nadreamia.com - humanoid - essays - homosolipsism
Presently, we cannot read the thoughts of animals, and english communication from an animal to a human is extremely limited. This can make it difficult to believe with certainty the exact thoughts that an animal has. People are skeptic of conclusions made about the thoughts of animals. However, many people take their skepticism to an irrational extreme. I call this behaviour homosolipsism.
Solipsism can have many different meanings.
Solipsism can mean the idea that others' thoughts don't even exist. This means, only the thoughts of oneself actually exist, and other people don't have thoughts. Other beings have bodies, and when we open them up, we see brains, but they don't have any thoughts.
Solipsism can mean the idea that we can only believe our own thoughts with certainty. When we observe another human, no matter how similar his actions are to ours, we cannot believe with certainty what his thoughts actually are. When we are happy, and somebody asks us if we are happy, we will answer yes; however, when we ask somebody else if they are happy, and they answer yes, we have no way to believe with certainty that he is also happy. A solipsist would then reject as silly, the idea that we should believe this other person with certainty.
Solipsism defines a boundary. This boundary is around oneself. It separates the claims made about thoughts or other things inside this boundary from the things outside this boundary.
We can enlarge the boundary to surround a larger set. In this chapter, I will enlarge the boundary so that it includes all humans, but excludes non-human animals.
The two meanings of solipsism above can now be re-stated with regards to this enlarged boundary using the new term 'homosolipsism'.
Homosolipsism can mean the idea that animals' thoughts don't exist. This means, only thoughts of humans actually exist, and animals don't have thoughts. Animals have bodies, and when we open them up, we see brains, but they don't have any thoughts.
Homosolipsism can mean the idea that we can only believe human thoughts with certainty. When we observe an animal, no matter how similar its actions are to ours, we cannot believe with certainty what its thoughts actually are. When we are happy, we behave a certain way; however, when an animal behaves in the same way, we have no way to believe with certainty that it's also happy. A homosolipsist would then reject as silly, the idea that we can believe an animal is happy with certainty.
It is rational to claim, by definition, that we don't know something in the absense of proof. However, when belief is involved, the amount of certainty a person has for the belief can be both rational or irrational.
If I claim there is an invisible pink unicorn in your bathroom right now, you cannot prove that such a unicorn is not there. Therefore, you cannot know that an invisible pink unicorn is not currently in your bathroom. However, it is rational to believe with certainty that there is not an invisible pink unicorn in the bathroom.
It is also rational to believe with a high degree of certainty that the sun will rise the next morning, just as it has in the past.
If somebody believes with certainty that there is an invisible pink unicorn in his bathroom, then it is very irrational. Also, if person X believes with certainty that there is no unicorn, and person Y believes person X is being irrational, then person Y is actually irrational.
If somebody believes that the sun will not rise tomorrow morning, then it is very irrational. Also, if a person X believes with certainty that the sun will rise, and person Y believes person X is being irrational, then person Y is actually irrational.
A statement can be proven relative to one set of axioms, but unproven relative to another set of axioms. People generally have a common set of axioms that they are implying when they talk about proof without referencing any particular set of axioms. It is possible to extend the axioms reasonably in such a way that a statement is proven using the extended axioms, but unproven using the implied axioms. The extended axioms are axioms that are not universally believed, but have shown to be incredibly successful in predicting the outcome of experiments. This is when a person could claim that the only rational choice is to believe a statement with a high degree of certainty, even though the statement is unproven using only the implied axioms.
Extended axioms can be considered successful if they always resulted in the correct prediction so far, but we have reason to believe that they might not always be successful. Extended axioms can also be considered successful if they lead to the correct predictions for a high percentage of experiments. There is often an urgent need for people to make decisions based on what they know and what they believe. If we make decisions solely based on what we know, then we cannot make decisions in most situations presented to us. If we make decisions based on axioms that are all considered perfect, except for one that has been found to work only a certain percentage of the time, then we may believe any conclusion made with those axioms with the same percetage of certainty.
Using the universally implied axioms, we don't know that another person who is displaying unmistakable signs of happiness is actually happy. But within simple extensions of the axioms, it can be proven. So it should be reasonable, that relative to the implied axioms, we can believe with a high degree of certainty that a person is happy when the signs are unmistakable. Especially when such beliefs have shown to be incredibly accurate in the prediction of experiments that depend on the truth value of the believed statement.
It is reasonable to believe with certainty that other humans also have thoughts, and that animals also have thoughts. In the same way, it is reasonable to believe with certainty that in certain circumstances, when the actions clearly indicate pain or happiness, that the other human, or animal, is actually feeling pain or happiness respectively.
If an animal acts in a way that indicates to us that they are surely in pain, it is rational to believe with certainty that the animal is in pain.
It is irrational to believe that other humans don't have thoughts. It is irrational to believe that animals that are closely related to humans, don't have thoughts.
If another human is displaying unmistakeble signs of pain, it is irrational to believe that the human is not feeling any pain. It is also irrational to claim that we cannot believe with certainty that the human is in pain.
If an animal is displaying unmistakeble signs of pain, it is irrational to believe that the animal is not feeling any pain. It is also irrational to claim that we cannot believe with certainty that the animal is in pain.
The two above paragraphs are also true when we replace pain with pleasure.
Some people believe animals don't feel pain. This is homosolipsism.
Some people believe that when a male dog is trying to fuck a female dog, that it doesn't enjoy fucking the female. This is homosolipsism.
Some people believe that animal instincts cannot be overridden, that an animal has no control over his instinctive actions. This is homosolipsism.
Some people believe that humans don't have instincts, that instinct is limited to non-human animals. This is homosolipsism.
Solipsism isn't very popular. For some reason, people are ready to accept that other humans have the same thoughts and feeling as themselves.
Homosolipsism, unfortunately, is extremely popular. I don't know why people subscribe to such an irrational viewpoint on animals.
There are many consequences that arise from homosolipsism. Some of them are not very harmful, for example, the belief that we cannot be certain that male dogs enjoy sex.
Some consequences are incredibly horrible. For example, the beleif that animals don't feel pain like humans do, lead many people to hurt and torture animals in ways that they never would do to a human.
I conclude this essay with a call for people to end homosolipsism.
Homosolipsism is an irrational belief, which sometimes leads to horrible consequences.
People need to realize that a lot of animals, especially mammals, are not much different than humans. They have brains like humans. They are not aliens from another galaxy, but rather, evolved from the same common ancestors as we did. They also have thoughts, desires, and feelings such as pain and pleasure that are not much different from those of humans.
End homosolipsism.
Homosolipsism, by The Humanoid