No, I was not aware of Your reference to circularity as compatible to the cogito. Could You refresh it’s location?
Enclosed is a snipett to the ontological - ontic reference:
“Asking from the truth of Cogito as the basis of knowledge, this paper tries to analyze all possible answers in Descartes’ philosophy. Inductively, four possible answers are open to consideration: either Cogito is true 1) based on argumentation, 2) because it is clear and distinct, 3) because of being innate, or, lastly, 4) because of intuition. All of these explanations either entail accepting some prior knowledge to Cogito or fall in a vicious circle. A proper way to explain Cogito’s truth is a new perspective to the meaning of intuition in Descartes’ philosophy. Through this perspective Cogito is a presential experience. Lack of any gap, separation, and disjunction in this presential experience is the reason for the truth of Cogito because this lack is the lack of error’s cause.”
This is from an Iranian U. reappraisal of Descartes
But what I am trying to get at here OS the dog metaphor, ans a cognitive philosophy, as it may refer to Your procedure of comparitive inquiry to some structural basis between general and specific signs or languages, if understood correctly.
If this anology is applicable, then the basis of ‘esse est percipii’ and ‘cogito ergo sum’ can be reassesses ( as is done by enclosed summary); in order by definition prevent the circularity mentioned, on the same basis.
Definitive rejection may have overlooked this defining charactefistic, and as You back owledge as well.
Of course close to the middle ages, a draw toward more general ideas have yet hundreds of years to go until they realize into propositional validation- ( the positivists emergance of similarity over identity), so thought can not inhabit the brain functions of dogs using the mind of Man whose general ideas can not rise into that general level, irrespective to a subsistent, possible association of that level of logistics.
Therefore such obtuse use of sensibility, could not have connected a possible motive of some logical association from an animal behavior to a significant chain of meaningfully exhibited thinking process.
However, looking back with the use of a definite description, or map of cognitive tracing, such connections may come to be retro- constructed, in which case that may mean a sort of an emergence to validate reversal to the deconstruction to establish new found validity in meaning, of course strictly on the basis of intuition and the such as described in same said article attached above.
The effort to rise above the enthropic , deconstructive process, may yet hold to new paradigmn of establishing a rising level of the eidectic reduction, infecting the phenomenal reduction as analog-ically probable.
If this be the case, then, communication between man and dig would/could indicate levels of differing cognitions between the cognative and the phenominalogical, and raising the intent if Descartes’ cogito to more figurative levels , possessing a hidden objective then previously figured, and reduced toward a literal and contradictory effect through an unavoidable circularity.
That we can , retroactively rise to a reactive laughable position will then become a very good possibility, and the verbal communication of Dr. Lilly, with dolphins, adopted by the US navy , is the best example I can think of in the kind of relevance found here.