenting the paper

They are suggesting that the birds possess syntactical structures which is a core component of language as humans know it.

[Damansarajaya]

40. If they possessed it (ability to understand syntax), they would use it.

If they used it, they would have language.

Do they use it?

No.

Then they don't really understand it.

And they don't really have language.

Animals can be trained to do just about anything. Skinner trained pigeons to guide missiles. The pigeons didn't understand anything however.

[Uncle Joe]

36. This would also be language.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/language?s=ts

1.
a body of words and the systems for their use common to a people who are of the same community or nation, the same geographical area, or the same cultural tradition:
the two languages of Belgium; a Bantu language; the French language; the Yiddish language.
2.
communication by voice in the distinctively human manner, using arbitrary sounds in conventional ways with conventional meanings; speech.
3.
the system of linguistic signs or symbols considered in the abstract (opposed to speech ).
4.
any set or system of such symbols as used in a more or less uniform fashion by a number of people, who are thus enabled to communicate intelligibly with one another.
5.
any system of formalized symbols, signs, sounds, gestures, or the like used or conceived as a means of communicating thought, emotion, etc.:
the language of mathematics; sign language.
6.
the means of communication used by animals:
the language of birds.
7.
communication of meaning in any way; medium that is expressive, significant, etc.:

Are humans animals?

So the trainer teaches KoKo to sign and the Gorilla does her best to communicate; whether crude or not, it's language.

[Damansarajaya]

38. That's not the way linguists define language.

It's not simple communication, like blowing a car horn when you want the car in front of you to move.

[Uncle Joe]

41. Perhaps, but the dictionary defines language that way.

The important thing is in the case of KoKo communication is established, despite its imperfections.

[Damansarajaya]

42. Yes, and when my dog stands next to the door and whines, I know she

wants out.

[Uncle Joe]

43. Because your dog trained you to understand that, not he other way around.

Dogs use verbal signals and body language to communicate.

What does your dog do if you ignore her whines?

[Damansarajaya]

44. Whines louder and paws the door.

The point is not who trained whom . . . it's that if dogs had language, she would be able to communicate to me, "I want to go out now and come back in in about 15 minutes."

When she does that, then I will gladly admit that dogs have language.

[Uncle Joe]

45. Whining louder, pawing the door and barking to get your attention is putting "emphasis"

on the message

Whining means I want to go out, whining louder/pawing the door means I want to go out now and if he/she barks to get your attention that means quit ignoring me, I want to go out now damn it or suffer the consequences!

That's language even if they can't verbalize English, Spanish, Japanese, Russian, Chinese, French etc. etc.

[Damansarajaya]

47. The fact that it's equally understandable to

any human no matter what their language shows exactly why it IS NOT language.

If it were a true language, you'd have to understand words (lexis) and grammar (syntax -- the ways the words relate in terms of subject acting on object etc).

You don't understand a car horn honking or a dog barking in this way. That's why it's communication, but it's not language.

[Uncle Joe]

49. It is the language of animals, humans are animals, thus it crosses species lines, furthermore

it uses the logic of "syntax."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/syntax?s=t

1.
Linguistics.

the study of the rules for the formation of grammatical sentences in a language.
the study of the patterns of formation of sentences and phrases from words.
the rules or patterns so studied:
English syntax.
a presentation of these:
a syntax of English.
an instance of these:
the syntax of a sentence.

2.
Logic.

that branch of modern logic that studies the various kinds of signs that occur in a system and the possible arrangements of those signs, complete abstraction being made of the meaning of the signs.
the outcome of such a study when directed upon a specified language.

Your dog uses a logical progression in the form of communication or animal language to get the message across to you.

[Damansarajaya]

53. Well, no, it doesn't.

Let's say the dog uses three elements to indicate that it wants out--whining, pawing, and barking.

Let's say, the dog whines first, paws second and barks third. Does the meaning of that change if the dog barks first, whines second, and paws third? Or paws first, whines second, and barks third?

No, not really. It all means the same thing, and it is all dependent on the immediate context of the dog standing by the door.

Now consider these sentences: I want you to open the door because I can go out. I can open the door, because you want me to go out. Because I can open the door, I want you to go out.

See? Same words in a different order means a completely different meaning (or total meaninglessness).

That's what human language has. That's not what animal communication has. That's why animals don't have language.

[Uncle Joe]

56. No matter which progression it comes in, a different method of animal language is used to get

the message across, that requires logic.

We do the same thing if you're trying to communicate with someone that doesn't understand English, we try different words or hand signs breaking them down to simpler or more common terms to see if there is a level of understanding.

If your dog has used whining first as its form of communication with you, that will be the default first attempt, some dogs are more prone to bark than others, still others may paw the door first and this will be their default form of communication but if the default doesn't work, they will logically try a different form of animal language until you get the message.

Again, language doesn't have to be words, nor only to only be uttered by humans.

language
[lang-gwij]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

noun
1.
a body of words and the systems for their use common to a people who are of the same community or nation, the same geographical area, or the same cultural tradition:
the two languages of Belgium; a Bantu language; the French language; the Yiddish language.
2.
communication by voice in the distinctively human manner, using arbitrary sounds in conventional ways with conventional meanings; speech.
3.
the system of linguistic signs or symbols considered in the abstract (opposed to speech ).
4.
any set or system of such symbols as used in a more or less uniform fashion by a number of people, who are thus enabled to communicate intelligibly with one another.
5.
any system of formalized symbols, signs, sounds, gestures, or the like used or conceived as a means of communicating thought, emotion, etc.:[/b[
the language of mathematics; sign language.
6.
the means of communication used by animals:
the language of birds.
7.
communication of meaning in any way; medium that is expressive, significant, etc.:
the language of flowers; the language of art.

[Damansarajaya]

58. I've exhausted all the arguments I can think of.

You wrote: "We do the same thing if you're trying to communicate with someone that doesn't understand English, we try different words or hand signs breaking them down to simpler or more common terms to see if there is a level of understanding."

*****

Right. That's communication, it's not language either.

The linguists make a clear distinction between communication and communicating in language. That's what I was trying to illustrate.

You seem to be emotionally invested in conflating communication and language, and so you refuse to see the difference that I thought I pointed out pretty well.

All I can really say at this point is that virtually every linguist in the world--Chomsky, Pinker, Lenneberg, Lakoff (both Robin and George), McLay, Roger Brown, etc.--believes that if animals had the capacity for true language, they would exhibit it.

Since they don't exhibit language use--as linguists define language--they don't have that capacity.

If you don't like that idea, you'll have to take it up with Prof. Chomsky. email: [e-mail]

Good luck.

[Uncle Joe]

59. The difference being you're using a very narrow definition of the world "language"

I'm using the broader definition of communication as is exhibited by "animal language" and human interaction which is illustrated in the dictionary to which I just posted.

If you trained your dog to "stay" or "sit" by using those words, does she understand a limited amount of "English" as to what those words mean, the answer is yes even if she can't voice them herself or understand complex sentences and paragraphs.

Try using French words for "stay" or "sit" and she won't know what that means, the same holds true in reverse.

Animals can communicate with each other and give complex messages either verbally or by using body motions, that's "animal language."

I believe human animals have only scratched the surface in our limited ability to communicate with other animals, that's as much our shortcoming as theirs'.

[Damansarajaya]

61. I'm using the "narrow definition" of people who spend

their entire professional lives in the formal academic field of studying language.

"I" personally have very little to do with that except to report on it.

As I wrote earlier, if you don't like their definition of language, you'll have to take it up with them. It's not the conversational, common way that "language" is often used . . . as in the "language of business" or something. It's absolutely NOT a synonym for communication.

[Uncle Joe]

64. Then you and they are using a very narrow definition of the word language, I'm using the dictionary

and real life evidence.

language


Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

noun
1.
a body of words and the systems for their use common to a people who are of the same community or nation, the same geographical area, or the same cultural tradition:
the two languages of Belgium; a Bantu language; the French language; the Yiddish language.
2.
communication by voice in the distinctively human manner, using arbitrary sounds in conventional ways with conventional meanings; speech.
3.
the system of linguistic signs or symbols considered in the abstract (opposed to speech ).
4.
any set or system of such symbols as used in a more or less uniform fashion by a number of people, who are thus enabled to communicate intelligibly with one another.
5.
any system of formalized symbols, signs, sounds, gestures, or the like used or conceived as a means of communicating thought, emotion, etc.:the language of mathematics; sign language.
6.
the means of communication used by animals:
the language of birds.
7.
communication of meaning in any way; medium that is expressive, significant, etc.:
the language of flowers; the language of art.

[Damansarajaya]

62. Actually, dogs have to be trained to respond to human voice commands.

This training is exactly what precludes it from actual language use, which involves practically no training--in humans that is.

I will bet you that if you hold up a dog treat above your dog's head and say in an authoritarian tone, STAND!, the dog will sit right down.

[Uncle Joe]

65. I will bet if you yell at another person in a hateful voice "I love you" they

will be confused as well.

Perhaps some will yell it back, others will quickly walk away and some will think you just lost your mind.

[Autumn]

50. Not everyone understands sign language so it's normal someone would

interpret what she says. Anyone who uses sign language communicates well with people who have experience communicating with people who use sign language. Walk up to a stranger on the street and start signing odds are that person won't have a clue what is being said.

[Damansarajaya]

54. Irrelevant. It's not the sign language that's the problem.

It's the language.

If you look closely (and this clip doesn't provide enough examples), Koko really isn't using language. She's using one and two word "sentences" that are totally dependent on context for meaning.

She's signing things like "treat like like paper now visits." And the handlers jump in and say, "she wants a treat." Well, no, she didn't say that or much like that.

Really, it's the people using language, not Koko.

[LanternWaste]

51. For every wonderful story I read, a number will, more often than not piss on it.

For every wonderful story I read, a number will, more often than not piss on it.

Wonderful story, by the way...

[catrose]

55. True, all of it

And I'm so tired of the first one.

Koko has lost pets and a foster brother. Unfortunately she knows what death and grief are.

[ladyVet]

52. Poor Koko. :(

Anyone who has an issue with this is a dumb ass. There are many species of so-called "dumb animals" who have a greater sense of loyalty, compassion and grief than the self-proclaimed "intelligent" species.

If you don't think animals grieve, look at a dog who has lost its master, just for one example. Unless you are blind you will see sorrow and loss.

[niyad]

57. oh my goodness. in tears here.

[AtomicKitten]

63. Kindred spirits.