snatchbalance

DFr-seven,

I don't think I ever limited my end of this discussion to perception. We're talking about the whole animal, IMO.

SB

DRFseven

We're talking about what it's like to be something, right? Whether we could know what it's like to be a bat (or anything), which seems to be about perception.

snatchbalance

DRFseven

I think you need to read the thread.

SB

DRFseven

I did go back and reread, just to make sure I'm not hallucinating. I ain't. It's about whether we can understand the alleged consciousness of other species, such as bats. You said tron was focusing on perception and that there are many other similarities, such as metabolism, methods of reproduction, etc. Well, you know, we share some genetic similarities with squash, too, but that matters doodly-squat to differences in what it's like to be a squash or a human. We're talking about matters of perception.

snatchbalance

drfSEVEN

Ok, so you're saying that that perception happens in some kind of isolation? The animal, it's surroundings, it's sociobiological history, all count for nothing.

We're not comparing humans to plants, we're comparing different types of animals.

The question then becomes, can thier respective experiences be similar?

SB

Mu

Wow, no time for dawdling here. Go for a cuppa, watch the World Cup final, and a humble thread has become a mighty rope.

Anyhoo : Back a page already, but the outright objection to dualism I have no issue with, I would object to this also.

After a long day hard a slog, my internal thesaurus abandons me, but I believe my suggestion was not that that there are two perceptual systems or worlds incapable of knowing each other, but,er, many. What -ism would this be, anyone ? Sod it, lets call it manyism (sorry, but it really has been a long day).

If we are incapable of agreeing between our (relatively) similar selves as to anything but our arbitrary labels for our internal experiences, then the question as to whether we could know "a bat's" internal experience becomes one isolated case among a whole species. Surely there is no way to verify, even amongst bat's themselves, that each individual bat is not experiencing a unique set of sesory representations of the surrounding environment ?

Since we can not tell if your blue sky and mine are the same, to begin the task of 'knowing' each bat, chimp or alligator's internal experience seems churlish, though not entirely pointless I admit.

snatchbalance

MU,

My chain of reasoning is something like this:

I enjoy something
I ask my friend go with me, he appears happy and agrees to go. He must enjoy it also.
My dog sees me getting into the car, he gets excited and tries to get into the car with me. he enjoys it also.
We all get there, and are hungry, we get some food, we all relax. I guess we are all happy.
It starts to get dark, we watch the bats hunting isects. They dart about, they ar catching insects.
Are they hungry? Are they happy when saited?

Well I don't know the bat's as well as I know my friend and my dog, but it's a pretty good bet, from my perspective, that bats experience some form of hunger and happiness.

for whatever that's all worth.

sb

Ierrellus

I must go on two or three day sabbatical. Please carry on. Welcome back Mu.

Ierrellus

PAX

Ierrellus

The question now is can homology, limited to function, provide any degree of identity between species considered advanced and less advanced by whatever criteria? Can function define, even in a limited fashion, behaviour? Can behaviour, even in a limited fashion, be considered an indication of what is subjective?

Ierrellus

PAX

Ierrellus

Mu,
Individual traits do not negate common traits. I'm sure you have observed different personalities among dogs and cats. Genetic variables from two parents alone makes us individual. What is genetically retained from both parents is more or less homologious.

Ierrellus

PAX