Ierrellus

Nagel has a dream about what it is like to be a bat! How could this be?

Humans understand echolocation, at least deep sea divers, radio astronomers, space travellers and visitors to the Grand Canyon have some idea of what it's like to be a bat. With auditory amplification devices {high-tech hearing aids} and a mechanical device to turn human sounds into the right sharp focus, plus something to interpret the returning sound without bursting our eardums, we could know how a bat thinks.

How can we do this? We realize that differences among existing creatures as to how each perceives is a direct result of the sensory feedback each receives. We have enlarged our own senses, mechanically, but have not taken the time to equate that with other beings whose senses have evolutionarily enlarged.

What is it like to be a chimpanzee? We must stop trying to make the chimp into a human and try instead to comprehend what simian consciousness is all about.

Can this be done?

Ierrellus

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

DRFseven

I don't think so. I think we would know how a human experiences bat-modeled echolocation. There is no way to remove human cognition from the experience.

tronvillain

Ierrellus:
You seem to be ignoring all of the auditory processing that a bat presumably does and that a human might be completely incapable of. Also, even if we could perfectly mimic bat echolocation that doesn't meant we would know how a bat thinks - all we would know is how a human using echolocation thinks.

It's hard to see what this has to do with differences in senses, since since chimps are quite similar to humans in that respect. Is there actually any such thing as "simian consciousness"? Perhaps.

Ierrellus

DRFseven'
If there is a genetic continuum in the evolutionary "tree of life", the branches away from the main tree trunk would be adaptations for specific organisms; however, the basic trunk would be adaptational information as is relevant to all organisms.

The data of anthropomorphism and chiropteramorphism would ensue from a common ground. If we, as humans are more advanced than bats on the evolutionary scale, it would not be difficult for us to comprehend how and why they think. "Anthropomorphism", as a concept, denies knowledge by involvement.

PAX
Ierrellus

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Ierrellus

tronvillain,

If we are lower on the evolutionary scale than the apes, we could not hope to comprehend their ability to think. Since we are, supposedly, higher on that scale, comprehension of simian consciousness should be a breeze for us.

The 5% difference between human and chimpanzee DNA should be a problem for chimps understanding humans!

Ierrellus

tronvillain

Ierrellus:
There is no "main tree trunk" under any reasonable interpretation of the phrase that I can see.

Except that we are not more advanced than bats on the "evolutionary scale" because as far as I can tell, it is a figment of your fevered imagination. Do you write these things simply because they sound good at the time or do you intend for them to have content as well?

We are not "higher" or "lower" than the rest of the apes than any "evolutionary scale" since no such scale exists, unless it is simply a measure of reproductive success. Being higher on such a scale does not imply an understanding of those lower on the scale - bacteria do not understand anything, and they are on the top.

NialScorva

Not at all. There's no means by which we can directly transfer the qualia themself, rather we have empirical tokens to invoke the qualia in others. One type of token is the item itself, such as pointing at a rock to invoke the idea of "rock"ness in another person. More commonly, we use the system of tokens called "language". The key is, even within our own species we only understand in each other what is reflected by these tokens. So, we understand how chimpanzees and bats think exactly the same way we understand how other people think, through the reflections of their actions within our own mind. There's no deeper understanding or another's sensory experience, there's only a better corrolation between one's own experience of another and oneself.

barbelle

Ierrellus: Fascinating!

I did some work (from an art-school, not a scientific perspective) last fall about the differences of sight in and among the animal kingdom. ('course, light, and color, and energy are all fascinating topics as well)

I was just reflecting a few days ago how our cultural/mental idea of distinct separation from the 'animal kingdom' is largely artificial. Very interested. Curious to see where this will go.

Hey, did you ever read the post about the guy who had a cat who would bring-in and let-loose live chipmunks into his house, so he was looking for humane chipmunk-catching strategies? One of the little critters even ran up his pant leg one day, so he had to bowlegged-hobble, hands clamped to prevent the creature from, eh, 'exploring' any farther up said pant leg, and release it back to the wild...

...Barbelle curtseys to apologize for her randomness and lack of intellectual disicpline.

Ahem...

True, if you're measuring the scale of 'evolutionary success' by population. (one valid point of view) However, 'success' could be determined by the accomplishment of biological sophistication//intelligence, and from that point of view, Ierrellus' statement is valid.

It is true that an evolutionary scale is man-created, but one could say that about the whole grand sphere of science, itself: based on our observation of data and our attempt to make sense of it and eventually draw conclusions. Yes, artifical, yes, incomplete, but with significant merit, as well.

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: barbelle ]</p>

barbelle

p.s. Any one want to bring Kafka into the fray?
No?

excreationist

I think the consciousness of a chimp is similar to that of a young toddler (e.g. about 2 years old). Young toddlers are pretty intelligent but they haven't got to the point where they spontaneously start questioning the world around them using language. (e.g. asking about everything and about death, etc)