I dont totally buy it. They have evolved a highly sensitive ability to detect our emotions because our emotions have a huge impact on their well-being, not because they recognize the emotions in themselves.

So you started a thread on peace so that you could get a thread on dog and cat sapience?

You're good.

Um. What?

No. Really. What?

"I am too much of an animal lover and even if someone proved to me I was projecting my feelings onto an animal I still would not be able to stop."


And you shouldn't stop loving your animal(s). Your love for it is not in question.

My only point is the dog doesn't, can't, by its very nature, love you back at all. Or, at the least, it can't love you in that unique way reserved to the human individual.

#

"Life is what we make it"


Largely: yeah.

#

"sometimes we feel dogs are our enjoyable best buds and sometimes that's enough."


Agreed. I have no problem with your or Classic’s or Pie's love of your respective animals. If I gave that impression: I apologize.

#

"How Did Dogs Become Adept at Playing to Humans"


Nice piece: something to think about...

#

"Every being is to some degree self aware."


Maybe: but it's difficult to gauge, isn't it? You and me, we can recognize the 'I' in each other by way of our unambiguous communication. We can sit across from one another, have coffee, and talk and argue and debate and there is no question, for either of us, that our coffee companion is another 'I'.

We haven't the same certainty with a dog. Is it simply reacting to me as formal and informal training (and its biology) allows for, or, is there some dim, fragment of 'I' behind those eyes?

I don't think there is; you do think there is.

Till science can explain consciousness (and 'self') we're left with anecdote, intuition, emotion, and guesswork.

*shrug*

#

"If the dogs have evolved behaviors that appear to be a approximation of human intimacy for their own benefit, then they offer the exact same type of love as my first wife."


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

#

"To be able to detect an emotion would mean the animal must also recognize the same emotion in itself."


Possibly. Or it may mean the animal is adept at recognizing physical precursors to the behavior of its master. That is: the dog sees a scowl or frown and through association recognizes that master is about to make loud noises and maybe whack him on the head then push his nose into his own poo. A smile, grin, or twinkling eye may, through association, indicate to the dog that treats, dinner, a run in the park, or play session on the carpet, are just around the corner.

A tailored dog evolution, which the articles hint at, is more likely to lead to more complex survival skills, not necessarily increased intelligence or 'I'ness.

"So you started a thread on peace so that you could get a thread on dog and cat sapience?"

I don't much care what direction the conversation goes in...that's what makes a good conversation 'good'.

#

"They have evolved a highly sensitive ability to detect our emotions because our emotions have a huge impact on their well-being, not because they recognize the emotions in themselves."

Agreed.

Jon Katz , noted dog author, feels differently.

Thanks for the thoughtful response Henry.


I do get where your coming from. There is much scientific controversy over this.

There is no way I could prove love by my animals.

My belief that animals have emotions like love is more than a case of 'believing something is true makes it so'.


We can sit across from one another, have coffee, and talk and argue and debate and there is no question, for either of us, that our coffee companion is another 'I'.

Well I would look funny talking to a dog in a coffee shop :P

Seriously, I think anyone sitting with with you debating and having coffee would be very happy to do so.. You seem to be a very interesting person even without a wagging tail.:)

"adept social parasites"
 

HA!

I wouldn't have thought to put it that way, but, yeah, exactly.

#

"Thanks for the thoughtful response Henry."


You're welcome!

#

"I can see you would be in your element to meet and debate and I think anyone sitting with with you debating and having coffee would be very happy to do so.. You seem to be a very interesting person even without a wagging tail."


Gosh...I think I'll just toe the ground and be shy and embarrassed for a bit... :)

Assumption. ;)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
 

;)

You are treading dangerous territory for me personally here. What about humans who are incapable of communicating? Do they not love just because they cannot talk with you?

Classic, we're talking about two vastly different kinds of creatures here.

My expectations of one are not translatable to the other.

On one hand: we have the human individual for who it is natural to speak.

On the other: we have the dog for which it is natural not to speak.

As to the damaged human individual who cannot speak, whether or not such a person is capable of love depends entirely on the nature of the damage.

If I am stricken with throat cancer and lose my voice: I can still love.

If I were born with a damaged brain that limited my ability to speak as one aspect of the damage, then, it's entirely possible I would be unable to love.

Your question is awfully broad. Care to narrow it a bit?

Again: what makes human love unique is that it is 'done' within an 'I'. There is deliberation and reflection. That we communicate ourselves, transmit ourselves, through speech is the tool of the 'I', but not the definer of 'I'.

False - Just because YOU do not understand the communication, doesn't mean it isn't speaking.

What? Love requires the ability to speak? WTH are you talking about now?


HA HA HA - Especially coming from the guy who wouldn't define "peace" in his own thread and continues to discuss the every increasingly redundant "I" without any concrete definition.

The first sentence is still opinion and has been challenged repeatedly. The latter is pure conjecture - we still have no definition of "I" but we now have a "tool" of this ever elusive "I". Ahhh progress.

"Just because YOU do not understand the communication, doesn't mean it isn't speaking."


Dogs do not speak to convey information beyond: let's fight, fuck, eat. They haven't the complexity of brain/body to do anything more than that.

Go have coffee with one and, later, tell me about the nuanced conversation. ;)

#

"Love requires the ability to speak?"


I didn't say that. I said this: 'If I were born with a damaged brain that limited my ability to speak as one aspect of the damage, then, it's entirely possible I would be unable to love.'

'as one aspect' means my lack of speech is possibly one of many things wrong with me. I may have severe retardation. I may be missing huge portions of my brain.

That's part of the reason I asked if you would narrow the question down a bit. "humans who are incapable of communicating" covers a lot of ground.

Get it?

#

"the guy who wouldn't define "peace" in his own thread"


I explained my reason for that to Beastmaster. Go back and read that explanation. Or not.

*shrug*

#

"every increasingly redundant "I" without any concrete definition"


I've hinted at that definition, and nothing more, simply because I took it that you, as 'I', could suss out what I mean. If you wanna know what the 'I' is: self-examine, self-interrogate.

I'm not teaching a class here. I expect I'm talking with reasonably intelligent folks who can do a little thinking for themselves. If I have to explain the apparent to you or others then maybe you or others ought to retire from the conversation. Better yet, since I prefer you stay, why not go back and read the thread from the start?

#

"The first sentence is still opinion and has been challenged repeatedly."


A challenge made with anecdote is useless. To date: you haven't offered a shred of evidence beyond anecdote to support (1) dogs love as humans do, and, (2) dogs understand love.

I on the other hand offer up the evidence available to anyone: my 'self', your 'self', his 'self', her 'self', and our demonstrated individual capacities for love.

#

"we still have no definition of "I" but we now have a "tool" of this ever elusive "I". "


There's nothing elusive about *'I'. Go look in the mirror: who's looking back at you? A real, concrete, organic, autonomous, individual.

Now: go prop your pooch in front of a mirror and ask him who or what it sees?

It can't answer: not with speech, sign language, or telepathy. And it sees nothing but another dog, or, a confusing image.

As for **tools: we each are our own, best, property. I am my flesh and my flesh is the way I interact with, apprehend, manipulate the world (walking on legs, grasping with hands, speaking with mouth, thinking with brain, etc.). Tool, as metaphor, seems apt.



*see post 82

**see posts # 65 and 82

It is becoming increasingly apparent that "I", as you put it, "ought to retire from the conversation." This moving target crap is getting real old real quick. Perhaps I'll let another "dog" chase your elusive bone for a bit.

FWIW - I have been reading AND participating in this thread since the first post. Enjoy!

get bent
 

"It is becoming increasingly apparent that "I", as you put it, "ought to retire from the conversation.""


Fine by me.

#

"This moving target crap is getting real old real quick."


And still no evidence offered in support of your position.

Not surprising in the least.

#

"Perhaps I'll let another "dog" chase your elusive bone for a bit."


I'd prefer another person.

#

"FWIW - I have been reading AND participating in this thread since the first post."


Indeed. Pity your participation was picayune; your comprehension poor.