Do Dogs Intentionally Use Their Body Language to Communicate?

Jupiter

"I'm not an expert on quantum physics, but Nick Herbert has said that "Bell's theorem could explain telepathy."

How do you feel about the scientists who think a phenomenon should be established as "real" before speculation about the mechanism behind the phenomenon is explored?

I mean, should the scientific community

1) start looking to quantum physics to explain extraterrestrial telepathy

or...

2) first establish that aliens are here, and communicating in a way that appears to be paranormal, before digging into how the ET telepathy "works"?

Because what you're doing with dogs and quantum physics/telepathy, and being so pseudoscientific/"modern". seems a lot like example #1.

Hi, Jupiter,

Thanks for the comment.

I'm not sure I understand your point. If I were interested in exploring ideas about alien life forms I would probably go to Stephen Hawking, not a quantum physicist.

If you're saying that telepathy is "paranormal," then I would say that you and I have different definitions of what's normal and what's not. I think telepathy is quite normal in animals; in fact, it's a very simple biological function. You could read more about this in Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home by Rupert Sheldrake. Or you could pay attention to those times when you answer the phone and say, "That's funny. I was just thinking about you." Or when you feel that someone is looking at you even though you have your back turned.

And I'm actually less interested in what's widely accepted by science in general than I am in questioning the conventional wisdom about dogs, much of which I think is at least slightly off base. Most of my articles for Psychology Today are of the "this is what we're told about dogs by experts," followed by some simple questions asking how the accepted explanation would be possible, what forms of cognition would such explanations require, and trying to come up with alternative answers that seem more parsimonious and more logical.

How do you explain the phenomenon of dogs who know when their owners are coming home, or dogs who get lost, have no landmarks to navigate by, and yet still manage somehow to find their way home? How about dogs like the one in Minnesota this winter, who out on his evening walk refused to go in the usual direction, and instead dragged his owner the other way, several blocks, toward a strange house they'd never walked past before, where a man lay dying in his driveway of a heart attack? (The owner quickly called 911 and the man's life was saved.) This type of thing happens quite a lot, and there is currently no scientific explanation for it, except the one provided by Sheldrake.

It seems to me that cognitive science is too focused on the brain, and not focused enough on gut feelings. Are those gut feelings connected somehow to Nick Herbert's idea, that telepathy involves quantum entanglement? Probably not. But as I said, I'm interested in exploring things from as many angles as possible, and at one point, that just happened to be one of those angles

LCK

Jupiter

You can't have pattern recognition, or any other type of "recognition" without "thought".

Hi, Jupiter,

Thanks for the feedback.

I think that whether pattern recognition requires thought, depends on how you define thought. Do computers think? Are the Amazon or Google software programs consciously aware of a customer's taste in reading, or of their search preferences? Of course not, yet they're designed via emergence theory (as is ages-old the human/canine dynamic, by the way) to detect patterns, and spit out information. All without a conscious thought to be found anywhere in the software's "head."

In the very detailed description I gave earlier of how pattern recognition works, the scientists involved made a clear distinction between pattern recognition -- which happens instantly, in real time -- and linear thought -- which is much slower, and requires more energy to be expended by various parts of the brain. If nature is economical, then, wherever possible, it would prefer pattern recognition to a slower and more energy-draining thought process. (As I also mentioned, chess masters use pattern recognition, not logical thought to win matches.)

I would define conscious thought as the ability to compare one moment in time with another, and to also be able to entertain another being's point of view.  If you have a different definition, then fine. You're right; by whatever definition you want to choose, dogs can think.

What I'm trying to do, though, is to understand as much as I can about the subject, from as many different angles as possible, try to find the simplest, most parsimonious answers that still explain all aspects of a phenomenon, and go from there.

LCK

"I'm not sure I understand your point. If I were interested in exploring ideas about alien life forms I would probably go to Stephen Hawking, not a quantum physicist."

Why would you go to a physicist to learn about the possibilities of alien life? Over an astrobiologist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobiology

Regarding telepathy, the phone, and dogs knowing when you're coming home, it's called "confirmation bias".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

And regarding your stories, they're just that - stories. As soon as something of that nature is actually documented, I'll reconsider. Until then, I just don't believe everything I read.

"I would define conscious thought as the ability to compare one moment in time with another, and to also be able to entertain another being's point of view.  If you have a different definition, then fine. You're right; by whatever definition you want to choose, dogs can think."

Yeah, that's not how I define "thought". I also don't think a thinking being needs to be either/or about those types of thing. I think a dog probably can understand that another is happy or angry or scared or whatever without having a fully developed theory of mind. It's not hard for me to imagine a semi-developed TOM. And all the research done to date supports the idea that dogs have a very basic, primitive sort of TOM.

Jupiter

"I would define conscious thought as the ability to compare one moment in time with another, and to also be able to entertain another being's point of view.  If you have a different definition, then fine. You're right; by whatever definition you want to choose, dogs can think."

Yeah, that's not how I define "thought". I also don't think a thinking being needs to be either/or about those types of thing. I think a dog probably can understand that another is happy or angry or scared or whatever without having a fully developed theory of mind. It's not hard for me to imagine a semi-developed TOM. And all the research done to date supports the idea that dogs have a very basic, primitive sort of TOM.

Very well said, and I agree.  I think that people who have spent a lot of time watching dog to dog interaction that is unencumbered by leashes or other human intervention are more inclined to make hypotheses about dogs and their emotions or thought processes being similar to ours in many ways.  Research is certainly finding some similarities, and much more needs to be done.  If I had the energy to go for a PhD...

 I find it interesting that when we (humans) don't know what actually happened, aliens or ESP seems to become involved. A dog knowing your coming home is not paranormal.  They hear in ranges we don't.  They smell things we don't.  If your driving, your car makes noises humans either don't or can not hear.  The dogs do.  The simple explanation is usually correct, but doesn't sell books or make good TV.

If you have a dog, or spend any time at all with them, your answer to the OPs original question is a simple "yes".

Jupiter

 

And regarding your stories, they're just that - stories. As soon as something of that nature is actually documented, I'll reconsider. Until then, I just don't believe everything I read.

Yes.

ALL of my dogs, since I was a kid to when I was an adult, "stupid" dogs and "smart" dogs alike, have always "told" me (not consciously, on their part...they weren't trying to communicate; they were just happy to see the signs) when a family member was almost home. Duh! They can smell and hear better than I can [That said, there have been other times when the dog(s) was/were clearly communicating with me. All "How can I get you to understand me?" -style.] 

And this "not actually paranormal" ability (the ability to sense a family member close) always wanes with age - as hearing wanes with age in dogs. While it could be a coincidence, I doubt it.

Was the pick-up day scheduled in advance? Or was the boarding time indefinite?

Well, my wild guess would be that you (unintentionally) retrospectively over-interpreted her behavior. But - I actually do like the fact that some universities have paranormal departments, tho, that try to observe this sort of thing and properly document it.

I think if such a thing were real, it would have been discovered already, probably. But maybe not. My mind is not completely closed; I just am hyper-aware of the fact that human cognition is a little goofy and not necessarily all that reliable on its own a lot of times.

Jupiter

I actually do like the fact that some universities have paranormal departments, tho, that try to observe this sort of thing and properly document it. I think if such a thing were real, it would have been discovered already, probably.

Hi, Jupiter,

There have been quite a lot of studies, and so far nothing has panned out. I believe that's because telepathic transmission runs on a different set of circuits than conscious thought*. In fact, telepathy isn't a mental faculty, where one would be able to read another being's thoughts (which would be found in the more developed areas of the brain), but a means of reading (or tapping into) another being's feeling states, both bodily and emotional. For instance, Barbara Smuts (who was seen in the Donnie the Doberman video) spent some time in Africa in the 1970s, getting up close and personal with a troop of baboons. Once she'd been accepted, and had learned to read their body language, and their vocalizations (many of which she began to copy), she had a very strange experience: the first time she saw them kill a gazelle, instead of being horrified, she salivated. And she's a vegetarian! Where did that response come from?

LCK

*The ventral medial prefrontal cortex is the area of the brain where we get feedback from our bodily states. This dorsal medial prefrontal cortex is where the sense of "self" and conscious thought processes are, well, processed. But it's rare for both to be active at the same time. It seems to me that one reason the studies on telepathy haven't panned out so far may be that the VMPC might act as both the "transmitter" and the "receiver" in the telepathic process, so it would be very difficult, it not impossible, to try to engage in a conscious attempt to transmit one's feelings through the VMPC because the circuitry in the DMPC would cause interference. (Just a thought.)

Dawnben

That was the cool thing she could always tell.

Was anybody watching your behavior when you got news of the owners return.  Too many uncontrolled events {behaviors, body language by human, voice quality, words used) to call this a scientific observation.

While this is interesting as an anecdote, it is not data for a study. 

I have noticed that most ESP or paranormal events are supported by anecdotal evidence, not controlled scientific evidence , and authors trying to publish or release video to TV seem to rely a lot on anecdotes, or assumptions that the only possible explanation is alien influence or paranormal activity, because their collection of anecdotes proves a rational explanation is impossible.( I know this sentence rambles, but so do most arguments for ESP or paranormal activity)

Mr Kellys statement:

 the first time she saw them kill a gazelle, instead of being horrified, she salivated. And she's a vegetarian! Where did that response come

from?

May not have had anything to do with food-may have been a sexual response to the kill.  May have been a genetically induced response to seeing food killed.  Being a vegetarian doesn't mean instinctual responses are altered .With out some controlled study, its just an unrelated bit of information that may or may not be meaningful.  It's an anecdote, not scientific data.

Dawnben

boarding time was indefinite. I had Matida at my house for about 6 months out of the year. The owner would call me on a moments notice because of his business and fly out for anywhere from 3 days to 3 weeks. That was the cool thing she could always tell.

I just posted an article at PsychologyToday.com on this topic: "Canine Communication, III: Are Dogs Telepathic?"

I doubt it will put the subject to rest, but I hope you find it interesting.

LCK

The last time LCK brought up quantum mechanics in relation to this, it was based on the a theory of "quantum consciousness" which began in the early 20th century as an off-shoot of the still you QM theory. By the way, not all things are proven in QM nor does QM answer all questions. It answers a specific few but not very well and relies quite a bit on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (think Schroedinger's Cat). Honestly, I think my friend, Ben, when pursuing his doctorate in physics was straighter on target with his treatment of chaos theory and the Poincare' three-body problem.

Essentially, if in QM, at some level, all "matter-energy" states are synonymous, then a "shared" consciousness could be at the level, though, since it is a sub-basic state of matter and energy, I don't think it could be consciousness, which seems to rely on a level of complexity, at least as far as researchers in artificial intelligence are concerned. And that theory was never proven and was largely left by the way-side. There are other fantastic aspects of QM that still have yet to be proven, such as the EPR Event in the spin-alignment of outer shell electrons in response to a nearby EM field, leading to an instantaneous transmission of matter or energy, which of course, violates Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, at least as he last left it. Others have named it QM teleportation. One cannot assume it exists until proven, now matter how much Heisenberg says "Maybe ... maybe not."