Chester was an alert watchdog. He was protective of the family but always non-aggressive with family members and people we accepted.
He was tolerant of cats and small children who occasionally like to beat on him. He received a lot of love and affection from everybody in our circle.
I’m happy to see that understanding of mammalian cognition has come a long way since 20th century behaviorism which sought to explain all animal behavior in terms of classical conditioning, stimulus-response or operant conditioning without reference to their consciousness.
I think everyone with a dog in the Uk knows all about Andrew Cotter and his two labradors…
During lockdown AC’s job as a sports commentator came to an abrupt end. So he took time out to make a few fun videos of Olive and Mabel his labradors…
It’s been nice to hear Andrew back in his old job commentatiing in Tokyo during the past week, but everytime I now hear him all i can think of his his funny commentating…
what a clever girl… I’ve been quite entranced by the ‘kiss your dog on the head and see how they react’ reels, but I’ve chosen a video that includes cats, for comparison… some are cute… some dogs start snarling… some act all pally-like.
The audio-edit is indeed very annoying… the laughter is truly hideous.
I think that parts of that video are edited in, yes - I found the dogs’ reactions in that video amusing… my cat does similar… depending on what he’s reacting to, he will either go to his ‘safe space’ or vacate the premises altogether and hide.
Doge are probably more likely to respond in a positive way since they are pack animals. But I thought the small dog on the bed’s reaction was interesting. Little dogs can have problems with their position in the pack.
I once went out with a woman whose little rug rat was in the habit of sleeping on the bed with her. The dog was happy with me in any room but the bed room and would bark at me and snarl. Total passion killer!
Have you seen Andrew Cotter’s Olive and Mable?
Why do some pet-owners, let their pets dictate the household social-dynamics? I’ve never let my cat boss me, which is probably why we have an amicable relationship… most of the time.
The Doberman dog tho lol… you could see how the dog was going to react from the start, by it’s already apprehensive body-language… and the young owner’s.
I’m definitely going to get a corgi… sooner, rather than later… they’re not small enough to be yappy, but are small enough to not be big.
I caught some of the Andrew Cotter video that you had posted… he is not my niche, but… then again, I am not a serious pet owner, so that could well be why.
The point is a suite play on the development of ‘dog-metaphor’, if dogs can think, it may be phenomenal for them to think through a feat like the one it appears to perform.
Bow compliant are domesticated animals in short cutting their instinctive behavior to be able to connect the phenomenal jump with it’s trust in the human reasoning of it’s master.
"It’s obvious that they think.
The question is about “menomenal thinking”.
It may be 'obvious to some, but really, must allegations be taken for granted,before v an attempt at disproof?
In fact any and all representations, both material and otherwise, are allegedly contingent on causitive or transparently object oriented philosophical or religious ground.
But, such representation errs for a demonition into the very divisive rhetoric that caused dissention in the first place.
If not felines, take birds or bees, yes bees which appearently suggest an inner mind, irreducible to lower level thought.
It’s astounding to fathom even the possibility that bees can recognize human faces, but a new MIT study bears that out.
So there are all kinds of new discoveried tjat pre-pt formerly held didactic thought.
Please excuse the dredful typo.
I obviously ment Phenomenal thinking.
Does any of your response relate at all to “Phenomenal” thinking, and what do you think it means?
No worries sculp, in the great(err) scheme of things it makes no real difference…
By ‘real’ I do not mean a conventional interpretation, as different from a politically inferred meaning from an eschological- religious one. The difference is far less variable, with underlying structural varience that typifies a form of behavior understood cohesion of ‘static’ intelligence that Wendy touched upon
This paradigmn, OS far more compact and attunes to projected synthetic interference probably on electi-magnetic varience which caused more increasing-decreasing wave like patterns, where magnetic varience actually interferes with directly fed electors ically emassef charges do-to move away , creating the illusion that magnetic properties are changing as resulting changes of unfed properties.
Just a guguess but Einstein’s famous formula comes to mind here.
This may go the heart of your question as to the meaning of ‘phenomenal thinking’
Literally thinking descibes.
And such may be literally mean, having ‘thoughts’ which have maximal attachment to sensational causes. But such does not delimit what human thinking conscribes within reasonable bounds of apprehension.
Dreams may be connected within such bounded areas, where at times vocal sensational attributes may accompany visual content. In extremely needed boundary situations, delusions of hearing voices can also be included within, but maybe stemming from different zones of apprehension
Here is a current description of the difference
"
“Papineau compares the situation to the use–mention distinction: Phenomenal concepts directly use the experiences to which they refer, while physical descriptions merely mention them.”
me no says:
In the case of dogs. they cannot experience the distinction. but that does not disqualify them of being conscious of it, and that mode of thinking can also qualify as thought. That they can learn some directives is proof of this
