Peace

[Pico and ME]

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.

[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?

[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.

[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."

[skysidhe]

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.

[henry quirk]

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...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

You seem to be a very interesting person even without a wagging tail.

Assumption.

[henry quirk]

[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?

[henry quirk]

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'.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

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

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

Originally Posted by henry quirk

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.

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

Originally Posted by henry quirk

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

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.

Originally Posted by henry quirk

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'.

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.

[henry quirk]

"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

[classicman]

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!

[henry quirk]

"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.