I don't see how you can make a meaningful statement about what the creature may or may not know with any real substantiation. I don't believe Crater said anything about its age and we have no way of knowing how that might relate proportionally to the normal life span of the species. Did he say that it was dying when he first encountered it or did that occur only after it had killed his wife? Regardless, this individual had a life before Crater's arrival and may have known others of its kind before they succumbed to starvation, or perhaps were killed perhaps by this survivor.
Further, what do you base the supposition that nothing could be communicated by the creature, or as you put it, insight "coming back into being". What does that mean? That it might have known somethings of substance in the past, but had forgotten them? I can't really tell what you're getting at. Crater claimed that it was intelligent and one wonders what kind or quality of communication had passed between them. over time. It's possible that it didn't possess the ability to speak, but in the type of controlled environment I described above, one that safely prolonged the creature's life, why wouldn't it be possible for it to simply assume anyone's appearance and be able to verbalize the story of its own life, even if one concurs with your contention that it knows nothing of consequence of the history and culture of its species generally. I doubt that the creature would consider that torture compared with what, in fact, happened to it.
While not a scattershot comment on the breadth and range of your knowledge generally, I find it disconcerting that with some frequency, you make these authoritative sounding statements that in reality, have nothing actually shown that provides any verification for their thesis, rendering them as nothing more than the type of suppositions anyone might make about the subject, save the fact that the lacquer of gravitas and obviousness that you apply to them, perhaps makes you prone to believe that they are less likely to be questioned than those of others.
Further, what do you base the supposition that nothing could be communicated by the creature, or as you put it, insight "coming back into being". What does that mean? That it might have known somethings of substance in the past, but had forgotten them? I can't really tell what you're getting at. Crater claimed that it was intelligent and one wonders what kind or quality of communication had passed between them. over time. It's possible that it didn't possess the ability to speak, but in the type of controlled environment I described above, one that safely prolonged the creature's life, why wouldn't it be possible for it to simply assume anyone's appearance and be able to verbalize the story of its own life, even if one concurs with your contention that it knows nothing of consequence of the history and culture of its species generally. I doubt that the creature would consider that torture compared with what, in fact, happened to it.
While not a scattershot comment on the breadth and range of your knowledge generally, I find it disconcerting that with some frequency, you make these authoritative sounding statements that in reality, have nothing actually shown that provides any verification for their thesis, rendering them as nothing more than the type of suppositions anyone might make about the subject, save the fact that the lacquer of gravitas and obviousness that you apply to them, perhaps makes you prone to believe that they are less likely to be questioned than those of others.
