Slashdot Mirror
Alex, The Brainy Parrot Who Knows About Zero
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."
Guess I'll have to rethink my intent when I call someone a bird brain!
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!
But if it had coloured balls moving rapidly so it couldn't count them, would it be able to comprehend a difference (if taught the vocabulary) between "None" and "Unknown"? That needs to be tested, otherwise this is just another example of bad science.
Actually, I'm not convinced of that. The question was still "what color five?", and "none" is a numerical answer, not a color answer. The bird had previously spat out a different nonsensical answer to the question "what color three?"
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.
From the article: The scientists also said it will take further study to determine whether Alex--who has been the subject of intelligence and communication tests throughout his life--really understands zero.
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.)
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...
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
I have nothing against eating animals either, but 'survival of the fittest' is not a moral philisophy in any sense of the word. It is pure power relations, i.e. "you can kill someone if it helps you and they can't punish you for doing it."
I worry when people use it to 'justify' anything.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
- "where's the cube?"
- "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.
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)
I don't see why this would change anything. A bird can now count from zero.
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.
... to think that you are so advanced you can change your basic behaviour and instincts.
:-)
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.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Of course I mind if you kill and eat a pet of mine - I have an emotional attachment to the animal - it's a PET!
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
Physicists get Hadrons!
And I for one welcome our new feline masters...
You missspelled 'avian'.
A lot of schmucks will probably treat these sorts of interesting things like novelty party tricks and move on.
:P
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.
BytesTemplar.com
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.
While it's really cool that this parrot can understand the concept of something being missing, or not existing at all within it's limited scope of numbers and objects, I think it would be more interesting to find out if the parrot could understand the concept of "I."
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?
You seem to misunderstand what "fittest" means, in evolutionary terms.
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
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.