lol
anywhays
in other news, tired of click bait about dimensions
Don’t be lieve in it. Switch then bait.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
will get in 2 the bot to most of it.
it’s near to far.
2 fail to in 2 4rm
“transubstantiation, in Christianity, the change by which the substance (though not the appearance) of the bread and wine in the Eucharist becomes Christ’s real presence—that is, his body and blood.”
Nice. =D>
Maybe your smart dog is even more intelligent than Sabine Hossenfelder. 
Mithus, do you know that some ILP posters think you are Sabine Hossenfelder?
This thread has been silent for sometime.
It went dead because the person starting the thread showed no evidence of understanding what "phenominally " meant.
So let’s assume that s/he meant phenomenally. What does the word mean in the context of canine thinking?
I suppose when this question gets answered, then the tread could grow into something worthwhile.
So what is phenomenal thinking?
If I may offer a suggestion, why don’t you simply state what you think would be worth discussing?
That way if someone jumps in you can have the discussion that you feel would be interesting rather than ask and risk the answer being boring…
I, for example, could care less about dogs…
But would be interested in asking how do we know anyone aside from us has a subjective qualitative experience and how we might attempt to answer that question…
That epistemic discussion would then be applicable to dogs, cats and rats, I imagine… but also people and AI and everything else.
And that’s all phenomenology is at bottom; adopting epistemic nihilism for the sake of reinventing the wheel… to see if it can come out looking any different.
Spoiler alert: It does not.
Missing one letter in a word, is an abjectively insufficient demonstration of a misunderstood use of a word, and the reason behind using it, although such misuse can lead noticeable carelessness of intended meaning.
As to how such meaning was or could have showed total misunderstanding of the use of phenomenally, has not been arguably shown to be factual, even apart from without a contextually intended derivation.
That dogs can think at all is a challenging immersion into the journey of the subjective mind, how that can even occur in humans, most of all how behavior of canines can induce cognitive processes , as a kind of parellel observation between species, as it evolves into understanding.
Apparently obedience is a factor of intelligence… at least with the way dogs learn, maybe?
thesmartcanine.com/are-german-shepherds-smart/
If it is also part of how children learn, one can see why a strong reactance response (as in oppositional defiance) would impede learning in childhood, unless the child gravitates to their interests from an internal locus of control tempered by … trauma, or an adult with a Socratic, evocative teaching style.
So back to square one, thinking as, through behavior.
The blank slate is only blank for a reason Socrates would be the first to help see
Socrates would initiate the dialogue & not shy away from it.
My objection to your thread is not based on your typographical error though that might indicate the degree with which you have failed to think sufficiently about the topic.
My objection was your abject failure to say what you meant about it; about what is phenomenal thinking.
And, of course here again you fail to take the opportunity to explain what you mean.
There is no challenge to the idea that dogs can think, anymore that it is a challenge to think that any human can think. They do.
So what do you actually mean by the phrase?
What the F do you mean “phenomenal”?
THere is no blank state. There are aspect of “blank” capacity, though
We all come equipped with neural structure. Human possibly less than other creatures, and this may be our USP.
But the fact that dogs learn is evidence of some “blankness”.
All mammalian babies know to find a milk producing nipple, and they know what to do with it.
But all mammals also have the capacity to respond to events and learn.
I think that answers the question but I cannot tell since Meno seems incapable of clarifying what he is trying to ask
So breed and training both influence a dog’s personality… as with humans. Animal cruelty laws do not specify breed. Just a side note. Interesting how they aren’t applied the same to human animals.
Also triggers Kant’s universalizing action, whereas universalized action (without being checked by self=other logic) … results in bad character, or vice. For example… bringing up bad examples/illustrations that Kant never would’ve used, like telling a would-be murderer where their victim is at, prioritizing truth over life. If life is not the true point, what is the point of truth? Prove me wrong.
The Russians did the work on dogs, wolfs and Foxes. After the Russians , Hungarian researchers continued and it has been shown that epiphenomenological change through decades of in breeding traits caused genetic adaptative alternations
Coren is a Canadian, but sure, it’s a global conspiracy. Of foodogs.
Ref: eotvos roland
His pendulum is like rock dowsing… what depths are you plumbing?
Why so obsessed with Hungarians?
Were you more clear in making a proposition I would be happy to comply.