On Aug 14, 2:35Â pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:> On Aug 14, 2:16Â pm, ta
nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Aug 14, 2:06Â pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:>
>>> On Aug 14, 1:53Â pm, ta
nc.rr.com> wrote:>
>>>> Yesterday I stumbled upon three dogs while walking through my
>>>> neighborhood. The dogs were generally unruly -- barking incessantly,
>>>> pulling on their leashes, and snarling at other passer-by dogs.
>
>>>> Now I have interacted with each of these dogs individually on numerous
>>>> occasions, and have never witnessed this behavior. It was obvious that
>>>> the presence of each other created a "group chemistry" that did not
>>>> exist in isolation.
>
>>>> Humans, no doubt, are the same.
>
>>>> The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
>
>>> Or is it less?
>
>>> -tg
>
>> Different?
>
> Or not.
>
> The fallacy of composition does not *preclude* the whole having the
> same characteristics as the parts.
That's true -- I wasn't meaning to imply otherwise.
> Question: Â If the dogs as a group were quiet, would you remark on
> it?
No. But ultimately it depends on the circumstances. If they were in a
familiar house together, there will be no difference. But outside,
they take on the pack mentality.
> Some of the usual suspects would argue that there is no group of dogs,
> but only individual dogs.
>
> Would this argument be stronger when the
> dogs are quiet (as they are individually) but less strong in the case
> you observed?
>
> -tg
That's silly
-- it can be objectively verified that a group of dog
exists, even if their behaviour is identical in both situations.
