Bird Brains Explain How Humans Learn to Talk

eaglebtc writes "A team of neuroscientists at MIT have made tremendous progress in understanding how birds learn to sing: a part of the brain called the basal ganglia is primarily responsible for controlling the learning of movement and the production of speech. This circuitry is also present in humans, and it is the same way that a baby's random babbling eventually becomes the proficient speech of adults. It is hoped that this research can provide further insights into Parkinson's Disease, an inherited genetic condition that causes rapid breakdown of motor control and speech production. The full research study is available as a downloadable PDF."

Comments

Re:Chomsky

[a whoabot]

"And since I'm AC, I'll go ahead and say that I think Chomsky is a fucking choad for his non-linguistics "work", which consists of getting insanely rich by writing books critical of every political view but his version of anarcho-syndicalism. -- but feel free do mod me independently of this viewpoint."

Wait, so you're saying that its bad in itself that he favors one politcal theory over others? I mean, don't lots of people do this? And just for clarity, I think it'd be best to describe his political philosophy as a form of libertarian-socialism. Anarcho-syndicalism would be a form of voluntary organization that he says works well in a truly libertarian political state.

I don't know how rich he gets off of his books, and I wonder how you found this information.

Not only bird species

[Moraelin]

Well, just wanted to say I think you're right, but IMHO we need to see the bigger picture than just "human speech == intelligence."

Honestly, most species have evolved some kinds of intelligence, far beyond what many humans credit them with. IMHO the parrots are a more interesting case because they can actually articulate human words, but I wouldn't discount the intelligence of animals who lack a suitable larynx for that. Everything you describe, except for actually articulating words, can be observed in at least half the mammal species I can think of.

In some cases it's not even just learning by imitation.

E.g., cats not only can learn, but are actively taught by their mother. If you've ever had a cat with kittens, you've probably noticed how she talks to them for hours. (And likely got annoyed when she does it at 4 AM.)

And if you take a kitten from his/her mom very early, he/she'll grow up to be a bit of a retarded cat. So all that meowing at night wasn't just socializing.

This isn't necessarily to say "cats are smart", but rather that most species evolved towards some kind of "smart". Natural selection favours adaptability, and adapting by learning is the most efficient kind.

Sharing information with other members of the species, i.e. _some_ form of speech (even if it means meowing, barking or chirping) was also a very immediate survival advantage. E.g., for most species of animals it's a very real advantage to be able to tell your cubs "hide!" or "come here, I brought you dinner" and the like.

In the cats' case, it's obviously a language that can transmit behaviour information to the kitten. Probably not as complex or as capable of abstraction as human language, but complex enough to tell that kitten how to act in certain circumstances, or what its priorities should be. (E.g., "wash yourself often". Cats taken very early from their mother do it less often than ones who got taught.) I.e., it might be more complex than a parrot's learning to say "hi" and "goodbye".

So basically, yeah, I'd guess that life anywhere, in any conditions, would probably tend to evolve towards some kind of intelligence and communication capabilities.

Re:Parrot species...

[ynotds]

birds in general have their origins traced back to dinosaur-era reptiles. That's a pretty huge developmental shift between humanity and bird.

There are some things our natural anthropocentrism encourages us to leave out of Evolution 101:

1. For viable species, selection favours those most efficient at doing what they do, which is unlikely to favour innovation except in times of stress.
2. While there are well known examples of convergent evolution, there are a lot more examples of the loss of ancestral function in descendant clades.
3. Of the millions of species descended from the last common ancestor (LCA) of birds and mammals, homo sapiens sapiens is but one and thus clearly atypical.*

While behaviour does not fossilise well, it is conceivable that the LCA learnt some behaviours by imitating its parents, though a comparable level of active nurturing evolved independently in eusocial insects. Early developmental pathways tend to be much more strongly conserved than other characteristics over evolutionary time.

Cockatoos ... develop intelligence of many sorts, though of a more social nature.

I was unable to identify any qualitative difference between the lunchtime chatter in the cafeteria at my alma mater and the chatter of a flock of corellas roosting in red gums by the Wimmera River at Dimboola.

it also seems to make the possibility of intelligent life outside our known observed environments seem less unlikely too - especially if it can develop in so seemingly independant circumstances, despite a somewhat shared environment.

We also keep forgetting that orcas and elephants have very strong claims to being the other most intelligent mammals, but their bodily size and consequent food consumption has made it impossible for them to form populations on the scale needed to support our kind of culture. The cockatoos might well be a better model, particularly if we concede that evolution may have been more concerned with improving brain function per gram in flying critters.

It may be relevant that "singing" appears to be one of the commoner examples of convergent evolution. I guess I've put off writing my "singing ape hypothesis" far too long already.

*This may also be taken as evidence that "intelligence" is overrated.