Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Spozieracz OP t1_jacxczb wrote

It's not so simple. Dozens of philosophers have tried to do this since the dawn of history. How are we supposed to define inner experiences if we don't even have a way to tell that the people we talk to have them identical to ours.


VacuumInTheHead t1_jad0djh wrote

Make assumptions, humans are pretty fucking good at that. If that isn't good enough then design studies, run experiments, attempt to extrapolate unobtainable data. If you find that to be lacking, just define the words more succinctly to incorporate the obersved traits of other species.

I think, however, that the words are already succinct. We can classify many species according to the definitions of the two words. Of course, jamming 1 million species into a dichotomy is mcfucking stupid. We can use more words, create new words, or eliminate the species that don't fit (which is what we do, historically) (I took a break from writing this for reasons and now I don't know where it was going. This was not intended to be rude or anything; I'm not sure if it could even be interpreted as such. I just thought it would be fun to write)


Spozieracz OP t1_jad43n4 wrote

Well, we don't define species by words but by holotypes.