spiritdogs
How do dogs communicate verbally? Remember, verbal communication requires the use of symbols, written, spoken, or signed.
if we forget the arrogant human insistence that "verbal" means words only, and not vocalizations, we can see how a narrow definition precludes true understanding of the nature of communication.
Wow. It's our human arrogance which defines verbal as meaning a form of communication that only uses words, and doesn't include vocalizations? Uh-huh, except that the word verbal is based on the Latin word verbum, which means, well, "word," not "vocalization." How else are we to define what is verbal if it's not related to words? I mean, I don't know if you even realize how ridiculous your statement is.
Here's what's actually in Merriam Webster under "verbal:"
The reason this word verbal is defined so specifically is because that's what it is, it's specifically related to the use of words, nothing else. And no matter how much we might wish that a dog's vocalizations are a form of symbolic language, they're not. Just as when a human grunts or sighs or even cries in pain he's not using words, hence, he's not using symbols to communicate -- he's just vocalizing, not verbalizing.
spiritdogs
Essentially, we should be examining whether vocalizations (animals) or words (humans) are understood by the recipient
No, actually, that falls under the effect of the communication, not the intent of whoever is vocalizing. And in order to form the intent to report information from your mind to the mind of another you have to have a full-blown theory of mind. You can't get around that.
I'd also like to point out that there's a kind of hazy definition floating around here of what a theory of mind means. It basically comes in three forms, sort of like a pyramid,
The first form is having an awareness that other beings have the same kinds of sensory input that you do, and that their input might be different from yours.
The second is having an awareness that other beings have feeling states similar to those that you have, and that their feeling states might differ from yours.
The full-blown theory of mind is that you have an awareness that other beings are capable of having higher ideas and thought processes (symbolic, conceptual, abstract) similar to yours, and that their thoughts and ideas may also differ from yours. Cognitive scientists are still debating whether chimps even have the first level. They've designed some very sophisticated experiments to test this (some more sophisticated than others), and yet the field is still divided over whether chimps are capable of this first level*. And you think dogs are capable of the third level, without running your own sophisticated scientific tests? Based on what, a gut feeling that your dog is thinking?
I recommend you at least read this first chapter of the book Rational Animals? before you make the kind of argument you have here. It presents both sides of that particular debate, among many others, and will hopefully give you a better grounding in understanding what the various levels of consciousness actually are, and what kinds of proofs are required to make the kinds of claims you're making.
spiritdogs
when the animal (either animal or human) tries to communicate an idea from one organism to the other. Vocalizations are the canine equivalent of words - barking, whining, yelping, and howling all have meaning and are understood by the recipient.
There's no question that vocalizations carry information, or that one dog will "understand" something about what the first dog is feeling. That's not the same thing as having meaning. That's a very important distinction. Plus that's not the real question. The real question is, does the first dog have the intent to convey meaning, which requires the use of symbols, or is he just expressing his emotions? Since vocalizations are NOT symbolic (anymore than grunting or sighing is), and since dogs do NOT have a full-blown theory of mind, the answer is very simple.
spiritdogs
Canine body language is the equivalent of human gestures (though much more nuanced and quick than our clumsy arm waving). You are simply unwilling to call that "language" and that's more an anthrocentric fallacy than a scientific paradigm.
It's not that I'm unwilling to call it language, I'm just calling it what it is. You, on the other hand, still don't seem to understand the basic principles of linguistics, or the difference between the two basic forms of communication, one that requires the use of symbols, and one that doesn't. You're lumping everything together as if it's all one big stew. You're not looking at the different levels involved.
spiritdogs
I believe that we are not as far ahead of them [dogs] as we would like to think, in the Darwinian sense.
This brings up an interesting point about something Ron2 said, about how he sees consciousness as a continuum, rather than coming in discrete levels. I think part of the continuum fallacy comes from Darwinism, or a kind of basic misunderstanding we have of what adaptation means, and how species evolve. I think we all have this image of the fish coming out of the water and walking on four legs, then becoming an amphibian, then becoming a mammal, then a primate, then a human, as if the process is part of a continuum.
It's not. The changes that create speciation -- and even Darwin said this -- come from mutations, not gradual changes in morphology. There is no continuum in that sense. The changes that take place in a species happen in discrete bumps, if you will, from within the cells of the organism. Yes, there are some mutations that don't serve an adaptive purpose, and those species may die out because of that. And yes, the mutations that do serve an adaptive purpose live on to mutate again in another 100,000 or million years, etc. But there is no continuum in evolution. The process happens through discrete changes in a specific cell, organelle, or organ, etc. in real time, not as part of a historic continuum. So thinking that dogs have the same continuum of consciousness and thought that we do, only a bit less of it, is kind of like saying that they have the same morphology as birds, only with "less wings." The truth is dogs don't have wings, so they can't fly. They also can't talk or use symbols to communicate. Should we think any less of them because of these simple facts? I don't!
As for what Kim said about neurobiology, I suspect she's being disingenuous or else she's ignorant of certain important biological differences between the canine and hominid brain. For one thing, fully one third of the canine brain is given over to processing olfactory information. 1/3 of the canine brain! If you're going to cram language and theory of mind into the other 2/3s (neither of which serve an adaptive purpose), where does the dog get all of his real abilities as a hunter, a social animal, a reproductive animal, what's running his emotions?
Then there's the simple fact that dogs do NOT have a Broca's area, or a Wernicke's area, which are crucial for processing language. They also do not have fully-developed frontal lobes. Of course if you see consciousness as a continuum you will probably think that this doesn't matter, that it's just a difference of degrees, not of abilities. Which is fine, I guess: just tell that to your dog the next time he tries to fly...
Anyway, that's how I see it.
LCK
*Some argue that the chimps in the experiments in question are
exhibiting learned behaviors, and don't have this first level "mind
reading" ability.