Reductionism as a cognitive process is axiomatic, it happens across the board,
that is a penomenon prevy to man and
dog alike. Such general simplicity may strengthen
the argument for interlocking intrinsic processes
In most cases it stops just this side of absurdity.!.
FIve words: says more about the observer than the observed; it probably indicates the instrumentality of the observer in how the obsevred is to to used.
Then, we’d be back to the dead/ alive cat in the box, the observer unsure to open the box for fear of a sense that the observed would depend on his sense of it.
Reductionism did not just happen, it’s involved in anticipating diminishing verity, and it is probable that the observed acquires this sense on another level.
Does an animal has a sense that soon it is to die on way to the butcher? Even apart from the bleeting which is probably understood by the herd.
I am not pulling this stuff out of a bag, for instance, the dog senses something, that is on a very general level , like pain, bunger, affection, need for someone to takce care of it’s needs. That corresponds to a similar human link, where specific objective correlations have some sense with it.
The logical types differ , but their sense link, connecting the levels of appreception.
The dog can infer man’s actions through learned behavior of various responses, but the human must identify the causally linked response through the chain of relevant cues given.
So the relationship between the observer and the observed can not be quantufied, except maybe a long chain of inputs and responses, as they rise slightly in complexity and subtleness.
Both have to learn from one another, the owner of the dog has to gage the learning in accordance.
Interestingly I have found that there is plenty of absurdity in the generalization process and absurdity stops this side of the interlocking processes.
Due to again: a number of related processes that have already produced the most accurate and most useful judgments.
Let things run their course and then consider. Lucky for all of us who are alive we have already made enough useful and accurate judgments to stay on course.
A phenomenal knowledge depends on no reduction to a previous level of learning.
For instance, if I suppose a logical basis to the acquisition of knowledge, then the sense of the meaning of that learning may not yet be codified in any language signal other then the awareness of action and reaction corralates to spatial recognition. The phenomenon by this elementary arrangement may not adapt to higher configuration, until the lower is codified into memory.
The instinctual behavior in dogs has not been codified into learning, because it is based on a level, which has no configured pre set code within the measurable codified cycles between generations presupposing some such awareness on a differing time lines.
But for those who have not lived long enough to run their course, and start up again prematurely, the course reset may result in insufficient basis of sound judgement, causing more uncertainty as the new test applications become more challenging and many formed objectively.
