Can dogs think phenominally?

[Bella_fekete_2]

@Bella fekete 2

@Ichthus77

“Presupposing the capability to self=other each other

& making everything we do pivot that”

This is truer then not, the difference between sentient and dog beings share similar frames, then not, based on evidence of genetic changes due to random alteration of habitual recognition of pattern variation, which , in turn , will alter behavior over a noticable duration.

basically

The proceeding continuum from simple mitosis to progressively complex sexual selection does not proceed in a linear method, but varies within variable frames , that leave markers( genetic) -in their wake.

On backward trace, these variances are usually reviewed using mathematical interpretations of mean distributive patterns to correspond with llimited scopes of interbreeding, therefore breeds inside the specific breed will tally different sets of figures, from within that specific breed, whereas out of that breed , the variability of specific breeding will lack the corresponding sets of genetic markers that would be required to ascertain the evolutionary factors that could determine the characteristics which would change those precise markers within the duration of change.

Since evolution of ‘dog’ has many traits which have come long since could be recognized, the major changes entail more variety that could be perceived.

That such changes preclude or outsource any changes presupposed from inside the aggregate bred lines, a prelingual communication should be presupposed then not.

The reduced phenomenal ‘thinking’ could avert into the problem of sentient inquiery into how would dogs think phenomenally, and this is a far and wide guess, as to whether Levi Bruhl’s contention of a mystical participation could also be applied, as it is to human beings.

Worth a look.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

If an animal is acting bothered when you aren’t, pay attention. Same if they aren’t, and you are. They are a good bellweather, unless they were severely mistreated into ptsd. That’s why some breeds of animal make great emotional (& other) support animals.

I don’t think Balaam was hallucinating either of three times the donkey avoided the angel. Why did it take the donkey talking verbally for Balaam to listen?

There is a voice for the voiceless — in the end, it will be heard by everyone.

You don’t have to have laryngitis or be neurally atypical to be considered voiceless.

It’s “funny” how we assume neurotypical humans who keep their mouths shut are smarter than those without the ability to communicate verbally.

Puppy dog eyes are a skill of the silent, regardless of breeding. Ignore at the peril of your soul. Until they are no longer a puppy… then respect the growl… unless you’re trying to help them. Protect yourself & them as far as possible & needed.

Kant approves this message. Anything that triggers empathy, or responds similarly to humans, falls under self=other. That doesn’t mean they’re able to give consent. Whole ‘nother question. The consenting nonverbal are able to give or refuse consent in other ways of communicating. The level at which a consent structure is able to gift consent corresponds to the level at which they can demonstrate they understand information and can act on it in a competent matter. There is more to competency than the mere ability to nod your head or verbalize “yes”. You would not want to expose someone to information their brain/body has not yet developed to support or critically examine/appreciate.

I think that about covers everything that I think on this issue. No, there’s more… triggered by Ec’s recent threads…

Animals do not need a sex ed class. They just know, and we don’t expect them to know at a higher level than that—We don’t hold them responsible for anything, we just protect as needed. Is that animal form of knowing considered thinking phenomenologically? Does that bracket out the bullshit? I think not all of them have the same ability to understand they were taught wrong when they are severely mistreated into PTSD. However, I think they have a reliable gut feeling (some animals more than others) about who is safe that enables them to be reconditioned out of PTSD. I think that is true of all of us to varying degrees.

It is very telling that some dogs respond so well to praise and scolding. It matters to them what we think about them. They want to see us happy. They care when we’re not. Sometimes they know when we’re bothered before we even do — in that way… they are smarter. Perhaps they (at least some of them) are better at that sort of thinkfeeling than we are (at least some of us)?

[Bella_fekete_2]

I think it was Kant yes who drew limits to reasonable cogniscence, categorically denying any meaningful re-association of voice-scripted segments of communication, that is, perhaps a compensatory searc by dogs to use various cues other than speech to recognize behavior patterns, underneath literal meanings formed by voice, devoid of reassociation of symbolic progression.

Question is, wether the following film can take up the slack by introducing a phenomenal understanding by associating ‘sense data’ in a field that may be intrinsically universal in apprehension, by forming basic framing of recognized patterns formed by such reduced phenomena, similar to the sentiment regression toward more elementary constructs?

youtube.com/shorts/f6F7-qir3Zw? … JjidknceTE

…

In addition , the sentiment mirror stage that small children go through for self recognition, mirrior Salvador Dali’s painting: ‘The metamorphosis of Narcissus’ where it is a young man, rather then a child, who intakes his own reflection in the mirror for some one else.

That Salvador sees this as significant may tell the story of the evolution of conscious realization progressing toward consciousness of the self, where the Greek idiom tended to mask to ascertain their role among social networks, indicating that personality types were not recognized per individuating.

I think this was the point Jung has in mind with his symbolic structural understanding beginning with perception of frames of reference in the most general sense.

Just playing.

…

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

So you think existential individuation creates essence after existence, whereas phenomenological recognition reveals essence embedded in existence.

I think it’s both, because essence is a capacity that must be chosen, can be stunted/covered, recovered.

Kant would approve because he spoke about essence needing to be triggered, basically. Different words. Same meaning/stuff. But also—he thought we have something in common with animals that is worthy of being treated with the same dignity…if we don’t acknowledge it in them, we are practicing for not acknowledging it in ourselves/others. Can’t remember where he said that.

[Bella_fekete_2]

@Ichthus77

So you think existential individuation creates essence after existence, whereas phenomenological recognition reveals essence embedded in existence.

I think it’s both, because essence is a capacity that must be chosen, can be stunted/covered, recovered.

Kant would approve because he spoke about essence needing to be triggered, basically. Different words. Same meaning/stuff. But also—he thought we have something in common with animals that is worthy of being treated with the same dignity…if we don’t acknowledge it in them, we are practicing for not acknowledging it in ourselves/others. Can’t remember where he said that.

Yes and more, specially the universality of instinctive behavior, extending toward such things as development of manufactured food supply, as inherent in the fear of being eaten , dog eat dog? I don’t think they would descend that low on the food chain. So admirably, overcoming the taste for flesh is symptomatic with the worship of cows in India. But let’s see how much a self taught Sartre’s guy can learn ‘artificially’.

Be back a sec. If it turn out that dog eats dog, then it’s still an open question of intensive behavior

[Bella_fekete_2]

Here is what virtual reality represents:

“ While it is not common for dogs to eat other dogs, there are cases where dogs may exhibit cannibalistic behavior. However, it’s important to understand that such behavior is abnormal and typically occurs under specific circumstances.”

[Bella_fekete_2]

@Bella fekete 2

Here is what virtual reality represents:

“ While it is not common for dogs to eat other dogs, there are cases where dogs may exhibit cannibalistic behavior. However, it’s important to understand that such behavior is abnormal and typically occurs under specific circumstances.”

So, human cannibalism is quite different, there are places in the world where it is routinely practiced, and eating dogs specifically exhibits a violation of the
Supposed principles one should not eat his best friend,

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

There is a section in Hegel where he talks about how a work of art has to “satisfy only the interests of mind, and is bound to exclude from itself all desire“ (41) — by comparison, mere pictures of wood for use or of animals for food do not satisfy desire because they need to exist in such a way that they could be used/consumed — so back to the original point… we allow a work of art to keep existing because we are not trying to satisfy the desire to use or consume.

The point I’m trying to make here is that when animals stop trying to consume each other… and by this I mean their prey… and start playing like friends… It is because they recognize each other as minds. Works of art — &/or creators — that are not for use or consumption. Bare minimum they create a new pack or culture between them.

gasp & egads!!!

[felix_dakat]

Of course, dogs think phenomenally. The question is, what is it like to be a dog? For that, all we have are clues from their behavior and anatomy particularly neuroanatomy. Through evolution and breeding they have becoming highly social. Border collies have been know to identify 1000 objects by vocal cues (words). They are highly attuned to their human masters. Still, what that is like for them, though maybe easier than what it is like to be a bat (Nagel) is difficult to verify. What do we have to understand what it is like to be another human apart from their language and art products? This question gets into theory of mind.

[Meno4]

That is an interesting observation way overdue that has only briefly been highlighted

Personally , in conjunction to that, is the less apparent underlying state, that evolution takes in a two tiered modal way.

And under that, the hard wired, presently hardly wired undertow of the phenomenal ‘mirroring’, the aping if you would, that mimic behavior from the ape to the sentiment naked ape , the preverbial image of such can apply to less then sentiment beings.

More particularly, does human conscious awareness mirror those traits that appear to reduce the phenomenal awareness of socialized cultural phenomena with those that could be attributed to animals as well?

And is such mimicking offer insight into what such mimicking consists of? Or, does the copying of behavior by apes reflect more (to) ? substantial differences, that adopt increasing awareness of how that evolutionary change goes on?

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

I wanna scroll backwards in history to the first time one being (subject to time) looked at another being (subject to time) and knew it was being observed by someone who knew it was being observed. Did they ponder their “third” belly buttons? Did they think (without words), “Who am I? How did I get here?” Like someone who just woke up with amnesia?

And then I want to compare that first time to the kind of self-consciousness(es) that never even had a beginning. Maybe that first^ was just them and whoever had the capacity to observe them?

I don’t know how you evolve/develop such a capacity without being shaped by someone who already has it.

Pretty sure that was Hegel’s point.

[Meno4]

So some might say while contemplating, that Jesus was / is a primordial Marxist like probably prophesy by Aldous Huxley, and 1984 was sort of watershed with ideologically suppressed phenomena quickly restructuring toward a covered up neo synthesis,???

But then, like some of us are saying here, early democracy saw consequences first, very loosely, very! and could not did not figure in big brother’s boring prescription.

Besides, the 400 families running the world are Nuevo riche, mimicking a thousand year slope of ‘natural aristocracy’ so Hegel is right of course, but even he did not anticipate the lack of birth control depending on finding a rocket quickly enough to transport Makthu’s idea generally , cross culturally

For Buddha says

1 I can fast

2 I can think

3I can wait

<>

Missed the part where the question surfaced : did he observe the observer observing who was being observed, teducing the reduction of meaning to nil! ( not same as void)

That’s absurd isn’t it?

Like this is something new? Right

[felix_dakat]

@Meno4

Missed the part where the question surfaced : did he observe the observer observing who was being observed, reducing the reduction of meaning to nil! ( not same as void)

That’s absurd isn’t it?

Like this is something new? Right

The “clear light of the void” the Tibetan Buddhists refer to is pure consciousness.

[Meno4]

What difference exists between pure and impure consciousness? (As far as the Lotus Sutra’s Japanese practice s concerned? If that may be common general Buddhic knowledge or otherwise?)

[Meno4]

Guess my impatience got the better of me so back to the use of AI, and with it the voiding (in the different sense) the timeless rep.’s needed to authenticate ,

()

The Nine Consciousness is a concept in Buddhism, specifically in Nichiren Buddhism,[1]that theorizes there are nine levels that comprise a person’s experience of life.[2][3] It fundamentally draws on how people’s physical bodies react to the external world, then considers the inner workings of the mind which result in a person’s actions.[1]

()()

In a reductive sense the void IS Buddha’s clear mind (Nichiren) and it is found in the Lotus Sutra.

[felix_dakat]

Pure consciousness is without name or form, simply pure light as it were—pure awareness.

[Meno4]

It does have a name, the unnameable feeling , why? Because void takes away all attachments except one, that is irredeemable.

[felix_dakat]

The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name. The unnamable is the eternally real. Naming is the origin of all particular things. Free from desire, you realize the mystery. Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations. Yet mystery and manifestations arise from the same source. This source is called darkness. Darkness within darkness.

Tao Te Ching, chapter 1

[Meno4]

Yes, but the children who are not familiar with it and bask in the light of Buddha, He, kindly separated love from attachment.