Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If parrots can talk, why can’t monkeys?

english.elpais.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 221 posts

Re: If parrots can talk, why can’t monkeys?

#121

Post by JumpCrisscross »

nico wrote: post #102
jamiek88 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm. As I type this reply on my device powered by a semi conductor that wouldn’t exist without our knowledge of quantum physics I’m gonna say science.

As I type this from a free country that allows me unrestricted access to worldwide media, and affords me the right to express my opinion freely publicly, I would say politics. We all have our own points of view. Yours is certainly an astute observation. But it is not the only one.

> I would say politics

False dichotomy. This isn’t science versus religion, philosophy, the humanities or politics.

You repeated a meme: humans are animals plus some nebulous X. I’m calling that out as meaningless; it’s unfalsifiable. You switched to asking about the meaning of words, and are now trying to draw equivalence between your statements and the merits of politics as a category. This is an exercise in false equivalences, red herrings and wronger than wrongs [1].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wronger_than_wrong

Re: If parrots can talk, why can’t monkeys?

#122

Post by alex_young »

nico wrote: post #18
osamagirl69 wrote: post #9

A very interesting read, which describes how for ~50 years the community was lead astray by a seemingly simple oversight: studying dead animals instead of living ones! >Charles Darwin theorized that monkeys had the vocal anatomy needed for speech, but lacked the necessary neural mechanisms. >This was the most popular hypothesis until 1969 [when] Lieberman studied the vocal anatomy of a monkey corpse and concluded tha…

[flagged]

I’m more inclined to believe human + LLM = monkey

Re: If parrots can talk, why can’t monkeys?

#123

Post by faitswulff »

examplary_cable wrote: post #117

Parrots can't use sign language, but some great apes can(koko)[0]! Even thought monkeys don't have the vocal complexity to generate all the vowels(a,e,i,o,u) I think "great ape language" communication is more complex and nuanced than a fricking parrot repeating some phonemes after some form of stimulation. Fascinating. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)

I think you are underestimating avian intelligence. Despite the term "parroting," if I recall correctly, they're estimated to grow to about the intelligence of a 3 year old human child:

> ...parrots demonstrate sophisticated problem solving abilities, they can communicate their desires, they can count, add and subtract, and remarkably, they even understand the concept of zero

- https://www.forbes.com/sites/grrlscientist/2018/07/12/what-m...

Re: If parrots can talk, why can’t monkeys?

#124

Post by eyelidlessness »

engineer_22 wrote: post #114
ramraj07 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that parrots and humans with different anatomies can speak means it’s likely just neural.

I'm amazed at the range of vocalizations from huskies

My chihuahua-pit mix has such a range I often describe it as “singing the songs of her people”.

Anyway, what qualifies as speech is very subjective and generally anthropomorphic. I understand what my pup is saying almost all of the time, which wouldn’t qualify it as talking by most standards but it’s plain as day to me.

Re: If parrots can talk, why can’t monkeys?

#125

Post by mrfinn »

engineer_22 wrote: post #114
ramraj07 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that parrots and humans with different anatomies can speak means it’s likely just neural.

I'm amazed at the range of vocalizations from huskies

Came to say that. I've seen videos of huskies actually talking, in a much lesser capacity than parrots, but talking nonetheless.

Re: If parrots can talk, why can’t monkeys?

#127

Post by astrange »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #118
astrange wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are less than "sentences" because word order doesn't matter and they're not recursive (so they can't go on forever).

This is overly pedantic. How many conversations with a two year old have you had? Word order does not matter, recursion doesn't matter (a two year old can make a sentence go on forever without recursion even)

Two year olds learn a lot more language in a year than chimps can. Can't have a sentence like "dog bites man" without word order even if it's made of logograms.

Re: If parrots can talk, why can’t monkeys?

#128

Post by nico »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #121
nico wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I type this from a free country that allows me unrestricted access to worldwide media, and affords me the right to express my opinion freely publicly, I would say politics. We all have our own points of view. Yours is certainly an astute observation. But it is not the only one.

> I would say politics False dichotomy. This isn’t science versus religion, philosophy, the humanities or politics. You repeated a meme: humans are animals plus some nebulous X. I’m calling that out as meaningless; it’s unfalsifiable. You switched to asking about the meaning of words, and are now trying to draw equivalence between your statements and the merits of politics as a category. This is an exercise in false…

Thank you for the lesson. Now I am completely convinced of your point of view. You are so completely right.

Re: If parrots can talk, why can’t monkeys?

#129

Post by Swizec »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #124
engineer_22 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm amazed at the range of vocalizations from huskies

My chihuahua-pit mix has such a range I often describe it as “singing the songs of her people”. Anyway, what qualifies as speech is very subjective and generally anthropomorphic. I understand what my pup is saying almost all of the time, which wouldn’t qualify it as talking by most standards but it’s plain as day to me.

Ya, humans are really good at pattern recognition. I can understand what my parrot (who can’t speak) is communicating.

But did I learn my parrot’s patterns or is he intending to communicate with me? Hard to say.

If he is intending to communicate, did he just learn what works through operant conditioning? Hard to say.

If it is just operant conditioning (for both of us) and a pinch of antropomorphizing from me, does that even matter when the end result is that we are successfully communicating? Hard to say.

Whatever it is, it works. We can’t have a philosophical discussion, but he can usually get what he needs from me and I can usually understand what he wants and get him to change course of action when needed or get him to perform tricks on command.

Re: If parrots can talk, why can’t monkeys?

#130

Post by [deleted] »

nico wrote: post #128
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would say politics False dichotomy. This isn’t science versus religion, philosophy, the humanities or politics. You repeated a meme: humans are animals plus some nebulous X. I’m calling that out as meaningless; it’s unfalsifiable. You switched to asking about the meaning of words, and are now trying to draw equivalence between your statements and the merits of politics as a category. This is an exercise in false…

Thank you for the lesson. Now I am completely convinced of your point of view. You are so completely right.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN