Thanks! The idea of multiple umwelts is actually a slightly contentious one, at least between me and my buddy I discuss philosophy with- he holds forth that for any given organism there is only one umwelt, regardless of things like whether it integrates its sensory input or even if the organism is actually a colony organism like a siphonophore, where every organ is actually a different critter all working together. He even holds that an anthill only has a single umwelt, which is actually somewhat mainstream in umwelt related thinking.
Of course, umwelt as a concept is nearly 80 years old, and it starts to break down when it comes in contact with taxonomic questions. Actually defining what the boundaries to a species or a particular organism can somewhat break down some of the underlying assumptions of umwelt.
As for whether non-integrated sensory input would function as a cognitive barrier- I personally think that it depends on the degree of non-integration. If it has a central nervous system analogue that integrates at least some of the input, I think it could achieve higher intelligence even if a great deal of its sensory data isn't integrated. If it's unintegrated to the degree that box jellies are, I'm pretty doubtful.
I touched on the umwelt concept during some research I was doing for my Masters but didn't give much thought back then to how it would apply to colony organisms like ants. I still see organisms like that as having an individual umwelt however, as there is still sensory information they share among themselves regarding the location of resources etc. To my mind, the concept of a shared umwelt would imply each individual is at all times aware of all aspects of the colony which, of course, isn't the case. It's an interesting concept to play with though. There are so many questions in cognitive fields which are exceptionally difficult to realistically answer though. One thing I've always been fascinated by is episodic-like memory which is also exceptionally difficult to prove in animals - I.e. Separating out general associations with a particular object say from recall of a specific event involving that object. I wonder whether we'll ever find a way to address these types of questions?
It's entirely possible we'll find a way to tap into animal brains and read their thoughts someday (terrifying implications for human society going along with that), so perhaps we'll know the answers- but my gut instinct is that we're a long, long way from answering those questions. I think we're still very much in the early days of science in some regards.
Definitely still early days - interestingly one of my animal behaviour profs back in the day reckoned that once we can read animal thoughts we may not find what they have to 'say' all that interesting. As someone who studies behaviour for a living, seeing them do the same exact things day after day, I think she may have a point. But I reckon we're in for some surprises with the likes of dolphins and Cephalopods though :)
Man gains ability to read Dog's thoughts. All Dog things is "arf."
Lol, well from what I've seen of bat eared foxes I'd be expecting something like: Termites? Termites! .....ooh, more termites! More or less on an infinite loop... 😂
Wouldn't surprise me!
Yes, I was going to say, we use language to individuate organisms, and then give an umwelt to each of them, so it would seem that language predates umweltification :P
My "theory of use" is much more inclusive and rational and scientific, I think: There are objective stuff out there. We view only those parts of the stuff that are important to us. So for example I'll view a woman as a sexual object, the lion will view her as a meal, and if we view the object (woman) in only those ways, then it's impossible for me to communicate with the lion, even though we are referring to the same object. And then some philosophers will start talking about how everything is therefore subjective and there's no real objects out there except for what we see, which disappears as soon as we stop looking. To me, it doesn't matter whether we exist or not: the real objective object is the collection of all its possible uses (meal, partner, mother, daughter, and things we never thought about). An object is the totality of possible uses. The more uses we figure out, the closer we are to seeing the object as it really is. Sans those uses, there is no object: anything that exists must be able to be used in some way. Btw, if the lion can, maybe in its hornier moments, see the woman as a sex object, and if I, in my hungrier moments, can see her as a meal, then the lion and I have understood each other.
Anyway, just wanted to give my theory of use in a nutshell! There's plenty more to it. The initial inspiration was the pragmatist maxim (which I consider pure genius), but I've deviated from that substantially since.