Parrot That Speaks In Context?

[schplurg]

I'm in a new neighborhood and it happens that my next door neighbor owns a Parrot. It's outside a lot and likes to talk and make strange sounds, so I decided to do a little research on talking birds.

Among my searchings, I found this site:
Budgie Research (http://www.budgieresearch.homestead.com/)
This site features a bird that the owner claims can speak in context, even create jokes of its own. He even claims that the bird translates what he's saying into "bird talk" so the other birds can understand too.

From the intro page:
Currently most of the scientific community has not recognized that parrots are capable of higher order thinking such as conversational language or concept formation. This site provides audio and video proof that they can. My goal is to lobby the scientific community so they do not ignore this case study and accept it as an important breakthrough in the animal intelligence field.

The main focus of this study is on a budgie named "Victor " who had a vocabulary of more than 800 words and thousands of phrases. This site shows how he pronounced these words and understood their meanings as well. You can hear him conversing on many different topics. Recently other budgies have began to talk in similar context as well. You can hear some of their recordings on this site too. We believe the recordings here are some of the most important examples showing higher animal intelligence ever provided.

All we ask is that you keep an open mind and spend enough time on the site to adjust yourself to the budgie accent. All audio recordings are provided with captions to assist you in understanding them better.
I listened to several recordings and watched a few videos, but birds don't exactly move their lips when they talk heh. So I don't know what any of that proves. I did read the guestbook and it was full of positive comments about the site, his training tips, and even the "smart" bird. People seem to take him seriously, which of course proves nothing, but other than this bird, the site seems reputable.

So is this for real? Could a bird be speaking in context? Maybe other animals can also, but lack the ability to communicate verbally? I doubt it myself, and none of the evidence offered has convinced me yet. See for yourself. The vids and sound clips are only around 120k each.

[Phaycops]

From what I understand, it depends very much on the kind of parrot it is. Parakeets don't usually have a large vocabulary, while something like an African Grey can have a huge vocabulary. Alex the African Grey was and is the subject of cognitive experiments. I have no idea how valid they are, but the parrots I've known seem to be able to communicate their wants and needs verbally. If they want to be pet, they say so. If they're hungry, they ask for a treat. Aparently, Alex can count, though again, I have no idea about the validity of that. I see no reason why anyone should assume from the outset that parrots can't use words "in context", whatever that's supposed to mean.

I'm a little fuzzy though on what, in this article, "context" refers to. Also, "higher-order thinking." Anyway....

Clearly a lot of animals are capable of being pretty dang smart. Seeing eye dogs that have to judge the safety of situations and decide whether to obey their owner's commands come to mind. They just lack the vocal skills to communicate with us in our language. I think people might be resistant to this concept, though, because it threatens our special place in the universe. Also, because parrots aren't as cute and cuddly as puppies and kittens. Though you wouldn't say that if you'd ever met a cuddly cockatoo :)

[No Answers]

There's a reason for the phrase "bird-brain".

I would venture to say that these birds are capable of remembering sound patterns, no more.

A bird can memorize how to count to ten from having heard it done. A bird cannot create meaningful jokes of its own. My little brother couldn't do that when he was five.

[Phaycops]

Originally posted by No Answers
There's a reason for the phrase "bird-brain".

I would venture to say that these birds are capable of remembering sound patterns, no more.

A bird can memorize how to count to ten from having heard it done. A bird cannot create meaningful jokes of its own. My little brother couldn't do that when he was five.

Well, I guess what's up for debate, then, is whether they associate those sound patterns with stuff they want, need or otherwise notice. Are you saying that a bird that says "treat," when it sees the bag of treats is somehow not speaking meaningfully? Or that a bird that hops over to you, puts their head down and says "tickle" is not speaking meaningfully? Alex the Grey doesn't cout from 1-10 after hearing someone do it, he tells you how many things are in front of him, a much different concept.

[No Answers]

Originally posted by Phaycops


Well, I guess what's up for debate, then, is whether they associate those sound patterns with stuff they want, need or otherwise notice. Are you saying that a bird that says "treat," when it sees the bag of treats is somehow not speaking meaningfully? Or that a bird that hops over to you, puts their head down and says "tickle" is not speaking meaningfully? Alex the Grey doesn't cout from 1-10 after hearing someone do it, he tells you how many things are in front of him, a much different concept.

A bird learns how to say the word "treat", remembers it.
Its owner coos at it, and the bird receives a treat in reward for saying the proper word. The bird knows that when the owner sticks their hand into the bag of treats, a treat comes out, and it knows where the treats are kept.

I know nothing of Alex's magical avian powers, so I can't comment on them. It seems possible that a bird could properly count the number of items in front of it, but

I can't think of a way to finish that sentence. My take: simple memorization coupled with rewards.

[Phaycops]

Originally posted by No Answers


A bird learns how to say the word "treat", remembers it.
Its owner coos at it, and the bird receives a treat in reward for saying the proper word. The bird knows that when the owner sticks their hand into the bag of treats, a treat comes out, and it knows where the treats are kept.

I know nothing of Alex's magical avian powers, so I can't comment on them. It seems possible that a bird could properly count the number of items in front of it, but

I can't think of a way to finish that sentence. My take: simple memorization coupled with rewards.

Yes, but the bird *doesn't* say "tickle" when it sees the treat bag, it says "treat." It says "tickle" when it wants tickled. It says hello when it sees you, not when it sees the treat bag. There's a difference between memorization and reward and using a word to mean something in particular. Granted, these are all personal examples from my life, but I don't see why it should be impossible that a bird could count or use words to a limited extent. Let's be clear: I'm in no way implying that all parrots can compose lengthy sonnets or jokes, but I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that a bird could acquire a vocabulary and use those words in "context."

ETA: Read about Alex and Dr. Pepperburg here. (http://www.alexfoundation.org/)

[Mercutio]

You could also look at "Symbolic communication in the pigeon" by B.F. Skinner. Proper training can look like language comprehension. Of course, Skinner's argument is that our own language comprehension is simply the result of proper training. And the pigeons he uses are considerably smaller-brained than the African Greys mentioned in this thread.

[athon]

Budgie is Aboriginal for 'good eating'.

How's that for context?

Athon

[Underemployed]

I clearly remember a TV documentary featuring the African Grey and the Doctor. Unless it was an extremely elaborate fake, the bird was capable of counting, simple addition and subtraction, of recognising (and vocalising) different materials, even of being cute with the Doctor (ie deliberately giving wrong answers - then apologising for being naughty).

Pigs have also been shown to have advanced cognitive abilities. I've seen a pig use a joystick to operate an on-screen 'game' (some sort of maze) in order to get food. I stopped eating pork after that - I try not to eat anything that might one day play me in a Quake deathmatch.

Ask any livestock farmer about the intelligence of animals and you will hear some stories. I'm not a full vegetarian yet, but every time I eat meat these days I can't help wondering if the beast I'm consuming once had thoughts like mine.

[Lucianarchy]

Go to www.sheldrake.org and search out the the N'kisi project, re and African Grey parrot.

[Lucianarchy]

http://www.sheldrake.org/nkisi/

Check out the audio.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Underemployed
I clearly remember a TV documentary featuring the African Grey and the Doctor. Unless it was an extremely elaborate fake, the bird was capable of counting, simple addition and subtraction, of recognising (and vocalising) different materials, even of being cute with the Doctor (ie deliberately giving wrong answers - then apologising for being naughty).

Pigs have also been shown to have advanced cognitive abilities. I've seen a pig use a joystick to operate an on-screen 'game' (some sort of maze) in order to get food. I stopped eating pork after that - I try not to eat anything that might one day play me in a Quake deathmatch.

Ask any livestock farmer about the intelligence of animals and you will hear some stories. I'm not a full vegetarian yet, but every time I eat meat these days I can't help wondering if the beast I'm consuming once had thoughts like mine.

I'm inclined to agree with you on all counts. I've seen the PBS documentary featuring Alex and his trainer. I don't think he's faking anything. Parrots are apparently much smarter than nearly anyone's being willing to give them credit in the past. The same undoubtedly holds true for many, many different species of so-called "higher" animals.

Although I am still very much a meat eater, whenever I stop to think about the animal I am eating and how it was likely reared and lived, I almost come to tears. Then I remember that chasing and catching and eating prey is simply the way of the world. It's nature in action and we cannot be held accountable for that. We're animals too.

AS

[BobM]

A bird learns how to say the word "treat", remembers it.
Its owner coos at it, and the bird receives a treat in reward for saying the proper word.

And how do you think you learned?

[Luciana]

I have a parrot, my father has another and we are constantly in contact with parrot owners and vets.

Examples. When the telephone rings, the parrot says: "hello? hello? who's there?"

He won't say that in any othe context, only when the phone rings. He knows what to say in that situation.

When somebody approaches the washing machine, he starts to anticipate the washing machine sounds. It's a hoot, let me tell you. :)

My father arrives at home and fiddles with the keychain. As a kid, I knew who had arrived by listening to the keychain. And the parrot knows too! So he anticipates my father saying hello. Then he coughs like my father does and shouts "I'll take a shower!"

So, definitely, there are triggers. In none of those cases we trained the parrot, but I'm sure we could make him react to gestures and keywords, if properly trained.

Humans can invent sentences out of the blue, as demonstrated by he who everybody loves to hate, Noam Chomsky. I'm not convinced that parrots are able to do so. Speaking in "context", almost by definition, implies some kind of familiar situation that can work as a trigger. So it's not an invention.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery
So, definitely, there are triggers. In none of those cases we trained the parrot, but I'm sure we could make him react to gestures and keywords, if properly trained.



Alex apparently counts and distinguishes very consistently among different colors, textures, and shapes. He can do this at random, which strongly suggests he's not just responding in context. He's making the mental calculations and then associating the correct word with the result and saying it. He does this consistently and is rarely wrong. Although Alex's case study is not statistical data or conclusive evidence of anything, it is highly suggestive that perhaps new experiments without bias against findings of cognitive intelligence need to be designed and implemented.

Parrots are nearly unique in this context in that they alone can use spoken language that approximates or imitates our own and can do rudimentary mental tasks which employ spoken language communication.


Humans can invent sentences out of the blue, as demonstrated by he who everybody loves to hate, Noam Chomsky. I'm not convinced that parrots are able to do so. Speaking in "context", almost by definition, implies some kind of familiar situation that can work as a trigger. So it's not an invention.

Sign and symbol language studies of gorillas and chimpanzees have yielded even better results for hinting that some other animals can invent sentences too. "Koko" the gorilla is probably best known.

I don't remember if it was her, but I remember seeing a gorilla like her playing in the floor with her toys, one of which was a toy purple cow. She had previously watched real cows behaving naturally in a pasture. She made a spontaneous sign "sentence" to herself that said "Purple cow stupid."

Although that may have been random and thus meaningless, given Koko's impressive mastery of many hand signs and the proper use of them to ask for food, drink, play, or human interaction, I'm willing to believe in the possibility that animals other than humans can translate their own complex thoughts into communicable language.

After all, communication with others is an essential tool among countless species of social animals. Indeed, animals of different species communicate with each other quite deliberately when it is in their own mutual interests. For instance, birds or monkeys often signal other species, even if it is inadvertent, that a large predator is approaching.

I think it's hubris which fosters the belief that humans uniquely claim complex language and cognition as their own. We are but one species of animal among tens or even hundreds of millions.

AS

[schplurg]

Thanks for all the replies! I'm finally able to come back and check on this thread. I don't have much to add, but I think many animals are smarter than we give them credit for. My dog communicates very well to me, and I to her. I can only imagine what she'd say if she could talk (oh the things we do when we think our pets aren't paying attention!). My dog could blackmail the heck out of me!

The whole question of intelligence and use of language is fascinating. As someone mentioned, in many instances, people learn and are trained in a very similar manner as animals are. Where does training end and intelligence and actual communication begin?

Regardless, the parrot next door is a trip. Sometimes it just screams bloody murder, sometimes it sounds like it's mimicing its female owner in a kind of nagging or "bitchy" tone (which I'm sure just thrills her), and sometimes it just laughs like a hysterical person. It also sounds like it immitates crickets, frogs, crying babies, among other things. That latter freaked me out the first time I heard it. I thought a baby was hurt or something. I think he says a few dirty words too, but I'm not sure. I'm lucky that the bird is fairly quiet and is more entertaining than annoying...so far.

Thanks for the responses. I am interested in learning more about communication and intelligence now that I've looked into this...all because of a sqwawking bird! :)

[BillyJoe]

Actually, I think it's the reverse.

Most people overestimate animal intelligence.
A lot can be achieved by operant conditioning. But it's all just blind reflexes that have been trained into the animal. There is no understanding. Reacting in context is no test of intelligence because that is exactly what operant conditioning does. It trains the animal to behave in a certain manner in response to specific situations. These situations act as the trigger for the behaviour.

The real test of intelligence is creativity.
The must react in a meaningful way in response to situations under which it has not been trained. Even then you have to remember that it could be just a lucky or chance response so you would need more than one example of this type of behaviour. It is also something that can be shown on television. Almost by definition, a performance on television is just that - a performance.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by BillyJoe


The real test of intelligence is creativity.
The must react in a meaningful way in response to situations under which it has not been trained. Even then you have to remember that it could be just a lucky or chance response so you would need more than one example of this type of behaviour. It is also something that can be shown on television. Almost by definition, a performance on television is just that - a performance.

Creativity? Really?

OK, for the sake of argument, we'll assume that's the real test. Many a zoologist could point out plenty of examples of creativity as you have defined it in other species.

A few:

1) Chimpanzees adapting sticks as tools to fetch termites from holes in the ground. That's pretty creative in my book. The first chimp to perform that "trick" wasn't conditioned to do it by any human on television.

2) Sea otters using rocks as battering tools to open clams. They bring the rocks up from the bottom, place them on their bellies, and hold clams in their paws while they smash them onto the rocks to break them and get at the meat inside. Conditioning? Nope. Performance for your pleasure? Nope.

3) Birds or prey who drop clams or oysters on rocks from great heights to break them in a simliar fashion to the sea otter. I'll give that points for smart.

I wonder how many examples of human creativity could be dismissed with "a lucky or chance response."

I think you are being human-centric and not recognizing that differences in intelligence can be matters of degree, not really in kind. Depending on how one defines intelligence--acumen in processing olfactory sensory data, for instance--one could find that most dogs are far smarter than most humans.

I doubt anyone very thoughtful about it supposes that any other species regularly engages in highly abstract thought quite like humans do. Again, however, I believe humans routinely and stubbornly dismiss other animals' intelligence as mere conditioning or instinct. In my opinion, that's just as silly as claiming that everything humans do is based on mere conditioning or instinct.

Then again, perhaps that's just what many philosophers and scientists have been telling us for some time now. Many imply or state that we are just automatons who react to stimuli based on instinct and conditioning.

In opposition, we like to perpetuate this myth that humans are above nature and that we're unique. We're the pinnacle of evolution.

You don't really believe that, BillyJoe, do you?

AS

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery
[B]I have a parrot, my father has another and we are constantly in contact with parrot owners and vets.

Examples. When the telephone rings, the parrot says: "hello? hello? who's there?"

He won't say that in any othe context, only when the phone rings. He knows what to say in that situation.



Anecdote, and therefore it has no evidential value whatsoever that what you state actually took place :D ;)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist



I think it's hubris which fosters the belief that humans uniquely claim complex language and cognition as their own. We are but one species of animal among tens or even hundreds of millions.

AS

Yes absolutely. In fact I find it a bit bizarre that human beings are apparently so much more intelligent than any other animals. It would certainly fit into my expectations if it were to be conclusively shown that, to a limited degree, certain other animals are able to actually understand language and to formulate thier own simple sentences.

On a related note I find the notion that only human beings have souls and will survive their deaths to be preposterous.

[BillyJoe]

AS,

Everyone seems to be seeing unjustified examples of animal intelligence everywhere. Everyone I meet has an intelligent pet when it's just obvious that they are just well trained.

But I didn't mean to imply that animals do not exhibit intelligent behaviour. Only that you need to be careful about what you call intelligent. Of course there is also the definition of what constitutes intelligence. However, in the context of this thread, it seems to me that creativity is what would make a particular animals behaviour intelligent in any way that would be interesting.

BJ

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
AS,

Everyone seems to be seeing unjustified examples of animal intelligence everywhere. Everyone I meet has an intelligent pet when it's just obvious that they are just well trained.

But I didn't mean to imply that animals do not exhibit intelligent behaviour. Only that you need to be careful about what you call intelligent. Of course there is also the definition of what constitutes intelligence. However, in the context of this thread, it seems to me that creativity is what would make a particular animals behaviour intelligent in any way that would be interesting.

BJ

An ability to create simple sentences would certainly be an example of creativity and hence intelligence. Hasn't it been shown that at least apes can do this? Can't African grey parrets do this?

[asthmatic camel]

I used to have a pet African Grey parrot; it was a great mimic and had a fair vocabulary. It certainly associated certain sounds with events but I seriously doubt that it used language in any accepted sense. For example I taught it to say "hello", my wife taught it to say "pretty boy". It often seemed to become a little confused and said "pretty hello" or "hello boy" using its version of both our voices...deep bass "hello" and soprano "boy".

It was a very amusing pet and surprisingly affectionate (unless you had a beard, in which case it would scream incessantly) but intelligent it most certainly was not. When my friend used to bring his small dog to visit, instead of staying in a safe place in its cage 8 feet above the ground, it would invariably panic and flutter down to the ground to be attacked by said dog. No Einstein this parrot.

Regards,

AC

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Actually, I think it's the reverse.

Most people overestimate animal intelligence.
A lot can be achieved by operant conditioning. But it's all just blind reflexes that have been trained into the animal. There is no understanding. Reacting in context is no test of intelligence because that is exactly what operant conditioning does. It trains the animal to behave in a certain manner in response to specific situations. These situations act as the trigger for the behaviour.


A minor quibble...reflexes are the property of classical or respondent conditioning. Operant conditioning does not deal in elicited (reflexive) behaviors, but rather emitted (operant) behaviors.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with you. It is not the most popular explanation of language, but Skinner (from within psychology) and Wittgenstein or Russell (from philosophy) make excellent arguments that even human language is essentially learned through operant conditioning.

As for creativity (which I snipped from your quote above, not realizing I was going to comment on it), we can, in operant conditioning, make reinforcement contingent on "new" (not previously seen) responses, and we get some really neat "creative" responses. Two vastly different examples are dolphin training (reward for new tricks, rather than shaping each one) and pigeons playing a simple piano keyboard (reward for new combinations of notes), both of which demonstrate than operant conditioning is not limited to shaping a pre-planned response.

[BillyJoe]

Mercutio,

First of all, thanks for the support.

But I guess when you say "creative" (with the scare quotes) you mean pseudocreative or looks-creative-but-isn't-really. You don't mean creative (without the scare quotes) which means really-and-truely-creative.

BillyJoe

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Mercutio,

First of all, thanks for the support.

But I guess when you say "creative" (with the scare quotes) you mean pseudocreative or looks-creative-but-isn't-really. You don't mean creative (without the scare quotes) which means really-and-truely-creative.

BillyJoe

I think I defined "creative" in context as "not previously seen". That was the reason for quotation marks. Can you define your other terms for me? How does really-and-truly-creative differ from the other two, operationally?

[BillyJoe]

Pigeons being reinforced for accidentally hitting a key - which is meaningful only to the reinforcer - is certainly not creative (if it is creative at all) in the sense of a human being composing a meaningful tune out of metaphors and fragments in his head.

[MRC_Hans]

I agree with II, that the difference between humans and animals is quantitative, not qualitative. Dog-owners will also be able to tell you some interesting stories.

However, great caution is required when interpreting the abilities of animals, especially animals that spend their life with humans.

As for parrots speaking, somebody mentioned a parrot mimicking a washing-machine; now, this shows something about the caracter of parrot performance: It mimicks sounds. The fact that it cna use them in context shows that it has associative abilities, but it does not show language capacity. As for counting: Well, I have not seen the experiements, but I would remind you of Kluge Hans (Smart Hans). Kluge Hans was a German horse that could count, and do simple arithmetics. It would be shown objects or figures on a slate and stomp its foot the appropriate number of times, and was rarely wrong. When checked carefully, it turned out that Kluge Hans reacted to the body language of his keeper; it could feel when he wanted it to stop. If he was not present, or was prevented from seing the numbers, it would fail every time.

Apes are far more intelligent than parrots and dogs, and have better capabilities. Experiments seem to indicate that they can aquire a quite extensive vocabulary, form simple sentences, and understand some abstract concepts (like Coco's use of "stupid" mentioned above). These experiments are usually performed by the same people that keep and train them, however, when subjected to tests by others or to blinded tests, their performance is often markedly poorer, so we must probably account for some "parrot" or "Kluge Hans" effect.

Oh, and finally, we must remember that there is no natural correlation between language and intelligence. You can program a computer to make fairly advanced use of language, and it is entirely possible to imagine an sentient being that does not have language at all.

Hans

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Pigeons being reinforced for accidentally hitting a key - which is meaningful only to the reinforcer - is certainly not creative (if it is creative at all) in the sense of a human being composing a meaningful tune out of metaphors and fragments in his head. Fair enough; but in the phraseology of II, is the difference here qualitative or quantitative?

When you look at the ability to hear or play tunes developmentally, you see clear practice effects in humans as well (that is to say, reinforcement effects). Certainly we have a higher capacity to create music--pigeons have a higher capacity than I do to fly. The final product is not the question; rather, it is the process. (I really recommend the book "Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy", which I would quote from here for source material except that I have loaned it to a music prof)

And what about the dolphins performing new tricks (not having been shaped to do those specific tricks, but having reinforcement contingent on novel acts)--is that "creative" or one of the other two? (At an entirely different level, you can see human songwriters being reinforced for repeating the same music or for inventing new stuff. The reinforcers are much less controlled, much more chaotic, but the principle is, arguably, the same)

[BillyJoe]

Quantitative sounds right and I am happy with that.

I guess it is still a matter of how you define creativity. If, for lack of a clear dividing line, you want creativity to cover the whole spectrum, fair enough. But, if you want it to refer to something interesting, I guess your definition is going to be a little more restrictive.

Your book reference sounds interesting. Amazon have 26 sample pages and at 12 bucks for 300 pages it seems a bargain. I've added it to the list from which I chose my next order.