This doesn’t sound like a fallacy. I think the word Elizer going for with the monster was anthropomorphism (we already have a word for it), “mind projection fallacy” isn’t a real fallacy. We humans do have a tendency to assign human characteristics to non-human things.
If you want to make this a fallacy you’d have to throw out rationality because that’s our minds attempting to make sense of reality using everything we’ve developed.
As for wanting them to be a person...they are. If they weren’t I’d doubt you’d be talking to them.
There are “levels” to reality as well, roughly speaking (though even calling it “levelless” is itself another human view of reality, one of many). Reality is not levelless and TBH to think that one can step outside of everything to see the truth is hubris. All we really do is model reality to navigate it as best we can, any claim to capital T truth is unwarranted IMO.
Though you clearly attribute mind to them if you are not only describing them but also posting to people here. Language is an explicitly public sphere of communication after all, a private language would be incoherent.
Lastly, I think his media analysis is a bit shallow to assume we think the monster is taking it because the lady is attractive. One possible view is that it takes what we hold dear and value, to highlight how truly monstrous it is. I mean...it is a movie or comic someone made, so they can set whatever rules they want for what’s going on. It’s not really an example of any fallacy.
PS: The idea of “levelless” reality was already explored quite extensively in Eastern philosophy, though their view is extremely nuanced and difficult to explain without the actual experience. Suffice to say it’s something along the lines of “it both has levels and it doesn’t”.
In fact if you want an arguably better explained view of what Elizer is trying to say here, Buddhism beat him to it. The notion of “projecting mind onto reality” is thousands of years old, he’s literally just making a worse version of their argument.
This doesn’t sound like a fallacy. I think the word Elizer going for with the monster was anthropomorphism (we already have a word for it), “mind projection fallacy” isn’t a real fallacy. We humans do have a tendency to assign human characteristics to non-human things.
If you want to make this a fallacy you’d have to throw out rationality because that’s our minds attempting to make sense of reality using everything we’ve developed.
As for wanting them to be a person...they are. If they weren’t I’d doubt you’d be talking to them.
There are “levels” to reality as well, roughly speaking (though even calling it “levelless” is itself another human view of reality, one of many). Reality is not levelless and TBH to think that one can step outside of everything to see the truth is hubris. All we really do is model reality to navigate it as best we can, any claim to capital T truth is unwarranted IMO.
Though you clearly attribute mind to them if you are not only describing them but also posting to people here. Language is an explicitly public sphere of communication after all, a private language would be incoherent.
Lastly, I think his media analysis is a bit shallow to assume we think the monster is taking it because the lady is attractive. One possible view is that it takes what we hold dear and value, to highlight how truly monstrous it is. I mean...it is a movie or comic someone made, so they can set whatever rules they want for what’s going on. It’s not really an example of any fallacy.
PS: The idea of “levelless” reality was already explored quite extensively in Eastern philosophy, though their view is extremely nuanced and difficult to explain without the actual experience. Suffice to say it’s something along the lines of “it both has levels and it doesn’t”.
In fact if you want an arguably better explained view of what Elizer is trying to say here, Buddhism beat him to it. The notion of “projecting mind onto reality” is thousands of years old, he’s literally just making a worse version of their argument.