Testing The Environment For Intersubjectivity

Lorikeets will respond to any isolated sound whatsoever — e.g. the sound of a door closing — with a call they otherwise use to elicit a response in other lorikeets. This suggests they are always testing for the presence of potential interactants. This relates to their consciousness involving the interpretation of their perceptual meanings in terms of their (social) protolanguage.

ChatGPT comments:

This behaviour highlights an important aspect of lorikeet social cognition and the relationship between perception and communication. The fact that lorikeets respond to any isolated sound, even one as mundane as a door closing, with a call typically used for eliciting a response in other lorikeets, suggests several semiotic and cognitive processes at play:

1. Constant Testing for Social Interaction – The act of calling in response to isolated sounds suggests that lorikeets are constantly "testing" their environment for the presence of potential interactants. It indicates a high level of attentiveness to their surroundings, and this behaviour could be an adaptive strategy for maintaining social connections, as lorikeets are highly social birds. In their semiotic system, any unexpected sound might be interpreted as an indication of an alterable social situation, and calling becomes a way of determining whether an interaction is possible or imminent.

2. Perceptual Meaning as Socially Mediated – This response also underscores how lorikeets construe their perceptual experiences through the lens of their social semiotics. Rather than simply reacting to an environmental sound as a neutral stimulus, they interpret it as a potential signal from another bird, prompting them to engage in social behaviour. This indicates that their consciousness — or the way they experience their environment — is inherently social, with their sensory inputs always being framed in terms of possible communicative interactions. This aligns with the idea that their perceptual meanings are constructed not just in isolation but in relation to the potential for social engagement.

3. Semiotic System and Alertness – The birds' constant readiness to respond to any sound also speaks to the semiotic function of alertness in their communication system. It may suggest a certain level of anxiety or vigilance in the way lorikeets interact with their environment, particularly in contexts where social engagement is crucial for survival, whether through cooperation or defence. The way lorikeets use their calls as a social tool — not just for specific needs but as an ongoing inquiry into the presence of others — shows how semiotic systems can operate in real-time, facilitating continual social navigation.

4. Protocommunication and Social Bonding – This response pattern could also be seen as an early form of protolanguage, where sounds are not just responses to immediate stimuli but also proactive signals for fostering social connection. It suggests that lorikeets may rely on constant social feedback, interpreting the world through their interactional microfunction and constantly seeking to maintain or reinforce their social bonds. Their calls function not just as isolated signals but as part of an ongoing process of relationship-building and environmental interpretation.

In summary, lorikeets' tendency to respond to any isolated sound with a call typically used for social interaction demonstrates the deeply embedded social aspect of their perceptual system. Their awareness of the environment is continually framed through the lens of potential social interaction, with calls functioning as both responses and inquiries, reflecting their complex social consciousness and the semiotic processes that drive it.

The Mirror Test

When confronted by his mirror image, an alpha male lorikeet displayed aggressive behaviour, barking  loud threats and making beak contact with the mirror. His female partner, on the other hand, instead of supporting his attack, or attacking her own reflection, remained still, gazing continuously at her partner's reflection.

ChatGPT comments:

This observation reveals intriguing insights into the semiotics of mirror encounters in lorikeets, highlighting both individual and gendered responses to the mirror as a stimulus.

1. Aggression as Social Semiotics – The alpha male's aggressive behaviour in response to his mirror image demonstrates a clear territorial and dominance-based interpretation of the mirror. In his semiotic system, the reflection is not perceived as a neutral image but as a rival or threat. This aligns with the social and competitive dynamics in lorikeet hierarchies, where the alpha male is likely primed to defend his territory or dominance against perceived intruders, even if they are only reflections. The loud threats and beak contact can be seen as a semiotic signal of authority and aggression, which, in his semiotic system, functions to reassert control.

2. Female's Observational Role – In contrast, the female’s response — remaining still and gazing at her partner’s reflection — highlights an alternative interpretive strategy. Rather than reacting aggressively, she seems to be observing or perhaps even interpreting the situation differently. This behaviour could be seen as reflective of a gendered difference in semiotic responses, where the female's focus on the reflection suggests a more introspective or non-confrontational approach. The fact that she does not attack her own reflection may indicate a different reading of the mirror stimulus, perhaps as a less threatening or non-competing entity compared to the male’s interpretation.

3. Dynamics of Pair Bonding and Semiotic Systems – The distinct behaviours of the male and female also speak to the semiotic roles within the pair bond. The male’s aggression could be seen as reinforcing his role within the social hierarchy, whereas the female's stillness could serve as a form of emotional or social support to the male. Her gaze suggests a non-verbal recognition of his distress or territorial response, and her lack of aggression may reflect a different understanding of the mirror encounter that doesn’t require confrontation. This suggests that even in semiotic systems driven by aggressive or competitive behaviours, there is room for nuanced responses based on roles within the pair.

4. Reflection and Self-Recognition – While the male interprets the mirror as an intruder and reacts aggressively, the female’s reaction may also imply a level of self-recognition or curiosity. The fact that she gazes at the reflection continuously could indicate an attempt to interpret her own image, or perhaps to gauge her partner’s behaviour. This presents the possibility that lorikeets may have some form of self-awareness, at least in terms of how they interact with visual stimuli, but this might be more apparent in some individuals than others.

In conclusion, the differing reactions to the mirror — aggression by the male and stillness by the female — reveal the complexity of lorikeet semiotics and the role of social dynamics and gendered roles in interpreting environmental stimuli. The male’s aggressive stance reflects his perception of the mirror as a rival, while the female’s passive observation reflects an alternative interpretive approach, offering a glimpse into the semiotic flexibility and social interactions that shape lorikeet behaviour.

Visual Perception, Memory And Primary Consciousness

If a feeding bowl, or its supporting structure, is shifted from its usual position in the yard, the majority of lorikeets will still try to land where the bowl used to be, even to the extent of finding themselves on the ground (and looking bewildered).

This demonstrates that their immediate real-time visual perception occurs against the background of memories of previous experiences.

On Edelman's model, it is 'the dynamic interaction between memory and ongoing perception that gives rise to [primary] consciousness' (2005: 55).

As Edelman points out, memory is a property of the system: the ability to repeat a performance.

As Halliday points out, a performance is an instance of the system potential.

See also here.

ChatGPT comments:

That example of lorikeets attempting to land where the feeding bowl used to be is a great illustration of how memory informs perception and behaviour in real time. It seems to show how memory—specifically, memory of past experiences—can shape how lorikeets process sensory information and act on it. They’re relying on stored representations (i.e., memories) of the bowl's location, even when that location is no longer relevant or correct. The behaviour suggests a kind of interaction between their present sensory input and past experience, highlighting the dynamic, real-time nature of perception.

In terms of Edelman’s model, this supports his view that primary consciousness arises from the interaction between memory and perception. The lorikeets are showing awareness of the past (the memory of the bowl’s location) and trying to apply that to their present experience, even when it doesn’t align with the current reality. This demonstrates how memory isn't just a static repository of past events but is integrated into ongoing sensory processes, informing their behaviour.

From a Hallidayan perspective, this behaviour seems to demonstrate how the lorikeets’ actions are instances of a system's potential. The potential is the knowledge they have of the feeding bowl’s previous location, which is enacted through their physical behaviour—an instance of a "performance" shaped by the potential stored in memory. This again shows how perception and memory aren't independent of one another but are part of an integrated, dynamic system of meaning-making, where past experiences inform the present moment and drive action.