Of course. I'm just speculating as to what would happen if I was exposed to someone else's brand of qualia. Think about this: males and females both process color differently, so we know that their qualia is distinct from ours to an extent.
Can a non-human POV even be theorised upon?
- Thread starter Kyriakos
- Start date
Of course. I'm just speculating as to what would happen if I was exposed to someone else's brand of qualia. Think about this: males and females both process color differently, so we know that their qualia is distinct from ours to an extent.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
In the few months before definitively separating my ex-wife and I had many a "discussion". Some of these became so intense that I very nearly started thinking in the way she did. (Which involved a very lax definition of what "truth" is, I believe.)
The experience left me with the distinct impression that the male and female brains aren't as different as you might think. I've never had the desire to continue thinking in that way, though.
The experience left me with the distinct impression that the male and female brains aren't as different as you might think. I've never had the desire to continue thinking in that way, though.
Yes, you can theorize on a non-human point of view, with reasonable accuracy if you're familiar enough with the creature in question. The best example for me is pet cats. Once you've had a pet cat for a number of years, you get to know their point of view pretty well. You can usually tell what they are trying to tell you, when they're frustrated, and so forth. As well as the differences in points of views among the different pet cats you have. Of my parents' three cats, two of them have very different points of view of the third one. Some of the cats' concepts may be uncommon in modern-day human society, such as territoriality, but they can be understood if you know the cats well enough.
It is true that you can't know exactly how the cats are thinking. But a lot of the time, you can get a reasonably good idea. It's also true that I can't always know what my best friends are thinking. That doesn't mean I can't in general understand their point of view, though. And I'm not actually sure I understand my best friends' points of view as often as I understand my parents' cats' points of view!
Perfection also brings up good examples in post 19. I don't think it's fundamentally different when considering non-human animals. Although I can see it differing by animals. It's probably much more difficult to theorize upon a coral's point of view than a cat's.
It is true that you can't know exactly how the cats are thinking. But a lot of the time, you can get a reasonably good idea. It's also true that I can't always know what my best friends are thinking. That doesn't mean I can't in general understand their point of view, though. And I'm not actually sure I understand my best friends' points of view as often as I understand my parents' cats' points of view!
Perfection also brings up good examples in post 19. I don't think it's fundamentally different when considering non-human animals. Although I can see it differing by animals. It's probably much more difficult to theorize upon a coral's point of view than a cat's.
Yes, you can theorize on a non-human point of view, with reasonable accuracy if you're familiar enough with the creature in question. The best example for me is pet cats. Once you've had a pet cat for a number of years, you get to know their point of view pretty well. You can usually tell what they are trying to tell you, when they're frustrated, and so forth. As well as the differences in points of views among the different pet cats you have. Of my parents' three cats, two of them have very different points of view of the third one. Some of the cats' concepts may be uncommon in modern-day human society, such as territoriality, but they can be understood if you know the cats well enough.
It is true that you can't know exactly how the cats are thinking. But a lot of the time, you can get a reasonably good idea. It's also true that I can't always know what my best friends are thinking. That doesn't mean I can't in general understand their point of view, though. And I'm not actually sure I understand my best friends' points of view as often as I understand my parents' cats' points of view!
Perfection also brings up good examples in post 19. I don't think it's fundamentally different when considering non-human animals. Although I can see it differing by animals. It's probably much more difficult to theorize upon a coral's point of view than a cat's.
But a theory about a point of view is crucially different than forming an imagination of a point of view: surely one can guess what a pet wants or is about to do sometimes, etc, but this seems to be a formation in a very human point of view of a parallel to what the pet is about. It doesn't have an actual part of a different point of view (non-human, in this case).
It is a bit like watching a bird fly, and having a dream where you fly: what you 'sensed' in the dream as the experience of flying is not tied to what being able to fly actually would be sensed as by you, or any other being
(not that we can form the point of view of another human, in great detail-- eg what emotions are sensed and how, and what links there are with thoughts, and what unconscious strata are there below and sensed to a degree when he does something etc-- but at least there are some common elements, like those mentioned in the OP).
I think I see what you mean with the flying example. What I imagine skydiving to be like as someone who has never done that probably has some significant differences to what someone who actually has done it experiences it as.
Although if I observed the reactions of people skydiving enough, or read enough accounts of it, I could probably form a much more informed point of view. Still not perfect, but much better than what I have now. Which in turn circles back around to the pet cats. Having observed them intermittently for years (in one case, more than a decade), my understanding of them has evolved significantly. Obviously I can't interpret it exactly as a cat could. But you do learn their opinions of different people, cats, and objects, the nuances of their relationships (one cat, for instance, is very territorial, yet still curious about the others, and likely is unfriendly towards the others so as to not acknowledge another one as the alpha cat), and, for lack of a better word, their personalities. Do the cats interpret the situation differently? Probably somewhat. But people who speak different languages can also interpret things differently because some languages have words for concepts that don't exist in different languages. Your interpretation of a Russian person's point of view can likely be improved by learning Russian and becoming familiar with concepts that don't translate into English or Greek, but you can still form a decent point of view without knowing Russian. I'm not sure it's considerably different with cats, just because I can't speak cat (or at least, not very well. The cats' vocal chords are more suited to it).
Perhaps it also simply depends on the degree of certainty you are seeking. I can theorize upon my parents' cats' points of view, though probably not perfectly. And it certainly isn't scientific. I'm not sure if theorizing upon someone's point of view (even a person's) can ever be done scientifically, though, so for the purposes of the poll I overlooked that requirement. I suppose this is the difference between "make an informal theory" and "make a theory with as much support as the Theory of Gravity".
I don't disagree that it would be helpful to actually be able to be the creature you are trying to understand for awhile. If you could switch place with your cat, or your significant other, or your friend, for a day, and retain that knowledge of their thoughts afterwards, it would certainly help immensely in understanding their point of view. I'd certainly sign up for several such trials if it were possible and safe (though I might skip spending a day as a triangle). But in absence of that, I still think it's possible to form a non-scientific theory of another being's point of view, human or not, provided you've spent enough time with them and you know each other well enough.
Although I'm also rather tired, so I may disagree with some of my finer points when more well-rested.
Although if I observed the reactions of people skydiving enough, or read enough accounts of it, I could probably form a much more informed point of view. Still not perfect, but much better than what I have now. Which in turn circles back around to the pet cats. Having observed them intermittently for years (in one case, more than a decade), my understanding of them has evolved significantly. Obviously I can't interpret it exactly as a cat could. But you do learn their opinions of different people, cats, and objects, the nuances of their relationships (one cat, for instance, is very territorial, yet still curious about the others, and likely is unfriendly towards the others so as to not acknowledge another one as the alpha cat), and, for lack of a better word, their personalities. Do the cats interpret the situation differently? Probably somewhat. But people who speak different languages can also interpret things differently because some languages have words for concepts that don't exist in different languages. Your interpretation of a Russian person's point of view can likely be improved by learning Russian and becoming familiar with concepts that don't translate into English or Greek, but you can still form a decent point of view without knowing Russian. I'm not sure it's considerably different with cats, just because I can't speak cat (or at least, not very well. The cats' vocal chords are more suited to it).
Perhaps it also simply depends on the degree of certainty you are seeking. I can theorize upon my parents' cats' points of view, though probably not perfectly. And it certainly isn't scientific. I'm not sure if theorizing upon someone's point of view (even a person's) can ever be done scientifically, though, so for the purposes of the poll I overlooked that requirement. I suppose this is the difference between "make an informal theory" and "make a theory with as much support as the Theory of Gravity".
I don't disagree that it would be helpful to actually be able to be the creature you are trying to understand for awhile. If you could switch place with your cat, or your significant other, or your friend, for a day, and retain that knowledge of their thoughts afterwards, it would certainly help immensely in understanding their point of view. I'd certainly sign up for several such trials if it were possible and safe (though I might skip spending a day as a triangle). But in absence of that, I still think it's possible to form a non-scientific theory of another being's point of view, human or not, provided you've spent enough time with them and you know each other well enough.
Although I'm also rather tired, so I may disagree with some of my finer points when more well-rested.
Just to note that i am very happy with the poll results by now, cause i thought that far more would vote for the first option (which personally i regard as false). Instead the second and third option combined are almost 50% of the votes, and the scope of the 2nd option can potentially even bring it to a bordering area of the third one.
Similar threads
- Poll
