Can dogs think phenominally?

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Sculptor » Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:40 pm

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
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1100
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:04 pm

Sculptor wrote: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.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9226
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Sculptor » Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:27 am

Meno_ wrote:
Sculptor wrote: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
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1100
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Meno_ » Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:40 pm

And The Point is ?
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9226
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Sculptor » Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:15 am

Meno_ wrote:And The Point is ?


There is no single point, but yours was not a response to what I way saying.
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1100
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Can dogs think phenominally?

Postby Sculptor » Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:24 pm

Meno_ wrote:
Sculptor wrote: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



Let's look more closely


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.

Lets say that you mean paradigm, and that the FS after "thought" is a typo.
1. Not sure what you mean by "inverted paradigm".
2. I do not think we know what "most humans assume", but you may be right that they cannot think literally. But conceptualisation, and phenomenal thinking are not "literal" thinking, so do not know why you say that.
3 Whatever "lateral" thinking is I do not see the point of clouding the issue here.
4. The last sentence does not refer to the rest, since you now bring in what you call "the phenomenal subset assumption" is a puzzling contruction given the thread and the post you are responding to.

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

oh really how?


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

This is just gibbering.

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.


For the last paragraph you seemed to go completely astray. Did you leave the room between "an" and "figurative"?
Whatever it is you might be trying to say here, it seems to have nothing to do with what I said, and little to do with the thread.
Maybe you should begin with trying to say in simple terms what you think you want to say before you descend into post-moderism random sentence generator mode.
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1100
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Previous

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]