Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Interesting Monster Psychology
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 4743911" data-attributes="member: 54707"><p>I thought the paper was interesting Murph, though some of the assumptive conclusions were specious at best, and not based upon data and actual research, but upon theoretical speculation.</p><p></p><p>I also thought the section of the paper on <a href="http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/child/node5.html" target="_blank"><strong>What Abilities could Usefully be Innate</strong></a> was interesting, especially regarding some of the more specific points addressed. </p><p></p><p>I liked the general linkage of ideas to the development of a potentially viable structure for the possible expansion of "AI types," but like you I think these kinds of speculation are equally, if not far more valuably addressed, in regards to "biological systems of cross reference."</p><p></p><p>That is this kind of speculation is more productively applied to the creation of prodigies, chimeras, and in the potential creation of Chumerals (humans with possible animal alleles and genetic trait or functional capabilities).</p><p></p><p>I thought you made a very good short analysis and examination of how such potential variances in perceptive capability might well affect "abnormal psychologies," (that is to say that if you took a man and gave him the senses of animals, in addition to his own, he would very likely develop an abnormal psychology - abnormal originally meant "beyond normal," not, sub-normal) and the progression of both new modes of sensation and de-limitations of perception.</p><p></p><p>And based on my own experiments with the development of parallel intelligence in animals and of variances in perception in certain chimeras I am right there with your basic conclusions, change the operational form and structure and you change the manner and methods of behavior.</p><p></p><p>So as far as I'm concerned, if you had a creature like a dragon, who despite being intelligent in a generally human manner, that is if it were possessed of an intelligence which in many ways was parallel to or even identical to a human being, because of differences in morphology, and sensory and perceptual capability, you would produce a creature that is in many other respects wholly alien as far as human beings are concerned.</p><p></p><p>That is to say you might have a "reasoning dragon," but the way in which that dragon went about perceiving, addressing, thinking about, and sensing the world would produce an entirely "alien mode of reason."</p><p></p><p>You might be able to talk to a dragon through a shared language, but you could never be one or think like one, and of course the reverse would also be true. Despite a shared language or method of communication the dragon would have an entirely different set of "referencing frames" by which to perceive and react to the world.</p><p></p><p>This line of reasoning also brings up the idea of how would language structures vary among different types of intelligence which are based on different methods of sensory perception? Indeed what might langue even consist of or be considered in relation to sensory capacities that are widely at variance with human methods of sensing the world? And as you implied what would be considered "information and data" by such creatures in comparison to what we consider information and data? </p><p></p><p>A veritable plethora of information and data is available in any given background at any given point in time, but how much is detected by men in comparison to other creatures, and what would that mean? A dog can sense when a man is anxious, but what valid conclusions can the dog draw from that perception, rightly or wrongly, about what is true or not in their real environment? </p><p></p><p>And if a dragon (I am using a dragon as an easy subject matter example, it could be any "exotic creature or being") possessed microscopic or telescopic vision, or possessed an entirely unknown sensory organ or structure (imagine it's entire skin, rather than being merely a protective organ or structural casing, were also an organ of vibrational sensation, tactile sensitivity, or a giant chemical receptor, maybe even an absorptive solar energy collecting and storage organ like in many lizards) then what would it consider information? The rays of the sun or the chemical decomposition of a corpse from 500 miles away might very well be considered viable information sources to it, in comparison to us. </p><p></p><p>And if that were true would not dragons be able to read their environment for "records, ideas, and innovative inspiration" in the same way we can read a book. Or read the age of a tree or stone as a real historical record in the same way that we can read scripted accounts of the Peloponnesian War left for us by an ancient Greek historian? and how much of what the dragon reads is "real and objectively true" and how much is merely the personal "interpretation of the dragon?" That is to say that just because dragons can see into the infra-red spectrum or can see telescopically, how true and valid are the conclusions of their "super-senses?" (A lot of people unfortunately and wrongly decide that superior capabilities or intellect necessarily render a truer understanding of the universe. That is however very, very far from true. It may in some cases lead to a better understanding of things, it may also lead to radical misinterpretations and radical misunderstandings of the way in which things really operate. Neither superior capabilities nor superior intelligence automatically renders superior conclusions.)</p><p></p><p>Well, since subjects like this interest me I could go on for some time like this, but I've other work to do.</p><p></p><p>Thanks for the article and your own analysis.</p><p>See ya.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jack7, post: 4743911, member: 54707"] I thought the paper was interesting Murph, though some of the assumptive conclusions were specious at best, and not based upon data and actual research, but upon theoretical speculation. I also thought the section of the paper on [URL="http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/child/node5.html"][B]What Abilities could Usefully be Innate[/B][/URL] was interesting, especially regarding some of the more specific points addressed. I liked the general linkage of ideas to the development of a potentially viable structure for the possible expansion of "AI types," but like you I think these kinds of speculation are equally, if not far more valuably addressed, in regards to "biological systems of cross reference." That is this kind of speculation is more productively applied to the creation of prodigies, chimeras, and in the potential creation of Chumerals (humans with possible animal alleles and genetic trait or functional capabilities). I thought you made a very good short analysis and examination of how such potential variances in perceptive capability might well affect "abnormal psychologies," (that is to say that if you took a man and gave him the senses of animals, in addition to his own, he would very likely develop an abnormal psychology - abnormal originally meant "beyond normal," not, sub-normal) and the progression of both new modes of sensation and de-limitations of perception. And based on my own experiments with the development of parallel intelligence in animals and of variances in perception in certain chimeras I am right there with your basic conclusions, change the operational form and structure and you change the manner and methods of behavior. So as far as I'm concerned, if you had a creature like a dragon, who despite being intelligent in a generally human manner, that is if it were possessed of an intelligence which in many ways was parallel to or even identical to a human being, because of differences in morphology, and sensory and perceptual capability, you would produce a creature that is in many other respects wholly alien as far as human beings are concerned. That is to say you might have a "reasoning dragon," but the way in which that dragon went about perceiving, addressing, thinking about, and sensing the world would produce an entirely "alien mode of reason." You might be able to talk to a dragon through a shared language, but you could never be one or think like one, and of course the reverse would also be true. Despite a shared language or method of communication the dragon would have an entirely different set of "referencing frames" by which to perceive and react to the world. This line of reasoning also brings up the idea of how would language structures vary among different types of intelligence which are based on different methods of sensory perception? Indeed what might langue even consist of or be considered in relation to sensory capacities that are widely at variance with human methods of sensing the world? And as you implied what would be considered "information and data" by such creatures in comparison to what we consider information and data? A veritable plethora of information and data is available in any given background at any given point in time, but how much is detected by men in comparison to other creatures, and what would that mean? A dog can sense when a man is anxious, but what valid conclusions can the dog draw from that perception, rightly or wrongly, about what is true or not in their real environment? And if a dragon (I am using a dragon as an easy subject matter example, it could be any "exotic creature or being") possessed microscopic or telescopic vision, or possessed an entirely unknown sensory organ or structure (imagine it's entire skin, rather than being merely a protective organ or structural casing, were also an organ of vibrational sensation, tactile sensitivity, or a giant chemical receptor, maybe even an absorptive solar energy collecting and storage organ like in many lizards) then what would it consider information? The rays of the sun or the chemical decomposition of a corpse from 500 miles away might very well be considered viable information sources to it, in comparison to us. And if that were true would not dragons be able to read their environment for "records, ideas, and innovative inspiration" in the same way we can read a book. Or read the age of a tree or stone as a real historical record in the same way that we can read scripted accounts of the Peloponnesian War left for us by an ancient Greek historian? and how much of what the dragon reads is "real and objectively true" and how much is merely the personal "interpretation of the dragon?" That is to say that just because dragons can see into the infra-red spectrum or can see telescopically, how true and valid are the conclusions of their "super-senses?" (A lot of people unfortunately and wrongly decide that superior capabilities or intellect necessarily render a truer understanding of the universe. That is however very, very far from true. It may in some cases lead to a better understanding of things, it may also lead to radical misinterpretations and radical misunderstandings of the way in which things really operate. Neither superior capabilities nor superior intelligence automatically renders superior conclusions.) Well, since subjects like this interest me I could go on for some time like this, but I've other work to do. Thanks for the article and your own analysis. See ya. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Interesting Monster Psychology
Top