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

141–150 of 221 posts

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

#141

Post by MagicMoonlight »

dasickis wrote: post #137

We've been building tech to translate dog barks to something meaningful for us to understand. A few things we observed: 1. Dogs are more communicative once they believe you are correctly responsive to their vocalizations 2. Their barks are more differentiated over time and they start to introduce new types of vocalizations or sequences of vocalizations 3. Dogs don't have a structured vocal language as it starts of sl…

We had an old dog move in with us and it’s been interesting because it has developed a new dog culture based on my existing dog. It now barks when someone comes home, barks to go outside etc. It didn’t do any of that before but it has started doing it by watching the existing dog communicate and having people who are more attentive to its needs.

Everything I see in dogs suggests that they are sentient, they just don’t seem to need language. They speak when it is useful, like for getting attention from people in different rooms, but they don’t really need it beyond that. So they don’t go any further.

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

#142

Post by MagicMoonlight »

WalterBright wrote: post #135

I recall that the origin of the word "barbarian" comes from the ancient Greeks, who interpreted foreign languages as simply "bar bar bar". So, other animals may be communicating vocally, it's just that all we hear is "woof woof woof".

Or it might be that because we aren’t teaching them the way we teach babies. With a baby you are constantly reinforcing the language and encouraging them to match you. They obviously don’t have a human voice in there but they may be capable of a richer dog language than they currently use if they were taught it from early life.

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

#143

Post by [deleted] »

pcrh wrote: post #20

It's interesting to compare this "sound-talk" that parrots can easily accomplish with the obviously greater intelligence of apes, who can't reproduce human sounds, with the debate over whether chatGPT is intelligent or not. Note that Koko was obviously a greater communicator than any parrot ever was. Is mimicking human behaviour a necessary, or even sufficient, criteria for demonstrating cognition and intelligence?

[deleted]

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

#144

Post by musicale »

tokyolights2 wrote: post #30
pcrh wrote: post #20

It's interesting to compare this "sound-talk" that parrots can easily accomplish with the obviously greater intelligence of apes, who can't reproduce human sounds, with the debate over whether chatGPT is intelligent or not. Note that Koko was obviously a greater communicator than any parrot ever was. Is mimicking human behaviour a necessary, or even sufficient, criteria for demonstrating cognition and intelligence?

The short story "The Great Silence" by Ted Chaing feels very relevant here. > The humans use Arecibo to look for extraterrestrial intelligence. Their desire to make a connection is so strong that they’ve created an ear capable of hearing across the universe. But I and my fellow parrots are right here. Why aren’t they interested in listening to our voices? We’re a nonhuman species capable of communicating with them. A…

Parrots are extremely intelligent.

And like most birds they also have superior spatial navigation skills.

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

#145

Post by unixgoddess »

WalterBright wrote: post #133
bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #120

Strange that this article doesn't mention any of the current research into what the cause is . [Erich Jarvis]( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Jarvis ) has done research into the neurological mechanisms and seems to have discovered that animals capable of complex speech patterns have some mutations that permit a neural connection to grow from the motor cortex to the larynx (or syrinx in birds) by way of the bra…

Yet people can make perfectly intelligible speech without using the larynx at all - whispering. People can also speak using a vibrator pressed against the throat.

more importantly, people can make perfectly intelligible speech using a completely different set of symbols, for example writing, whistling^1, hand gestures (sign language), pictures, etc.

Of course language is purely neural!

^1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistled_language

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

#146

Post by dsign »

>> And once again, Darwin was right.

We should write that on the sky. A terrifying amount of things can be explained with evolution and natural selection. It can even be applied to social groups and systems of thought, i.e. religion, politics and economics.

The article is also an illustration of how dangerous is to attempt mechanistic explanations in biology. It's almost never one factor that bolsters or prevent an outcome, but a lot of factors working together in ways the human mind can only very poorly model without mathematical and computational tools.

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

#147

Post by brundolf »

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

Samoyeds are maybe even more amazing, look them up if you haven't

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

#148

Post by Talanes »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #140
WalterBright wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Language has also been called the "operating system" of the brain. When we think about things, we think in terms of words and language.

> When we think about things, we think in terms of words and language. This is commonly believed for no reason that I'm aware of. It is obviously not true.

>It is obviously not true.

Different people tend to have differing levels of internal monologue. Mine is so constant that nearly all conscious thought filters through it, to the point that it would be very easy to mistake the monologue for the totality of consciousness.

It's a theory that rings true with people who think like I do, but still assume that everyone else thinks the same way too.

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

#149

Post by pxc »

dasickis wrote: post #137

We've been building tech to translate dog barks to something meaningful for us to understand. A few things we observed: 1. Dogs are more communicative once they believe you are correctly responsive to their vocalizations 2. Their barks are more differentiated over time and they start to introduce new types of vocalizations or sequences of vocalizations 3. Dogs don't have a structured vocal language as it starts of sl…

> We've been building tech to translate dog barks to something meaningful for us to understand.

Can most dog owners not already understand or differentiate their dogs' barks? I can tell from the quality and context of my dog's barks, whether he

  - wants something (food, water, attention)
  - is angry
  - is scared
  - wants to play
  - is excited
  - is voicing a territorial dispute
and I think most dog people can also be confident in interpreting a fair range of basic emotions and also perhaps unique behaviors they've accidentally trained or organically developed with their dogs.

What additional things can your tech detect or identify beyond stuff like that? Are you using AI with human coders on training data, and if so, do they need special training or is the wisdom of naive dog-adjacent crowds good enough here?

I thought the other info you shared about canine and other animal vocalizations was very cool and interesting. I'd love to learn more about that any time, from anyone!

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

#150

Post by deafpolygon »

Talanes wrote: post #148
thaumasiotes wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When we think about things, we think in terms of words and language. This is commonly believed for no reason that I'm aware of. It is obviously not true.

>It is obviously not true. Different people tend to have differing levels of internal monologue. Mine is so constant that nearly all conscious thought filters through it, to the point that it would be very easy to mistake the monologue for the totality of consciousness. It's a theory that rings true with people who think like I do, but still assume that everyone else thinks the same way too.

And some people, like myself, have no monologue or internal dialogue. What then? I have no consciousness or intelligence?
Post reply on HN