Peace

[henry quirk]

"The difference is: humans have no instincts, animals do."


We have instincts. Unlike dogs, however, we can choose to ignore them at least part of the time.

#

"I would argue that humans have no love either, except as extensions of our biological underpinnings -- that we share in common with many other mammals. Love your mate. Your parents. Your social group. Your offspring. All motivated by basic evolutionary pressures."


Only the human individual can love someone outside of parents, social group, offspring. You could argue the individual can do so only because he or she adopts the loved one into one of those groups, which kinda supports my point. Only a human individual can choose to adopt someone as parent, or into a social group, or as offspring. Only the distinctive 'I' that, insofar as we know, is unique to the human individual can love in that way.

#

"Only bloviators like Henry here think you need high-falutin' language to qualify for love."


Muddled thinking doesn't look any prettier when topped with useless insult, pie.

Shame on you.

#

"What sources do you have to back up your opinion?"


The same, best, source you have in determining the unique nature of love and how love is the action of the human individual and no other: myself, yourself, pie's self, Jim's self.

I can talk with you about love...we can dicker about its nature.

Find me the dog, the platypus, the cat, the chimp, the garden slug that can do the same.

You can't.

Why?

Because in all those cases, the animals haven't sufficient complexity, or complexity of a very specific kind, to, first, be 'self' aware and, second, to feel in the self-reflective way required to love.

Again: if you wanna generalize love to include 'familiarity coupled with good feeling coupled with physical pleasure' then be my guest.

Hell: I’ll even concede ''familiarity coupled with good feeling coupled with physical pleasure' is a kind of love, but a poor love as compared to what human individuals can feel and choose for one another.

#

"Truly, I do not think it can be "proven" either way"


And: you may be right. However: conversations, particularly those labeled’ philosophy', tend not to go anywhere if everyone just agrees to disagree.

For myself: I think I'm on firm footing with my analysis.

#

"but I believe they do."


As you should, Classic!

#

"Only bloviators like Henry here think you need high-falutin' language to qualify for love"


Actually: what I'm arguing is that to love, one needs to be an 'I'. Along with 'I'ness comes language as tool for naming the world and making it one's own. Language is the esoteric version of the hand. The hand allows (demands!) manipulation of the world; so does language.

#

Pie, you ought to take this, 'The fun thing about evolution (and science in general) is that it happens whether you believe in it or not.', out of your signature line. It’s obvious you don't believe a word of it. An appeal to the authority of anecdote is not science.

#

I wrote: 'Actually, as 'we' use and understand love, no, your dog doesn't.'

Classic responded: 'ok, prove it'


Two things:

1-I made no claim, Pie did. The burden is on her, or her proxy, to provide evidence for her claim that her "dog…sure as hell understands it."

2-How is am I to prove the existence of what is absent?

I can point to the absence of evidence for God and still this doesn't prove deity's absence.

I can point to the seemingly unique nature of the human individual ('I'ness), and how that nature expresses in that most unique action, love. I can point to the apparent lack of 'I'ness in virtually all other life, and how this lack precludes love in a dog.

I can point to the human individual: the self-referencing, esoteric-seeking, instinct-denying, agent, and ask, are dogs like us?

And still: this won't prove to your satisfaction that only the human individual loves.

#

"my past experience with training dogs and having them for so many years leads me to my opinion on the subject."


This could mean one of two things: you are far better schooled on the possibility of dog love than me, or, you're far too close to, and have far too much affection for, dogs to be objective.

Who's to know which?

[henry quirk]

"Interesting. Isn't this the same henry that started a thread about 'peace' without defining what he meant by 'peace'?"

Nice try, Beastmaster, but, you know as well as I the difference between uinintended imprecision in statement and an intended 'terms open to interpretation' question.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"Interesting. Isn't this the same henry that started a thread about 'peace' without defining what he meant by 'peace'?"

Nice try, Beastmaster, but, you know as well as I the difference between uinintended imprecision in statement and an intended 'terms open to interpretation' question.

One is unintended. One is intended. Both result in imprecision.

[Pie]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"Only bloviators like Henry here think you need high-falutin' language to qualify for love."

Muddled thinking doesn't look any prettier when topped with useless insult, pie.

Shame on you.

I believe I used the term correctly.

To bloviate means "to speak pompously and excessively" or "to expound ridiculously". A colloquial verb coined in the United States, it is commonly used with contempt to describe the behavior of politicians, academics, pundits or media "experts," sometimes called bloviators, who hold forth on subjects in an arrogant, tiresome way.

[henry quirk]

This, of course, means the two aren’t synonymous.

As I said up-thread: 'It's just the beginning of a goddamned conversation wherein folks are encouraged to offer interpretations. The hope: a lengthy enough thread will evolve away from the opening question and self-sustain based on the give and take of the participants.'

And: I do believe I have exactly what I wanted.

Now: go play with Kodo and Podo like a good boy, or, trundle down to the Unitarian Fellowship and hob-nob with the other lukewarms…

#

"I believe I used the term correctly."


Then: I leave you with your subjective assessment since subjective assessment is all it is.

One woman's 'arrogant, tiresome way' is one man's plain speech.

Sorry if you're not up to keeping up.

And: for the record, using the right (as you see it) word doesn't negate insult, which was your intent.

Can't you at least be honest enough to admit you were levying an insult, or haven't you the clarity to see even that?

#

Now: I head home and feed my brother's unloving bio-automata (his cats) and spend the evening with a delightful bundle of loving 'I'ness (my nephew).

If you can't tell the difference between the two, then, you have my sympathies...

[dar512]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

And: I do believe I have exactly what I wanted.

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

You're good.

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Now: go play with Kodo and Podo like a good boy, or, trundle down to the Unitarian Fellowship and hob-nob with the other lukewarms…

Um. What?

No. Really. What?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

What sources do you have to back up your opinion? Truly, I do not think it can be "proven" either way, but I believe they do.

Jon Katz , noted dog author, feels differently.

"Over 15,000 years of domestication, [dogs] learned to trick us into thinking that they love us so we'll feed and care for them," he said.

Or, as he puts it in his new book, dogs are "adept social parasites."
...
Katz has written numerous books and articles on dogs, and he bases his conclusions on research conducted by unsentimental scientists trying to unlock the mysteries of animal behavior.

Then three words on Page 68 of "Soul of a Dog," brought me up short. Katz is discussing Lenore, a Labrador retriever and one of three dogs he keeps on his farm, and notes, "Lenore loves me."

"Busted!" I wrote in the margin.

"I use that term several times in the book," Katz admitted during lunch. "And what I mean is that my dogs love me in the ways that dogs love. There's no question that their instincts cause them to form and show powerful attachments."

He added, "What people were reading in your column was the suggestion that dogs are indifferent to their owners, which obviously isn't the case. But at the same time, dogs don't recognize people as unique individuals. It's just a romantic idea that a dog is a self-aware creature that makes a conscious choice to love a person because it appreciates his special qualities."

This leads, naturally, into the question of how much of the love humans feel for each other is based on instinct and need as opposed to objective, rational assessments. And to the implicit question in the title of the book and many of the anecdotes and mediations within -- do dogs have "souls"?

"My answer is that no, dogs don't have souls," Katz said. "At least not in the way that humans have souls. But they have souls of their own that we define by their impact on us."

They have an essence, in other words. A spirit, one that inspires and comforts and, occasionally amazes. We cheapen and distort that essence when we pretend it's just like our own.

Perhaps an otherwise divided nation can agree on Katz's simple plea: "Let dogs be dogs."

[classicman]

Hmmm, thanks Pie. I do think I have come to acquire a rather unique interpretation of this thing we call "love." Additionally, my past experience with training dogs and having them for so many years leads me to my opinion on the subject.

Originally Posted by Henry

Actually, as 'we' use and understand love, no, your dog doesn't.

ok, prove it.

[skysidhe]

I agree Henry. Love is a very powerful subjective force.

I had originally intended to offer support to henry (you) but 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.
Life is what we make it and sometimes we feel dogs are our enjoyable best buds and sometimes that's enough.

so...

This thread reminded me of an article I once saw in a National Geographic magazine. It was about how dogs might be smarter than science at first thought.


I found this article instead and it is very interesting.

It's called," How Did Dogs Become Adept at Playing to Humans"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ovedogs_2.html


Here's a snippet.

Miklósi summarized in Current Biology. "Since looking behavior has an important function in initializing and maintaining communicative interaction in human communication systems, we suppose that by positive feedback processes (both evolutionary and ontogenetically) the readiness of dogs to look at the human face has led to complex forms of dog-human communication that cannot be achieved in wolves even after extended socialization."



Here is another snippet of the article.

Could cognition be a breeding by-product like these physical changes?

Dog lovers know that man's best friend has an uncanny ability to understand and react to human actions. Clues to how dogs came to develop this ability lie somewhere in their evolutionary past, and learning the answer could shine light on our own development as humans.

"Based on these observations, we suggest that the key difference between dog and wolf behavior is the dogs' ability to look at the human's face," Miklósi summarized in Current Biology. "Since looking behavior has an important function in initializing and maintaining communicative interaction in human communication systems, we suppose that by positive feedback processes (both evolutionary and ontogenetically) the readiness of dogs to look at the human face has led to complex forms of dog-human communication that cannot be achieved in wolves even after extended socialization."

and


"Many anthropologists think that as humans evolved we became smart because it's good to be smart," he said. "But maybe it was selection on what scientists and breeders call temperament. "Maybe nice people eventually became smarter, rather than smart people becoming nice."

I am not agreeing with that statement. If all the smart people were nice ...

[classicman]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Because in all those cases, the animals haven't sufficient complexity, or complexity of a very specific kind, to, first, be 'self' aware and, second, to feel in the self-reflective way required to love.

I call MAJOR Bullshit on that. Every being is to some degree self aware. Dogs, and cats for that, matter are extremely self aware.

[Undertoad]

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.

[skysidhe]

I don't believe it's for their own benefit.

I thought the article was stating the dogs were bred for temperament originally yet developed a startling capacity to emotionally interact with humans via the development of intelligence.

I can't speak for your ex-wife. :P

story on a dogs act of love
http://www.moderndogmagazine.com/art...true-story/132



A study published in the U.K.'s New Scientist reveals dogs exhibit "left gaze bias," which suggests dogs can detect human emotions by looking at the face.

Read more: http://petcare.suite101.com/article....#ixzz0Sb5BgYNV

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

[henry quirk]

"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.

[henry quirk]

"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.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

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.

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?