Can dogs think phenominally?

Sorry to appear so gauche, but DAH.
Humans without language may not tell you anything, so it not a line of enquiry; that’s the point.

Back to the dogs. What you call “casual observation” is the world of what we call “body lanaguage”. Such a category is a fairly new one. I remember in the 1970s when it became a buzz-word and everyone was talking about it.
So what the animal kingdom took tacitly for granted for millions of years became “A PHENOMENON” of human discourse.
And this is out point of departure for the thread topic. For dogs body language is not a phenomenon it is simply a way of life.

Now guys , You can almost suspect where i will cut in. The patterns of organization which allude even the most observant, excepting animal trainers, perhaps if by the savage mind there no observable demarcations occur; then a reference which conduit between spoken and body languages may be inferred.
Without any knowledge of such a conduit, some kind of sub-level of transfer may be assumed, for how can dogs be trained without it?

The most common example of such is the monkey see monkey do observable learning among primates including man.
Can that be extended to fill in to a continuum ?

Rupert Sheldrake , did also believe in the mine-mind fields ,(morphic fields), which serve such a linkege. and Your idea of leakage betweem levels of generalization and specification, ED , support this.

Examples in Russian parapsychology helped to designate a clerer picture.

I really enjoyed reading this Sculptor.

Animal companions are great. I have had dogs, cats, a bird, and fish. The fish did not really have much personality but their needs and ways closed the gap a little - when I used to come home from work and walk past their tank, they would follow me from one end of the tank to the other and I would turn around and see a bunch of fish looking at me - it was a big tank - it was great - they were like, where is our food. The bird would happily come out of her cage and sit on my shoulder and walk across the top of my chest or back to my other shoulder - nibble my ear gently and a whole bunch of other actions that I thought were pretty sweet - she would not go to anyone else. Each of my cats I was closer too - there seemed to be a lot more connecting going on. The dogs - well, you know what dogs are like - they feel like one of the family and pretty smart too.

I am glad you and your partner have such a wonderful creature that binds the three of you. Dogs have a way about them - a way of helping us forget the things we take so seriously - just for a little while.

It is nice.

I am glad that we understand each other more thoroughly than before Meno - it appears that we have removed a number of barriers to conversation between us over time. I only seek to enhance rather than destroy - enhance conversation rather than destroy conversation - add value by taking part. A part of taking part is for me to “listen” to others which is something I intend to increase the ratio of for some time - ebbs and flows…

It won’t hurt for me to add a little more to the picture as it involves me. As I describe things elsewhere with people - similar patterns must exist in the receiver, to begin with - cultural patterns, social patterns, and other environmental(and atmospheric) factors. This serves to make things easier - when people are the same they can be trained easier, so to speak. I think it is a little more difficult with dogs but not as difficult as it used to be because systems(connected patterns(processes)) have evolved but there is some underlying “scaffolding” that changes even slower over time and hence the savage(underlying) versus the civilized(more rapidly evolving). There is a little more to it as I see it but it involves describing things in terms of complexity(chaos vs the deterministic) and where and how things interface. Sheldrake’s ideas on biology regarding patterns support what I say more specifically but I find everything that he says fascinating and I am glad that he has the courage to say the things others could not bear to say.

Such is the case that ideas can and do change - in that I have to add and remove things - compare things to see if they fit…and all the usual stuff. Mind works well when open - still have to remain self-organized.

I find this fair what you have written and can only offer a small amount of information regarding my position as it relates to certainty and uncertainty, from my own viewpoint.

You don’t have to be sorry about that - I do like to stay grounded despite my explorations - stay grounded in what I am fairly certain about despite there being many unresolved entities in nature perhaps border lining the supernatural and perhaps beyond. I consider knowledge in such a way as it to be undefeated justified true belief and there are many times that I find this is not sufficient for some purposes - that which is not “true” is not all useless information, I just don’t necessarily consider it knowledge even in the cases that I enforce an assumption of it being knowledge for the purpose of thinking about things that require it.

Boffy

On another front, nee studies are coming out, with startling and differing conclusions :

The following is an excerpt from a nee study relating to canine intelligence:

"These Hungarian dogs’ brain activity was scanned to determine that they can process words’ meaning and the emotion used to speak them. (Eniko Kubinyi)

By

Karin Brulliard

August 31, 2016

Your dog gets you. I mean, he really gets you.

No, really — he actually does. So say scientists in Hungary, who have published a groundbreaking study that found dogs understand both the meaning of words and the intonation used to speak them. Put simply: Even if you use a very excited tone of voice to tell the dog he’s going to the vet, he’ll probably see through you and be bummed about going."

We [human beings] anthropomorphize everything(if and/or where we can) ~ in this case, thinking ~ is part of our problem…clearly along with a bunch of stuff…and so, we will keep making discoveries…

…still we have no clear definition of what it is ~ thinking ~ we just know we do things ~ one of those things, we name it thinking…

.

Yes, because we muddled things up along the way by abandoning the faith behind the basic belief in our thoughts guarnteeing the proof of our existence.

That is true.
But there is another tendancy at work.
When you bring a dog into your home and love it like one of the pack (oops I mean one of the family), dogs kyonomorophize humans, and we are happy to join together.
And when that wonderful furry beast becomes the object of your purpose you realise that humans are animals.

My dog can.

WP_20210301_21_58_26_Pro (3).jpg
Sudoku, level 7

That faith, abandoned, appearently, lives archytipically, perhaps even repressed through an anti-dialectical psychological devolution- is what seamlessly reacts, through occasional bursts of violance.

Dogs and wolves pair in different measures of proportionalitt, some more dog like, some more wolf like. The future owners of such animals are forewarned to wat h for unexpected traits to occur, as breeders can not guarantee their behavior’s stable continuity…

Just saying

Maybe this is the wrong question.
Phenomenology concenrates on the objects of direct experience. Surely dogs are the masters of their own experience?
If the phenomena are " situation that is observed to exist or happen through experience", then dogs are all about phenomenal thinking. All they do is concerned to the direct objects of their life experience.

The real question would be can dogs think abstractedly or conceptually

Actually, the question may be an inverted paradigmn, since most human beings assume that dogs can not think on the literal or lateral level of. thought. That is an assumed premise, which derives the phenomenological subset assumption.

Incidentally, the fact that premise having been questioned lead directly to it’s humanly understood reduction.

The questiin then becomes two fold , with that sub set meeting ( literally ) the figure(ing) of the meeting of the set with the subset.

According to some, such does result in a synthetic acquisition of knowledge, par example proposed by Levi Bruhl and Levi Strauss, where an
figurative analogy could be understood between the mode of operative thinking between man and dog. Operant conditioning may play a part here in connecting the nominal processes of association with the more evolved symbolic associations prevalent in human beings.

You are missing the point

And The Point is ?

There is no single point, but yours was not a response to what I way saying.