3 ms·

I think we have to consider using higher levels of abstraction when discussing how organisms so far removed from our neighborhood of the tree of life deal with

by bane 9y ago

I think we have to consider using higher levels of abstraction when discussing how organisms so far removed from our neighborhood of the tree of life deal with experiencing the universe. Instead of "talking" - communicating Instead of "feeling" - sensing Instead of "thinking" - processing And so on. We risk anthropomorphizing other living beings we can't possibly relate to. Just as it's important we gain better understanding of how other living things live, it's just as important to not apply how we live to them. At worst we should talk about "analogs" instead of euphemisms. Does a tree feel "pain" or does a tree feel a "pain analog"? The first is ascribing something that may not even make sense, the second grounds us in comparisons and looking for cause and effect analogs. Do trees talk? No, they have no mouths. Do trees communicate? As we understand these things more and more, it appears that there's some kind of analog there. Do trees feel? Maybe that's the wrong question. Do trees respond to stimuli? Of course!

dredmorbius 9y ago
Fair suggestion, though "feeling" might be confused with emotional response rather than senses. Perception is the general term in psychology AFAIU (e.g., "perceptual psychology" -- among my more surprisingly fascinating uni courses). But the breakdown is a good one. It also brings to mind the trivium from the mediaeval academic curriculum: grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Grammar is the process of acquiring (and making sense of) information. Logic is the process of interpreting and processing information. Rhetoric is the process of transmitting information. Or: it's an input, logic, output sequence. This can be applied to much of information-systems or information-theory work. Perhaps with the addition of some endogenous or exogenous information storage and retrieval system. As for talking: the deaf speak, with their hands. Symbolic representative abstract communication is just that. I'd argue that the relevant element of talking is the interactivity of the conversation. Take the old Unix "talk" command. It was contrasted to "write", "wall", or "mail", in that both parties could talk at the same time. Myself and my girlfriend, 800 km apart. That in the 1980s was mind-blowing. And much cheaper than long-distance telephony.
ivanhoe 9y ago
Definitely, although many features of complex organisms (humans included) can also be described as nothing more than sensing and reacting on various stimuli. It all depends on the level of abstraction that you choose to apply, and anthropomorphizing in higher levels of abstraction intuitively helps one understand the process easier. Like calling a computer bus communication protocol "master-slave", which of course doesn't mean we should feel sorry for exploited peripheral devices :)

by bane 9y ago

dredmorbius 9y ago

Fair suggestion, though "feeling" might be confused with emotional response rather than senses. Perception is the general term in psychology AFAIU (e.g., "perceptual psychology" -- among my more surprisingly fascinating uni courses). But the breakdown is a good one. It also brings to mind the trivium from the mediaeval academic curriculum: grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Grammar is the process of acquiring (and making sense of) information. Logic is the process of interpreting and processing information. Rhetoric is the process of transmitting information. Or: it's an input, logic, output sequence. This can be applied to much of information-systems or information-theory work. Perhaps with the addition of some endogenous or exogenous information storage and retrieval system. As for talking: the deaf speak, with their hands. Symbolic representative abstract communication is just that. I'd argue that the relevant element of talking is the interactivity of the conversation. Take the old Unix "talk" command. It was contrasted to "write", "wall", or "mail", in that both parties could talk at the same time. Myself and my girlfriend, 800 km apart. That in the 1980s was mind-blowing. And much cheaper than long-distance telephony.

ivanhoe 9y ago

Definitely, although many features of complex organisms (humans included) can also be described as nothing more than sensing and reacting on various stimuli. It all depends on the level of abstraction that you choose to apply, and anthropomorphizing in higher levels of abstraction intuitively helps one understand the process easier. Like calling a computer bus communication protocol "master-slave", which of course doesn't mean we should feel sorry for exploited peripheral devices :)