You have a good point, but analogies are not proof. A dog simply does not have the capacity for analysis or decomposition, which is how we understand anything c

You have a good point, but analogies are not proof. A dog simply does not have the capacity for analysis or decomposition, which is how we understand anything complex -- we just keep breaking it down until we understand the constituent parts. Then we understand the interactions between those parts. I think that's enough to "understand" pretty much anything. Unless of course you can think of a mental faculty that you think we're missing.