GRGR(3) talking dog 44.20

[Jeremy Osner]

Doug Millison wrote:

> would a behaviorist
> recognize that sort of consciousness in a dog?  Especially in one that is
> to be used as an experimental subject? Seems problematic to me, especially
> given the historical period, when lots of animal researchers would have
> still followed the Cartesian view that considered animals as unfeeling
> machines (some still do, of course).

I'm buying KW's idea. And here's why: in the next episode we see that
Pointsman's reason for being a Pavlovian animal researcher is a lust for power
over his experimental subjects. He wants a human subject but has settled up til
now for canines. Well... my own experience with lusting for power over others
(not quite as limited as I would like to claim) usually involves a bit of
fantasizing about the fear and helplessness inspired in the subject of one's
might. It just doesn't seem like it would be worth lusting for power over an
unfeeling machine. (And obviously yes, the whole dynamic of asserting power
over x involves objectifying x/ denying x personhood, *but* you can't objectify
an object; I think you can *only* assert power over something that you are at
some level afraid of having it asssert power over you. If that makes any
sense.) I can see Pointsman fantasizing about the frightened dog, and
translating his fantasy into scientific language to prepare it for consumption
by his conscious mind. Which is why the bit about "memory, or reflex" is very
important: the translation mechanism slipped up and the level of conscious mind
that is doing the narration saw something it wasn't supposed to see, an
ascription of humanity to the specimen; quickly corrected, as KW points out.