counttoatrillion liked this

hatefollows liked this

eclairsandsins liked this

ertherarmy liked this

solwardenclyffe reblogged this from funereal-disease and added:

Like… they don’t have words for sets of common objects? They’re completely incapable of recognizing similarities/sets,...

gortineas liked this

world-cat liked this

wirehead-wannabe liked this

pozgroms reblogged this from genghis-khanye

lizardywizard liked this

karlacton liked this

argumate liked this

somewhere-in-the-dungeon liked this

blashimov liked this

shirube7 reblogged this from argumate and added:

Each object is itself a defined category, though, a scatterplot of observed information grouped together for the sake of...

rotifers liked this

selfreplicatingquinian said: They would need absurd communication bandwidth, or absurd compression to the point of extreme lossiness.

enchantedconsole said: f names, and since the category of all things worth naming is impossible to form without rules, other categories would have to be formed too.

enchantedconsole said: I think for the case of things “breaking” this mind would have a different word for each way that something could break. Still, I don’t think that such a mind is possible because without concepts, there is nothing to differentiate between the chair and the individual chunks of material that comprise the chair. So eventually there would have to be a point where the category of things worth naming is formed. From here other categories can be developed, like the category o