Can dogs think phenominally?

Well, isn’t it right that’s a dog eat dog world? They say pets are so much like their owners, guess it works reversely as well…

In fact it is more likely that democracy was like priories, destroying ir’self from the inside out, that is, more and more, law and order had to be slowly transformed into procedural augmentation, to allow slack to adjust from the black and white letter law, that you’re either right or wrong. That allowance compensated for the relaxation of standards, which have become unaffordable . The cost of maintaining the law had to be balanced with the cost of maintaining levels of productivity that the establishment’s overfed and apparently lazy workforce that immigrants could so readily perform, and so on.

Not that there is no precedent for it like the Colusseum gladiator games and such, or the public displays of action at the guillotine , and other lusty blood letting of the current vogue.

1 Like

But then Trump was right on in holding on to at least one model , that is a severe denial and dismissal of the conspiratorial theory that the trip to the moon was produced in a Hollywood back lot.

Maybe the fortune tellers of old turned psychic realists could in fact planned that real event to solidify the premise of things to expect in the ecenopolitical foreshadowed arena that goes far back to the 19th century, with Huxley , Orwell @ Co. ? (maybe baby)

Go watch the old “moon landing” videos. Then seriously try to tell me it wasn’t a hoax.

This is interesting :slight_smile:

I used the concept of ‘manifest destiny’ within the ‘can dogs think phenomenally’ prior to Trump’s using it in his address,

)(

And here is Trump’s version in his inaugural address;

)(

()()

Consider it as 2 synced events, coincidentally used within 2 different contexts, so there may be a link there, or maybe it might be slightly more than that, but now back to Carl Polanyi’s ‘The Great Transformation’ and how it relates in situ, and what that significance entails, if any, in terms of behavior vs. inheritance

Under the premise that any two ideas are relatable, the question is in what degree, and how pan-psychism can be generated when levels of apprehension create functional gaps.

Mimicry?

What’s wrong with saying our American ancestors won the west? That is what literally happened.

Which doctor could attest to that?- figuratively

(()(

“The Wesr was Won”, is a meaningless, loaded phrase.
It’s theft and genocide not a game.
WHo do you think your “ancestors” are anyway.
It’s nothing you can be proud of.

It’s also off topic

it was no hoax,
It was easier to go to the moon than fake it and try to keep it secret

.

.
All dog-owners know this as fact… the level of intelligibility, in regard to dogs understanding humans, is phenomenal

Cats can too, but they choose to forgo too much human-interaction, in favour of living a more solitary [selfish] life.

Yes, they seem to, or maybe for the most part behave as if they do understand,

Only the dog can really know, and not repeat eternally, so that they won’t forget.

They’re still evolving to grasp that distinction.

.

So when we say “ball” and the dog finds and brings the ball to us, how can it only seem or behave as if, it understands.

.

I disagree, and say they have grasped that distinction, evidenced by their actions/reactions to commands made.

.
D/p

Is thinking phenomenologically about being able to suss out what parts of your thoughts are more about drawing logical/abstract inferences (transcontextual) and what parts of your thoughts are about stuff like knowing what time it is (which requires understanding/experiencing the context you’re in)?

Would you be able to think one way if you were not able to think the other way?

Seems irreducibly complex / mutually produced.

The more omnitranstemporal you are, the more inferences or abstractions, as well as knowing what time it is, you can do. And if you’re 100% omnitranstemporal, you don’t even need to “draw” inferences. That whole discursive thing.

Can a local brain process globally? What/Who would bring the “stuff that is experienced“ to it? If that what/who is global, it could laser focus all of it so that such bringing does not cross a distance of either space or time.

…including the experience of discursive conceptualization.

And it could do it efficiently without the local brain understanding how it happens.

So if a donkey can talk, and if a serpent can talk, and even if they can’t, I think a dog could think phenomenologically. Especially with help.

). (). )(

)()(

And yet reducible simple?!?

.

That’s because that’s a cat… they are simpler in their nature, compared to dogs.

Sorry, what? I zoned out.

safety (zone). ?

1 Like

.
Clever doggy, or crafty doggy… you decide. ; )