Anthropomorphic intelligence: Difference between revisions

(Gotta leave this unfinished ...)
 
(This should be finished now)
Line 1: Line 1:
The world of [[Eithalica (story world)|Eithalica]] includes [[:Category:Intelligent species|several species]] which possess what might be called '''“anthropomorphic intelligence;”''' that is, they can think and communicate rationally like humans can in real life.
The world of [[Eithalica (story world)|Eithalica]] includes [[:Category:Intelligent species|several species]] which possess what might be called '''“anthropomorphic intelligence;”''' that is, they can think and communicate rationally like humans can in real life.


In artwork, [[Wikipedia:Anthropomorphism#Modern literature|anthropomorphism]] is the practice of portraying an animal or object with humanlike features to make it seem relatable. For example, the artist might draw a creature that should have paws but instead give it hands with opposable thumbs, etc. Just like opposable thumbs, the capacity for rational thought is a human trait—except more so, because (so far as we know) it’s exclusive to humans.
= Note on Terminology =
 
Many authors have used different words for this: “sentience,” “self-awareness,” “intelligence,” etc.
 
This is because humanlike thought and related phenomena are a subject of philosophy, and are impossible to collectively define without resting on assumptions that come from the author’s [[Wikipedia:worldview|worldview]]—whether the author is aware of those assumptions or not. Any definition is therefore guaranteed to be plagued with problems and limitations, and fail to please everyone.
 
As humans, we know that we have ''something'' unique that sets us apart from all other life on earth, but we don’t know (or can’t agree) ''what that something is.'' And in real life, there’s no evidence that any other natural creature has ever shared it.
 
If we see humanlike features on a cartoon animal (e.g. opposable thumbs, front-facing [[Wikipedia:Binocular vision|binocular vision]], upright [[Wikipedia:Bipedalism|bipedalism]], etc.) we readily describe this as a case of entertainment-driven [[Wikipedia:Anthropomorphism|anthropomorphism]]: the act of portraying a non-human creature or object with human features. Our capacity for rational thought is ''even more unique'' than any of those traits, so why should we treat it with less ownership? So far as we know, it’s as exclusive to us as if it were an identifying “fingerprint” of humanness.
 
Furthermore, our own experience of it is the only source to draw from. Therefore whenever we imagine it in made-up aliens, at heart this cannot be anything other than a projection of ourselves—just like when we imagine a cartoon animal that walks upright and talks.
 
Of course, science fiction usually tries to take itself much too seriously to acknowledge this. As such, for best entertainment the term “anthropomorphic intelligence” isn’t very suitable to use ''in story.'' But ''outside'' the story, we can find no alternative that matches this term’s honesty and accuracy.

Revision as of 10:20, 29 October 2022

The world of Eithalica includes several species which possess what might be called “anthropomorphic intelligence;” that is, they can think and communicate rationally like humans can in real life.

Note on Terminology

Many authors have used different words for this: “sentience,” “self-awareness,” “intelligence,” etc.

This is because humanlike thought and related phenomena are a subject of philosophy, and are impossible to collectively define without resting on assumptions that come from the author’s worldview—whether the author is aware of those assumptions or not. Any definition is therefore guaranteed to be plagued with problems and limitations, and fail to please everyone.

As humans, we know that we have something unique that sets us apart from all other life on earth, but we don’t know (or can’t agree) what that something is. And in real life, there’s no evidence that any other natural creature has ever shared it.

If we see humanlike features on a cartoon animal (e.g. opposable thumbs, front-facing binocular vision, upright bipedalism, etc.) we readily describe this as a case of entertainment-driven anthropomorphism: the act of portraying a non-human creature or object with human features. Our capacity for rational thought is even more unique than any of those traits, so why should we treat it with less ownership? So far as we know, it’s as exclusive to us as if it were an identifying “fingerprint” of humanness.

Furthermore, our own experience of it is the only source to draw from. Therefore whenever we imagine it in made-up aliens, at heart this cannot be anything other than a projection of ourselves—just like when we imagine a cartoon animal that walks upright and talks.

Of course, science fiction usually tries to take itself much too seriously to acknowledge this. As such, for best entertainment the term “anthropomorphic intelligence” isn’t very suitable to use in story. But outside the story, we can find no alternative that matches this term’s honesty and accuracy.