Sadly what Meno says was at best self conflating and at worst “word salad”.
It hints at a priori. but by definition a “phenomenon” would have to be a posteriori.
Define smart
I love philosophy but there is precious little on this Forum…
Let’s be kind and spell it correctly…
Can dogs think phenomenally?
Despite various attempts asking for a definition, none seem to be forthcoming - that is none that seem to make sense.
Now many posters seem to think that the question is “Are dogs smart”, OR “How smarter is a Poodle than a Jack Russell”
I’m pretty sure if that were the question, then that would have been the Heading.
GIven the most basic meaning of Phenomenon then I would have to say that phenomenal thinking was something like " a way of thinking that is deeply rooted in direct experience, perception, and consciousness.".
Clearly phenomenology is a philosophical tradition which refelcts of the experiential. But dogs are many things, but not philosophers.
However I cannot see how, as higher animals they could be creatures of experience.
Given that the question is something of a no brainer. Dogs are all about first person subjective experience, and that is the primary apprehension of the world.
Another question might be, are they able to reflect ideas as objects. But that would be a completely different question.
Yes , but dogs can be described as having spatial recognition, and as most mammals do, and if man can be thought as having some connection to mammalian behavior, then loosely defined they can be thought of having some semblance to a reduced form of awareness of phenomena.
()
Defenitions can be found to suit criteria which fit other anomalies such as feeling , but I could not discount a dog which orients toward an object, without necessarily donating a facility to become objective about such linkages.
)(
“
)(
Besides this, several cited studies show that spacel and other types of thinking iocgurs in dogs as well.
()
()()
Took the liberty of presenting a reduced phenomenology that is hard not to imagine both ways, a reduction to lesser awareness of how evolution plays a part in separating the physiological aspect of such awareness from it’s cognitive counterpart.
Ishthus, I am not presenting anew my lack of expertise in either physiology, or the study of the mind, but one thing is clear, intuitive approaches develop as a sort of compensation with the narrowing and loss of assimilative function, as a prior intuition tries to merge with expected data.
The increase rate of data channeling and processing allows a theoretical future maybe, where the spatially recognized forms of apprehension can be validated . That’s my loosely formed objective that only simulation can bring about.
aka creation 
That doesn’t leave room for an eternal (necessary in all possible worlds) phenomenon.
This is a great link:
started here:
ended up here:
If you start with “we are co-creating within the Creative” It’s a lot less (well… or perhaps more?) creepy than finding out you’re in the matrix.
Dogs are smart. A dog read me a poem once, it went something like,
Bark bark
lowkey growl
whine and scratch
bark bark bark
whine and whimper
nudge nudge
munch munch
pant pant pant
—smile
2 Likes
How so?
But you are not.
The question is something else
Gosh you can quote, but can you understand?
That was me. I didn’t need to use quotes.
turns tables on Sculptor
He didn’t reply to you. 
…unless you are a sock puppet.
I appreciated his reply I quoted here (click the up arrow), because it connected some dots for me, which led to my reply:
If a dog demonstrates loyalty to all and obeys all in such a way that it resonates with all other others/selves (after isolating outliers who don’t give two squats what resonates for others), and not just with one of them, I would say a dog can think phenomenally.
Yes, it ended with the synthetic a-priori supposition , which has seen a lot of water flow under the bridge since.
guess turns tables on Sculptor again
Knowing that the ‘Raise the Ante’ would’ lose credence when the eye wonders away from the shuffle, then where to put the remarked quotations may become an issue in it’s self.
… neverthe less…
That trouble with the double edged sword mistaken for Occam’s Razor.
Funny.
But you would have to know what “a priori” means; you do not seem to.
Metaphors about water are not convincing. - nor bits of furniture for that matter. LOL
So when are you going to give a coherent definition of “Phenominally” - and is the speling mistake relevant or intentional?
And what do you think that (phenomenally) actually means?