Remix.run Logo
Parrots pack twice as many neurons as primate brains of the same mass(dhanishsemar.com)
58 points by DiffTheEnder 2 hours ago | 30 comments
riverforest 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

We kept assuming brain size was the main variable. Turns out density matters just as much. Makes you wonder what else we got wrong about animal intelligence.

lucasay 4 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

“More neurons = intelligence” always felt like an oversimplification. If that were true, we wouldn’t be surprised by birds or octopuses anymore.

Bender an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Adding to this a chart of neuron count [1]

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_n...

pcthrowaway 24 minutes ago | parent [-]

Interesting... I would have thought Octopi have more total neurons than dogs, given their problem-solving capabilities.

Now I wonder if the decentralized organization / hub and spoke model octopi alone exhibit offers some advantage when it comes to problem-solving

Nevermark 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Something interesting about the octopus is that it is independent and learning from the time it is tiny.

It continually learns from the real world, as more and more neurons accumulate.

This layered learning may be an advantage in terms of compact representations.

No doubt, the human fetus brain is learning much earlier than birth, or even from emergence of the first neurons. But it isn't learning from the environment directly, or making survival critical choices, from first neural emergence.

--

Another octopus advantage maybe that it has relative independent "brains" behind each eye, and along each leg. The distribution of brain in a way that reflects its physical distribution, might offer optimizations too.

We know humans benefit from partially independent spinal cord activity. This is suggestive evidence that the distributed intelligence of an octopus may be an advantage.

--

For exhibited intelligence per time, I don't think any other creature including humans comes anywhere near them. They even learn "theory of mind", i.e. the ability to model other creatures situational awareness, ability to perceive, and likely responses to different situations.

To learn all that, without any mentoring, in the order of a year, along with their body plan, would make the octopus a wild implausible science fiction invention, if we didn't actually happen to have them living successfully in astonishing numbers, and pervasively in essentially all ocean environments.

It may have been a very good thing for us that they live in an environment where a technological progression would be very challenging.

yieldcrv 20 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

The prevailing research is “more neurons = intelligence”

And that doesn’t make any sense, unless there really is no configuration necessary

octopi bucking that trend is an example we need

tokai 8 minutes ago | parent [-]

No its pretty well understood that brain size in it self doesn't signify intelligence, even if correcting for body size. Density, connectedness, and complexity are important. Modeling the information processing capacity of animal brains it is shown that smaller brain like those of octopi and corvides are highly capable despite a relative low neuron count compared to humans.

small_model 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Given parrots can talk, there must be a neuron count that activates language (assuming anatomy allows it), similar to LLM parameter count.

lukan 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Where do you get the conclusion from, that there is a "must"? There can be lot's of neurons ... but dedicated to other purposes.

jayers 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That seems like an unfounded inference. Plenty of animals have more neurons than humans but lesser cognitive and language abilities. Language has lot to do with structure of the brain in addition to neuron count.

vablings 15 minutes ago | parent [-]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-025-02855-9

Birds have areas of the brain that we would consider language alike. Both for native bird communication and I would also speculate that for human to bird communication.

If you have ever owned a parrot this is blatantly obvious since they actively communicate and vocalize both observations and needs/desires

Philip-J-Fry 15 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Parrots can't "talk". They just mimick noises they've heard before

deelowe a minute ago | parent | next [-]

This reminds me of being told dogs don't feel emotions by someone who never owned one. Parrots most definitely can talk. Their language is extremely primitive but if you've ever been around a grey and it's owner for some time, they definitely talk to each other. The parrot will readily communicate observations and desires.

onlyrealcuzzo 8 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Many animals can communicate.

Parrots can't speak fluent English, which shouldn't be surprising. Last I checked, no human is fluent in Parrot or Dolphin.

Though, at least one parrot may have demonstrated an ability to understand language at more than a surface level.

tobr 14 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

So what you’re saying is that parrots are stochastic parrots.

rossjudson 10 minutes ago | parent [-]

You've just described most of the information economy.

tokai 17 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Lots of birds can talk, not only the very clever ones like parrots and covids. Its mimicry and that generally doesn't seem to take many neurons.

dboreham 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Plausible, and likely similar.

fredgrott 15 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

mimicking is not talking....

Its part of their calling social members wiring....

DetroitThrow 13 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Given parrots eat their own poop (https://lafeber.com/pet-birds/questions/parrots-eating-poop/), there must be a neuron count/density that activates self-poop eating (assuming anatomy allows it), similar to LLM parameter count.

gjsman-1000 9 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Dr. Irene Pepperberg studied an African grey parrot named Alex for 30 years. Alex could identify objects, colours, shapes, and numbers. He understood abstract concepts like "same" and "different." His vocabulary exceeded 100 words. When he died in 2007, his last words to Pepperberg were reportedly "You be good. I love you. See you tomorrow." I don't care how you define intelligence -- that one's hard to brush off.

The author takes forgranted the claim of intelligence; and does not assess at all whether the researcher simply said those words to the parrot every night. (Why not? It sounds exactly like what a researcher would tell a parrot before turning off the lights.) A quick search on Wikipedia says the parrot was also found dead in the morning, not in the implied "parrot has last words" scenario.

cyjackx 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I have to imagine that given birds are descendants of dinosaurs, which evolved quite a long time ago, they've had a lot more time to optimize certain things.

eigenspace 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

All living beings have been evolving for the same amount of time.

vlovich123 37 minutes ago | parent [-]

Sure, but the speed of change is also related to lifespan. The longer lives you have (technically how long it takes to start reproducing and how many offspring you have), the less time you have to adapt.

This means that for a given unit of time, shorter reproduction cycles and more offspring results in faster adaptation which is what OP meant and what the unhelpful pedantry doesn’t describe.

Skwid 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I suspect the more significant difference here is the selection pressures. Take a good look at any part of a bird and you'll see millions of years of selection for reduced weight. The cost of weight is just so much greater when you're flying. Interesting too that bats tend to have lower neuron counts than say rodents. Did dinosaurs have a more weight efficient brain before flight, or were they forced to shrink before re-evolving that complexity in a smaller package?

eigenspace 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Most of our mammal ancestors between us and dinosaur times had likely had extremely short lifespans as well, often shorter than the ancestors of modern songbirds.

> This means that for a given unit of time, shorter reproduction cycles and more offspring results in faster adaptation which is what OP meant and what the unhelpful pedantry doesn’t describe.

There's no indication that this is what the OP meant. If the OP meant that, they'd be saying that birds evolved faster, not that they had an ancestor that evolved a very long time ago, which is a meaningless statement.

I agree one should interpret what people say charitably, but there's a difference between that and just pretending that someone made a totally different claim in order to make a nonsense statement seem less silly.

Gander5739 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Of course, it gets more complicated when you also consider susceptibility to mutations.

lo_zamoyski 19 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

It's unclear what you're saying or how it responds to the OP and his critics.

If birds and primates today belong to equally long evolutionary lineages, then they have both had the same amount of time to adapt.

Now, speciation is what makes things interesting, because species diversify the subjects of adaptation. So, if we say some bird species has been around for longer than the human species, then you can say that that bird species has been subjected to adaptation pressures for longer (though this, too, is too simplistic; adaptation pressures are not uniformly distributed).

This, of course, starts getting into philosophical questions about the notion of "species". Modern biology has a poor grasp of what it means to be a species. The biological literature alone contains about 20 different operating definitions. To reconcile evolution with the notion of species, some have argued that all or almost all living things belong to a single species, but we're actually seeing a resurgence of functionalist/teleological notions in biology today, because it turns out you cannot explain or classify living things without such notions.

argsnd 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Whatever humans are descended from existed during the time of the dinosaurs

rf15 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

But we and dinosaurs share a descendant that already had neurons/a brain?