Before I start, this thread is more about the Psychology of dogs than humans.
I’m sure at least some of you have heard of Jean Piaget and his theories regarding the development of Object Permanence in children. If not it is essentially that as the human brain develops children go from believing that an object ceases to exist when they can not sense (sight, touch, hearing, etc) to creating a mental concept of the object that remains once it has been removed from their area that is complete in people by 2 years of age at the latest for average humans. This is an important step because it allows the development of mental symbols and objects that can evolve into larger things like language, mental pictures and other complex concepts. He tested this with children by removing toys, hiding them and in later trials swapping hiding places.
I have just followed his procedure (using treats not toys) with my dog and got the same results he got with his subjects at around the age of 1 year and 7 months with object permanence supposedly fully developed.
The treats were in an airtight container to ensure that once hidden there were no sensory aids, just the present idea that I had moved the container to different location (my movements remain visible but the treat does not).
My dog was able to find the treat each time as I tested each of the 6 stages of permanence development.
Now on to what this means. This means not only that dogs (or at least some dogs) have developed Object Permanence by the time they reach maturity. This means (in theory) that they can create detailed mental images (imagination) of possibly even things that do not actually exist, they can create mental symbols and attach meanings to those symbols (the rudiments of language), and that they could possibly develop more complex conceptual ideas such as morality, law, religion, etc. (this last part is currently impossible to test but is the consequence of the same development in humanity so it should at least be considered.)
While this finding probably has little significance I felt I should put my findings somewhere even if it is just a psychology board on a philosophy website.
The primary sense for dogs is smell, which I think sets up dogs to be good at object permanence. When you go for a walk with a dog, you are moving through space, primarily visually. The dog is moving around both in space and in time. He or she is ‘seeing’ via the nose, things that were present at other times but no longer are, along with things the dog smells that are present. Dogs communicate to each other ‘I was here’ via piss or ‘this is mine.’ This means the dog is getting messages all the time that something not present was here before. The intensity of the smells giving the dog some sense of how long ago.
I would guess the dog does not form intenal images of these past presences, though perhaps they do. But in some way they are constantly representing and aware of things not present and assuming they still exist.
That’s Bowser’s piss. um I like Bowser. I piss on his piss. Now other dogs will know I was here too when they come.
We may muse about other times when we walk, but dogs inevitably notice things not present now, but which were present in the past. It’s a whole different experience for them.
And it’s a given other dogs, and also cats and humans, were doing things when they were not around.
My last dog would carefully smell my shoes. If I had been with certain people he was very fond of, he would get pissy and want to go out immediately. Presumably to hang out with HIS friends also. He also had specific reactions to cat contact and food contact.
When he ran up to smell those shoes he was trying to find out where I had been what I had done and who with.
He knew, just knew stuff was going on out there that really he should have been a part of.
All good observations Moreno but you are presuming thought processes that are un-provable unless the dog where to concretely tell you it’s thoughts.
All good, normally sound inferences but they are far from solid.
I sought to soundly prove that dogs are just as good as object permanence as human children.
I have also decided to create a system of hieroglyphics and teach my dog how to read them for simple concepts.
I am quite sure some scientists would react as you suggest, but I think these are rather obvious conclusions.
I had an girlfriend. When my dog noticed her smell out in the woods, he ran off, tracking her scent, even over long distances. He knew she was at the end of that increasing gradient of scent, even though he could not see her. And he connected her scent to the scent of her from the past. We’d both seen him surprised by various things. He was never surprised to find whatever it was: cat, other dog, specific human, dead fish, after tracking it.
I am sure some people would say it could all be conditioning with no mental states at all.
But that’s just silly. We did not arise ex nihilo.
The only problem with that is that If they can still smell the object, it is still withing their sensory area.
It has not been removed and they do not have to maintain a mental image, it is clearly “visible” (smellable)
Object Permanence is being conscious of something that cannot be sensed.
They are not smelling the object. They are smelling that which is no longer a part of the object.
What is no longer a part of an object is no guaratee that the object itself still exists. What this tells the dog is that the object was present here at some, paritally detminable, time in the past.
The dog assumes it is likely the object still exists.
In this sense sight and olfaction are quite different. Which is my point. Their prime sense is based on object permanence. Whereas sight is not. Sight is only about now. This is why, I think, dogs do well with object permanence. It is a very important part of their world. Certainly many other mammals also, given that many have excellent noses. But I know dogs.
Dogs constantly being reminded that even when not in direct contact other beings are up to stuff. They are peeing, walking, killings, rubbing things…
They are constantly being told stories about what is happening when they are not around.
Humans need language for this. They can be told Daddy is at work.
Dogs don’t need anyone else to let them know what is going on when they are not around and that something is going on, even at an early age.
I’ve seen that study. You are not understanding the point of my posts. The odor cues in that situation would be direct smelling of what is now coming off the object in question, letting the dog know it is near it.
My point is that objects not present to the dog are clearly existent.
When dogs smell something they do not assume it is present unless it smells present. What they find out when they smell is that events happened in the past involving other creatures they know in many cases. They know things WERE happening with the objects/creatures even though they HAD no direct contact at that time. They are automatically given a map of their surroundings that includes things happening while they are not around.
This is NOT the case with homo sapian babies and infants.
Dogs know the difference between smells indicating proximity and smells indicating that at some point in the past the other object was here.
Moreno, the ability to smell it existed at some point somewhere is not object permanence. It is smelling things.
Object permanence would be the like the dog seeing china, flying back to your house and with no smells of china present be able to maintain a mental image of what china is and was.
It is creating a mental image of something that you are completely unable to sense even evidence of.
And thanks for linking those studies anon, seems like someone has already done the same experiment. At least we got similar results.
Notice how I am not saying that the ability to smell something is object permanence.
The existence of some ‘mental image’ has to be black boxed and is NOT what object permanence is. We do not know what is going on in dogs minds. What object permanence is that said animal/human behaves as if things continue to exist when not directly sensed. My whole argument has been that the dog’s strong reliance on smell predisposes them to not considering a lack of presence (EVEN WHEN THEY CANNOT SMELL the object) as the object no longer existing. Whereas vision is less likely to lead to this predisposition.
I assume you disagree with this, but not once have you actually responded to this argument on my part. I think I’ll leave you to your thread.
i dont disagree with you, i just never understood what you were saying.
I thought you were saying that dogs have object permanence because they can smell the object not that this ability makes them more likely to possess a concept of object permanence.
I apologize for misinterpreting your argument, you are indeed correct in your observations.