Alex, The Brainy Parrot Who Knows About Zero 435
Roland Piquepaille writes "Alex is a 28-year-old grey parrot who lives in a lab at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., and can count, identify objects, shapes, colors and materials. And now, Alex has grasped the concept of zero, according to World Science. In fact, Alex can describe the absence of a numerical quantity on a tray containing colored cubes. When a color is missing, Alex consistently identified this 'zero quantity' by saying the label 'none.' You might think that this is just a parrot trick, but this research about 'bird intelligence' might also help autistic and other learning-disabled children 'who have trouble learning language and counting skills.' This overview contains other details, references and a picture of Alex counting his colored cubes."
Symptom, not the cause. (Score:3, Insightful)
hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
On a side note, why is the concept of zero considered so advanced on the intelligence ladder? I know it was well after Greek times that man came to terms with it. But could it be the case that we were over-thinking its concept?
Maybe someone can better describe this article's subject's significance... all I know, from my own observations, is that my dog certainly demonstrates a form of awareness whenever there's zero food in its dish!
Re:Symptom, not the cause. (Score:5, Insightful)
After several tries the experimenter gave up and said: "OK, Alex, tell me: what color five?" "None," the bird replied. This was correct, in that there was no color that graced exactly five of the objects. The researchers went on to incorporate "none" into future trials, and Alex consistently used the word correctly, they said.
If the researcher's comments on the subject are true and they aren't suffering from "proud parrot syndrome", how do you explain that the parrot decided to "up the ante" and play a more difficult game?
It's apparent from their words that the parrot does understand that there was a group that did not exist and thus it isn't some silly trick.
None vs. Unknown (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Symptom, not the cause. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not really convinced that the distinction that you are making (i.e. between understanding and behaviour memorisation) really exists. In my opinion, understanding is a kind of encoding, meaning you take a kernel of knowledge and can deduce the rest from it. However the kernel still needs to be memorised.
For instance, a mathematician can do great things with a Euler's equation, but if he/she cannot remember the formula in the first place, they are not going to get anywhere.
My point is that what you call understanding is for you, a "dumb you trick", for me a "dumb me trick", same as for the parrot and autistic kids. It's just that non-autistic people may be able to encode more and remember less.
I'm still gonna go with "silly parrot trick" (Score:3, Insightful)
As the article says, "zero" and "none" are not quite identical. Perhaps the bird is showing substantial insight and playing a new game; perhaps it's just bored and throwing out random stuff.
Among humans, the "invention" of zero is a lot more than being able to count zero objects. It comes with at least some basic arithmetic, like 0+x=x, x-0=x, and perhaps even x*0=0. Without that, I'm also tempted to dismiss it as a "silly parrot trick".
Personally, I think it's easy to anthropomorphize a creature with a human voice. I'd expect many other creatures, especially mammals, to be smarter than birds. Biologically speaking it's not much different from a chicken. So I'd like to see a lot more research before I'm prepared to grant the bird more than some lucky guesswork.
Re:hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Because an understanding of the difference between 'present' and 'absent' is a much more fundamental idea than that of 'number'. Treating them as related concepts is a big step:
Re:Symptom, not the cause. (Score:5, Insightful)
READY, SET, GO!
The bird understands NONE. (Score:2, Insightful)
Zero and none "are not identical," Pepperberg wrote in a recent email. But since Alex never learned "zero," the researchers said, it's impressive that he started using a word he knew to denote something like it: an absence of a quantity.
Also unclear, though, was whether by "none" he meant no colors, no objects or something else.
So, in effect, the bird "knows" of 'none,' not 'Zero,' according to Mr. Pepperberg.
Sorry. Everyone is using Zero as a word to describe what this bird knows, and it's just not the case. Details, people.
Maybe if half of the posts weren't Roland-Bashing, you would have bothered to click on the direct link to the original article.
(Don't get me wrong, Roland is a whore.)
B F Skinner and pigeons (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a great deal (imho) of underestimation of animal intelligence, and it's interesting how many religious people I meet are animal intelligence deniers because of their need to believe that humans have some unique status.
Anybody with a background in experimental psychology who has ever actually worked with a grey parrot, a cockatoo, a macaw or one of the more intelligent dog breeds (e.g. spaniel) will realise that, although it is possible to argue that animal behavior is in some way fundamentally different from ours, the simplest hypothesis is that, in a simpler way, they think the same way that we do. The resemblance of some aspects of behaviour of, say, a two to three year old child and a labrador or cocker spaniel is very marked.
Therefore my own view of this particular bit of research is that it acts as a pointer of how far down the human aptitude chain a bird can get in one particular skill. If you accept that animals, birds and humans have mental ability that fits on a continuum, though with different aspects at different points, this research is interesting not only in itself but in the light it could throw on aspects of human development. Which seems to be what they're saying...
Re:Hubris (Score:4, Insightful)
I worry when people use it to 'justify' anything.
maybe the parrot is using another concept (Score:2, Insightful)
- "hurry up with those cubes!"
- "i can't find it."
- "next question! I want to win another cookie."
It's easy to say people were late discovering zero, but a neanderthal yelling "where's my !*#&*$?! brontosaurus steak?" (1) sure had a concept of absence of something. The concept of zero is about equations and using location of a digit in a number to indicate increasing amounts.
(1) in comics, it's almost mandatory that dinosaurs and neanderthals live in the same period.
Re:Hubris (Score:4, Insightful)
Humans have been writing symbols, farming, living in cities, using horses/camels etc for land travel, using boats for sea travel, etc etc etc. for how many thousands of years now?
Not to mention, how many animals actually verbally communicate from generation to generation, use tools, or keep domesticated pets or farm animals, and we've been doing that for how many tens of thousands of years? (yes, I think there are some, but we've been doing these things for a very long time)
I mean, it's not like animals could hide that sort of thing. If animals were going to be doing sub-atomic research and travelling in space in the next couple of thousand years, you'd think the scale of their culture would be really bleeding obvious right now. And given that most animals have had a longer amount of time to work this stuff out than we have, I'd say that it's clear we're on top.
(granted, it's cool to learn that animals are smarter than we previously thought, but let's not infer that just because you can jump up and down, that soon you'll be able to reach the moon)
Re:Hubris (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see how us having a big brain automatically means that we stop eating meat. I think that you're making some huge logical jumps. Just because if we try really hard, we can stay healthy without eating meat doesn't mean that we should stop eating meat.
Hubris indeed ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Face it, you're an omnivore, like it or not. Whether you choose to eat meat or not is irrelevant - you have evolved to eat a variety of foods, including meat. Humankind is the most general of species on this planet - we survive in extreme heat, extreme cold, and everywhere in-between precisely because we can adapt to changing circumstance. Eating meat is a part of this general behaviour. I see no reason to be ashamed of what we do when it's in our nature to do it.
It may even be (given that it's generally the meat-eaters predatorial requirements for advanced tactics that drive this) that you *had* to eat meat for thousands of years before you'd evolve to the state where it was optional...
Frankly, those who espouse that we shouldn't eat other animals are mainly hypocrites. Humourous note: while checking the spelling of that, I typed "hypocr" into OSX's dashboard dictionary and it guessed at 'hypocretin'. Although it's not applicable (it's a hormone!), I'd love to adopt it instead of hypocrite. It just fits so well
Put a tethered lamb in front of a cave with fresh running water and see if the human would rather die than kill and eat the lamb. If you kill the lamb, if you'd rather die, then well and good - I respect your principles whilst simultaneously denouncing you as a fool. If you kill and eat the lamb, everything comes down to a matter of degree - when is it acceptable to eat meat and when is it not? That's an arbitrary decision made by an individual based on his/her preconceptions. No one decision is any more "right" than any other since the decision is a personal one. So stop telling me I can't have a bacon sandwich at the weekend!
Simon.
What a stupid question! (Score:4, Insightful)
Do I mind if you kill and eat a scorpion in the desert ? No. Knock yourself out.
It's the emotional attachment that's important - not the animal. As a child, I had a pet rabbit. If you'd tried to kill and eat it, I'd set the dog on you! I couldn't care less if you go out into the foothills and kill and eat a rabbit. I dare say there are (vegetable) farmers who would actively encourage you...
Simon
Re:Hubris... Yes... (Score:5, Insightful)
You missspelled 'avian'.
Not likely. (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people can't even treat other people with respect, so to me it's unrealistic to expect them to ever care about anything outside their own species except for personal gain or as lunch.
Of course, there are exceptions.
What can I say? I'm just a cynical bastard.
Re:Hubris indeed ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hubris indeed ... (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all, vegetarians *have* successfully altered behavior. I would argue that all humans in a civilized society have altered behavior in significant fashion over what our "instinct" tells us. Many of our laws work against basic human nature, but I think most would agree that they are in the best interest of our society. (I am not asking for a law to prohibit meat-eating, just drawing some parallels.)
Furthermore, it is hardly "hypocritical" to kill a lamb if your life depends on eating it for survival. I value my life more highly than that of the lamb's. 99% of the time, this does not come into conflict with my choosing not to eat it. If it ever does, then I will probably eat it. Would you call someone a hypocrite for valuing a single family member's life over that of a couple of strangers? To you the distinction between the two situations may seem obvious, but to others it is much more of a grey area.
My cat understands zero too (Score:2, Insightful)
When his bowl is empty, he says "meow". Is that an understanding of zero?
I can understand and be amazed by the understanding of zero and negative numbers as a mathematical concept
Sounds like Roland needs to pay some extra bills this month. We don't need his F'ing bird brained "overview" laden submissions.
Re:Hubris indeed ... (Score:3, Insightful)
> Whether you choose to eat meat or not is irrelevant - you have evolved to eat a variety of foods, including meat.
I've evolved to be able to. Unlike some species, such as domestic housecats, I do not _have_ to eat meat.
> Humankind is the most general of species on this planet - we survive in extreme heat, extreme cold, and everywhere in-between precisely because we can adapt to changing circumstance.
Look at species such as water bears. We can't survive underwater without special apparatus, or for a lifetime, much less in an ocean vent. We can't survive an extended amount of time and reproduce on top of the Himalayas. They can.
Humans are adaptable, but physically fragile; tools help, but we are very far from as general as you claim. Our extremes of heat and cold are much more limited than those of some other species.
> Eating meat is a part of this general behaviour. I see no reason to be ashamed of what we do when it's in our nature to do it.
Eating meat is possible. It is not, for at least some human beings, necessary. For religious, health, and ethical reasons, many people choose to eat little or no meat. One does not have to be ashamed of this choice either.
Many things which are part of human nature, such as rape (chimpanzees do it too...) are reprehensible. While eating meat is obviously not in the same category, just because something has occurred for a long time and is possible for a species does not imply it's positive, fits within accepted bounds of most people's ethics, or anything else, beyond "it's been around a long time and is possible."
Zero is nice and all (Score:2, Insightful)
Another interesting question would be, does the parrot "miss" things when they aren't there? People, toys, etc. or develop some sort of attachment to something, and show something akin to emotion?
Re:Hubris (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it means there's a fundamental difference between biology and morality. In biology, the only thing that matters is numbers, not how you live. In morality, the only thing that matter is how you live, not the numbers. Note that you may indirectly influence the reproduction of your genes in your family, clan, people etc. so let us simplify.
Assume there are only three people, one woman, a man and you (assumed male). "Fittest" means your ability to reproduce with that woman, but it doesn't matter if you seduce her, rape her or kill the competition, as long as you do. "Moral" means the way you live your life, regardless if you have any children or not.
Fitness and morality are orthogonal concepts. (fit,moral) (fit,immoral) (unfit,moral) (unfit,immoral) are all valid combinations. You can't infer from the fitness of an action to its morality, or from the morality to its fitness. To use "survival of the fittest" as a moral argument is another way of saying that you don't care about the morality, only yourself.
P.S. In the case of slashdot, the story ends this way anyway: "Remember when I said 'Not if you were the last man on Earth'? I meant it."
Kjella
and the tastiest (Score:3, Insightful)
Still dunno if it is reasonable to take behavioural style into account when handing out moral status. That sounds like the kind of thing that has got humans into no end of trouble over places like Kurdistan.
And it all has to be balanced against the delights of ham, bacon, roast pork and pizza. For now I think I'm still stuck with "it's better to have lived and fed the hungry than not to have lived at all." If only the plight of fish stocks and omega-3 was so simple.
Re:Hubris indeed ... (Score:2, Insightful)
In my opinion it all boils down to the question "when is it alright to kill?"
I'd say, when its in self defence/preservation. I wouldnt blame you eating that lamb if the choise was for you to die, as i wouldnt blame a wolf for doing the same.
You migth say its ok to kill when you feel that bacon sandwich urge. Well i think thats hypocrital if anything.
Re:Hubris indeed ... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I eat meat myself, I'm not sure I buy your moral logic. If I were starving, I would be willing to steal food. Theft is still wrong. But stealing food is better than starving to death.
If we're forced into it, sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils. But we shouldn't let that choice establish a precedent. We shouldn't say "If it's okay to kill in self defence, then you can kill anyone any time you want as well."
To a person who believed that an animal has rights, the decision to eat meat would not be a personal one since it would involve another being. The decision to eat meat is only 'personal' if you don't consider the creature being eaten to have rights in the situation.
The law, of course, recognizes the decision as personal since it only recognizes people as subjects and animals are mostly considered property which is used as people see fit - though there are some animal cruelty laws.
Re:Hubris indeed ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a vegan because I believe society has advanced to a point where we are capable of survival without intentionally causing suffering to animals. Sure, we evolved to be omnivores, but the majority of our evolution occured before the advent of agriculture and civilization, and thus killing was a necessary part of survival. We also evolved to be greedy and lustful. Does that make stealing and rape ok?
Your stupid hypothetical situation puts one back into a scenario where they would have to kill for survival. This is not what we are presented with in everyday reality. Yes, if it's kill or die, I'll kill. I don't value an animal's life more than my own, but that doesn't mean that an animal's life is without value, or that they do not suffer. Everyday reality is not kill or die, so I do my best not to. That doesn't make me hypocritical.