Two isolated natives on a dogless island are brought to a philosopher's home. In two separate rooms, the philosopher has deposited four dogs of the same breed, two to each. He asks and the native's agree to each go into one of the rooms. Upon leaving, these natives now have new knowledge of this strange "dog" creature of which they have never seen, and accordingly, the philosopher asks them to talk amongst eachother about their experience.

When the natives speak to eachother about their common experience with members of the canine species, are they in fact discussing the same concept? Or are they discussing two different concepts based on their different experiences of different dogs?

Would the concept change if the philosopher brought them into the rooms they respectively did not enter into?

What breed of dogs are they. And do they all have the same name.

All these lovely new icons and still no graphic representation of 'deadpan'?

You wily wabbit, you.

Two isolated natives on a dogless island are brought to a philosopher's home. In two separate rooms, the philosopher has deposited four dogs of the same breed, two to each. He asks and the native's agree to each go into one of the rooms. Upon leaving, these natives now have new knowledge of this strange "dog" creature of which they have never seen, and accordingly, the philosopher asks them to talk amongst eachother about their experience.

When the natives speak to eachother about their common experience with members of the canine species, are they in fact discussing the same concept? Or are they discussing two different concepts based on their different experiences of different dogs?

Would the concept change if the philosopher brought them into the rooms they respectively did not enter into?

They are discussing their experiences of something called a dog. Really we are all in their position, all the time.

I'm not. I live on a dogless island, and I don't know anyone who doesn't. I don't think I even believe in dogs.

Grantywanty:

So the idea of "dog" is different for each?

Well if the dogs are the same breed... then unless the dogs personalities were drastically different from each other I dont see why the natives would describe them differently.

EndLightEnd:

Yes, but would their concept of "dog" be the same?

There's some basic facts that should be the same for each of the natives. Assuming the dogs weren't deformed in any way.

They'd both say the dog stands on four legs, has 2 eyes, 2 ears and a tail. The dog has fur.

Depending on if one of the natives was scared, he might say it had huge teeth and a menacing look. This might show further if the dog growled or barked and if the native exaggerated what he had seen due to being scared.

If the other native wasn't afraid and found he could pet the dog, then he might say it was lovely.

The basic concept would be the same - a physical representation, but otherwise their descriptions could vary. It's subjective.

Phonetic:

But would they be conveying the same concept of "dog"? Or two concepts based on experience?

Interesting.

What does it means for one person's concept to be the same as another person's concept?
Is it even possible?

Pete:

A good question.

Presumably a concept being the same as another would begin with mutual intelligibility.

So, if the two individuals could determine that the same sort of animal was in both rooms, then perhaps they would have a shared concept.

But the blind men examining the elephant (http://www.wordfocus.com/word-act-blindmen.html) do not?

Pete:

Yes, I think this would be fair to say. Taking only a part of the experience, like the blind men and the elephant, would be an example of people failing to ahve full experience.

Grantywanty:

So the idea of "dog" is different for each?
I don't know if that's a logical conclusion from what I said.
But, yes.

They'd both say the dog stands on four legs, has 2 eyes, 2 ears and a tail. The dog has fur.Dogs don't have fur.
They have hair.
:)

Furthermore - when you say "isolated" natives - do you mean isolated from everything, including each other, or just isolated from dogs and the concept of dogs?

If the natives have been brought up in the same environment (assumed given their mutual language) then they will probably come to many of the same conclusions about the dog - based on stories told, learnt behaviour when confronting new things etc.

However, if you do the experiment with two isolated natives from two very different dogless islands, with each native having vastly different cultures etc, then assuming they could easily communicate, they might have different concepts.

But the physical description should remain the same, unless overshadowed and distorted by irrational emotions.

Grantywanty:

Is there then a single concept such as "dog"?

Sarkus:

Isolated from dogs and the concepts of dogs, not from one another. They live on the same island and presumably know eachother.

And though we would admit that the physical descriptions shall be much the same, does this mean that the concept of dog would be the same for each? When Native B says to Native A, "I saw two dogs" does Native A's conception of dog match with the conception of dog held b Native B?

Een if they went into the same room and saw the same dogs, they still wouldn't be discussing the same concept.

Different aspects will be apparent and significant in different individual's minds.
Every experience is a personal and unique one.
Two people can completely distinct and diametrically opposed "concepts" of the same person they both know, because they are different people.

Depends on the people observing the dogs.

One Raven:

How then can we have any sort of conveyance of concepts and categories whatsoever?

EndLightEnd:

Elaborate?

How then can we have any sort of conveyance of concepts and categories whatsoever?

With the understanding and appreciation that even with a firm grasp on a comprehensive, complex language, such things necessarily come with a personal perspective.
With the understanding that even with someone who is trying in earnest to be as unbiabed as possible, all experience is subjective.

With appreciation for the fact that all humans are unique and constantly changing with every new bit of information.

Grantywanty:

Is there then a single concept such as "dog"?

Sure, but I think these tend to get built up over time. I think one can intuitively grasp a whole (whether pattern or category). But dealing with a new phenomenon like that I think they mostly would have very fragmentary impressions. Of course if there were wolves in the area and, for example, other domesticated predators, intuition might be able to make the leap and be very similar between these people.

I just realized I was dealing with accurate impressions.

I suppose the villagers might have a very similar concept of dog now. But this concept would probably differ greatly from the one who came with the dogs.

Phonetic:

But would they be conveying the same concept of "dog"? Or two concepts based on experience?

It's hard to say. I'll go with no, though. Since our ideas and concepts depend on personal experience, comparisons to other things and are built around other ideas we already have, there's bound to be some difference between the two. The gist of the two concepts will be the same and taking the two, another native would probably understand they were talking about a dog, even if his own concept was different.

Dogs don't have fur.
They have hair.
:)
Heh, well, they have hair. That's an example of how the natives' concepts might be different. Lack of understanding. One native might not know how to describe certain aspects of the dog and that could confuse his concept when presented to another.

One Raven:

Yet even if we might admit that information is processed subjectively, can we say that the experience itself is subjective? For it would seem that even minor concordance throws that out the window. Subjectivity implies dire incapacity to interact that experience with others. This is not the case, clearly.

Grantywanty:

Yes, clearly the natives would think of dog as more limited than the philosopher. But would these natives be speaking of the same thing, "dog", compared to the philosopher?

Is "dog" the same concept between all of them, regardless of their differing experience?

Phonetic:

It's hard to say. I'll go with no, though. Since our ideas and concepts depend on personal experience, comparisons to other things and are built around other ideas we already have, there's bound to be some difference between the two. The gist of the two concepts will be the same and taking the two, another native would probably understand they were talking about a dog, even if his own concept was different.

If we only have gists, why is it possible that we can discuss so fully about the subjects?

Here's a question to everyone:

Do we have a concrete concept of "dog" mentally? For instance, picture "dog". Not "a dog", but "dog" in one's mind. What does one get?

A lot would depend on the sex of dogs involved.

If room #1 had a male and a female and the bitch was in heat - that would be concept one.

If the second room had dogs of the same sex and they were hungry and there was food in one bowl - that could be concept two or...

If the second room had two male dogs and they smelled a bitch in heat - that could be concept two.

maxzuk:

How exactly would that change the concept of "dog"?

I would think that each group would have their own concept based on their observations. Someone with a more varied experience with dogs may have quite another.

Maxzuk:

Yet when they say "dog" are they referencing the same concept?

Or no?

Every new thing we encounter, we put it into the context of the things we're already familiar with.

So, what kinds of animals are they already familiar with? If the island has a variety of species then they'll be able to compare the new animals to the ones they already know. "Hmmm. Sharper teeth, tails wag, very attuned to humans, leave their mouths open, very sensitive to sound, hang out in groups..." Probably all the natives would have very similar impressions because they can fit the dogs into a context. If they have no context, they will each struggle to relate it to their experiences in some other way. There's no telling what they'll come up with if they don't have other animals as reference points.

Maxzuk:

Yet when they say "dog" are they referencing the same concept?

Or no?

Their conception would be based on their experience only.
When I speak of conception I don’t mean a physical description
of the beast but rather the impression that it makes.

Maxzuk:

So when two people speak to eachother, you'd claim that each is affirming something different?

Fraggle Rocker:

Yet when they speak to eachother, would a single concept or multiple concepts be present?

Would "dog" be a category that each is interacting with when discussing "dog", or would each have a "personal dog"?

When the natives speak to eachother about their common experience with members of the canine species, are they in fact discussing the same concept? Or are they discussing two different concepts based on their different experiences of different dogs?

Would the concept change if the philosopher brought them into the rooms they respectively did not enter into?
These isolated islanders, they are from the same island, correct? If so, I'd be willing to bet their conception of "dog" would be very similiar.

We catorgorize things based upon our experience. If these natives had no dogs but did have goats, they'd likely think of the dogs as similiar to goats, but...whatever.

A similiar situation is the old "chinese people all look alike". Most Americans think of a "person" as a white person. Our concept of person is based upon our experience. When someone not previously exposed to other races meets someone of another race, the racial characteristics overwhelm the individual characteristics.

As one is exposed to more and more members of other races, ones conception of "person" expands. The same would go for the dog. The concept of dog would consist of what is necesary to differentiate dogs from other animals.

If there were no other animals on the island, the concept would be four legged, hairy thing. The greater the variety of other animals that the concept of dog must take into account, the greater detail the concept would include.

Madanthonywayne:

But let us ask this: What is our true comprehension of the abstract quality of "dog"?

It is a curious thing that, despite the fact that clearly we must be exposed to something to use it, we nonetheless have what seems to be a very vague grasp of the abstract quality of the thing.

Madanthonywayne:
But let us ask this: What is our true comprehension of the abstract quality of "dog"?

A concept can be simple or complex. The degree of complexity associated with a particular concept is the minimum necesary from a utilitarian perspective for a particular person or group.

Consider the classic example of eskimoes having a thousand words for snow, v/s our one. Clearly their concept of snow is much more precise.

It's not to say that a more complex concept is more in line with reality, it's more like two pictures. One taken with a one megapixel camera, and the other with a ten megapixel camera. Both represent reality, but one shows more detail. It's still the same dog in the picture either way.

Concepts do not exist in isolation.
They arise when a distinction is needed which is why every word/concept in the dictionary has a genus and differentia.

So they can depend a great deal on the richness of the environment.

Suppose these 4 dogs were really wolves.
The islanders would have no way of knowing.

Now suppose the island were full of wolves, and the rooms had real collies,
their concept of dog would become much more precise.

Two isolated natives on a dogless island are brought to a philosopher's home. In two separate rooms, the philosopher has deposited four dogs of the same breed, two to each. He asks and the native's agree to each go into one of the rooms. Upon leaving, these natives now have new knowledge of this strange "dog" creature of which they have never seen, and accordingly, the philosopher asks them to talk amongst eachother about their experience.

When the natives speak to eachother about their common experience with members of the canine species, are they in fact discussing the same concept? Or are they discussing two different concepts based on their different experiences of different dogs?

Would the concept change if the philosopher brought them into the rooms they respectively did not enter into?They don't know about dogs, but they do know of other animals and sure build the concept around that, a new animal but the general concept would be the same, they may have different feelings of the animal but if they spent enough time, they would describe fairly the same thing. They would also know that they were describing the same thing (thus proof of concept).