SCIENCE AND SANITY - online book

An Introduction To Non-aristotelian Systems And General Semantics.

Home | About | Philosphy | Contact | Search

It is the one we call 'Fido'. Practically all English speaking people are acquainted with the name 'Fido'. Besides, most of us like dogs and are aware of how 'intelligent' they are.
Investigations and experimenting have shown that the nervous system of a Fido presents, in structure and function, marked similarities to that of a Smith. Accordingly, we may assume that, in a general way, it functions similarly. We have already spoken of the event in terms of recognition; namely, that we can never recognize an event, as it changes continually. Whitehead points out the fundamental difference between an event and an object in terms of recognition; namely, that an event cannot be recognized, and that an object can be recognized. He defines the object as the recognizable part of the event. The use of this definition helps us to test whether Fido has 'objects'. Since experiments show that Fido can recognize, we have to ascribe to Fido objects by definition. If we enquire what the objects of Fido represent, the structure and function of his nervous system, which are very similar to ours, would suggest that Fido's objects represent, also, abstractions of some low order, from the events. Would his objects appear the 'same' as ours? No. First of all, the abstractions from events which we call objects are not the 'same', even when abstracted by different individuals among humans. An extreme example of this can be given in that limited form of colour-blindness which is called Daltonism, when an object which appears green to most persons appears red to the certain few who suffer from this disease. There is, at present, no doubt that the nervous abstractions of all organisms are individual, not only with each individual, but at different 'times' with one individual, and differ, also, for these higher groups (abstractions) which we call species. We can infer how the world appears to a particular organism only if its nervous structure is quite similar to our own. With species widely separated neurologically, such inferences are entirely unjustified. So, on general grounds, the 'objects' of Fido are not the 'same' as ours; on neurological grounds, they appear only similar. In daily experience, we know that we should have difficulty in recognizing our own glove among a thousand, but Fido could perform this detection for us much better. So the 'same' glove must have been registered in the nervous system of Fido differently from the way it has been in ours.
We indicate this similarity of the human object (0») and the animal object (Oa) by making the circle (Oa) smaller, and emphasize the difference between the objects by differently spacing the holes representing the characteristics. Whether we call the objects (O*) and (0) 'first order' abstractions or '100th order' abstractions, or simply 'lower