I think that is incorrect, FK. We want our dogs to obey by recognizing the command. We can euphemistically say that the dog "understands" but that is the fallacy of anthropomorphizing our pets as well.
No, I think a dog can understand "if I do this then I get a yummy treat or a pat on the head which I like". That's not too complicated for them, and it IS understanding. Dogs don't obey commands for no reason, at least at first. And just from personal experience our dog treats every individual family member differently, based on his perceived station for us. I am the "king", etc. That HAS to involve some understanding.
***No, I think a dog can understand “if I do this then I get a yummy treat or a pat on the head which I like”. That’s not too complicated for them, and it IS understanding. Dogs don’t obey commands for no reason, at least at first. And just from personal experience our dog treats every individual family member differently, based on his perceived station for us. I am the “king”, etc. That HAS to involve some understanding.***
Are you comparing a dog getting a yummy treat to our everlasting life? We really do have completely different theologies, sir. And a completely different understanding of God.
Learning and understanding are two different things, FK. Experimental psychology has proven that long time ago; an organism does not require understanding to learn.
To "understand" involves grasping of the meaning, comprehension.
To "learn" involves acquiring a skill. Thus, learning and understanding ( comprehending) is not mutually exclusive or necessarily mutually interdependent, as is the case with need and want.
And just from personal experience our dog treats every individual family member differently, based on his perceived station for us. I am the "king", etc. That HAS to involve some understanding.
And ants know who the queen is, FK, but I doubt they "understand" why.