Can a non-human POV even be theorised upon?

**Kyriakos** · June 13, 2014, 06:04 AM

Can a non-human point of view even be a valid concept? It seems to follow axiomatically (and the axiom is pretty logical; humans have by definition a human point of view) that a non-human POV cannot be formulated by extending a human POV, so we can't really come up even with a theory of a thought-system which would be non-human in essense.

By this, of course, it is not meant that we cannot image something 'alien'. One can say (for example) that an alien sentient being might sense in 4 dimensions (not including time). Ok, but this is not its actual system of sensing nor is it a defined condition of its mentality, cause it is (a bit; obviously sentience is taken out here) like one claiming that by knowing a triangle has three angles he now knows what it feels like to have three internal angles which have to add up to 180 degrees. We merely know an external fact, but not the POV of the alien being.

*

This is a poll, with the question in the title, and four options. The last option is the general 'not sure' stance. The other three will be elaborated a bit:

Poll question: Can a non-human POV even be theorised upon?

Poll options:

1) Yes, it can be theorised upon, and produce decent results.
2) Yes, it can be theorised upon, but the results will be very limited.
3) No, i cannot be theorised upon, at all.
4) Don't know/i am not human or you aren't.

1)So Option 1 is obviously to be chosen if you are of the view that we can examine/theorise in a decent manner a non-human POV, as in math or physics/chemistry etc. You would be of the view that a non-human POV is not merely a dead-end idea, but something to be presented scientifically, and lead to conclusions about specificically non-human thought/mentality systems.

2)Option 2 is to be chosen if you think that while we cannot identify any non-human point of view, or system, we can still have a sort of limited theory on what the borders such systems may have to our own human ones. For example alterations in dimensional sense may tie to ambiguous overall differences, but we can still gain something from theorising on such factors, despite those being merely limits of our own human POV system.

3) Option 3 is to be chosen if you think that it is pointless to try to imagine something from a human POV/system, and try to think it is an insight for a non-human POV/system. Basically this option means that you think we move on in math/science purely on a human system (tied to degrees to our senses, and otherwise to our mental world), and don't really present with it the 'reality' of the external world, cause that is not part of our system (it merely is something which can create an impression on us, due to our biological and mental mechanisms).

4) Option 4 is for the lazy or other downers

**Kyriakos** · June 13, 2014, 06:16 AM

Just to note that i am voting for #3, although a very small (infinitesimal in my view) degree of #2 may be true..

**Phier** · June 13, 2014, 08:47 AM

I think evolution and general biological constraints will produce organisms which are more similar than dissimilar.

I would think the only major differences would be due to gravity differences or climate. Otherwise I expect to see organisms which are very similar in behavior, if not looks, filling the various ecological niches. There will be mouse and herbivore and flying equivalents. Birds may be unique to earth, but flying has evolved in three completely separate animal types and that doesn't include insects or gliders.

My feeling is intelligence would evolve under similar lines. You will need a creature that can make use of its intelligence (arms of some kind), is a social animal (learning), terrestrial, and is motivated by reproduction and accumulation of resources. Obviously there may be differences in things like aggressiveness or cooperation but limited.

I'm not even sure if real hive intelligences would be able to develop. In part because they are really, in terms of personality, individual organisms in competition with their own kind with limited mutual cooperation which would limit learning.

So basically there would be differences but over all much of the same.