Can dogs think phenominally?

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Meno_ » Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:00 pm

If so, why and how and what does that imply?
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8995
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Sculptor » Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:57 pm

Can you think phenomenally?
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 713
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Mowk » Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:27 am

If so, why and how and what does that imply?

why?: sort of how it looks like life, in it's generalized form works. Spun into that direction as result of unknown forces. There are a vast number of speculations.
how?: Same way we learned it.
it's implication?: A colorful, if brief history.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2298
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Location: In a state of excessive consumption

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby encode_decode » Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:24 am

A few words and thoughts: Typically man separates himself from the animal...To think one needs a mind??? Does a dog have a mind??? Sometimes this separation makes it difficult to answer these questions. In my experience interacting with dogs, it seems like there is something going on in "there". I wonder how big a mental landscape needs to be before it is considered a mind.

Here is something I wrote an hour ago - kinda related:
------------------------------
------------------------------
General Information/Generalized Learning
Discriminative Information/Discriminative Learning
New Information/New Learning
------------------------------
We primarily function based on general information and generalized learning. When we are required to do something more specialized we need discriminative information and discriminative learning. What about when we need to do something new? If we are taking in new information then we need to rely on both generalized and discriminative techniques. We need the means to take in new information; taking in new information requires us to discriminate the old from the new; we essentially need anomaly detection - we detect this anomaly by checking against general information and discriminative information. Once we have detected the anomaly and classified it as new information we can then generalize the new information(ie. assimilate it) and then discriminate the new information(set it aside in its own category).
------------------------------
------------------------------

Google: in a way that is perceptible by the senses or through immediate experience << phenomenally

Dogs experience phenomenally >> if there is a mind in there then the answer is yes(assuming physicalism) dogs think phenomenally

Something to ponder...
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1655
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Sculptor » Sat Apr 10, 2021 12:22 pm

Yes.
My dog is brilliant, she understands so much more than is obvious.

She has a vocabularly: cat, rat, food, treat, ball, kong, walk, pig's ear, oreille de cochon, bed, out, come on, bye-then. sit, paw, lay down, where's squeeky, lead on, stop, Mr Ocado.

There are other words which illicit variable responses, but the above seem to summon up things in her imagination that are clear cut and unambiguous.

Pavlov lacked imagination, and did not understand a dog as a person, but as a lab rat. (rats themselves are far more intelligent that many people credit them).
When the Pavlovian bell is rung, it is not merely a conditioned response that occurs but the dog thinks it is time for food, and the thought of food make the dog's mouth water. The dog imagines food. S/he knows what the bell means, and experiences anticipation. Humans can make thier own mouths water thinking about food, why would the dog have to accept an interpretation any less than a man?
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 713
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Meno_ » Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:34 pm

Sculptor wrote:Can you think phenomenally?



That is the question from the point of view contrary to Descartes' famous dictum : 'cogito ergo sum'

Then the question arises about what thinking consists of, or, at least what is consistent with it?

The implications are tremendous I think, of maybe are becoming so.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8995
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Meno_ » Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:38 pm

encode_decode wrote:A few words and thoughts: Typically man separates himself from the animal...To think one needs a mind??? Does a dog have a mind??? Sometimes this separation makes it difficult to answer these questions. In my experience interacting with dogs, it seems like there is something going on in "there". I wonder how big a mental landscape needs to be before it is considered a mind.

Here is something I wrote an hour ago - kinda related:
------------------------------
------------------------------
General Information/Generalized Learning
Discriminative Information/Discriminative Learning
New Information/New Learning
------------------------------
We primarily function based on general information and generalized learning. When we are required to do something more specialized we need discriminative information and discriminative learning. What about when we need to do something new? If we are taking in new information then we need to rely on both generalized and discriminative techniques. We need the means to take in new information; taking in new information requires us to discriminate the old from the new; we essentially need anomaly detection - we detect this anomaly by checking against general information and discriminative information. Once we have detected the anomaly and classified it as new information we can then generalize the new information(ie. assimilate it) and then discriminate the new information(set it aside in its own category).
------------------------------
------------------------------

Google: in a way that is perceptible by the senses or through immediate experience << phenomenally

Dogs experience phenomenally >> if there is a mind in there then the answer is yes(assuming physicalism) dogs think phenomenally

Something to ponder...



This may take much more looking into and here it occurs that it begs some silmuntanous analysis concurrently specific and general.

Maybe this begs the question some way that correlates to the analog if circularity in though as in Descartes's.


Or maybe he foreshadowed a critical problem phenomenally per se,
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8995
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Meno_ » Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:45 pm

Mowk wrote:If so, why and how and what does that imply?

why?: sort of how it looks like life, in it's generalized form works. Spun into that direction as result of unknown forces. There are a vast number of speculations.
how?: Same way we learned it.
it's implication?: A colorful, if brief history.


The forces spinning the distinction between the intellectualized against the perceived data of sense may be the key. I think some of these conjectures may veer into propositions, proposals or pre postured effects which at times correlate to logical distinctions ( exclusions), pf the go the other way of gathering by force of wit, mode inclusive logical structures? Does this makes sense?
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8995
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby encode_decode » Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:01 pm

Meno_ wrote:This may take much more looking into and here it occurs that it begs some simultaneous analysis concurrently specific and general.

Maybe this begs the question some way that correlates to the analog if circularity in though as in Descartes's.


Or maybe he foreshadowed a critical problem phenomenally per se,

I am not sure if you are aware of this but in my last post, there was a subtle hint of circular reasoning. But this comes under a category of thought I use called: The process of processing information - within this category is this: flawed logics still work in general, especially to basic thinking(but also aids in complex thinking), since a number of related processes have already produced the most accurate and most useful judgments.

But logics is such a dense and complex topic. I am led to believe that it is also relatively new(that is the combining of logics) but incredibly useful.

Regarding Descartes': "Phenomenology is discussed as a way of disrupting Descartes' visions of clarity and distinctness as paradigms of knowledge and as a return of inquiry to life as it is actually lived." << I grabbed this quickly from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00367745 because at the moment at least, my mind is in a completely different place. My sincere apologies for that.

:lol:

We can at least perhaps laugh at this last part.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1655
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Meno_ » Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:21 am

encode_decode wrote:
Meno_ wrote:This may take much more looking into and here it occurs that it begs some simultaneous analysis concurrently specific and general.

Maybe this begs the question some way that correlates to the analog if circularity in though as in Descartes's.


Or maybe he foreshadowed a critical problem phenomenally per se,

I am not sure if you are aware of this but in my last post, there was a subtle hint of circular reasoning. But this comes under a category of thought I use called: The process of processing information - within this category is this: flawed logics still work in general, especially to basic thinking(but also aids in complex thinking), since a number of related processes have already produced the most accurate and most useful judgments.

But logics is such a dense and complex topic. I am led to believe that it is also relatively new(that is the combining of logics) but incredibly useful.

Regarding Descartes': "Phenomenology is discussed as a way of disrupting Descartes' visions of clarity and distinctness as paradigms of knowledge and as a return of inquiry to life as it is actually lived." << I grabbed this quickly from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00367745 because at the moment at least, my mind is in a completely different place. My sincere apologies for that.

:lol:

We can at least perhaps laugh at this last part.






No, I was not aware of Your reference to circularity as compatible to the cogito. Could You refresh it's location?


Enclosed is a snipett to the ontological - ontic reference:


"Asking from the truth of Cogito as the basis of knowledge, this paper tries to analyze all possible answers in Descartes’ philosophy. Inductively, four possible answers are open to consideration: either Cogito is true 1) based on argumentation, 2) because it is clear and distinct, 3) because of being innate, or, lastly, 4) because of intuition. All of these explanations either entail accepting some prior knowledge to Cogito or fall in a vicious circle. A proper way to explain Cogito’s truth is a new perspective to the meaning of intuition in Descartes’ philosophy. Through this perspective Cogito is a presential experience. Lack of any gap, separation, and disjunction in this presential experience is the reason for the truth of Cogito because this lack is the lack of error’s cause."

This is from an Iranian U. reappraisal of Descartes



But what I am trying to get at here OS the dog metaphor, ans a cognitive philosophy, as it may refer to Your procedure of comparitive inquiry to some structural basis between general and specific signs or languages, if understood correctly.

If this anology is applicable, then the basis of 'esse est percipii' and 'cogito ergo sum' can be reassesses ( as is done by enclosed summary); in order by definition prevent the circularity mentioned, on the same basis.

Definitive rejection may have overlooked this defining charactefistic, and as You back owledge as well.

Of course close to the middle ages, a draw toward more general ideas have yet hundreds of years to go until they realize into propositional validation- ( the positivists emergance of similarity over identity), so thought can not inhabit the brain functions of dogs using the mind of Man whose general ideas can not rise into that general level, irrespective to a subsistent, possible association of that level of logistics.

Therefore such obtuse use of sensibility, could not have connected a possible motive of some logical association from an animal behavior to a significant chain of meaningfully exhibited thinking process.

However, looking back with the use of a definite description, or map of cognitive tracing, such connections may come to be retro- constructed, in which case that may mean a sort of an emergence to validate reversal to the deconstruction to establish new found validity in meaning, of course strictly on the basis of intuition and the such as described in same said article attached above.

The effort to rise above the enthropic , deconstructive process, may yet hold to new paradigmn of establishing a rising level of the eidectic reduction, infecting the phenomenal reduction as analog-ically probable.

If this be the case, then, communication between man and dig would/could indicate levels of differing cognitions between the cognative and the phenominalogical, and raising the intent if Descartes' cogito to more figurative levels , possessing a hidden objective then previously figured, and reduced toward a literal and contradictory effect through an unavoidable circularity.


That we can , retroactively rise to a reactive laughable position will then become a very good possibility, and the verbal communication of Dr. Lilly, with dolphins, adopted by the US navy , is the best example I can think of in the kind of relevance found here.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8995
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Meno_ » Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:30 am

https://medium.com/predict/john-c-lilly ... b7e41e3d6f


Note: just cited the article mining for main, general points of reference, and the latter parts turn to almost sci fi , therefore may not relate except having some almost entertainment value.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8995
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby encode_decode » Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:54 pm

Meno_ wrote:Definitive rejection may have overlooked this defining charactefistic, and as You back owledge as well.

I just need to confirm whether "owledge " is a typo. I have spent time considering the rest of what you say but just need a clarification on this, please.

Thank you. :D
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1655
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Meno_ » Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:13 pm

encode_decode wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Definitive rejection may have overlooked this defining charactefistic, and as You back owledge as well.

I just need to confirm whether "owledge " is a typo. I have spent time considering the rest of what you say but just need a clarification on this, please.

Thank you. :D




Sorry, it is a typo, .....thank You for Your time and I mean that in a positive way.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8995
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Sculptor » Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:12 pm

Meno_ wrote:
Sculptor wrote:Can you think phenomenally?



That is the question from the point of view contrary to Descartes' famous dictum : 'cogito ergo sum'

Then the question arises about what thinking consists of, or, at least what is consistent with it?

The implications are tremendous I think, of maybe are becoming so.


Is that a no?

YTou did not respond to my personal evidence!

My dog is brilliant, she understands so much more than is obvious.

She has a vocabularly: cat, rat, food, treat, ball, kong, walk, pig's ear, oreille de cochon, bed, out, come on, bye-then. sit, paw, lay down, where's squeeky, lead on, stop, Mr Ocado.

There are other words which illicit variable responses, but the above seem to summon up things in her imagination that are clear cut and unambiguous.

Pavlov lacked imagination, and did not understand a dog as a person, but as a lab rat. (rats themselves are far more intelligent that many people credit them).
When the Pavlovian bell is rung, it is not merely a conditioned response that occurs but the dog thinks it is time for food, and the thought of food make the dog's mouth water. The dog imagines food. S/he knows what the bell means, and experiences anticipation. Humans can make thier own mouths water thinking about food, why would the dog have to accept an interpretation any less than a man?
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 713
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Meno_ » Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:13 am

Sculptor wrote:
Meno_ wrote:
Sculptor wrote:Can you think phenomenally?



That is the question from the point of view contrary to Descartes' famous dictum : 'cogito ergo sum'

Then the question arises about what thinking consists of, or, at least what is consistent with it?

The implications are tremendous I think, of maybe are becoming so.


Is that a no?

YTou did not respond to my personal evidence!

My dog is brilliant, she understands so much more than is obvious.

She has a vocabularly: cat, rat, food, treat, ball, kong, walk, pig's ear, oreille de cochon, bed, out, come on, bye-then. sit, paw, lay down, where's squeeky, lead on, stop, Mr Ocado.

There are other words which illicit variable responses, but the above seem to summon up things in her imagination that are clear cut and unambiguous.

Pavlov lacked imagination, and did not understand a dog as a person, but as a lab rat. (rats themselves are far more intelligent that many people credit them).
When the Pavlovian bell is rung, it is not merely a conditioned response that occurs but the dog thinks it is time for food, and the thought of food make the dog's mouth water. The dog imagines food. S/he knows what the bell means, and experiences anticipation. Humans can make thier own mouths water thinking about food, why would the dog have to accept an interpretation any less than a man?




Yes I agree having them throughout my life.


There weed 3 significant digs in my life, a large sheepherder, a breed escapes me but will look it up, a very big dog, and then Irish Setters occupying my consciousness in adilescence, and lately a dog which acquired a bad reputation: a breed I seem to forget, but will fill in later.



The fact is and the idea i am trying to entertain, is, that digs do 'think' but in a way that doesen't require then to form non instinctive markers very much removed from immediate set borders of existential concerns of survival


They cannot relate to other dogs in terms other than sexual coupling or the care and safety of offspring.

Secondarily, their relation to their owners relates to their own survival, and granted in and through Pavlovian conditioned education.

So as a refrain, digs manage to relate through mode general, cuws of signals, through basic signs of effect.

Their affected responses are merely that slippery slope between effect and affect, that escapes dineation.



Masters imbue an anoulmous sense of non-deciphefable uncertainty between effect and affect, as if animals suffered from somilad confusions.

Why the disparity between man and animal?
Why would the dog expect less then man?


That's good, and i hazard that dog somehow appreciated it's subssr giant condition.It never realizes conditioning via reward as a 'condition' of it's existence, whereas human beings have nit yet realized that his masters can emulate the same.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8995
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby encode_decode » Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:49 am

It is possible that the dog can have fleeting thoughts...

for example: "cat eat my food"

>> potentially actuating the emotional center

"growl, growl growl"

In other words: "Get away from my food"

you know, kinda like the way we imagine(perceive) caveman talk.

basic language..basic thinking..basic knowledge
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1655
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby encode_decode » Tue Apr 13, 2021 6:10 am

Meno_ wrote:The fact is and the idea i am trying to entertain, is, that digs do 'think' but in a way that doesen't require then to form non instinctive markers very much removed from immediate set borders of existential concerns of survival

Honestly, we think about instinct in a pre-conditioned way - there are infinite ways to think about thought just as there are infinite thoughts. We mostly follow the definition of instinct that is commonly known. The systems that give rise to thought are preconditioned just as instinct is pre-conditioned the same way(at the hardware level, so to speak )- maybe one in the same. The neocortex in dogs is there for a reason just as the basal ganglia is there for a reason.

I saw an experiment on a lab rodent where they connected wires to the neocortex to study the spatial reasoning of the rodent.

The subject of my thought however is not the neocortex - just that whether it is the basal ganglia or the neocortex, nature has converged in the instance of dog and human with its ideas for these things and more, just like eyes and ears.

Utterances of thought :D
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1655
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Meno_ » Tue Apr 13, 2021 6:39 am

Perhaps a further fine tuning to more specific content can be gained by replacing 'instinct' with automatic behavior.

In that way some interveaning ganglia may morph into the more general cognitive function, .

That is what I get from Your pre-existent cognitive mapping of instinct.

Automatic seems more of a transitional function through learning rather then pure instinctive behavior, that may be viewed as some given at certain levels of morphology, leaving the learning process more like a series of validations of hypothetical summations at each level.

Which may beg the question of learning being a repetitive review of various newly formed coalesced or reified structurally reduced toward lower symbolic levels.

Not that lab demonstrations are not useful, but they only affirm the learned reduction through memory storage.

I would think a lot of lab work with the cognitive basis of dogs' faculties are done to validate the hypothetical assumptions underlying them.

A lot of Russian research with dogs, and of course Pavlov setting the trend.


My approach bases is mode intuitive, and again begs where general hypotheticals about brain-mind function actually come from ,
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8995
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby encode_decode » Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:27 am

I am happy :D
Meno_ wrote:Perhaps a further fine tuning to more specific content can be gained by replacing 'instinct' with automatic behavior.

Agreed - this is a technique I use often and I believe all the greats would have similarly been this way. I try not to delude myself; It is of course important to place a reasonable amount of faith in established science and philosophy since they have reached functional conclusions already(establishing usable facts). But it should be known that work in philosophy and science is not even close to being complete - each one of these alone is more than any man can comfortably handle. As you already know(I will place it here however for anyone else who is reading that may not be aware): remaining grounded outside of theory is important.

Meno_ wrote:In that way some interveaning ganglia may morph into the more general cognitive function, .

That is what I get from Your pre-existent cognitive mapping of instinct.

Not that lab demonstrations are not useful, but they only affirm the learned reduction through memory storage.

I would think a lot of lab work with the cognitive basis of dogs' faculties are done to validate the hypothetical assumptions underlying them.

A lot of Russian research with dogs, and of course Pavlov setting the trend.


My approach bases is mode intuitive, and again begs where general hypotheticals about brain-mind function actually come from,

Yes, I agree. I am glad you are being level-headed about this. As we have witnessed, some people lose themselves into their own theories and negate already useful and functional theories previously developed by other philosophers and scientists(it is also worth noting and some scientists have closed their mind to philosophical inquiry(being lost to established functional theory))).

Yes, it would not make sense to think that basal ganglia and neocortex are not connected in some way. This makes about as much sense as to believe that the mind and brain are not connected. Given that we have both psychology and neuroscience that are very useful already in terms of real world application. It is just that the lay person is ready to accept established knowledge over the anomalous of the new. To say that the triune brain is interconnected with morphological processes happening all the time is I believe a statement of true but not fully established fact - intuitively we can already see that this is making sense.

What you are getting from my pre-existent cognitive mapping is exactly what I had intended to be understood.

Meno_ wrote:Automatic seems more of a transitional function through learning rather then pure instinctive behavior, that may be viewed as some given at certain levels of morphology, leaving the learning process more like a series of validations of hypothetical summations at each level.

Truly, I believe the concept of the instinctive to be useful but I do not think that it has been put into its proper place. It is good to have a point of reference that other things can emanate from >> but to be emitted rather than produced by. These levels of morphology are perhaps waiting to be discovered - inferences begin at a very low level, I already have proof of this through the use of artificial neural networks that essentially use vectors(tensors) to refer to dictionaries and are trained as such to take the dictionaries and make meaning from them. The network itself has no concept of each word - meaning comes from an arrangement of numbers representing distance and relation. Dictionaries are built through training - they are not there before training - words are learned through training. Dictionaries are contained within the mind and not physically arranged like our lay concept of the dictionary(this is the same in real life - each man contains a lot of dictionaries). All of this comes about from seeds and roots - metaphorically speaking of course. We know that when we plant a seed it is already pre-programmed to produce something more amazing than itself. The hardware and later the software are the seeds(ambiguous since hardware can contain the concept of pre-programmed roots) and roots respectively. Another way to think of this is in the format of a substrate containing similar principles that have already been discussed.

Meno_ wrote:Which may beg the question of learning being a repetitive review of various newly formed coalesced or reified structurally reduced toward lower symbolic levels.

You hit the nail on the head Meno, therefore I will not comment directly on this but rather make an extension of previously mentioned material. The aforementioned vectors(>>tensors) have carry over information from previous vectors in the sequence and produce relations between the higher and lower levels - storing somewhere in there, representations of many sorts. Newly formed coalesced knowledge is formed through transfer-relations based on old knowledge - we are talking about generalized learning.

Side quote: "Transfer effects are found when learning one task either facilitates (positive transfer) or interferes with (negative transfer) learning the second task."
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/transfer-effect

I think I have stated on ILP before along the lines that instinct need not be removed from higher-level functions << not in these exact words -- more like >> existence need not be removed from its seeds and roots << but again not in these exact words. The point I am trying to make is that we can completely miss new learning opportunities by too often thinking about things in a pre-conditioned way. It is clear that thinking in a preconditioned way is not how those who make discoveries(all of us) are thinking at the time of the discovery and part of the period leading up to the discovery.

We also have to entertain the idea that some essential knowledge is passed down through genetic information - trial and error based upon the whole survival of the fittest and evolutionary concepts.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1655
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Sculptor » Tue Apr 13, 2021 2:35 pm

Meno_ wrote:
Sculptor wrote:
Meno_ wrote:
That is the question from the point of view contrary to Descartes' famous dictum : 'cogito ergo sum'

Then the question arises about what thinking consists of, or, at least what is consistent with it?

The implications are tremendous I think, of maybe are becoming so.


Is that a no?

YTou did not respond to my personal evidence!

My dog is brilliant, she understands so much more than is obvious.

She has a vocabularly: cat, rat, food, treat, ball, kong, walk, pig's ear, oreille de cochon, bed, out, come on, bye-then. sit, paw, lay down, where's squeeky, lead on, stop, Mr Ocado.

There are other words which illicit variable responses, but the above seem to summon up things in her imagination that are clear cut and unambiguous.

Pavlov lacked imagination, and did not understand a dog as a person, but as a lab rat. (rats themselves are far more intelligent that many people credit them).
When the Pavlovian bell is rung, it is not merely a conditioned response that occurs but the dog thinks it is time for food, and the thought of food make the dog's mouth water. The dog imagines food. S/he knows what the bell means, and experiences anticipation. Humans can make thier own mouths water thinking about food, why would the dog have to accept an interpretation any less than a man?




Yes I agree having them throughout my life.


There weed 3 significant digs in my life, a large sheepherder, a breed escapes me but will look it up, a very big dog, and then Irish Setters occupying my consciousness in adilescence, and lately a dog which acquired a bad reputation: a breed I seem to forget, but will fill in later.



The fact is and the idea i am trying to entertain, is, that digs do 'think' but in a way that doesen't require then to form non instinctive markers very much removed from immediate set borders of existential concerns of survival


They cannot relate to other dogs in terms other than sexual coupling or the care and safety of offspring.

I disagree wholeheartedly here.
My dog is highly sociable. She does not know about Darwin so is not concerned with offspring or coupling, nor does she persue maximal "survival behaviour".
And this is how it should be. Natural Selection has ensured the preservation of traits, as well as traits that have little or no bearing on mating ot survival. Natural and "Domestic Selection" (which is far more apt) provides her with feelings. She feels she needs to make friends with almost everyone. It provides her with feeling like she wants food. Were she to have an unlimited supply she would eat until she was sick and end up killing herself from obesity.
She has her special doggy friends, and others that she would be more interested in if they were more interested in her - this is all very human as far as I can see.


Secondarily, their relation to their owners relates to their own survival, and granted in and through Pavlovian conditioned education.

I disagree again.
She feels the need to be social and needs companionship. She has no alterior motive and has no understanding of survival in any sense.

So as a refrain, digs manage to relate through mode general, cuws of signals, through basic signs of effect.

Their affected responses are merely that slippery slope between effect and affect, that escapes dineation.



Masters imbue an anoulmous sense of non-deciphefable uncertainty between effect and affect, as if animals suffered from somilad confusions.

Why the disparity between man and animal?
Why would the dog expect less then man?


That's good, and i hazard that dog somehow appreciated it's subssr giant condition.It never realizes conditioning via reward as a 'condition' of it's existence, whereas human beings have nit yet realized that his masters can emulate the same.


You could, if you wanted ,also reduce human behaviour to survival. But how poor would such a view be?
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 713
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Meno_ » Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:32 pm

Well yes, point taken but as poor as it is, fact is, that existential survival does measure in toward the efforts of being fit to overcome the hazards and hardships of life by a primary will , where the only the fittest survive.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8995
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Sculptor » Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:44 pm

Meno_ wrote:Well yes, point taken but as poor as it is, fact is, that existential survival does measure in toward the efforts of being fit to overcome the hazards and hardships of life by a primary will , where the only the fittest survive.

But does not begin to address the THREAD subject.

And actually unfit dogs are common survivors. Like humans they have the benifts of health care.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 713
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Otto » Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:34 am

@ Meno.

"Can dogs think phenomenally?"

A note on language:

The question is not only whether dogs know and use a vocabulary, beacuse the question is also whether they furthermore use a grammar and thus a language, a dog language.

It's not only a vocabulary, it's even a grammar, albeit a very primitive grammar. Moreover, even a vocabulary is of no use at all without meaning and the grammatical linking of these meanings. All this must have a sense. All creatures have to do with a meaning. Life differs from death by sense.

Inorganic systems have no sense (besides a possible metaphysical one), but organic systems (systems of life) would not exist at all without sense, so they need a sense.

This implies that at least the higher creatures have a more complex grammar than the lower creatures. But all these grammars are of course as good as nothing if one compares them with the grammar of the human language.

The word "vocabulary" here must not be understood humanly; also the word "word" must not be understood according to human language.

The dog, which is to be talked about here in this thread, does not understand the human language as a "human language". For example: "Words" - regardless which one of them - are not understandable for the dog as "words", but as something that the phonetic sequence means to the dog. The dog hears sounds that mean something, and relates - i.e. interprets - them in/to "dog language", which in turn is based on what the dog has experienced; e.g.: "ball" means then approximately: "my master and I go outside and play there with the ball" or "I will fetch the ball, because I should/want to fetch the ball" etc.. The phonetic series "ball" means all this and much more to the dog. And in any case it means a good thing/situation.

So indeed, a creature’s language is just a very, very, very simple language, but a simple language - regardless how simple it is - is a language. Needed for a language are signs, consisting of the signifier and the signified, as well as their meanings (semantics) and relations as rules (grammar).
User avatar
Otto
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:53 pm

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby encode_decode » Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:48 am

A thoughtful and concise post Otto. I know you were communicating with Meno and not me but something caught my eye. I hope you don't mind me interjecting.

Otto wrote:Inorganic systems have no sense (besides a possible metaphysical one), but organic systems (systems of life) would not exist at all without sense, so they need a sense.

Are you talking about external sense here?

I am also curious what you mean by inorganic systems.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1655
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Sculptor » Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:41 pm

Otto wrote:@ Meno.

"Can dogs think phenomenally?"

A note on language:

The question is not only whether dogs know and use a vocabulary, beacuse the question is also whether they furthermore use a grammar and thus a language, a dog language.

It's not only a vocabulary, it's even a grammar, albeit a very primitive grammar. Moreover, even a vocabulary is of no use at all without meaning and the grammatical linking of these meanings. All this must have a sense. All creatures have to do with a meaning. Life differs from death by sense.


There is a grammar of scent and body language dogs have that we cannot be party to,
When dogs learn human words, as they do, they are learning not only a foreign language but a xenomorphic one.
They have also evolved a system of barks, and other noises that no other similar species has, and relate directly to their human-dog interaction.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 713
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Next

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users