Interspecies Telepathy

SezMe · 18th October 2005, 02:10 AM

I did a couple of searches and it appears that this article has not been discussed here.

The link contains claims of statistically significant results from double blind tests for telepathy between species. It even claims publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

It also involves Sheldrake.

But leaving that aside for the moment, I found the article itself lacking in many details but I have not explored the links. But I wanted to get it "in play" here while I looked at the details.

Your thoughts?

Darat · 18th October 2005, 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

I did a couple of searches and it appears that this article has not been discussed here.

The link contains claims of statistically significant results from double blind tests for telepathy between species. It even claims publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

It also involves Sheldrake.

But leaving that aside for the moment, I found the article itself lacking in many details but I have not explored the links. But I wanted to get it "in play" here while I looked at the details.

Your thoughts?

(I've only read the article you linked to.)

I don't even know where to begin. My first thoughts are to seek verification of the "language" ability of the parrot. The article states that:

Quote:

...snip...

Instead, he has been allowed to develop his own creative relationship to language as a means of self-expression. N'kisi speaks in sentences, showing a grasp of grammar in formulating his own original expressions. He is capable of actual conversations.

...snip...

I always thought that this was way beyond what any parrot was capable of?

(ETA) Forum discussing parrot "conversations" http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php...=&fpart=2&vc=1

A presentation: http://www.mecca.org/~rporter/PARROTS/grey_al.html

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 18th October 2005, 05:46 AM

Rupert Sheldrake is a dope.

~~ Paul

UrsulaV · 18th October 2005, 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

I always thought that this was way beyond what any parrot was capable of?

The language skills of African grey parrots are supposed to be pretty darn impressive, but I'm basing that mostly on half-remembered reading and having bird-crazy friends rather than any studies I can cite. That the bird can use basic grammar isn't at all beyond the pale, though, from what I've heard, and I've sat and watched demonstrations on TV of grey parrots who can be told "Get the blue truck!" or whatever, and who will then pick the correct object out of a group. (No idea how many takes that may have required, mind you...)

Parrot owners claim they're around the level of a human three-year-old, but I have no idea how many real studies have been done. Being emotionally needy, often cantankerous, and living halfway to forever makes parrots kind of a difficult research subject, I'd imagine.

The telepathy thing...err. I'd need to know a heckuva lot more about the parrot and the design of the experiment to know if there's actually something weird going on, or if we've just got a feathered Hans.

Cleon · 18th October 2005, 06:48 AM

I have no doubt of interspecies telepathy.

I have two rabbits, Chainsaw and Spike. They are very sweet, and I love them dearly.

And they can always tell exactly what I don't want them to chew on, and they make a beeline for it with incisors blazing. Because they know they will always be forgiven, that I can never resist the cuteness of the bunny rabbit. *sigh*

Luke T. · 18th October 2005, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

It even claims publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

And what is a "peer" in this context? Someone who believes in the paranormal? So would the peer-reviewed journal be Woo-Woo Monthly?

Well, I'm close: Society for Scientific Exploration.

Quote:

Is the mind a machine or an entity that is in some sense independent of the body? Is there credible evidence that intelligent life exists on other planets near other stars in our galaxy, or that our solar system has ever been visited by extraterrestrial beings? Some areas have technological potentials that could be of great benefit to mankind: Do some human beings have the capability of locating water and other life-giving resources?

That's their peer-reviewed journal's organization.

Amapola · 18th October 2005, 08:23 AM

I read a couple of studies Sheldrake did, working with 2 dogs that were supposed to be "telepathic". I am not a scientist...... but I am very familiar with animal behaviour. I had some problems with the studies. First, only 2 dogs were used. It seems to me that if one wanted to show telepathy in dogs, one would use maybe 100 dogs, possibly even more, not just 2. (Apparently, he actually DID test more dogs than this, but they were not "telepathic" and so the results were not used.) Second, the studies were done in the dog's home, which is a very complex environment. It seems to me that one should do the studies in a very controlled environment, so that one is sure the dog is actually displaying telepathy and not simply acute hearing etc. Third, although the first dog tested had maybe 200 trials (I can't remember the actual number, but it was something like that) the second dog had only 10 trials. Again....... it seems to me that if one wanted to prove the dog was telepathic, one would go through hundreds of trials.

I read the one on the parrot too, and had some of the same problems.

Some people just don't seem to understand how very adept animals are at reading body language and picking up other cues from the environment. Their survival depends on being sensitive like this, and it sure can LOOK like they are "psychic" when they are not. Since I have seen so many people fooled by animal behaviour, I would need a lot more convincing evidence than what Sheldrake presented to be assured Sheldrake was not having the wool pulled over his eyes by a clever animal.

MoonDragn · 18th October 2005, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Amapola

I read a couple of studies Sheldrake did, working with 2 dogs that were supposed to be "telepathic". I am not a scientist...... but I am very familiar with animal behaviour. I had some problems with the studies. First, only 2 dogs were used. It seems to me that if one wanted to show telepathy in dogs, one would use maybe 100 dogs, possibly even more, not just 2. (Apparently, he actually DID test more dogs than this, but they were not "telepathic" and so the results were not used.) Second, the studies were done in the dog's home, which is a very complex environment. It seems to me that one should do the studies in a very controlled environment, so that one is sure the dog is actually displaying telepathy and not simply acute hearing etc. Third, although the first dog tested had maybe 200 trials (I can't remember the actual number, but it was something like that) the second dog had only 10 trials. Again....... it seems to me that if one wanted to prove the dog was telepathic, one would go through hundreds of trials.

I read the one on the parrot too, and had some of the same problems.

Some people just don't seem to understand how very adept animals are at reading body language and picking up other cues from the environment. Their survival depends on being sensitive like this, and it sure can LOOK like they are "psychic" when they are not. Since I have seen so many people fooled by animal behaviour, I would need a lot more convincing evidence than what Sheldrake presented to be assured Sheldrake was not having the wool pulled over his eyes by a clever animal.

I guess they would have to test the parrot in a separate room out of sight of the owner but with a microphone and speakers etc.

Z · 18th October 2005, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by MoonDragn

I guess they would have to test the parrot in a separate room out of sight of the owner but with a microphone and speakers etc.

That would be a fairly reasonable set of test conditions, yes.

chran · 18th October 2005, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by MoonDragn

I guess they would have to test the parrot in a separate room out of sight of the owner but with a microphone and speakers etc.

It appears that that was what they did. By I still have serious reservations to the protocol.

It says that the parrot's speech was transcribed by three different transcribers and a hit would only be recorded if two of them agreed that the target word had been said. So, isn't this just a repeat of the "taping-noise-and-hearing-words"-thing? Sounds fishy to me...

MoonDragn · 18th October 2005, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by chran

It appears that that was what they did. By I still have serious reservations to the protocol.

It says that the parrot's speech was transcribed by three different transcribers and a hit would only be recorded if two of them agreed that the target word had been said. So, isn't this just a repeat of the "taping-noise-and-hearing-words"-thing? Sounds fishy to me...

You would need a computer to analyze the parot's words and establish the set vocabulary based on its patterns. Then you can accurately determine exactly what the parrot said and not just a subjective interpretation.

Sanamas · 18th October 2005, 06:16 PM

I went to one of his lectures a while back, and asked him about this experiment. Specifically, I asked if he made a recording of the parrot when it's alone and its owner isn't projecting any thoughts to work as a control. That control recording could then be compared to the ones from during the experiment to see if there is much of a difference from its usual patter. He replied that he didn't do that, and that the parrot's speech was too different from day to day for that to work.

Personally, I suspect that the parrot was just randomly saying things, and that by chance some of those things could be interpreted to correspond to the pictures.

What I'd prefer to see are a control recording and much simpler pictures, like a simple drawing of a ball, rather than complex photographs, as well as what words will be considered a hit for each picture. That way it can show whether what the parrot says is related to the pictures, and hopefully cut out a lot of subjective interpretation.

Loki · 18th October 2005, 06:36 PM

Sanamas,

Quote:

What I'd prefer to see are a control recording and much simpler pictures... and hopefully cut out a lot of subjective interpretation

Controls? Simpler pictures? removing Subjective Interpretation? You'll get nowhere in psi-research with that kind of attitude. Let's just stick to small scale effects in convenient experimental setups, okay?

Pedro Gomes · 18th October 2005, 06:59 PM

I was reading the Methods section of the full article here. Is it my impression, or the following passage sounds fishy? It would seem that the experimenters chose a rather convenient definition of "miss".

Quote:

"Only trials in which N’kisi said one or more of the key words were included in the analysis of the data, because only in such trials could N'kisi have scored a hit or a miss. Trials in which he said nothing or used words that were not on the list of pre-specified key words were not included."

Recapitulating, and considering only the numbers of words and photos used for analysis. On the one hand, they picked 19 words from the parrot's (vaster) vocabulary. On the other hand, they used 131 photos, each "matching" one or more of the 19 words (at least for now, let's leave aside the meaning of "matching").

Naturally the parrot didn't know that, during the trials, he would have best pleased the experimenters by restricting himself to the 19 selected words. Hence, on each trial, the parrot would use any combination of any words from his full vocabulary.

Now, one would expect telepathy to help the parrot in two ways: avoid making use of the selected words without matching the photo; and avoid not even making use of the selected words or, worse, say nothing. I'd say both these situations represent misses. Actually, the latter only sounds like an even more significant "telepathic" miss.

The experimenters' choice sounds like: "Here we have 131 photos covering 19 of the many words that the parrot knows. We'd love to see a large proportion of telepathic hits. What the hell, let's consider only those situations in that the parrot used at least one of the 19 words we chose". This of course increases the significance of the results. Am I incurring in any blatant misreading or fallacy?

Soapy Sam · 18th October 2005, 07:15 PM

I have no experience of parrots, but anyone who can't read a dog's mind needs a good slap.

DevilsAdvocate · 18th October 2005, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by UrsulaV

That the bird can use basic grammar isn't at all beyond the pale, though, from what I've heard, and I've sat and watched demonstrations on TV of grey parrots who can be told "Get the blue truck!" or whatever, and who will then pick the correct object out of a group. (No idea how many takes that may have required, mind you...)

That isn't using basic grammar. That's just an animal being conditioned to act to a voice. If I gave an animal a treat every time it touched a red ball when I said "Get the blue truck!", then when I said "Get the blue truck!" it would touch the red ball.

Understanding grammar, in the least degree, should involve first teahcing what "truck" is, then what "ball" is. Then (without using trucks or balls) teach what "blue" is and "green" is. Now put thenm together with blue and green trucks and balls and say "Get the blue truck!". If the animal can carry over the concept of "blue" and combine it with the concept of "truck", then you've got some basic intelligence going on, although I certainly wouldn't call it using basic grammar. If you can carry that out further and hold up a gren ball and the parrot (having never said or heard "green ball" before) can spout out "green ball", then you've got at least some vauge connection of ideas going on. But still is not grammar. You would need to get to the point where the parrot knows the difference between "green ball" and "ball green" before you could attribute any sort of grammar usage at all.

chran · 18th October 2005, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by Sanamas

Personally, I suspect that the parrot was just randomly saying things, and that by chance some of those things could be interpreted to correspond to the pictures.

Exactly.

UrsulaV · 19th October 2005, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

That isn't using basic grammar. That's just an animal being conditioned to act to a voice. If I gave an animal a treat every time it touched a red ball when I said "Get the blue truck!", then when I said "Get the blue truck!" it would touch the red ball.

Understanding grammar, in the least degree, should involve first teahcing what "truck" is, then what "ball" is. Then (without using trucks or balls) teach what "blue" is and "green" is. Now put thenm together with blue and green trucks and balls and say "Get the blue truck!". If the animal can carry over the concept of "blue" and combine it with the concept of "truck", then you've got some basic intelligence going on, although I certainly wouldn't call it using basic grammar. If you can carry that out further and hold up a gren ball and the parrot (having never said or heard "green ball" before) can spout out "green ball", then you've got at least some vauge connection of ideas going on. But still is not grammar. You would need to get to the point where the parrot knows the difference between "green ball" and "ball green" before you could attribute any sort of grammar usage at all.

It appears I worded this too confusingly--I was not trying to offer the blue truck thing as a sign of correct grammar use, but as a vague benchmark of the reputed intelligence of grey parrots. My fault, I should have seperated the two clauses more clearly. 'Pologies for the confusion.

Zep · 19th October 2005, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by Amapola

I would need a lot more convincing evidence than what Sheldrake presented to be assured Sheldrake was not having the wool pulled over his eyes by a clever animal.

Bingo! Got it in one!

Which REALLY says that Sheldrake is dumber than a parrot.

Spektator · 19th October 2005, 06:58 AM

Remote Viewing in Dogs:

Sender: "I'm looking at a picture of something..."

Canine Receiver: "Woof!"

Sender: "Amazing! It's a house, and the roof IS prominently featured!"

18th October 2005, 02:10 AM	#1
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,369	Interspecies Telepathy I did a couple of searches and it appears that this article has not been discussed here. The link contains claims of statistically significant results from double blind tests for telepathy between species. It even claims publication in a peer-reviewed journal. It also involves Sheldrake. But leaving that aside for the moment, I found the article itself lacking in many details but I have not explored the links. But I wanted to get it "in play" here while I looked at the details. Your thoughts?

18th October 2005, 02:28 AM	#2
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,770	Originally Posted by SezMe I did a couple of searches and it appears that this article has not been discussed here. The link contains claims of statistically significant results from double blind tests for telepathy between species. It even claims publication in a peer-reviewed journal. It also involves Sheldrake. But leaving that aside for the moment, I found the article itself lacking in many details but I have not explored the links. But I wanted to get it "in play" here while I looked at the details. Your thoughts? (I've only read the article you linked to.) I don't even know where to begin. My first thoughts are to seek verification of the "language" ability of the parrot. The article states that: Quote: ...snip... Instead, he has been allowed to develop his own creative relationship to language as a means of self-expression. N'kisi speaks in sentences, showing a grasp of grammar in formulating his own original expressions. He is capable of actual conversations. ...snip... I always thought that this was way beyond what any parrot was capable of? (ETA) Forum discussing parrot "conversations" http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php...=&fpart=2&vc=1 A presentation: http://www.mecca.org/~rporter/PARROTS/grey_al.html
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008 Last edited by Darat; 18th October 2005 at 02:32 AM.

18th October 2005, 05:46 AM	#3
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,592	Rupert Sheldrake is a dope. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

18th October 2005, 05:53 AM	#4
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957	Originally Posted by Darat I always thought that this was way beyond what any parrot was capable of? The language skills of African grey parrots are supposed to be pretty darn impressive, but I'm basing that mostly on half-remembered reading and having bird-crazy friends rather than any studies I can cite. That the bird can use basic grammar isn't at all beyond the pale, though, from what I've heard, and I've sat and watched demonstrations on TV of grey parrots who can be told "Get the blue truck!" or whatever, and who will then pick the correct object out of a group. (No idea how many takes that may have required, mind you...) Parrot owners claim they're around the level of a human three-year-old, but I have no idea how many real studies have been done. Being emotionally needy, often cantankerous, and living halfway to forever makes parrots kind of a difficult research subject, I'd imagine. The telepathy thing...err. I'd need to know a heckuva lot more about the parrot and the design of the experiment to know if there's actually something weird going on, or if we've just got a feathered Hans.
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957

18th October 2005, 06:48 AM	#5
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,518	I have no doubt of interspecies telepathy. I have two rabbits, Chainsaw and Spike. They are very sweet, and I love them dearly. And they can always tell exactly what I don't want them to chew on, and they make a beeline for it with incisors blazing. Because they know they will always be forgiven, that I can never resist the cuteness of the bunny rabbit. sigh
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

18th October 2005, 07:06 AM	#6
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,759	Originally Posted by SezMe It even claims publication in a peer-reviewed journal. And what is a "peer" in this context? Someone who believes in the paranormal? So would the peer-reviewed journal be Woo-Woo Monthly? Well, I'm close: Society for Scientific Exploration. Quote: Is the mind a machine or an entity that is in some sense independent of the body? Is there credible evidence that intelligent life exists on other planets near other stars in our galaxy, or that our solar system has ever been visited by extraterrestrial beings? Some areas have technological potentials that could be of great benefit to mankind: Do some human beings have the capability of locating water and other life-giving resources? That's their peer-reviewed journal's organization.
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,759

18th October 2005, 08:23 AM	#7
Amapola Pirate Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Mora, New Mexico Posts: 8,260	I read a couple of studies Sheldrake did, working with 2 dogs that were supposed to be "telepathic". I am not a scientist...... but I am very familiar with animal behaviour. I had some problems with the studies. First, only 2 dogs were used. It seems to me that if one wanted to show telepathy in dogs, one would use maybe 100 dogs, possibly even more, not just 2. (Apparently, he actually DID test more dogs than this, but they were not "telepathic" and so the results were not used.) Second, the studies were done in the dog's home, which is a very complex environment. It seems to me that one should do the studies in a very controlled environment, so that one is sure the dog is actually displaying telepathy and not simply acute hearing etc. Third, although the first dog tested had maybe 200 trials (I can't remember the actual number, but it was something like that) the second dog had only 10 trials. Again....... it seems to me that if one wanted to prove the dog was telepathic, one would go through hundreds of trials. I read the one on the parrot too, and had some of the same problems. Some people just don't seem to understand how very adept animals are at reading body language and picking up other cues from the environment. Their survival depends on being sensitive like this, and it sure can LOOK like they are "psychic" when they are not. Since I have seen so many people fooled by animal behaviour, I would need a lot more convincing evidence than what Sheldrake presented to be assured Sheldrake was not having the wool pulled over his eyes by a clever animal.

18th October 2005, 11:36 AM	#8
MoonDragn Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: NJ Posts: 314	Originally Posted by Amapola I read a couple of studies Sheldrake did, working with 2 dogs that were supposed to be "telepathic". I am not a scientist...... but I am very familiar with animal behaviour. I had some problems with the studies. First, only 2 dogs were used. It seems to me that if one wanted to show telepathy in dogs, one would use maybe 100 dogs, possibly even more, not just 2. (Apparently, he actually DID test more dogs than this, but they were not "telepathic" and so the results were not used.) Second, the studies were done in the dog's home, which is a very complex environment. It seems to me that one should do the studies in a very controlled environment, so that one is sure the dog is actually displaying telepathy and not simply acute hearing etc. Third, although the first dog tested had maybe 200 trials (I can't remember the actual number, but it was something like that) the second dog had only 10 trials. Again....... it seems to me that if one wanted to prove the dog was telepathic, one would go through hundreds of trials. I read the one on the parrot too, and had some of the same problems. Some people just don't seem to understand how very adept animals are at reading body language and picking up other cues from the environment. Their survival depends on being sensitive like this, and it sure can LOOK like they are "psychic" when they are not. Since I have seen so many people fooled by animal behaviour, I would need a lot more convincing evidence than what Sheldrake presented to be assured Sheldrake was not having the wool pulled over his eyes by a clever animal. I guess they would have to test the parrot in a separate room out of sight of the owner but with a microphone and speakers etc.

18th October 2005, 11:41 AM	#9
Z D.D.D. Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In a den in my lair, on the edge of your mind. Posts: 9,166	Originally Posted by MoonDragn I guess they would have to test the parrot in a separate room out of sight of the owner but with a microphone and speakers etc. That would be a fairly reasonable set of test conditions, yes.
	__________________ Merry Yarglemas!

18th October 2005, 12:51 PM	#10
chran Muse Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Denmark, yo Posts: 630	Originally Posted by MoonDragn I guess they would have to test the parrot in a separate room out of sight of the owner but with a microphone and speakers etc. It appears that that was what they did. By I still have serious reservations to the protocol. It says that the parrot's speech was transcribed by three different transcribers and a hit would only be recorded if two of them agreed that the target word had been said. So, isn't this just a repeat of the "taping-noise-and-hearing-words"-thing? Sounds fishy to me...

18th October 2005, 01:13 PM	#11
MoonDragn Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: NJ Posts: 314	Originally Posted by chran It appears that that was what they did. By I still have serious reservations to the protocol. It says that the parrot's speech was transcribed by three different transcribers and a hit would only be recorded if two of them agreed that the target word had been said. So, isn't this just a repeat of the "taping-noise-and-hearing-words"-thing? Sounds fishy to me... You would need a computer to analyze the parot's words and establish the set vocabulary based on its patterns. Then you can accurately determine exactly what the parrot said and not just a subjective interpretation.

18th October 2005, 06:16 PM	#12
Sanamas Thinker Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 173	I went to one of his lectures a while back, and asked him about this experiment. Specifically, I asked if he made a recording of the parrot when it's alone and its owner isn't projecting any thoughts to work as a control. That control recording could then be compared to the ones from during the experiment to see if there is much of a difference from its usual patter. He replied that he didn't do that, and that the parrot's speech was too different from day to day for that to work. Personally, I suspect that the parrot was just randomly saying things, and that by chance some of those things could be interpreted to correspond to the pictures. What I'd prefer to see are a control recording and much simpler pictures, like a simple drawing of a ball, rather than complex photographs, as well as what words will be considered a hit for each picture. That way it can show whether what the parrot says is related to the pictures, and hopefully cut out a lot of subjective interpretation.
Sanamas Thinker Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 173

18th October 2005, 06:36 PM	#13
Loki Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,406	Sanamas, Quote: What I'd prefer to see are a control recording and much simpler pictures... and hopefully cut out a lot of subjective interpretation Controls? Simpler pictures? removing Subjective Interpretation? You'll get nowhere in psi-research with that kind of attitude. Let's just stick to small scale effects in convenient experimental setups, okay?
Loki Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,406	__________________ (Red Dwarf Newsreader): Good evening. Here is the news on Friday the 27th of Geldof. Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read 'To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental'. .

18th October 2005, 06:59 PM	#14
Pedro Gomes Scholar Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Portugal & UK Posts: 52	I was reading the Methods section of the full article here. Is it my impression, or the following passage sounds fishy? It would seem that the experimenters chose a rather convenient definition of "miss". Quote: "Only trials in which N’kisi said one or more of the key words were included in the analysis of the data, because only in such trials could N'kisi have scored a hit or a miss. Trials in which he said nothing or used words that were not on the list of pre-specified key words were not included." Recapitulating, and considering only the numbers of words and photos used for analysis. On the one hand, they picked 19 words from the parrot's (vaster) vocabulary. On the other hand, they used 131 photos, each "matching" one or more of the 19 words (at least for now, let's leave aside the meaning of "matching"). Naturally the parrot didn't know that, during the trials, he would have best pleased the experimenters by restricting himself to the 19 selected words. Hence, on each trial, the parrot would use any combination of any words from his full vocabulary. Now, one would expect telepathy to help the parrot in two ways: avoid making use of the selected words without matching the photo; and avoid not even making use of the selected words or, worse, say nothing. I'd say both these situations represent misses. Actually, the latter only sounds like an even more significant "telepathic" miss. The experimenters' choice sounds like: "Here we have 131 photos covering 19 of the many words that the parrot knows. We'd love to see a large proportion of telepathic hits. What the hell, let's consider only those situations in that the parrot used at least one of the 19 words we chose". This of course increases the significance of the results. Am I incurring in any blatant misreading or fallacy?
	Last edited by Pedro Gomes; 18th October 2005 at 07:04 PM.

18th October 2005, 07:15 PM	#15
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	I have no experience of parrots, but anyone who can't read a dog's mind needs a good slap.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

18th October 2005, 10:05 PM	#16
DevilsAdvocate Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,643	Originally Posted by UrsulaV That the bird can use basic grammar isn't at all beyond the pale, though, from what I've heard, and I've sat and watched demonstrations on TV of grey parrots who can be told "Get the blue truck!" or whatever, and who will then pick the correct object out of a group. (No idea how many takes that may have required, mind you...) That isn't using basic grammar. That's just an animal being conditioned to act to a voice. If I gave an animal a treat every time it touched a red ball when I said "Get the blue truck!", then when I said "Get the blue truck!" it would touch the red ball. Understanding grammar, in the least degree, should involve first teahcing what "truck" is, then what "ball" is. Then (without using trucks or balls) teach what "blue" is and "green" is. Now put thenm together with blue and green trucks and balls and say "Get the blue truck!". If the animal can carry over the concept of "blue" and combine it with the concept of "truck", then you've got some basic intelligence going on, although I certainly wouldn't call it using basic grammar. If you can carry that out further and hold up a gren ball and the parrot (having never said or heard "green ball" before) can spout out "green ball", then you've got at least some vauge connection of ideas going on. But still is not grammar. You would need to get to the point where the parrot knows the difference between "green ball" and "ball green" before you could attribute any sort of grammar usage at all.

18th October 2005, 11:07 PM	#17
chran Muse Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Denmark, yo Posts: 630	Originally Posted by Sanamas Personally, I suspect that the parrot was just randomly saying things, and that by chance some of those things could be interpreted to correspond to the pictures. Exactly.

19th October 2005, 06:13 AM	#18
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957	Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate That isn't using basic grammar. That's just an animal being conditioned to act to a voice. If I gave an animal a treat every time it touched a red ball when I said "Get the blue truck!", then when I said "Get the blue truck!" it would touch the red ball. Understanding grammar, in the least degree, should involve first teahcing what "truck" is, then what "ball" is. Then (without using trucks or balls) teach what "blue" is and "green" is. Now put thenm together with blue and green trucks and balls and say "Get the blue truck!". If the animal can carry over the concept of "blue" and combine it with the concept of "truck", then you've got some basic intelligence going on, although I certainly wouldn't call it using basic grammar. If you can carry that out further and hold up a gren ball and the parrot (having never said or heard "green ball" before) can spout out "green ball", then you've got at least some vauge connection of ideas going on. But still is not grammar. You would need to get to the point where the parrot knows the difference between "green ball" and "ball green" before you could attribute any sort of grammar usage at all. It appears I worded this too confusingly--I was not trying to offer the blue truck thing as a sign of correct grammar use, but as a vague benchmark of the reputed intelligence of grey parrots. My fault, I should have seperated the two clauses more clearly. 'Pologies for the confusion.
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957

19th October 2005, 06:39 AM	#19
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	Originally Posted by Amapola I would need a lot more convincing evidence than what Sheldrake presented to be assured Sheldrake was not having the wool pulled over his eyes by a clever animal. Bingo! Got it in one! Which REALLY says that Sheldrake is dumber than a parrot.
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

19th October 2005, 06:58 AM	#20
Spektator Dog Who Laughs Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,319	Remote Viewing in Dogs: Sender: "I'm looking at a picture of something..." Canine Receiver: "Woof!" Sender: "Amazing! It's a house, and the roof IS prominently featured!"