Xref: utzoo sci.psychology:124 rec.birds:499 sci.bio:1031
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!udel!udccvax1!arti
From: arti@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Arti Nigam)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology,rec.birds,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Intelligent Parrots, or Self-deception and Gullibility.
Message-ID: <910@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU>
Date: 29 Mar 88 22:48:35 GMT
Reply-To: arti@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Arti Nigam)
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 21

In article <4400@blia.BLI.COM> heather@blia.BLI.COM (Heather Mackinnon) writes:
>
>> The whole Conditioning-Only argument as "proof" that an animal has not 
>> exhibited intelligence behaviour is also becoming a tired one (in my humble
>
>It is certainly true that human children learn to manipulate symbols via
>an intensive conditioning process that begins in early infancy.  Children
>are taught via repetition, positive and negative reinforcement.  If we call
>this "learning" in human children, why shouldn't we call it "learning" in
>other animals?  If human children exhibit "intelligence" when they master

Is it really true?  I assume you are speaking of language acquisition.  The
development of the ability to speak grammatically and in novel sentences,
and the ability to differentiate between grammatical and nongrammatical,
seems NOT to develop as a result of specific reinforcement.  Most parents
do not follow their toddlers around correcting the grammar of the utterances;
they may correct their child if the child mislabels an object, they may
pronounce a word completely that was half-pronounced by the child, but
more often than not the parent will ignore syntax, or even reinforce
faulty syntax by speaking 'baby-talk'.  Simple reinforcement does not
explain language acquisition.