Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7923223" data-attributes="member: 4937">Could be.&nbsp; I think a lot of the problem is that people assume intelligence is a single thing on a single scale and not actually a collection of specific algorithms working together.&nbsp;&nbsp; I've known some quite intelligent people who nonetheless couldn't do basic addition without a calculator.&nbsp;&nbsp; I think animals are like that only more so.To be honest, I suspect even &quot;Bagheera&quot; would have problems with some of the concepts the PC is trying to convey in the above conversation.&nbsp;&nbsp; I probably would run the squirrel (or panther) pretty much exactly like that myself if asked about concepts that aren't in the skill set of squirrels or panthers, such as recognizing a human caste by mode of dress, or units of time.&nbsp;&nbsp; Bagheera's speech you recorded earlier makes no mention of specific periods of time.&nbsp; He has a concept of what &quot;iron&quot;, &quot;bars&quot;, and &quot;locks&quot; are because he's experienced them directly for a long period, but even real world animals can grasp a lock conceptually in some sense.&nbsp; If a squirrel had been a pet, it might have a concept of &quot;cage&quot;, &quot;French fry&quot;, or &quot;peanut butter&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; It would still have no grasp of &quot;five minutes&quot;. Early editions already made clear that plants would have limited understanding, so that's not a big change. For example, 1e made clear that any such communication would be &quot;rudimentary&quot;, and 3e made clear that plants and limited senses so you could not ask a question like, &quot;What was the man wearing?&quot;, and expect an answer for any number of reasons (a plant can't see and probably can't imagine clothes). But even the question, &quot;How can the plant even know?&quot;, implies the baseline assumption that plants know nothing which was not present in earlier editions. One way or the other, it involves a change to a more 'scientific' baseline assumption, that plants aren't normally thinkers and for one to think, it requires magical assistance. This is a big change conceptually from the assumptions of earlier editions, which assumed plants could think in limited plant-y ways, and that the magic was only allowing you to breach the communication gap between you and the plant.Maybe it's just what I'm used to and comfortable with, but if &quot;speak with plants&quot; is granting the intelligence, how does a plant have any memory of what happened before the spell was cast on it in order to speak about it?&nbsp;&nbsp; How did the formerly unthinking plant record what the weather was like yesterday if yesterday it had no thoughts?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7923223, member: 4937"] Could be. I think a lot of the problem is that people assume intelligence is a single thing on a single scale and not actually a collection of specific algorithms working together. I've known some quite intelligent people who nonetheless couldn't do basic addition without a calculator. I think animals are like that only more so. To be honest, I suspect even "Bagheera" would have problems with some of the concepts the PC is trying to convey in the above conversation. I probably would run the squirrel (or panther) pretty much exactly like that myself if asked about concepts that aren't in the skill set of squirrels or panthers, such as recognizing a human caste by mode of dress, or units of time. Bagheera's speech you recorded earlier makes no mention of specific periods of time. He has a concept of what "iron", "bars", and "locks" are because he's experienced them directly for a long period, but even real world animals can grasp a lock conceptually in some sense. If a squirrel had been a pet, it might have a concept of "cage", "French fry", or "peanut butter". It would still have no grasp of "five minutes". Early editions already made clear that plants would have limited understanding, so that's not a big change. For example, 1e made clear that any such communication would be "rudimentary", and 3e made clear that plants and limited senses so you could not ask a question like, "What was the man wearing?", and expect an answer for any number of reasons (a plant can't see and probably can't imagine clothes). But even the question, "How can the plant even know?", implies the baseline assumption that plants know nothing which was not present in earlier editions. One way or the other, it involves a change to a more 'scientific' baseline assumption, that plants aren't normally thinkers and for one to think, it requires magical assistance. This is a big change conceptually from the assumptions of earlier editions, which assumed plants could think in limited plant-y ways, and that the magic was only allowing you to breach the communication gap between you and the plant. Maybe it's just what I'm used to and comfortable with, but if "speak with plants" is granting the intelligence, how does a plant have any memory of what happened before the spell was cast on it in order to speak about it? How did the formerly unthinking plant record what the weather was like yesterday if yesterday it had no thoughts? [/QUOTE]

Verification