4 ms·
Our evidence is much, much, much better in the case of people. We talk to them, dance with them, have sex with them, have a lifetime of interpreting subtleties
by jonahx 11y ago
Our evidence is much, much, much better in the case of people. We talk to them, dance with them, have sex with them, have a lifetime of interpreting subtleties of their tone and body language and power politics. We are the same species as they are.
It makes sense to talk about not knowing the mind of a cat or dog in a way that it does not make sense to say the same of a person, even if you grant that "you never really know someone else," and even if you grant the technical possibility that everyone else is just a sophisticated automaton (though it's unclear what that would even mean, or how that would change anything).
- imakesnowflakes 11y ago>We talk to them, dance with them, have sex with them, have a lifetime of interpreting subtleties of their tone and body language and power politics. We are the same species as they are. How is this any more of an evidence?
- jxramos 11y agoI would say these are all different ways to know somebody. We do after all speak of knowing somebody intimately as opposed to a passing acquaintance. There's a wide gap between the two.
- zamalek 11y agoLet's make it more complicated than history and personal experiences. How do you know that you are not a Boltzmann brain? It's highly improbable, I'm not claiming it to be true. There is the smallest possible probability that I am the only one that has qualia and sentience. It's a philosophical zombie for a reason: it's a source of creative thought, not necessarily truth.