Photo by Tom Frances Palattao on Unsplash

Photo by Tom Frances Palattao on Unsplash

I have always wondered if we truly understand what the other person is communicating. When I say, “it tastes so good,” “it is the best,” or “it is unbearable” — does the other person truly understand? Is my “unbearable” the same as the other person’s “unbearable”?

The Need 
The need to “feel” understood is one of the primitive needs for humans — to be seen. To have one’s existence witnessed.

The Feeling 
What is “feeling”? It is an acknowledgement of my current state and naming it. Is this naming accurate? It doesn’t matter. Can it be transmitted without loss of intensity to another? Probably not. But, even if it could be, do we have the capability to do so? I don’t think so.

We take it for granted that others understand the intensity of our feeling. For example, “I’m extremely happy”. Are we sure that we expressed the exact measure of “extreme”-ness in the statement? There is no universal understanding of the intensity of what you feel. It is because every person understands in their own unique way.

The Understanding 
What is understanding? When I’m undergoing an emotion, how do I transmit how I’m processing (“feeling”) it, to you, so that you feel how I really “feel”? Sort of Intensity transfer, if you like. I think that is understanding. But it has a prerequisite: You must have felt what I’m feeling — with the “same” intensity, in order for you to truly understand what I’m feeling.

The Intensity 
What do “most” and “very” mean? We’ve established understanding and feeling. Let us focus on understanding the intensity of that feeling. When I say I’m deeply hurt, the meaning of “deeply” is never transmitted by me but inferred by “you.” How? Based on your experience. So tell me, do you understand the intensity of my feeling? Yes. But, in your own terms. Your understanding will be shaped by what you have experienced as “deeply” in your personal experience.

Qualia — are the subjective, first-person “raw feels” or internal, phenomenal experiences of perception, such as the specific redness of a rose, the sting of pain, or the taste of salt. They are considered intrinsic, non-intentional, and directly accessible via introspection, defining “what it is like” to have a particular experience.

Feeling Intensity Exchange 
Thinking about this mismatch and ways to address it, why not have an intensity exchange like currency exchanges? Say: 1 EUR = 1.6 AUD. To truly address this issue, you should have a massive exchange where there is a conversion rate for every individual. Me ⇄ You conversion rate, something like, My: very = Your: very *1.4 or Your:ecstatic = My:ecstatic * 1.2

How is the exchange rate decided? Based on what? Based on what you and I experience in life. It could have nothing to do with our mutual interactions — it could be totally different interactions you or I have with others around us. And thus, these rates fluctuate and there is no single or predictable reason why they do.

Who is responsible for the intrinsic value of intensity? 
The often overlooked aspect is who assigns these values. It is never the sender and always the receiver. If my “you have upset me” is lighter than your value of “you have upset me,” I may not mind too much or be affected much. In effect, you may not see a reaction from me that is in proportion to what you would reasonably expect. It can be the other way around, too.

Back to the topic of this discussion — Will we be able to truly understand someone’s intensity of feeling? 
Although we can understand others, we don’t have a mechanism to understand how intensely someone feels. The only means to understand another’s feeling and its intensity is to equate it with our own version that we would have developed from our lived experience. No two people have the same life experience, and they will inherently have a different way of perceiving the same intensity of a feeling. That convinces me. We can never truly understand how intensely another person feels.

An aside — Does AI really need to understand at all? 
An interesting angle to this discussion is AI. Everyone talks about AI — why not us? I’ve often heard discussions that AI can’t “feel” or “understand.” Agreed, it is — if given a very fundamental, oversimplified explanation — essentially a next token prediction tool. My argument is: when humans can operate without truly understanding how others “feel,” why would you expect AI to do so, and why call that out as a key differentiator between AI and humans?

So, can we really understand the intensity of others’ feelings? 
I personally think it is not possible. We don’t have the faculties or mechanisms to understand the intensity of others’ feelings in any way other than through our own personal experience.

Maybe we should just accept that.