← Back to context

Comment by andoando

5 days ago

>I think that Wittgenstein had it right when he said: "If a lion could speak, we could not understand him."

Why would we not? We live in the same physical world and encounter the same problems.

13 comments

andoando

Reply
adamzwasserman  5 days ago

You're actually proving Wittgenstein's point. We share the same physical world, but we don't encounter the same problems. A lion's concerns - territory, hunting, pride hierarchy - are fundamentally different from ours: mortgages, meaning, relationships.

And here's the kicker: you don't even fully understand me, and I'm human. What makes you think you'd understand a lion?

  • beeflet  5 days ago

    Humans also have territory, hunting and hierarchy. Everything that a lion does, humans also do but more complicated. So I think we would be able to understand the new creature.

    But the problem is really that the lion that speaks is not the same creature as the lion we know. Everything the lion we know wants to say can already be said through its body language or current faculties. The goldfish grows to the size of its container.

    • adamzwasserman  5 days ago

      You've completely missed Wittgenstein's point. It's not about whether lions and humans share some behaviors - it's about whether they share the form of life that grounds linguistic meaning.

      1 reply →

  • andoando  5 days ago

    Thats only a minor subset of our thoughts. If you were going hiking what kind of thoughts would you have? "There are trees there", "Its raining I should get cover", "I can hide in the bushes", "Im not sure if I cna climb over this or not". "There is x on the left and y on the right", "the wind went away" etc etc etc etc.

    The origins of human language were no doubt communicating such simple thoughts and not about your deep inner psyche and the complexities of the 21st century.

    There's actually quite a bit of evidence that all language, even complex words, are rooted in spatial relationships.

    • adamzwasserman  4 days ago

      You're describing perception, not the lived experience that gives those perceptions meaning. Yes, a lion sees trees and rain. But a lion doesn't have 'hiking', it has territory patrol. It doesn't 'hide in bushes', it stalks prey. These aren't just different words for the same thing; they're fundamentally different frameworks for interpreting raw sensory data. That's Wittgenstein's point about form of life.

      1 reply →

goatlover  5 days ago

We haven't been able to decode what whales and dolphins are communicating. Are they using language? A problem SETI faces is whether we would be able to decode an alien signal. They may be too different in their biology, culture and technology. The book & movie Contact propose that math is a universal language. This assumes they're motivated to use the same basic mathematical structures we do. Maybe they don't care about prime numbers.

Solaris by Stanislaw Lem explores an alien ocean that so different humans utterly fail to communicate with it, leading to the ocean creating humans from memories in brain scans broadcast over the ocean, but it's never understood why the ocean did this. The recreated humans don't know either.