Scientists have determined that a particular parrot, dubbed N’kisi, has a vocabulary of over 950 words.

The finding of a parrot with an almost unparalleled power to communicate with people has brought scientists up short.

The bird, a captive African grey called N’kisi, has a vocabulary of 950 words, and shows signs of a sense of humour.

He invents his own words and phrases if he is confronted with novel ideas with which his existing repertoire cannot cope - just as a human child would do.

[...]

N’kisi is believed to be one of the most advanced users of human language in the animal world.

About 100 words are needed for half of all reading in English, so if N’kisi could read he would be able to cope with a wide range of material.

Parrots are absolutely amazing creatures, and the more I read about them, the more I think that they might be more intelligent than dolphins and possibly even chimps. This is especially true because, at least from my reading, parrots have the capacity to not only learn language, but to use and change it–as this article demonstrates. Indeed, if it turns out that, though experimentation and research, other parrots can have similar abilities to N’kisi, I think we might have to start considering parrots to be a species worthy of a higher level of legal protection.

In fact, if parrots have the ability to learn language, create language, and have a sense of humor, we might have to start thinking seriously about how we educate them–it’s possible that they might have a level of intelligence comparable to some human beings. The evidence isn’t there for that yet, but it’s definitely worth study.

(link via Howling Curmudgeons)

“People think it’s an obsession. A compulsion. As if there were an irresistible impulse to act. It’s never been like that. I chose this life. I know what I’m doing. And on any given day, I could stop doing it. Today, however, isn’t that day. And tomorrow won’t be either.”
– Batman, in Identity Crisis

Let me just say that I have been endlessly fascinated with the ongoing discussion surrounding the Quote of the Day of December 12, which covers some of the very basics of philsophic speculation in a very civil manner. I probably should just let the conversation go on, but I’d like to throw in a cent or two of my own, if I may.

One branch of the discussion (although certainly not the only branch) on the aforementioned quote is the idea that “philosophic” and “scientific” defenses of atheism should somehow be separate and distinct things. This seems to be based on the idea that religion/philosophy and science cover two separate realms of human inquiry and should therefore be discussed separately.

This, of course, is nonsense. Science is a tool through which human beings can gain increased knowledge about the physical world. However, that tool is, in and of itself, a philosophic structure. Briefly, the scientific method is based upon the following postulates:

(1) There is an objective reality;
(2) This objective reality can be perceived by human beings, directly or indirectly, through the operation of the physical senses;
(3) The mechanisms of this objective reality are governed by certain immutable and unchanging natural laws; and
(4) Said natural laws are discoverable through deductive and/or inductive reasoning.

Just about the entire operation of science is based on the logical conclusions of the above-mentioned ideas. More importantly, these ideas are philosophic ones. Undermining any of these postulates undermines science as a method of ascertaining fact. Acceptance of these four postulates doesn’t not necessarily mean that there is no God (depending on how God is defined), but it does limit the means through which God’s existence can be demonstrated.

It is important to note, however, that most religions explicitly deny one or more of the above postulates. Accordingly, science alone cannot be used to demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God. Equally important to note, though, is that denying any of the above postulates doesn’t necessarily prove the existence of God, either. (See e.g. Zen Buddhism)

In accordance with the above, it is simply not sufficient for an atheist to say, “there is no scientific demonstration of God’s existence”, because that is only a worthwhile argument against a theist who accepts that science is an acceptable means of ascertaining truth about reality. Using science to argue against the idea of God necessitates a defense of the entire philosophic structure supporting the scientific method.

And that’s where the fun starts.

“Only the weak succumb to brutality.”
– Superman, in Mark Waid’s Kingdom Come

The Buddha Boy, who you may recall was claimed to have fasted for six months and then disappeared has now apparently returned from a nine-month “wandering”.

A Nepalese teenaged boy who was hailed as a reincarnation of the Buddha has reappeared after nine months of wandering through the jungles of eastern Nepal, police said.

“A team of police found the Buddha Boy sitting under a tree in the Piluwa jungle after there were rumours that some locals had spotted the boy on Monday afternoon,” said Rameshwor Yadav, a police officer in the Bara district, 170 kilometers (106 miles) east of Kathmandu.

Ram Bahadur Bomjan, 16, had disappeared in March after he reportedly shunned food and water for almost 10 months while he meditated under a pipal tree in Bara near a holy site in Nepal revered by Hindus and Buddhists.

Personally, I think that the priests who are “protecting” him became miffed when their “Buddha” ran away for nine months before they were able to finally track him down. Granted, I don’t have evidence to support that supposition–just cynicism. But escaping from the clutches of unscrupulous priests seems to be a more likely story than “He just left because of the crowds. And nobody saw him for some reason. Weird.”

“The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best - and therefore never scrutinize or question.”
–Stephen Jay Gould

“The best aspect of Christmas is the aspect usually decried by the mystics: the fact that Christmas has been commercialized. The gift-buying is good for business and good for the country’s economy; but, more importantly in this context, it stimulates an enormous outpouring of ingenuity in the creation of products devoted to a single purpose: to give men pleasure. And the street decoration put up by department stores and other institutions—the Christmas trees, the winking lights, the glittering colors—provide the city with a spectacular display, which only ‘commercial greed’ could afford to give us. One would have to be terribly depressed to resist the wonderful gaiety of that spectacle.”
– Ayn Rand

A friend of mine runs a death pool every year. He collects submissions of the 10 people we think are most likely to die in a given year, and our choices are scored on their death at a total of (100 - Age at death). I’ve submitted my picks for this year, and here they are.

1) Gerald Ford
2) Robert McNamara, JFK’s defense Secretary
3) Henry Kissinger
4) Christopher Lloyd
5) Saddam Hussein
6) Elizabeth Taylor
7) Queen Elizabeth II
Studs Terkel
9) Justice John Paul Stevens (please note Mr. investigator person this isn’t a threat, I don’t know anything but his age)
10) Lindsay Lohan (longshot, but if it’s right it’s big money)

So I ask you readers: who’s going to Heaven in ‘07? Comment and let us know who’s clock you think doesn’t have a another year’s worth of ticks.

“As you all know, Christmas is that mystical time of year when the ghost of Jesus rises from the grave to feast on the flesh of the living, and we all sing Christmas carols to lull him back to sleep.”

– Peter Griffin, Family Guy

“Did you ever notice, the only one in A Christmas Carol with any character at all is Scrooge? Marley is a whiner who f***ed over the world and then hadn’t the spine to pay his dues quietly; Belle, Scrooge’s ex-girlfriend, deserted him when he needed her most; Bob Cratchit is a gutless toady without enough get-up-and-go to assert himself; and the less said about that little treacle-mouth, Tiny Tim, the better.”
–Harlan Ellison