Talk:1635: Birdsong

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 07:55, 9 June 2017 by NiceGuy1 (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Cueball could instead be trying to capture it to figure out how what appears to be a regular bird can sing human lyrics, seeing as birds do not have anything resembling the human pharynx or diaphragm, as birds use a system of air sacs to push air into their lungs, analogous to how a mammalian heart moves blood. 13:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Dom Vasta

However, birds split the actions of each side of their trachea to vocalise two notes at once, which gives those already capable of imitating human speech (or other anthropogenic sounds) more capability than a human to sing lyrics. That they lack understanding of what they are hearing (certain study parrots possibly excepted) deprives them of the ability to sing meaningful duets with themselves, but those capable of mimicry clearly have the basic ability to sing two independent voices at once, or a single distinctive voice with at least a simple musical accompaniment of an appropriate register, were they so inclined to separate the 'channels' and not just squish it as if into a mono 'recording' of composite sounds anyway. 13:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The interesting thing is that there's little strong evidence that even smaller birds /can't/ learn to speak in some degree. While researching the topic, I found a paper which makes a convincing mathematical argument that language formation is very unlikely in nature.
That would make no sense together with the title text. Before reading this it more seems he would remove the bird from his perfect world, giving his look in the third panel! --Kynde (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The study remarkably shows how language would evolve. On the other hand, I laughed quite hard when they tried, in a deus ex machina way, to pull out of a hat the conclusion that 'humans are unique because they already have the ability to process language'. Is that not an obvious sentiment that has nothing to do with their prior research? They proved how difficult language is for nature to develop, but not that it is limited to humans. Rather, they showed that any individual can evolve which has the capacity to understand language, but that the individual requires others with the same capacity in order to benefit enough not to be selected against by evolution.
So, if you could find a few birds with a predisposition to language, you may be able to make this happen. Getting them to understand the song on the other hand, would prove difficult. 14:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thought of Undertale from the first panel? 13:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe that you are experiencing Pareidolia. 14:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
True to the pareidolia - see also 1551: Pluto ;-) --Kynde (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The second panel immediately reminded me of that unusual phenomenon of birds mimicking ringtones and other incidental human sounds such as car alarms, substituting their natural and beautiful "songs" for our feeble attempts. Rotan (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You mean like this? I wouldn't be surprised if that was an ispiration for this comic... NiceGuy1 (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The titletext could also be seen as referencing this episode of Scenes From A Multiverse. Doubtful, as (to my knowledge) Randall has never expressed a particular love of that comic, but possible. 20:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

So, I'm not going to outright delete it since it is rather interesting, but those are some pretty serious Undertale spoilers in the explanation. Could we give that part of the description (especially the part about the ending of the Genocide Run) some kind of spoiler tag, if we don't want to just remove it? 20:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Am I the only one to think that panel 3 represents that age-old truth that a bird in the hand is safer than one overhead? Helping to explain Cueball's irritation, and the butterfly net.-- 06:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Someone did delete it all. I have no knowledge of Undertale, and though it far out when first mentioned above, but after reading the now deleted explanation, it seemed like a possible reference by Randall... Should it be deleted completely? Anyway, if anyone is interested in that part of the explanation, and do not care for SPOILERS, then read this version from just before the deletion. --Kynde (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
It is not a reference to Undertale. It is more than likely a case of pareidolia from the editor having played Undertale recently and remembering the scenario. The comic is clearly a reference to the Santana song as the lyrics fit perfectly and it makes sense with the joke, and that leaves no evidence to it being a reference to the video game. 20:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone else wonder if this is a shout out to the comic that ended the main run of "A Softer World"? It starts out as "The sun is shining/and the birds are singing"... (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

My initial take was that Cueball thought "Holy crap, a bird that actually sings with words! That would be crazy valuable! I gotta go get it! Being rich will make me happier than I just was!" :) The fact that they're singing different songs makes the explanation's interpretation seem more likely, that he wants to recapture his idyllic conditions, but I think my interpretation is worth noting. - NiceGuy1 04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. NiceGuy1 (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)