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

Breaking the Bird Barrier: Scientist Decodes Zebra Finch Language

freepressjournal.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 48 posts

Re: Breaking the Bird Barrier: Scientist Decodes Zebra Finch Language

#31

Post by Exoristos »

lioeters wrote: post #30
t-writescode wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that there was a relatively recent panic to stop anthropomorphizing the rest of creation and that that rebellion against anthropomorphism clings so hard to "that's not how humans do it and stop thinking it is" that we commit the sin in the opposite direction - and declare everything as "definitely not a lived experience of another being" and "just rote programming" too early.

Of course plants have feelings and conscious experience, it's obvious to anyone who has spent time living with them. Plants literally think and solve problems, too. But you won't succeed in convincing anyone who doesn't understand such basic truths. Reducing a living being to a mere machine is so 19th century, but just as religions still influence how people see the world, it's going to take generations for science t…

Interesting to me that you employ religion as the pejorative comparison here, when it's the inherent human religions that have perceived in plants gods and spirits since before the beginning of recorded time.

Re: Breaking the Bird Barrier: Scientist Decodes Zebra Finch Language

#32

Post by Exoristos »

Modified3019 wrote: post #24
t-writescode wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some variety of learnings over the last several years. Many of them are sensationalized; but my simple statement was "plants feel"; and many of these values imply some level of "feeling": Plants scream when harmed: [0] https://www.sciencealert.com/plants-really-do-scream-out-lou... [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stressed-plants-c... Plants release VOCs when harmed: [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/interes…

Science if finally catching up to Werner Herzog >Of course there's a lot of misery, but it is the same misery that is all around us. The trees here are in misery, and the birds are in misery. I don't think they sing. They just screech in pain. But seriously, the articles you posted are inappropriately repurposing words normally associated with conscious experience, in order to get attention. There is lots of evidence…

There's no reason to think that birds and trees don't routinely exuberate with joy, since cooperating with our needs in needful proportion brings us humans exuberance.

Re: Breaking the Bird Barrier: Scientist Decodes Zebra Finch Language

#33

Post by tremon »

lioeters wrote: post #30
t-writescode wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that there was a relatively recent panic to stop anthropomorphizing the rest of creation and that that rebellion against anthropomorphism clings so hard to "that's not how humans do it and stop thinking it is" that we commit the sin in the opposite direction - and declare everything as "definitely not a lived experience of another being" and "just rote programming" too early.

Of course plants have feelings and conscious experience, it's obvious to anyone who has spent time living with them. Plants literally think and solve problems, too. But you won't succeed in convincing anyone who doesn't understand such basic truths. Reducing a living being to a mere machine is so 19th century, but just as religions still influence how people see the world, it's going to take generations for science t…

I don't think it's as obvious as you make it out to be. For one, what we consider evidence of "thinking" is autonomous action by a being as a whole. For as far as I know, there is no evidence that a plant's movements are governed by a central coordinating authority. Can your evidence distinguish between a plant having a single mind or each branch having decision authority of its own?

Re: Breaking the Bird Barrier: Scientist Decodes Zebra Finch Language

#34

Post by t-writescode »

tremon wrote: post #33
lioeters wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course plants have feelings and conscious experience, it's obvious to anyone who has spent time living with them. Plants literally think and solve problems, too. But you won't succeed in convincing anyone who doesn't understand such basic truths. Reducing a living being to a mere machine is so 19th century, but just as religions still influence how people see the world, it's going to take generations for science t…

I don't think it's as obvious as you make it out to be. For one, what we consider evidence of "thinking" is autonomous action by a being as a whole. For as far as I know, there is no evidence that a plant's movements are governed by a central coordinating authority. Can your evidence distinguish between a plant having a single mind or each branch having decision authority of its own?

Why does a plant’s movements need to be governed by a “central, coordinating authority”? Isn’t that employing another anthropomorphism onto a plant?

Octopi have, what, 9 minds? Would we consider them a single or multiple creatures?

And to think of plants, some single organisms span *acres* of connected root structures.

So, why would one need to distinguish between a single mind and multiple minds in one creature? To what end does it serve, except managing a narrow, specific definition of thought and/or memory that doesn’t even model the whole of creatures we generally agree are living and thinking?

I’m not saying I know if they’re a “self-replicating, autonomous food source” or not; but I am saying it’s quite presumptuous to declare they’re not and then to gradually narrow the definitions when a plant surpasses some line in the sand we didn’t think it would pass.

It reminds me of all the human exceptionalism stances we had over the centuries, “humans are special because they use tools” and the like.

Re: Breaking the Bird Barrier: Scientist Decodes Zebra Finch Language

#35

Post by Exoristos »

ghurtado wrote: post #16

A lot of interesting information here, but this one paragraph blew my mind: > Although the birds occasionally made mistakes, they more often confused calls with similar meanings rather than similar sounds. “Their responses indicated they have a mental imagery of the meaning of their vocalisations,” Elie said. “In other words, that they understand the meaning of their call types.”

Yes, it rather begs the omniscience of the researchers, doesn't it?

Re: Breaking the Bird Barrier: Scientist Decodes Zebra Finch Language

#36

Post by pks016 »

computerdork wrote: post #29
pks016 wrote: post #18

I work in the field. The main takeaway is zebra finches (maybe other songbirds) can discriminate vocalizations based on function, even if they sound similar. Generally, birds can tell apart categories of sounds e.g. vocalizations from different individual birds, male vs female, call vs song, conspecific vs heterospecific etc. The question is if birds can do it for specific function e.g. agonistic calls vs non-agonist…

Interesting! Could you break this down further? Maybe specific examples of what you're mentioning might help - for instance, what "similar-sounding calls with different functions" are zebra finches discriminating between? What exactly are different situations of these functions? How exactly (and through what experiments) did she determine this? And I read the article (but not her research paper), and have a vague ide…

Yeah, the paper is indeed difficult to read (even for me). I read it a while back. I'll try to explain.

So, there are few things to know before and see what we're trying to prove. main thing: Categorical perception: (in short) brain perceive similar sounding sounds (say A and B) in a continuous manner, and in the continuum of two sound, there would be a point where one sound (A) will switch and sound like the other sound (B).

In zebra finches, let's take an example: distance call and tet call. Both these calls are contact calls, birds use them to keep in contact with other birds. Now, we need to extract the acoustic similarity between these two calls, and test birds in a experiment where we ask them to discriminate between these two call types (and get a learning curve; say trials vs probability of correct choice). Then, we can fit a theoretical model of categorical perception to see how well they fit both in acoustic and perceptual dimensions.

This is for one function (contact call), we can do this within other call types and between other call types. At the end, we can see how much of birds' performance is explained by acoustic dissimilarity, function of acoustic calls etc.

This is what the authors have done. They first performed LDA based classification on call type to obtain distance between call types, misclassification etc. (acoustic dimension). Birds went through a series of discrimination experiments based on call types (similar to what wrote above). Then, they compared/matched acoustic and perceptual dimension.

Re: Breaking the Bird Barrier: Scientist Decodes Zebra Finch Language

#37

Post by Aachen »

pks016 wrote: post #18

I work in the field. The main takeaway is zebra finches (maybe other songbirds) can discriminate vocalizations based on function, even if they sound similar. Generally, birds can tell apart categories of sounds e.g. vocalizations from different individual birds, male vs female, call vs song, conspecific vs heterospecific etc. The question is if birds can do it for specific function e.g. agonistic calls vs non-agonist…

From https://www.jeremycollerfoundation.org/news-and-insights/pre... it sounds like the main takeaway is that they seem to conceptualise the sounds:

> the birds mistook long-distance contact calls and short-distance contact calls, which are acoustically very different. But, they never mistook a short contact call with a short alarm call, which have very similar acoustic patterns but entirely distinct meanings. As such, the study reveals that call perception elicits a mental imagery of the meaning of call-types, rather than triggering a reflexive response.

How do you see that?

Re: Breaking the Bird Barrier: Scientist Decodes Zebra Finch Language

#38

Post by BuyMyBitcoins »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #13

No doubts the crows are all having a good laugh at our expense.

I started feeding a local murder of crows earlier this year.

They seem to have distinctive two-caw sounds for “human sighted, food is about to be thrown”, a “food is here, no sign of the human” and finally, a “human, we’re here, you coming out to throw us some scraps?”

They make plenty of other calls too, but I haven’t been able to associate those with anything I’ve observed them doing.

I may just be over anthropomorphizing, but I’ve recorded them and those three dual-caw calls sound subtly different (to my untrained ears). I’m certain actual ornithologists have looked into this. Chances are, though, I may be suffering from “I want to believe” syndrome.

Re: Breaking the Bird Barrier: Scientist Decodes Zebra Finch Language

#39

Post by pks016 »

Aachen wrote: post #37
pks016 wrote: post #18

I work in the field. The main takeaway is zebra finches (maybe other songbirds) can discriminate vocalizations based on function, even if they sound similar. Generally, birds can tell apart categories of sounds e.g. vocalizations from different individual birds, male vs female, call vs song, conspecific vs heterospecific etc. The question is if birds can do it for specific function e.g. agonistic calls vs non-agonist…

From https://www.jeremycollerfoundation.org/news-and-insights/pre... it sounds like the main takeaway is that they seem to conceptualise the sounds: > the birds mistook long-distance contact calls and short-distance contact calls, which are acoustically very different. But, they never mistook a short contact call with a short alarm call, which have very similar acoustic patterns but entirely distinct meanings. As suc…

Generally, you test birds in a series of discrimination experiments. So for this example, the discrimination task would be distance calls vs contact calls. Let's say, birds learn to discriminate between 20 distance calls vs 20 contact calls. They can learn this quickly (reward and punishment). After birds learned this rule (say 75% accuracy), we ask to generalize this by adding more calls. Now, birds have to discriminate 30 distance calls vs 30 contact calls (10 new for each). We can check now, for which new calls they are more likely to correct and incorrect response.

In this research field, we often perform this types of experiments (not this exact one). So, this is not that surprising to some of us. Birds also prioritize duration a lot when telling apart calls.

Re: Breaking the Bird Barrier: Scientist Decodes Zebra Finch Language

#40

Post by lioeters »

Exoristos wrote: post #31
lioeters wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course plants have feelings and conscious experience, it's obvious to anyone who has spent time living with them. Plants literally think and solve problems, too. But you won't succeed in convincing anyone who doesn't understand such basic truths. Reducing a living being to a mere machine is so 19th century, but just as religions still influence how people see the world, it's going to take generations for science t…

Interesting to me that you employ religion as the pejorative comparison here, when it's the inherent human religions that have perceived in plants gods and spirits since before the beginning of recorded time.

Perceiving plant gods and spirits is closer to experimental science, attempts to describe and make sense of your actual lived experience. Dismissing them without any evidence or experience, just because they don't fit in the worldview you grew up in, is closer to religion.
Post reply on HN