Ape with a Pet

[Superman]

Anybody hear a story about an ape that has learned non-verbal language, makes up words and teaches them to its handlers and has a pet cat? The ape gave the cat a name, for example, and takes care of the cat in the same way as we handle our pets.

What implications does this have about our relationship with God? What implications does this have for the evolution/creation debate, apart from our relationship with God? Any implications regarding our relationship with the animal kingdom?

[Superman]

No, this is a real ape, in a research setting.

[dhoward]

Like this?

[dhoward]

Sorry, got out of sync on an edit.

But, no.
And why?

[Tishabet]

Are you talking about Cocoa?

[Superman]

Yep, Koko.

http://www.koko.org/

[Superman]

From the website:

During the course of the study, Koko has advanced further with language than any other non-human. Koko has a working vocabulary of over 1000 signs. Koko understands approximately 2,000 words of spoken English. Koko initiates the majority of conversations with her human companions and typically constructs statements averaging three to six words. Koko has a tested IQ of between 70 and 95 on a human scale, where 100 is considered "normal."

[juanbenae]

will they tear your junk off like the chimps?

[dhoward]

In a heartbeat.
Go to Koko's website and read the 'chat' she had with aol members of like intelligence...

[Superman]

"tear your junk off?" Huh?

BTW, Koko appears to be more intelligent than a substantial proportion of individuals I deal with daily.

[dhoward]

That hurt.

[Superman]

Hurt? Something I said? Are you guys way ahead of me again, or something?

Oh, now I get it. No, you guys have Koko beat by a mile. Most of you. Well, some of you. Well.......

[dhoward]

[CamB]

I understand that, like me, Koko likes to see breasts:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3193467a4560,00.html

[Aurel]

I know an ape that has a pet dog and runs a big country. He has a vocabulary of around 1000 words, including `Nukular`

Aurel

[azasadny]

Superman,

I'm gonna take flak for this, but I'll try my best to explain what I believe to be the difference between humans and animals from a "spiritual perspective". From a spiritual perspective, humans have a soul (that part of God that lives within us) and animals do not. Souls go to heaven or hell after death, so no animal would go to either "place". Many different religions and belief systems approach this question differently, so others may add their part, but the "soul issue" is what separates us from animals. Please remember that this is from a strictly "spiritual" perspective and no disrespect is meant to anyone or their beliefs by me... Other opinions????

[Aurel]

Originally posted by azasadny
Superman,

. From a spiritual perspective, humans have a soul (that part of God that lives within us) and animals do not. Souls go to heaven or hell after death, so no animal would go to either "place".

I respectfully disagree with this vision of spirituality. There is no such thing as heaven and hell after life. Souls can reincarnate in animals, many oriental religions teach this. Souls can also reincarnate back to earth when they have not grown enough. That would be hell. Your spiritual beleifs seem heavily influenced by judeo-christianism. Thus, they are not spritual beleifs but religious beliefs. Spirituality is, by essence, the understanding of all religions, not just one.
Just for fun, how would you define hell ? And would bad souls stay there forever ? How about animals that can be more loving than humans ? Maybe some humans, too, have no soul...
Or maybe there are various levels of souls. Young souls, old souls...Maybe stones have a soul too, just not devoloped yet...Or maybe stones are beings that have reached such a level of wisdom. They are a product of God, too...so they have a little bit of God inside, don`t they ?
Hey, at some point, they even said that women had no soul...would you beleive this?

Aurel

[azasadny]

Aurel,
I am a Christian, so my beliefs definitely reflect the Judeo-Christian tradition. I was merely trying to explain the position as I understand it and used the word "spiritual" in a different way than you interpreted. I'm aware that there are many "spiritual" people who believe differently than I do and I respect other's beliefs as long as they respect mine. I should have said my "faith position" instead, that would have been a little clearer. I should stick to 911's and forget posting about these deeper issues... I am easily confused!!

BTW, my definition of hell is "eternity without Christ" and heaven is "eternity with christ", so that's another area where we would have many differences... vive la difference!!

[Aurel]

Well I am christian too. Protestant at that. So, according to your definition that hell is etertnity without Christ, should I conclude that all the Budhists, muslims, Indhus, etc...are living in hell and will go to hell ? Sorry if I confuse you a little more...

Aurel

[Jeff Higgins]

I'm not sure what this means as far as spirituality. Koko is really no different than any others of her species, it's just the first time we have had an opportunity to see their intelligence in action. Witness the previously documented complex social structure these animals build in the wild. Many, many species do this to a greater or lesser degree and always have. Does it necessarily elevate them to a plane that is even close to mankind's? I don't think so. There are many species at about this level of development either evolutionally or as created, depending on what you believe. Why does mankind stand alone so far ahead of the rest of the pack? How would we really feel, or how would our lives be different, if we really did co-exist with a species bridging the gap between us and other primates? How would we treat them?