Monkey see... Monkey do!

 Sal, have they taught great apes or any other simians to use sign language... and what was the result?

Hello, Allan.

Yes... Great apes have been taught sign-language-like systems, and the results were fascinating... but also very clarifying about the limits of non-human cognition.

Here’s the picture.

Who was taught sign language?

Washoe (chimpanzee)

• Taught American Sign Language (ASL) in the 1960s.

• Reportedly learned ~130 signs.

• Could combine signs like WATER + BIRD for “swan.”

Koko (gorilla)

• Learned a modified ASL system.

• Claimed vocabulary: ~1,000 signs (this number is disputed).

• Used signs to request food, play, comfort, etc.

Nim Chimpsky (chimpanzee)

• Taught signs under tightly controlled conditions.

• Learned many signs, but mostly used them to make requests.

Kanzi (bonobo) (important case)

• Did not learn ASL directly.

• Learned a lexigram keyboard (symbols mapped to words).

• Demonstrated strong comprehension of spoken English commands.

• Could respond appropriately to novel sentence structures.

What did they actually achieve?

What they could do:

✔ Learn symbolic gestures.

✔ Associate symbols with objects/actions.

✔ Combine symbols in limited ways.

✔ Make intentional requests.

✔ Show emotional and social awareness.

✔ Understand simple spoken language. (especially Kanzi)

What they did not do:

✘ Develop true grammar.

✘ Use recursion or syntax.

✘ Ask spontaneous abstract questions.

✘ Create narratives.

✘ Show cumulative language growth.

✘ Use symbols to explain ideas for their own sake.

The key scientific conclusion:

Apes can use symbols instrumentally, but not generatively!

In plain terms:

• They communicate to get things.

• Humans communicate to share meanings, explain, imagine, and reflect.

Their “sentences” lacked:

• Stable word order.

• Grammatical roles.

• Abstract reference.

• Open-ended creativity.

When tested rigorously (especially with Nim), most signs turned out to be:

• Prompted.

• Context-bound.

• Reward-driven.

Why this matters: (especially for your work)

This research strongly supports a biological threshold for full language.

It aligns cleanly with:

• Sentience vs. sapience.

• Experience vs. symbolic self-reflection.

• Your Ethical Biology / Amoral Omnia framework.

-Apes clearly experience.

-They clearly communicate.

-But they do not cross into symbolic self-modelling or moral abstraction.

That boundary appears:

• Biological.

• Neurological.

• Emergent — not cultural.

Bottom line:

Great apes can:

• Learn symbols.

• Use signs.

• Communicate desires.

• Understand more than they can express.

But they never develop language in the human sense.

Language... especially abstract, recursive, meaning-for-its-own-sake language... remains uniquely human!

And that fact is one of the strongest empirical anchors for your broader thesis about experience, biology, and meaning.

If you want next:

• A diagram. (apes vs humans: sentience/sapience/language)

• A short paragraph you can drop straight into Being Human.

• Or a comparison with dolphins, corvids, and parrots. (which adds another twist)

Just say the word.

A diagram. (apes vs humans: sentience/sapience/language)

Here’s a clean, publication-ready conceptual diagram you can use as-is. It keeps everything factual and aligned with your distinction between sentience and sapience.

Sentience, Sapience, and Language.

Apes vs Humans:

┌─────────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────┐
│        GREAT APES            │            HUMANS           │
├─────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────┤
│                             │                             │
│        SENTIENCE             │        SENTIENCE             │
│  ────────────────────────   │  ────────────────────────   │
│  • Subjective experience     │  • Subjective experience     │
│  • Pain / pleasure           │  • Pain / pleasure           │
│  • Emotions                  │  • Emotions                  │
│  • Social bonding            │  • Social bonding            │
│  • Intentional behavior      │  • Intentional behavior      │
│                             │                             │
│  (Strong, continuous)        │  (Strong, continuous)        │
│                             │                             │
├─────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────┤
│                             │                             │
│        SAPIENCE              │        SAPIENCE              │
│  ────────────────────────   │  ────────────────────────   │
│  • Limited problem solving   │  • Abstract reasoning        │
│  • Tool use                  │  • Self-reflection           │
│  • Social learning           │  • Metacognition             │
│  • Episodic memory           │  • Moral reasoning           │
│                             │  • Counterfactual thinking   │
│  (Partial / bounded)         │                             │
│                             │  (Full / generative)         │
│                             │                             │
├─────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────┤
│                             │                             │
│        LANGUAGE              │        LANGUAGE              │
│  ────────────────────────   │  ────────────────────────   │
│  • Symbol use                │  • Symbol use                │
│  • Gestures / signs          │  • Syntax & grammar          │
│  • Lexigrams                 │  • Recursion                 │
│  • Requests & commands       │  • Narrative                 │
│                             │  • Abstraction               │
│  ✘ No grammar                │  • Explanation               │
│  ✘ No recursion              │  • Meaning-for-its-own-sake  │
│  ✘ No narrative              │                             │
│                             │  (Open-ended & cumulative)   │
│  (Instrumental)              │                             │
│                             │                             │
└─────────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────────┘

---

One-line interpretation! (useful as a caption)

Apes experience the world and can symbolically act within it. 

Humans experience the world and can symbolically model, explain, and reinterpret it!

Why this diagram matters:

• The sentience layer overlaps → continuity of experience.

• The sapience layer diverges → emergence of reflective cognition.

• The language layer bifurcates sharply → biology-limited symbolic recursion.

This makes it very clear that:

• The gap is not cultural.

• Not educational.

• Not motivational.

It is biological and emergent, not a missing training program.

I think I’m an alien!

PROLOGUE! 

There has always been something about the way an individual human thinks... and society acts... that has not only rubbed me the wrong way... but has irritated my sensibilities over the years!  

I have had this sore spot for most of my life, and as a result, I have come to look upon most human interaction from the viewpoint of an impartial third-party observer. (Even when it’s a situation that involves myself!) 

The reason I say this is because ‘rational self-interest' is at the core of our human psyche.

It's been the main evolutionary force in our make-up for at least as long as we have been classified as human beings! (And probably a lot longer!)

I would like to suggest that this 'rational self-interest' thing is getting not only a bit annoying but also a bit detrimental to our further development as a species!

SO! I am going to propose something here! 

What has served us well at this stage of our development might have a shelf-life that is fast approaching... so this might be a good time to take a hard look at ourselves and note some areas in our make-up that could cause problems going forward! 

Just so there is no confusion about what I’m talking about...  one of the best examples of rational self-interest is when someone has to go to court and in our adversarial legal system the accused is represented by a defence lawyer and then prosecuted by another lawyer representing the State! 

Now you would think the purpose of this process was to establish a person’s guilt, innocence, involvement or complicity... but after close examination, we find this lofty ideal is far removed from reality.  

It has no bearing on the outcome of the trial in any way, shape or form! 

Just like an individual person, our legal system has a strict code of self-interest... and therefore the prosecuting attorney is mandated to establish guilt no matter what the cost... while at the same time the defence attorney is obligated to jump through hoops in his/her effort to exonerate the poor, hapless schmuck whether they are guilty or not! 

Now here comes the kicker kids... whether this person is, in fact, guilty or innocent has absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the trial folks. 

Rampant self-interest is at play by both sides, and justice is never properly served! 

In a perfect world, the person’s guilt or innocence would be secondary to establishing the facts of a case in a broader sense. 

This would automatically assign blame or innocence to all the proper recipients. 

Without this motivation to win at all costs both defence and prosecuting attorneys would work together to determine the relevant circumstances of any issue and this would in turn yield an obvious conclusion that would, at the very least be agreeable to everyone! (By the same token self-dealing by an individual might be counterproductive to the long-term advancement... or even survival... of the group as a whole.) 

What I’m trying to say here is this:

Societies' concerns can be better served by an: “Enlightened self-interest!” (Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy of ethics which states that people who act to further the interests of others, or the interests of the group to which they belong, ultimately serves their own self-interest.) 

SO!  

As I was saying... what got us to where we are in our evolutionary development in the past might not be that good for us in the future. 

Rather, we will have to rely more and more on what our brethren think and do as well... and all this to achieve a consensus that includes everyone! 

This attitude of compromise and co-operation might just be what helps propel us on to our next evolutionary step kids! 

The way I see it anyway!