Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

[Absalom]

Telepathic communication is direct and literal, and contains a lot of ancillary information. It's not a medium that lends itself well to abstraction or artfulness. A spoken message might say:

"There is something rotten in the state of Denmark."

But the telepathic equivalent might be something like:

"Ophelia told me during our lunch yesterday that when she visited the court of Denmark the week before on a business trip that she didn't enjoy, that she felt that something was wrong within the royal family, but she wasn't specific and frankly I never liked her or trusted her opinion, and I'm in a bad mood right now."

That's kind of funny, and it says something interesting about the way the Loroi abstract concepts of truth. Very literal, it would seem. I wonder if they readily recognize lies of omission, or cherry-picking among a selection of true concepts.

The extreme version of the traditional Loroi warrior ethic views omission, spin, or even politeness as forms of dishonesty. Failure to tell someone exactly what you think of her to her face is considered not just duplicitous, but cowardly. Naturally in a large and varied society, not everyone agrees with this ethic or takes it to the same extremes, as you can tell from Tempo and Beryl's interactions with Alex which are overtly polite and diplomatic.

I take it that, at least recently, Stillstorm has tended to fall on the other end of the spectrum?

What would their general perspective be to this clip from Babylon 5?

[icekatze]

hi hi

The part about omission makes sense, but from the perspective of fiction, would Loroi science be hindered by a cultural hesitance to use parable or thought experiments prior to making tests? A lot of speculative fiction, though not biographical, tries to convey supposed truths.

Human: "Imagine there are a pair of twins, and one of them gets in a space ship and flies away very quickly."
Loroi: "Are these twins historical figures on your world?"
Human: "No, this hasn't happened, but I'm trying to convey a more abstract truth."
Loroi: "Why would you waste time on imaginary things?"

And in cases of things like semantic arguments, I'm guessing telepathy conveys meaning very precisely in ways that speech does not. With the classic example of one person's dog being a chihuahua, and another person's dog being a great dane, if telepathy conveys the meaning exactly, do they have difficulty distinguishing between competing truths when using imprecise language?

Loroi: "I am a failure."
Human: "No you're not."
Loroi: "But I failed the test."
Human: "This is true, but it is also true that, on the whole, you have been successful, even if you failed in this instance."
Loroi: "I don't understand, we can't both be right."

[Arioch]

I take it that, at least recently, Stillstorm has tended to fall on the other end of the spectrum?
What would their general perspective be to this clip from Babylon 5?

Stillstorm is the obvious example of a Loroi who says what she means and expects the same in return. A "formal apology" has very little value to someone for whom tact is considered distasteful; Stillstorm would neither issue one, expect one nor accept one. If diplomatic restraint is required, that's what Mizol are for.

The part about omission makes sense, but from the perspective of fiction, would Loroi science be hindered by a cultural hesitance to use parable or thought experiments prior to making tests? A lot of speculative fiction, though not biographical, tries to convey supposed truths.

Loroi don't have any trouble understanding a hypothetical; they just don't see the value of using it as popular entertainment. Fiction is a relatively recent development in human literature; for the vast majority of history, the myths and legends that we told were thought to be mostly true. Believing that a story is true doesn't prevent it from being used as allegory.

And in cases of things like semantic arguments, I'm guessing telepathy conveys meaning very precisely in ways that speech does not. With the classic example of one person's dog being a chihuahua, and another person's dog being a great dane, if telepathy conveys the meaning exactly, do they have difficulty distinguishing between competing truths when using imprecise language?

Yes, telepathic communication is specific and precise, and semantics are usually not an issue. If what the Loroi meant was "I feel badly because I failed the test," that's probably what she would say.

[icekatze]

hi hi

Being capable of understanding a hypothetical isn't nothing, although it wasn't quite what I was getting at. I think it is pretty clear that the Loroi are intelligent enough, but perhaps a more precise way of phrasing what I'm getting at is whether their predisposition has an influence, rather than an absolute restriction.

If the Loroi, in general, don't enjoy entertaining hypotheticals, then perhaps that might be a piece of the explanation of why they don't advance as quickly as humanity has in science. Being a scientist might be an awfully dull, low morale job if the scientists didn't enjoy entertaining the hypothetical.

[Arioch]

Being capable of understanding a hypothetical isn't nothing, although it wasn't quite what I was getting at. I think it is pretty clear that the Loroi are intelligent enough, but perhaps a more precise way of phrasing what I'm getting at is whether their predisposition has an influence, rather than an absolute restriction.

If the Loroi, in general, don't enjoy entertaining hypotheticals, then perhaps that might be a piece of the explanation of why they don't advance as quickly as humanity has in science. Being a scientist might be an awfully dull, low morale job if the scientists didn't enjoy entertaining the hypothetical.

There are plenty of reasons why Loroi aren't the top scientists in the galaxy (they live in a rigid, structured, traditionalist, insular, localized, authoritarian society with a wonky numeral system and which is used to following precursor examples rather than innovating out of whole cloth), but I'm not sure that a lack of fiction would be near the top. Or at least, it's more of a symptom than a cause; our society values speculative fiction because (some of us) are often looking to the future, and Loroi society doesn't because (more of them) are contemplating the past. But I don't think that speculative fiction actually makes science happen (beyond inspiring young readers to become scientists), and I think that narratives like the Twin Paradox or Schrodinger's Cat have more to do with explaining scientific concepts to non-scientists than with actual scientific inquiry.

[icekatze]

hi hi

I'm trying to go about this in the abstract here, not one specific case or another, but in terms of how the Loroi view truth as an abstract concept. Fiction, and interest in fiction, for people is an interactive process, where life imitates art, while simultaneously art imitates life. It is true that there are a lot of reasons why people enjoy fiction, but one of them is because sometimes people find it meaningful. A story about someone making a mistake and then being forgiven for it might resonate with a large group of people because it helps them come to terms with issues they are facing in their own life. Obviously character driven stories might not provoke the same level of connection among Loroi as they do among humans, since telepathic interaction isn't carried in any other medium. Do the Loroi even have mirror neurons? Or is Loroi empathy all telepathically linked? Do Loroi have the ability for actual empathy?

I know that especially in physical sciences, lots and lots of math is the most important thing, and although I'm looking at this more from a social sciences point of view which is my own area of expertise, I understand that there are going to be some differences. And I understand that speculative fiction doesn't make science happen. So what I'm wondering about is more in terms of motivations rather than capability.

Other than enjoyment of looking at things from different perspectives and examining possibilities in abstract ways, what might drive Loroi to do things like look for nuance in gathered data, actively try to identify their own biases. (like confirmation bias or omitted-variable bias, with regards to science) Especially when analyzing statistics about people, it can be easy to come to incorrect conclusions based on incomplete information. One classic example would be that when more police are hired, the crime rate in a given area usually increases, and it is easy to make the mistaken conclusion that police are causing it if one is looking only at the math, and not considering how the statistics are gathered.

Are Loroi perhaps more predisposed to have high levels of conscientiousness, in terms of psychological grit, where rather than pursuing a task because they enjoy the process, they pursue the task because they can't bear the thought of failing? In some cases, high values in the dependability subcategory of conscientiousness (order, dutifulness, and deliberation) has shown some level of negative correlation with abstract reasoning and creativity.

[Arioch]

Fiction, and interest in fiction, for people is an interactive process, where life imitates art, while simultaneously art imitates life. It is true that there are a lot of reasons why people enjoy fiction, but one of them is because sometimes people find it meaningful. A story about someone making a mistake and then being forgiven for it might resonate with a large group of people because it helps them come to terms with issues they are facing in their own life.

Stories don't have to be fictional to meaningful, entertaining, or useful as allegory or parable. If you went back in time to a campfire in Greece in 500 BC and told the story of Frodo and the Ring of Power, the humans listening to you would almost certainly assume that you were telling a true story of a foreign land, and would probably be disappointed (and maybe even confused or angry) if you admitted that it was all made up. Believing that it was true would not have diminished their enjoyment of the story, or their appreciation of its themes and deeper meaning. There was nothing wrong with their brains; their society just had not yet abstracted storytelling to the point where it was deemed acceptable to completely make up a story from scratch. Fiction is a relatively recent development in human literature. There are still many human religious communities today, for example, that almost exclusively tell stories which they believe to be true.

Obviously character driven stories might not provoke the same level of connection among Loroi as they do among humans, since telepathic interaction isn't carried in any other medium. Do the Loroi even have mirror neurons? Or is Loroi empathy all telepathically linked? Do Loroi have the ability for actual empathy?

I don't follow the leap from "Loroi value honesty and telepathy is inherently truthful" to "Loroi lack empathy," "Loroi are unable to think critically," or "Loroi have no enjoyment in life." Loroi tell stories that they believe to be true, rather than ones that are entirely imaginary. They also differ in the way they tell the stories (telepathically rather than through mass media), but I don't think the differences in how their minds work are as great as you imply.

[icekatze]

hi hi

That's kind of my point that I'm trying to make, I think. People can empathize with the characters in a story whether it is fictional or not, and that empathy can provoke a variety of feelings including satisfaction and enjoyment. I'm not 100% sure we're on the same wavelength here, but I was just trying to understand this.

I guess it is possible that fiction is a relatively recent development in human literature, and I can't really argue anything concretely from time periods before the invention of the printing press. However, it is my understanding that fiction has existed throughout human civilization, and our modern understanding of the particulars is marred by the decomposition of early works. It is my understanding that Gilgamesh was written (over a couple hundred years) to be a fictional allegory, but again, I will admit it is impossible to know for certain. (There is historical evidence for cultures that disbelieved in the supernatural that goes back as far as the 6th century BCE, but again, no printing press, very few historic examples to work with.)

I also don't follow the leap, that's why I asked the question about Loroi empathy. I'm trying not to make assumptions here. I would think that if someone could empathize with abstract concepts, like other people or their future selves, then they would be at least physically capable of enjoying a work of fiction. As for Loroi lacking critical thinking skills and having no enjoyment in life, I made neither of those arguments, and honestly I don't know where that's coming from. If that was something from earlier in the discussion, I must have missed it.

I mean, I had been enjoying a discussion about something fictional right here, myself, but now I'm getting the impression that I have made a faux pas. If that is the case, I can stow my curiosity in a box until some other time.

[Arioch]

If there is frustration in my answers (and if so I apologize) it's because I feel like I'm repeating myself, which suggests that either I'm not understanding the questions or I'm not answering clearly.

[dragoongfa]

I take it that, at least recently, Stillstorm has tended to fall on the other end of the spectrum?
What would their general perspective be to this clip from Babylon 5?

Stillstorm is the obvious example of a Loroi who says what she means and expects the same in return. A "formal apology" has very little value to someone for whom tact is considered distasteful; Stillstorm would neither issue one, expect one nor accept one. If diplomatic restraint is required, that's what Mizol are for.

I imagine that a warrior with such a strong ethical compass will show no hesitation in admitting fault if they did something wrong.

[Absalom]

It is my understanding that Gilgamesh was written (over a couple hundred years) to be a fictional allegory, but again, I will admit it is impossible to know for certain.

It is generally best to assume that quasi-historical figures such as Gilgamesh were vaguely based upon historical or pre-historical figures that in some way were perceived (even if only because of really good PR) to share some traits with their fictionalized counterpart. There is a boat-scene, for example, where the setting was believed to have actually been found a few years ago.

Similarly, the voyage of the golden fleece is suspected to have actually happened: despite the similar suspicion that most of it is likely just a fish-tale. The general suspicion is that it was a fairly common trade route for the city-state in question, and the story was fluffed up to make it more interesting to listen to.

I'd suspect that even the Irish Book of Invasions is sort-of right (for fairly small portions of Ireland, but probably not the whole island), though I wouldn't place any bets on anything more specific than "so they went over there, and there were people that didn't speak the same language or live the same, and then most of them died of a plague, and a few decades later some more people went over...", since stories do tend to settle into a fixed form over time (this is one of the reasons poetry was traditionally used: the rigid structure made it more limited, which reduced the possible mistakes of recitation), but both time before fixing, and time while fixed, will still both tend to mutate and dim.

[Tamri]

I seem to have lost the thread of discussion. So Loroi understand abstraction / abstract design or not? Simply, if not, to understand, as well as to generate a hypothesis, they cannot by definition - are two sides of one and the same ability that we take roots in evolution rather than in a culture as it is strange. Ancient primate abstract thinking was necessary for survival: those who could not identify the tiger in the bushes on a striped tail and silhouette, simply did not survive. Although fiction to the development of science has indirectly ratio, bringing the basic ideas (our cell phones, for example), abstract reasoning allow create a hypothesis and conduct thought experiments, trying to synthesize something new without having this "something "accurate knowledge.

Species has poorly developed abstract thinking, and furthermore it completely devoid of, the creative can not be by definition - simply nothing.

By the way, fiction originated much earlier. Those medieval chivalry novel or the works of ancient philosophers, they have, but by attempts to make sense of reality by means of art years as much as to Homo sapiens, and maybe even more.

[icekatze]

hi hi

There are a lot of different types of truth, and I was just trying to figure out what kinds of motivations and predispositions would lead them to single out allegorical truth as being significantly more deceitful than others, and if there were other kinds of truth that would also be singled out. I suppose I can try to give this one last shot.

It sounds like the Loroi in general respond positively to some kind of view of Positivist Truth, or perhaps Correspondent Truth. But do they believe they have some obtained some form of a priori truth that would allow them to be absolutely objective, or do they allow for some level of subjective truth?

Would a Loroi be offended by the verificationist/anti-realist assertion that: "Science, on the other hand, is better characterised not as a religion, but as a rational process, in which the goal is not the attainment of truth, but the quantification of doubt."

Might a Loroi be offended by the Constructive Truth assertions that truth can be created, rather than only observed and verified? Especially since often times fiction is, in part, an attempt to propagate a social truth. (I'm guessing they have to deal with non-epistemic truths at some point in time, just in training.)

Some reference on some different kinds of truth

[thicket]

don't forget that even true stories get corrupted over time. George Washington never chopped down the cherry tree or tossed a coin over the Potomac river, but 200 years from now, what will the "truth" be? Fact turns to folklore turns to legends turns to myth. Even written stores get altered due to translations between languages since languages change over time. At least this is true with humans. The Loroi, having telepathy and ability to recall with 100% accuracy (at least with some), probably don't have this problem since the exact mental "image" of their historic figures are passed down from generation to generation probably unchanged.

[Tamri]

don't forget that even true stories get corrupted over time. George Washington never chopped down the cherry tree or tossed a coin over the Potomac river, but 200 years from, What will the "truth" be? Fact turns to folklore turns to legends turns to myth. Even written stores get altered due to translations between languages since languages change over time. At least this is true with humans. The Loroi, having telepathy and ability to recall with 100% accuracy (at least with some), probably don't have this problem since the exact mental "image" of their historic figures are passed down from generation to generation probably unchanged.

Not sure about 100% accurate communication. Jim said that Listel "retell" information to each other, but they are still not computers. When transmitting information is likely to be painted in any personal feelings, opinions, feelings, etc. Multiple "retelling" the story, even the most accurate pick a bunch of unnecessary layers from the previous medium, which may significantly affect the meaning and message of the story.

[Suederwind]

Hm... Might be a bit off topic, but I can remember reading a study about old greek stories, like the odyseey or the iliad, how they might have been told and how they might have been preserved in a society without lietrature. The conclusion was, that those old storytellers used things like rimes, isochrony and certain plotpoints, to keep the overall story intact and limit additions to a story to a minimum.
However, one has to keep in mind that such stories, like that of Gilgamesh for example, were told from one generation to another for hundreds of years, before they were written down. Times do change, as do humans and their way of living. What was once considered a luxorious palace might just be considered a cowshed a few hundred years later.
Even a written down story is not immune against additions and changes, just read about the lore story of the Nibelungenlied, for instance.

[Arioch]

As I said at the start, Loroi understand the concept of fiction, but it's not a good fit either with their culture of honesty, or with telepathic communication which is very specific.

It might help to draw a distinction between honesty and "truth." A statement is honest as long as the speaker believes what he is saying. The truth of the statement is still subject to debate.

Telepathic communication includes a lot of extra data, including the source of whatever information is being presented. When communicating telepathically, Loroi do not usually make detached assertions such as "Juliet is dead." Rather, they include information about how they came to that conclusion; "I was told by Friar Laurence that Juliet has killed herself with poison and I believe him," or "I saw Juliet lying in her coffin, motionless, pale, and lifeless. I concluded she is dead." The truth of Juliet being dead may turn out to be false, but these are still honest statements. In general, a Loroi would not be confused or offended by some spoken assertion of abstract truth, because she understands that there is an unspoken "In my opinion" at the beginning of it. (And because Loroi typically regard any spoken assertion as suspect.)

When tales are told person to person, there is a direct connection between the teller and the listener, and the listener can interact, question, and make judgments about the accuracy of the information and the reliability of the speaker (which is then passed along with the next retelling), whereas with the written word, there may be little or no information about the writer (who may be long dead or entirely anonymous) which the reader can use to judge the veracity of the material. Facts can and do drift over many retellings, though to a lesser degree with telepathy because any embellishments or conclusions on the part of the reteller are clearly identified (and because Loroi storytellers have very accurate memories). Some of the oldest Loroi epic tales purport to go back before the time of the loss of high technology, but tales of interstellar war were not always perfectly understood when retold by countless generations of miros herders who had lost the knowledge of iron working, and so some abstractions and interpretations must have occurred over the millennia. But as long as each assertion includes the tag "I was told this by Master Mustardseed, and I believe him," it is still an honest statement.

[Absalom]

don't forget that even true stories get corrupted over time. George Washington never chopped down the cherry tree or tossed a coin over the Potomac river,

Just a note: several of the Washington stories were not only invented, but were intentionally so by the actual founding fathers. The intent was to create a central narrative, roughly equivalent to King Arthur or Charlemagne. The Apotheosis of Washington wasn't painted by accident.

[Tamri]

In other words, they are able to understand abstract design and figment, just do not like him and do not know how to use them. But in this case I do not understand such emotions regarding literature / cinema, especially since they have had prolonged contact with other cultures and should be aware of the difference of cultural traditions stemming from the peculiarities of a particular species. A must for this reaction, as if they saw the first time such a concept. Then what, in the Union of all these? From what?

[Arioch]

In other words, they are able to understand abstract design and figment, just do not like him and do not know how to use them. But in this case I do not understand such emotions regarding literature / cinema, especially since they have had prolonged contact with other cultures and should be aware of the difference of cultural traditions stemming from the peculiarities of a particular species. A must for this reaction, as if they saw the first time such a concept. Then what, in the Union of all these? From what?

If you're referring to the dialogue about Annie Hall, that was meant to be humorous.