Can dogs think phenominally?

Some absurdity may be correlated between geeralization in human beings and lack of.
specified processes in the dog brain

Things can go awry in the canine’s brain too, Meno.

Unless this is a double back to human beings, in which case you already know my thoughts on that…

:laughing:

.

Did you ever really say what you meant by “think phenominally”

The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind.

Charles Darwin

It may work both ways retroactively and may not, depending on the beginning of the inqury,.

You are right Meno

Because of this, sometimes we have to step back…

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.

Where would we be if this were not the case?

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.

Right , this observation is fitting.

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.

In my stepped back and contemplative state, I am in a position to agree with you…

…and I do.

:-k

I further suspend my judgment.

nah.
It is to the contrary.
WHo the fuck started this thread?

Words salad.
Phenomenal thinking is all about reflecting on learned experience.

Meno…

…I am reminded that…

…we are born so useless but end up with a more developed consciousness…

…many animals are not born so useless but have a less developed consciousness.

For some, it may help to exchange useless with helpless.

…anyway, just a thought.

Sculptor said:

“Phenomenal thinking is all about reflecting on learned experience.”

That depends on the brain-mind problem of verifying the meaning and the content of ‘re-flect ’
Do images of prior experience denote a specific image within a context, or, a situation that establish the built up reservoir sum total of significance, or weather the point has been reached where there are as of yet no such signification that can connect all the "background noise’ attributed to such situation.

The key to this dilemma is the frequency of re-collecting those elements that present a continuous enrichment of qualities or qualia necessary for a ’ gestalt’ or a sufficient collection of such elements.

Dogs can do it to a level indicative of their comprehension, their reductive ability depends on a prior significant collection. The productive, construction of such elements in dogs , does contain mostly fixed assemblages from which it deconstructs to lower level generalized signals attributable to lesser contextual tie-ins, where phenomena is recollectable in complex channels, and this series created templates of sequential memory.

If collectible, then the re-cognized sequence of such templates do not break significantly enough to form a series of such that have enough of them to find meaning in, as a foundation, without which, the phenomenologically reduced idea can actually guerentees a meaningfully retained signifier.

Such totally regressed idea lacking proper foundational significance has been compared to a salad like assemblage of un re-cognized signals, with variable spatial attributes which may make little sense.

Encode:

I almost sensed ‘thoughtless’ for ‘helpless’ as a signal of minimal re-cognition to incoming unfiltered data. ( the problem with Russell’s sense data significant here) and just a thought , if it does mean-make sense here)

Just another thought: I worry about reductionism sometimes - I try to reduce to the minimal that still has essential properties of the maximal being studied - the choice is in what is essential. Once we know the essential we can reassemble with the minimals to a size of our own choice that also contains the essential. Many molecules of water are still water just as one molecule of water is still water because this molecule is the essential.

This is partly why I say the formation is essential to the recognition. So does thought really require any language of words? Or is thought essential without language?

The formation is a construction and the recognition is a reconstruction. These are assemblages. Anyway, reductionism has not always worked effectively for us.

Related is: at what point does the essential emerge? I know in some cases this emergence only comes about as a part of a system of some different parts.

There is some recent paradigm-shifting…as usual…but as I have been saying more and more lately there is a lot we can explain not knowing the whole story.

There may be more to the story which could be acknowledged:

“Participation mystique, or mystical participation, refers to the instinctive human tie to symbolic fantasy emanations. This symbolic life precedes or accompanies all mental and intellectual differentiation.” Wiki

The consequences are enormous in formative ‘coincidences’., and their signification quite surprising.

Please forgive me - the path that I am about to take us down is a little bumpy - it has been a little while since I have wondered about such things…so let me start here:

Do you think animals such as dogs feel like they are a part of the nature of that which surrounds them? Some creatures would not have a choice to feel the nature of that which surrounds them, such as ants, for instance, they seem more a part of the nature of that which surrounds them - instead of feeling it, they are just a part of it - perhaps the lesser a consciousness the more connected the nature of that which surrounds a creature is. Explaining the seemingly forever emergence of increasing consciousness further removing man from his environment. Dogs seem happier than us to be in their environment for that matter.

…continued in the next post…

…continued from the last post…

At the low end, happiness does not seem essential - just being alive is enough. When you are just alive you are just a part of the environment that surrounds you. In the middle ground, a creature seems to be happy and a part of the nature of that which surrounds them. For man, gods were born - bringing with them meaning for why man is here. In turn happiness and connection. At the most extreme we are no longer connected to our environment - we take no part in our environment and happiness becomes lost again hinting at the need to function more artificially or robotically. The last god dies. Meaning becomes lost.

As strange as this will sound, I spent time exploring things like this when looking for where meaning came from. I figured it comes from a deeper place than us and starts in the nature of that which surrounds us and that our recognition of it would be inevitable just so long as we kept evolving - in turn, only to be discarded and turned into something else, that has no need for a connection as to why we are here - bringing sadness for a while before the participating human dies.

Meaning emerges, grows old, and dies, so to speak and happiness, participation, and connection come along for the ride, ending up in the same grave.

I don’t know…like I said: it has been a while…I might be way off the main path…

…continued from the last post…

With what I said in the last two posts, I wonder now where that leaves us with the coincidence…

…what are your thoughts, Meno?

Symbols aside for a short moment: I have been thinking a lot about formations and your mention of coincidences stimulates some new thoughts for me especially when applied to the unconscious states aligning with meaning and the result being pushed into the mind-focus…and now for my symbols: It is also like some symbolic entities resolved or unresolved get caught between the unconscious and conscious and give off a peculiar feeling - two different possible types of feeling. This is the third post out of three posts - my last two posts address the rest - I hope this is not too inconvenient but for whatever reason, I felt the need to split things up a little.