Can a non-human POV even be theorised upon?

[Kyriakos]

Can a non-human point of view even be a valid concept? It seems to follow axiomatically (and the axiom is pretty logical; humans have by definition a human point of view) that a non-human POV cannot be formulated by extending a human POV, so we can't really come up even with a theory of a thought-system which would be non-human in essense.

By this, of course, it is not meant that we cannot image something 'alien'. One can say (for example) that an alien sentient being might sense in 4 dimensions (not including time). Ok, but this is not its actual system of sensing nor is it a defined condition of its mentality, cause it is (a bit; obviously sentience is taken out here) like one claiming that by knowing a triangle has three angles he now knows what it feels like to have three internal angles which have to add up to 180 degrees. We merely know an external fact, but not the POV of the alien being.

*

This is a poll, with the question in the title, and four options. The last option is the general 'not sure' stance. The other three will be elaborated a bit:

Poll question: Can a non-human POV even be theorised upon?

Poll options:

1) Yes, it can be theorised upon, and produce decent results.
2) Yes, it can be theorised upon, but the results will be very limited.
3) No, it cannot be theorised upon, at all.
4) Don't know/i am not human or you aren't.

1)So Option 1 is obviously to be chosen if you are of the view that we can examine/theorise in a decent manner a non-human POV, as in math or physics/chemistry etc. You would be of the view that a non-human POV is not merely a dead-end idea, but something to be presented scientifically, and lead to conclusions about specificically non-human thought/mentality systems.

2)Option 2 is to be chosen if you think that while we cannot identify any non-human point of view, or system, we can still have a sort of limited theory on what the borders such systems may have to our own human ones. For example alterations in dimensional sense may tie to ambiguous overall differences, but we can still gain something from theorising on such factors, despite those being merely limits of our own human POV system.

3) Option 3 is to be chosen if you think that it is pointless to try to imagine something from a human POV/system, and try to think it is an insight for a non-human POV/system. Basically this option means that you think we move on in math/science purely on a human system (tied to degrees to our senses, and otherwise to our mental world), and don't really present with it the 'reality' of the external world, cause that is not part of our system (it merely is something which can create an impression on us, due to our biological and mental mechanisms).

4) Option 4 is for the lazy or other downers

 

[Kyriakos]

Just to note that i am voting for #3, although a very small (infinitesimal in my view) degree of #2 may be true..

 

[BvBPL]

Sure it can.

A number of authors have written in the perspective of dogs, which I've found interesting. The primary descriptive systems go from being about sight to being about scent.

Kurt Vonnegut and Grant Morrison have both described the perception of a 4-dimensional being, although both used time as the four dimension.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Ok, but would those actually be aproximations or otherwise tied to the non-human point of view? It is not obviously enough to have the narrator be a dog so as to be based on a 'reality' of the dog's system of perception Even if one refers to stronger sense of smell which most dogs have, why suppose one can indeed present how their mind works? We have access to our own immediate consciousness, and then some other levels, but we have no access to how a dog or other creature senses stuff. (we don't empirically know how other humans sense stuff either, but at least we know that some mental abilities are common, eg if you know what a triangle and a circle is, you won't think a triangle is a circle, and neither would any other human who knows their forms).

 

[Borachio]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigations_of_a_Dog

 

[Kyriakos]

^Yeah, a great story, but obviously that is not how a dog would 'think'. It is just Kafka as a dog. As was Kafka as a beetle, a mole-like being, a crushed-worm and other stuff of that order

 

[Borachio]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nose_(Gogol)

I'll grant you that a Nose is part of a human and therefore it is kind of a human POV. But still... a Nose!!!

 

[Kyriakos]

:\

So are you suggesting that Gogol scientifically examined how one would go through life if he was the cut-off nose of an employee in 19th century Russia? (you aren't, so don't confuse people in my otherwise so clear and easy to follow thread ).

 

[Borachio]

Oooh! Pardon me for sticking my oar in, I'm sure!!

:flounces_off:

(Now, what was I thinking before this thread rudely interrupted my chain of thought? I was going to do something. What was it?)

 

[Kyriakos]

^

('my oar'... very kakophemistic for non-subtle contribution, i suppose? ). I just wished to keep the prestigious thread in a widely epistemic level, cause we have to keep the Flying Island of Laputa away from the mud oceans below.

 

[Borachio]

Yes. I understand. I forgot it was RD. My mistake.

edit: Aha! I have it. I've got to go buy some new bedsheets!

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Yes I am certain it is possible to theorize on it. I even think it is ridiculously easy to put yourself into the shoes of animals.
Because my theory is that what puts human apart from animals is in principle nothing but the ability of abstract thought. Which means - language or in a more general term symbols. So the trick is to let go of this ability, to just let yourself sink into a purely instinctive mode of awareness. To not categorize the world, to not make any effort of judgment or systemization of any kind, to not try to make sense of anything - but to just go with the flow of experience as it comes and goes. That - I think - is the animal way of seeing things and while there will probably be structural differences, I further think that the components of experience are in this primal stage identical or at least close enough.

However, I am not really sure how to convince people of this theory of mine. I suppose a case can be maid that this more primal mode of awareness correspondence to cranial structures which are structural identical between humans and animals? I am not entirely certain that is so, but I believe it is.
But foremost this is something I just intuitively believe to know. This also explains to me why we like to view animals as essentially innocent, albeit potentially cruel and brutal. Since they just are and so can a human being if it tries. Kinda like meditating, though I would view this as a kind special way to do that. Where one does not just try to only be but to only be in a very relaxed kind of way,

 

[Kyriakos]

^And what about non-human but still 'thinking' POV's?

 

[BvBPL]

^Ok, but would those actually be aproximations or otherwise tied to the non-human point of view? It is not obviously enough to have the narrator be a dog so as to be based on a 'reality' of the dog's system of perception Even if one refers to stronger sense of smell which most dogs have, why suppose one can indeed present how their mind works?

Are we talking about an artistic portrayal of how the non-human mind works or a factual portrayal?

If we are talking about an artistic portrayal then the ultimate determinate of whether or not the artist succeeded is the audience's acceptance of the non-human viewpoint.

The factual portrayal faces greater burdens because it is very difficult to convey information like this in a manner that a broad audience can understand. A highly knowledgeable, highly creative neurologist may be able to comprehend how a dog may perceive olfactory information based solely upon the neural map of the dog, but very few people have both the knowledge and the creativity to put that together into a model. Fewer still can convey their understanding of the model to other people.

In fact, the artistic portrayal can exist without the factual one, but the factual portrayal is meaningless with some artistic input. Portrayals need to be understood by their audience. That is to say that the alien mindset must be phrased in such a way that it is communicable to a human audience.

You may want to examine how people with synesthesia discuss their affect with others. Synesthesia and other abnormalities like migraine schitoma are probably about as close to alien perceptions as you can get with people. Examining hallucinogen experiences may also be helpful, as may examining delusional psychoses.

In any case, there will be a problem with getting to the root of the thing. The quintessence of human perception is difficult to describe. This despite thousands upon thousands of years where millions upon millions of men have attempted to do so. If we have difficult describing the baseline of the human perceptive experience it will be difficult to do so for an alien.

Addendum: You may also wish to examine dreams. It is not unusual for people to perceive things in dreams that would normally be outside the normal human sensory experience. For example, one may dream that one meets a stranger about which little is known but the dreamer knows intutitvely that the stranger is a king or a lover or long-lost brother or some such despite not having a normative sensory reason for drawing this conclusion.

Along the same lines, it would be interesting to theorize an alien race that has additional senses not related to the physical or temporal worlds, but related to social interactions. The alien may be inhumanly in tune with social dynamics.

 

[Kyriakos]

^I am only asking about 'facts' of an alien point of view, not an artistic presentation (cause indeed the latter can be pretty much not close to any 'reality')

It seems to me that even if we know of some parameters of the non-human being, we still would color them in human ways. Who is to say that a dog senses walking as we do, or eating, or other stuff? Those beings seem generally pretty instinctive and pattern-based. But even that is an external viewpoint, cause we know of those notions thought our self-reflection or that of others (through reading or experiencing it). A dog may sense stuff in pretty peculiar ways.
Moreover, i am pretty sure that despite some core identities in human mentality, we view notions and other mental 'particles' so-to-speak in very different ways.

 

[Borachio]

To not categorize the world, to not make any effort of judgment or systemization of any kind, to not try to make sense of anything - but to just go with the flow of experience as it comes and goes.

And you find this ridiculously easy?

I find it impossibly hard.

 

[Luckymoose]

Of course we can theorize and produce a non-human POV. Humans are capable of great swathes of hypotheticals. Can every human do it? No. But the best creative minds most certainly can if they take the time to understand why humanity thinks the way it does and work backwards from that to an origin point and environment that facilitated that thought process. Proper non-human POV is difficult and requires extensive development of world building. Otherwise you end up with a human POV in a non-human body.

 

[timtofly]

Does it help if you have played civ for your whole life and relived it over and over thousands of times?

 

[Perfection]

Can a man write about the POV of a woman?
Can a Russian write about the POV of a Brazilian?
Can a person blind at birth write about the POV of those with sight?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Can Perfection write about imperfection?
Can a Brit taste food to begin with?
And why is the remote on the TV?

And you find this ridiculously easy?

I find it impossibly hard.

Hm, right now I do as well. Am also sleep-depraved though. But I swear I did it the other day. And then it really was ridiculously easy. Didn't have to do a thing. The trick in principle is to stop use words in your mind.