Should We Ignore or Celebrate the "Wolfiness" in Our Dogs?

I'd say instinct comes first, then higher reasoning. But both are present to some degree in dogs and wolves.

When I went to visit my relatives in Montana I brought my old lab, Mia, with me. My aunt has always spoiled her dogs, who rule the house (she even had to put one down because it because it bit one of her grandkids). Anyway, after breaking up a minor squabble between auntie's dog and mine, they settled in and got along fine. A few days later my dog's back went out and she couldn't move. She was laying on the lawn while we went to get a card table (she was a big dog) to carry her on and load her in the truck to get her to the vet. While she was waiting for us, my aunt's dog brought Mia a bone and layed it in front of her.

I found this very interesting.

ETA: Mia ended up okay and was better overnight.

Angelique

 A few days later my dog's back went out and she couldn't move. She was laying on the lawn while we went to get a card table (she was a big dog) to carry her on and load her in the truck to get her to the vet. While she was waiting for us, my aunt's dog brought Mia a bone and layed it in front of her.

I found this very interesting.

ETA: Mia ended up okay and was better overnight.

 

What an understatement.  This compassionate act is just one more instance of verifying the legitimacy of my Ultimate Concern for recognition of dogs as 'theological persons.'

 

Angelique

When I went to visit my relatives in Montana I brought my old lab, Mia, with me. My aunt has always spoiled her dogs, who rule the house (she even had to put one down because it because it bit one of her grandkids). Anyway, after breaking up a minor squabble between auntie's dog and mine, they settled in and got along fine. A few days later my dog's back went out and she couldn't move. She was laying on the lawn while we went to get a card table (she was a big dog) to carry her on and load her in the truck to get her to the vet. While she was waiting for us, my aunt's dog brought Mia a bone and layed it in front of her.

 

 

Hi 

I am a fairly analytical person, but have seen enough of these kind of instances to start asking why? I saw my older cat catch and provide food to our young puppy because we were late. 

 I have seen the genrosity with food/bones when convention would suggest that the dog be chucked out becuase of illness.

One slight way that only half gets there is that may be we have modified many of the conventions that exist between wild dogs, and one of them is the view that dogs may see as to who their social grouping actually is.

I am so black and white over higher order thinking. :) I like to believe that my dogs should have higher order thinking because it makes MY universe that much better. I  think that an outcome based process of establishing whether higher order thinking can exist is a nonsense, because nonsense outcomes appear. Humans need reminding that we make awful birds. So do human processes define higher order thinking?

What should be the end is whether brain structures and cell types that tyoically control higer order thinking exist. Until we can say they do or don't, we have nothing conclusive.

Oh and don't even try. My poodles do have higher order thinking as far as i am concerned and that is the end of the matter.  :)

 

spiritdogs

Wolves have been known to bring food to older wolves which can no longer hunt.  What does that say about their lack of understanding about survival or mortality?  One would think that to perform that simple act means that they not only understand it, they understand the ramifications of starvation on others.

 

Hi SpiritDogs,

Biological altruism is an interesting question, and it's being looked into from all sorts of different angles, not only from higher animals, but in some cases even plants exhibit this tendency (to sometimes use their energy to aid their "kin";).

I would suggest that in the example you've given we could interpret it, as you and others have done -- as being about the animal having an awareness of death, etc, and all its ramifications -- or we could look for a more parsimonious explanation.

Personally, I think one of the hallmarks of canine consciousness is the ability to "tune in" to how others in the group are feeling. Many people report that when they're ill, their dog "knows it," and acts accordingly. So who's to say that when a wolf brings food to an older pack member who's hungry that she does so because she's thinking about the future, and worried that the other wolf will die, or simply because she feels how that other wolf is feeling at that moment?

In other words, if wolves are capable of feeling what others in their group are feeling, then if the older wolf's suffering causes a perturbation in the younger wolf's system, then providing him with a bit of food reduces that unpleasant feeling state in her.

I think most examples of biological altruism -- even in plants -- can be explained this way, through an awareness of the changes in the "donor's" energy state, energetic changes that nature and evolution have put in place for the purpose of motivating organisms to act in a way that will help keep the group-as-a-whole viable for as long as possible.

Anyway, that's how I see it,

LCK

 

Two words: Confirmation Bias

In fact much of what you think you "know" can be attributed to this.  

Behan's ideas are laughable.  When you examine what he writes/says, it is obvious that he is simply making most of this stuff up.  Like other scientifically illiterate trainers (Millan comes to mind) he talks a lot about 'energy' and 'frequencies'  without ever clearly defining them.

TheMilkyWay

 

Two words: Confirmation Bias

In fact much of what you think you "know" can be attributed to this.  

Behan's ideas are laughable.  When you examine what he writes/says, it is obvious that he is simply making most of this stuff up.  Like other scientifically illiterate trainers (Millan comes to mind) he talks a lot about 'energy' and 'frequencies'  without ever clearly defining them.

 

 

Welcome to the forum.

 

Well, I am in total agreement with your first post.  Energy and vibrations and pack consciousness are put forth by the non-science types often to ensure you never give the dog credit for its innate ability to reason, express human/mammalian emotion, make use of empathy in emotional understanding, and unconsciously/instinctively reacting to experiences with conscious acts of keen awareness.  A cognitive scientist will put it better than me.

 What LCK just did in reply to a spiritdogs quote is make it sound as though she was stating that dogs think exactly as we do.  I am pretty sure she rather meant, like most average folk sense, that dogs' behavior is, as per Darwin, organically  analogous to ours, as I just pointed out.  Then, Lee instead reinterprets the behavior in question in a very enigmatic convolution of ways that simplify the animal mind to some physically deterministic physics-like predictability as with orbiting planets. Bull.

TheMilkyWay

Two words: Confirmation Bias

In fact much of what you think you "know" can be attributed to this.  

Behan's ideas are laughable.  When you examine what he writes/says, it is obvious that he is simply making most of this stuff up.  Like other scientifically illiterate trainers (Millan comes to mind) he talks a lot about 'energy' and 'frequencies'  without ever clearly defining them.

 

 

I guess that you are saying what i am saying in a much more forceful way. In truth, biological systems are very intricate and are controlled by many different factors, energy being just one. If you hang your hat on just one of these sub systems, the anomalies for an unbiased observer soon become pretty obvious. What is amazing is how they all work together to achieve an end goal.

TheMilkyWay

Behan's ideas are laughable.  When you examine what he writes/says, it is obvious that he is simply making most of this stuff up.  Like other scientifically illiterate trainers (Millan comes to mind) he talks a lot about 'energy' and 'frequencies'  without ever clearly defining them.

I'm sure you must have reasons for your opinions, but just saying that someone's ideas are laughable doesn't really shed any light on the discussion. It would be more informative to share what ideas, exactly, you find laughable. It would be even more informative to give an alternative, more scientific explanation to contrast with some of Behan's ideas.

Of anyone here, I probably have had the most direct contact with Kevin Behan and his ideas, in their entirety. And while I disagree with some of his positions, I would hardly say that he's making stuff up. Just the opposite. It's only when you a) get your information secondhand, from someone else (as most people here seem to be doing), or b) base your opinions on a surface reading of Behan's writings, that you could say something like this.

Also, to compare Kevin Behan to Cesar Millan -- in terms of their knowledge and understanding of science -- is disingenuous to say the least. Behan and Millan may both use the word energy, but Behan actually spends a great deal of time clearly defining his use of the term. To say that he doesn't is outrageous. You may not agree with his definitions (I certainly don't, not with all of them), but he does go into excruciating detail when defining his terms. So please get your facts straight.

I love it when we can openly discuss ideas about dogs and training, even when we have opposing viewpoints. It's much less satisfying when people start falling into a purely negative vein, bashing other trainers and their ideas. I see this forum as an opportunity for us to learn from one another. In my view, everyone has something to add to everyone else's knowledge base.

It would be nice if we could get back on that track again.

Anyway, that's how I see it,

LCK

 

Lee Charles Kelley

spiritdogs

Wolves have been known to bring food to older wolves which can no longer hunt.  What does that say about their lack of understanding about survival or mortality?  One would think that to perform that simple act means that they not only understand it, they understand the ramifications of starvation on others.

 

Hi SpiritDogs,

Biological altruism is an interesting question, and it's being looked into from all sorts of different angles, not only from higher animals, but in some cases even plants exhibit this tendency (to sometimes use their energy to aid their "kin";).

I would suggest that in the example you've given we could interpret it, as you and others have done -- as being about the animal having an awareness of death, etc, and all its ramifications -- or we could look for a more parsimonious explanation.

Personally, I think one of the hallmarks of canine consciousness is the ability to "tune in" to how others in the group are feeling. Many people report that when they're ill, their dog "knows it," and acts accordingly. So who's to say that when a wolf brings food to an older pack member who's hungry that she does so because she's thinking about the future, and worried that the other wolf will die, or simply because she feels how that other wolf is feeling at that moment?

In other words, if wolves are capable of feeling what others in their group are feeling, then if the older wolf's suffering causes a perturbation in the younger wolf's system, then providing him with a bit of food reduces that unpleasant feeling state in her.

I think most examples of biological altruism -- even in plants -- can be explained this way, through an awareness of the changes in the "donor's" energy state, energetic changes that nature and evolution have put in place for the purpose of motivating organisms to act in a way that will help keep the group-as-a-whole viable for as long as possible.

Anyway, that's how I see it,

LCK

 

I think you are struggling to support a line of reasoning that is every bit as unscientific as that which you think we support.  Energy state - energetic changes???  Oh for crying out loud, how is that any less of a stretch than species-specific altruism?   Why are you so opposed to the idea that another species, especially a social one, could have an awareness of need in a group member?

Burl

TheMilkyWay

 

Two words: Confirmation Bias

In fact much of what you think you "know" can be attributed to this.  

Behan's ideas are laughable.  When you examine what he writes/says, it is obvious that he is simply making most of this stuff up.  Like other scientifically illiterate trainers (Millan comes to mind) he talks a lot about 'energy' and 'frequencies'  without ever clearly defining them.

 

 

Welcome to the forum.

 

Well, I am in total agreement with your first post.  Energy and vibrations and pack consciousness are put forth by the non-science types often to ensure you never give the dog credit for its innate ability to reason, express human/mammalian emotion, make use of empathy in emotional understanding, and unconsciously/instinctively reacting to experiences with conscious acts of keen awareness.  A cognitive scientist will put it better than me.

 What LCK just did in reply to a spiritdogs quote is make it sound as though she was stating that dogs think exactly as we do.  I am pretty sure she rather meant, like most average folk sense, that dogs' behavior is, as per Darwin, organically  analogous to ours, as I just pointed out.  Then, Lee instead reinterprets the behavior in question in a very enigmatic convolution of ways that simplify the animal mind to some physically deterministic physics-like predictability as with orbiting planets. Bull.

 

Thanks, Burl, exactly correct.  I surmise that animals don't think exactly as we do (although I give them more credit than some for having thoughts that would surprise some of us), but given that they have some similar structures both in their brains and in their anatomy, it isn't much of a stretch to think that they have similar, if not same, capacities.  For example, we see in color, but we know that, while dogs see because their eye structures function much like ours, their vision varies somewhat from ours because of the difference in the number of rods and cones they possess.   To follow LCK's reasoning, one would probably come to a different conclusion, but my guess is that their understanding would be inaccurate or at least incomplete.

spiritdogs

Thanks, Burl, exactly correct.  I surmise that animals don't think exactly as we do (although I give them more credit than some for having thoughts that would surprise some of us), but given that they have some similar structures both in their brains and in their anatomy, it isn't much of a stretch to think that they have similar, if not same, capacities.  For example, we see in color, but we know that, while dogs see because their eye structures function much like ours, their vision varies somewhat from ours because of the difference in the number of rods and cones they possess. To follow LCK's reasoning, one would probably come to a different conclusion, but my guess is that their understanding would be inaccurate or at least incomplete.

 

Hi SpiritDogs,

I agree completely with the idea that where dogs and humans share similar structures in their brains, it's likely that there would be similar cognitive functions as well. However, there's a flip side to that, one that I have, in fact, assiduously argued for, which is that there are certain discrete areas in the human brain that simply do not exist, or are not fully formed, in the dog. So we sort of seem to be on the same page.

In that light, I'm not sure what, in your mind, "LCK's reasoning" is, or what that last sentence means.

However, going back to your original post (in which you made the supposition that dogs have an awareness not only of their own mortality, but the mortality of others), if you take another look at what I wrote you'll see that I didn't negate that as a possibility, I simply offered a simpler, more parsimonious explanation for the behavior you cited as evidence for this kind of awareness. 

In fact, this is pretty much what I've always done. I've fielded example after example proffered by many people, on many forums, as "evidence" that dogs have the capacity to reason, or that they have a fully-developed theory of mind, etc. And I have yet to come across a single example that isn't explainable from the level of instinct and emotion rather than intellect and reason. In fact much of human behavior -- perhaps most of it -- is based on instinct and emotion rather than logic and reason.So I have trouble seeing why people have a problem with my position on the very real differences that exist between the human and the canine mind.

My primary position is that we should celebrate dogs for who they are; the most amazing animal on earth.

Anyway, that's how I see it,

LCK

 First of all, there is terminology to straighten up. It is hard to see light between the definitions of instinct and emotion, and likewise it is hard to distinguish intellect from reason.

 Now, we know a thing or two about how humans think, 'cuz we do it all the time.  We know from human cognitive studies that without our primitive emotions, we could never make a reasoned decision. We rely on primary instinctive emotions as well as associated emotions we have attached to each memory we've stored from our past experiences (impressions).  Our complex emotions inform - add value to - any decision we make (thus, we get characteristic preferences or dislikes), and human reasoning goes along by a procession of associations formed  among our past  impressions and present conscious and/or pre-conscious sense perceptions.

 These insights come from David Hume 250 years ago, and are still widely respected by scientists and philosophers today.  The most important take-away of all of what Hume says for us here on the dog forums is that Hume argued quite presciently that this same type of reasoning process analogously occurs in all higher order creatures like our dogs if observed behaviors are similar to ours.   75 years later, Darwin would prove Hume's argument correct with his empirical scientific observations of all creatures.

 It was Augustine who championed the use of argument by analogy, which holds a place of utmost respect among logicians, philosophers, lawyers, scientists, and everyday problem solvers - including even dogs.   

 

LCK said:  “…this is pretty much what I've always done. I've fielded example after example proffered by many people, on many forums, as "evidence" that dogs have the capacity to reason, or that they have a fully-developed theory of mind, etc. And I have yet to come across a single example that isn't explainable from the level of instinct and emotion rather than intellect and reason. In fact much of human behavior -- perhaps most of it -- is based on instinct and emotion rather than logic and reason.So I have trouble seeing why people have a problem with my position on the very real differences that exist between the human and the canine mind.

As I just discussed in the previous post, we can be comfortable that dogs do “have the capacity to reason.”  As for supposedly many forum posters saying dogs “have a fully-developed theory of mind,”  I doubt this is the case, but it IS the case YOU want to argue.  I have not seen anyone seriously posting on dog forums who think dogs have minds IDENTICAL to ours.  (Anyway, ToM just means that one mind is aware that it is in the presence of another mind with the same abitities – this is no biggie, and common sense observations of dogs verify it is there.)

“In fact much of human behavior -- perhaps most of it -- is based on instinct and emotion rather than logic and reason”  This is half right as I pointed out in the last post: almost all human behavior is a mix of all these things SIMULTANEOUSLY.  And so it is for the dog.  (Here, the term logic is something we ascribe to neo-cortical regions of the human brain where abstract concepts are developed, and which may not exist in dogs.  But logic is unnecessary for reasoning, as I discussed about Hume.)

“So I have trouble seeing why people have a problem with my position on the very real differences that exist between the human and the canine mind.”  This is simple, Lee, and you know full well what is going on – especially since EVERYONE has told you.  As a means to set yourself apart from commoners, you present yourself as a disciple of an enlightened dog trainer who possesses insights into the dog mind that is so revolutionary and profound that we MUST see it your way.

And what is this profound insight into dog that NDT brings to us:  Dogs may be assumed to behave analogously to the electrical appliances around our home – toasters, computers, car batteries, cell phones, and the like.  In the name of parsimony, forget all that stuff between physics and behavioral psychology – stuff like chemistry, biology, neurosphysiology, etc.

Admit it LCK, your ideas are preposterous, not parsimonious.



 

HI Burl

In fact much of human behavior -- perhaps most of it -- is based on instinct and emotion rather than logic and reason”  This is half right as I pointed out in the last post: almost all human behavior is a mix of all these things SIMULTANEOUSLY.  And so it is for the dog.  (Here, the term logic is something we ascribe to neo-cortical regions of the human brain where abstract concepts are developed, and which may not exist in dogs.  But logic is unnecessary for reasoning, as I discussed about Hume.)

Thanks for some great common sense...based on reality.

HI Lck

Lee Charles Kelley

word energy, but Behan actually spends a great deal of time clearly defining his use of the term. To say that he doesn't is outrageous.

 

 

Being a peacable kind of person i would have let this one go by, but i have to tell you that much of this is plain wrong, and the rest of it seems plain confused. If you like i will do say the first 1/2 dozen factual errors ... but then again we could agree that the definition is just so bad it is usless as a definition..

I am leaving others to have a go with the definitions.

The hassle is that when we get it worng, people like me who are very proficient at dealing with energy get shut out. And when i come along saying something like that the scent patterns that a dog gets to "see" when tracking are just like plain old thermal /aerodynamic equations, we sound like nutters ... and we aren't . We need to get it right!