Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit on NDT philosophy

And I need to correct my own mistake. A subject is not awarded or rewarded by survival. Survival is simply a thing, neither rewarding or not-rewarding. It just is. For me to use the word award or reward puts a value judgement on survival. Which is a religious affect of mine. I view survival as a good thing but not all creatures, human or otherwise think so. Therefore, the desire for survival is not necessarily an FAP, as much as I might like it to be. It is, however, a faith of mine that survival is worth it and live is worth living. Also an unproven assumption, ergo, a religious affectation on my part.

corgidog

That too is wrong. She asserts that random spontaneous mutations are not the principal singular force driving speciation. More importantly her work has focused on single-cell lifeforms.

So you agree with me but are unable to admit it.

it's certainly within the realm of possibility that margulis made such a statement,that all mutations are deleterious, at a lecture, as that was kbehan's assertion. do you also take kbehan's statement to mean that mutations don't happen? he's saying that random mutations aren't the "driver" behind evolution. i know you disagree with this statement. however, margulis would not.

and the fact you took my statement to mean that i'm suggesting 99.9 = 100 %, only reveals your poor reading comprehension skills.

i said it was in the "realm of possibility" that margulis could have indeed made such a claim at a lecture. in this context 99.9 ~= vast majority ~= all.

As I've pointed out repeatedly, Behan's logic does not exist

you have done no such thing. you have made semantic arguments trying to derail any meaningful discussion. you also have made inconsistent statements that you must backpedal from when asked to explain.

You missed Milky Way's point. Margulis opinion (and it is opinion, not born by facts) may be indicative of her specialization in single-cell organsims.) But even then, it is one of perspective. One cell mutates and survives. Another mutates differently or doesn't mutate in any observable way and does not survive. The apparent effect is that the surviving cell mutated in response to the environment. But stating that coincidence as fact is making a whole vest out of one button. And again, her views are suspect, thanks to her crack about Darwin's "capitalist" theory. Really, I did snicker when I read that. Too bad she hasn't read the history of Darwin. Such as the fact that Darwin did not disbelieve in God. He simply thought he had found one of God's tools, quaintly expressed as survival of the fittest. Which does not mean, modernly, that there is a drive to be fittest. Fittest simply means what was the best fit for the environment.

Behan only makes semantic arguments and so discussion, by his own words, must be necessarily semantic, though many have tried to introduce scientific data and observations from most of a century, to no avail, as Behan rejects the main body of work, preferring to joust in semantics. It is not the desire of those of us who disagree with him to continue arguing semantically. It is he who keeps it in that realm, despite all efforts otherwise.

corgidog

So you agree with me but are unable to admit it.

You simply don't know what you are writing about.

corgidog

and the fact you took my statement to mean that i'm suggesting 99.9 = 100 %, only reveals your poor reading comprehension skills.

Your inability to demonstrate that any reasonable person would claim ALL is just getting annoying. You are wrong, Behan is wrong and that's it.

corgidog

you have done no such thing. you have made semantic arguments trying to derail any meaningful discussion.

You don't seem to know how to use the word  'semantic'  correctly. In fact I am trying to force Behan to stop claiming logic and actually to actually use it. This is garbage....

"All animal behavior is a function of attraction. If this is true, then behavior is a function of energy and has specific properties and follows principles of movement  It follows from this that these innate principles/properties of energy is responsible for a group consciousness,"

His arguments are inductive and deductive failures.  There is no logic here. Pointing it out is not 'semantics'

Of course, politically, I should accept Margulis' characterization of darwinian evolution as "capitalist." For, would that not be proof from an "established" science that capitalism is the natural order of things? Man is not a hive animal. We are not ants or bees. Actually, bits of our brain are originated in reptiles. That became tree shrews. That became a larger version that eventually became simian. Zoologically, we are great apes (because our size and stature.) But we are odd apes. Relatively hairless, bipedal, weak, slow.

Things working in our favor, a large forebrain, opposable thumb, omnivorous diet (a big plus), and we are the most vicious animal on the planet. We eat everything, including each other. We even make a religious ceremony out of cannibalism. "Eat this bread as if it were my body. Drink this wine as if it were my blood. Remember Me when you eat and drink." Now, that is certainly bound to offend some people.

(ducking for cover...)

We even make a religious ceremony out of cannibalism. "Eat this bread as if it were my body. Drink this wine as if it were my blood. Remember Me when you eat and drink." Now, that is certainly bound to offend some people.

(ducking for cover...)

 No you did'n!   Oh well, it's OK...it's Sunday.

It is interesting and maybe important - dogs are omnivores also.

n

Burl

FWIW Kevin, I have made some minor replies below:


***Are you saying that higher order brain functions account for the domestic dog's adaptability to the novelties of human civilization, given that the instinctive component of emotion (if there is one) couldn't possibly have prepared them for?

Yes to the bit of animal cognition’s purpose being to adapt in novel ways to its world (to live better).  Cognition can act in modifying affective behaviors.

If cognition and higher order brain processes that can modify affective behaviors are the key to adapting to unnatural circumstances, then the higher the intellectual endowment of the animal, i.e. the more its brain is like the human brain, therefore such an animal would prove easiest to adapt to man’s world. And so if such an animal were able to learn sign language and abstract concepts then a theory based on affects modified by cognition as a function of adaptability would predict that such an animal would be more able to modify these affective systems which are instinctual adaptations to a long ago world and thereby fit into man's world. Correct or incorrect?

About apes v dogs.  Maybe it is simply a matter of the other species thinking 'I want some of what I am seeing in that group.'  Of course wolfs/dogs didn't sit back and linguistically ask that question in some existential search for greater meaning.  But by observing a clan of humans movements and what they were attentive to, the canid's mental perceptions provided data that resonated with its group instincts and it is interested/attracted...?  Ape just may not sync affectively and are not using cognition to get any closer.

 I think the scientific term is...different strokes for different folks.  My best shot at explaining interspecies interaction.

Kevin Behan

Burl

FWIW Kevin, I have made some minor replies below:


***Are you saying that higher order brain functions account for the domestic dog's adaptability to the novelties of human civilization, given that the instinctive component of emotion (if there is one) couldn't possibly have prepared them for?

Yes to the bit of animal cognition’s purpose being to adapt in novel ways to its world (to live better).  Cognition can act in modifying affective behaviors.

 

If cognition and higher order brain processes that can modify affective behaviors are the key to adapting to unnatural circumstances, then the higher the intellectual endowment of the animal, i.e. the more its brain is like the human brain, therefore such an animal would prove easiest to adapt to man’s world. And so if such an animal were able to learn sign language and abstract concepts then a theory based on affects modified by cognition as a function of adaptability would predict that such an animal would be more able to modify these affective systems which are instinctual adaptations to a long ago world and thereby fit into man's world. Correct or incorrect?

See, this is the problem with semantics. You have included a number of unfounded assumptions, based not on facts, but on debate tactics.

You are assuming that human brain is the highest intellect here. That is not proven. Especially if you ask the greenies who have decided that CO2 is a pollutant, which only proves that their education did not proceed as high as even the 8th grade. (Qualifier: 8th grade as it was when I went to school, when they taught science in science class, not politics and religion. By the 8th grade, we knew that CO2 was plant food. It's called photosynthesis.)

But you do say some things that are agreeable, on the surface. But I feel that it is important to note that Man and dog are symbiotic species. Dogs do something that cats, wolves, chimps do not do. They look to the human for cues. I can point and tell my cat to look for the play mouse. She will look at my finger. I can point my finger and say "kong" and Shadow will actively and methodically search for the toy, primarily in the direction I am pointing. Wolves and chimps won't even bother. They will go find it on their own, or not.

But are these affects modified by cognition? That sounds like another unfounded assumption. Dogs may have higher cognition that either you or LCK gave them credit for and while, debate-wise, one could argue that it is higher cognition modifying affect, it could also be said that the affect itself is part of what it means to be dog, symbiotic to man. But you are still operating on the assumption that man possesses the "superior" intellect. That is a value judgement belying your religious affectation, just as I have one that I admit in placing a value judgement on survival. Which makes more intellectually "honest." Not that you are dishonest, but I think you can't see the forest for the trees. That is, you persist in holding up Man as the benchmark, which is an expected human thing to do. But many a human culture has died and earlier forms of human are now extinct. What proof is there that Man is now the penultimate of sentience and survivability? I realize that is asking for another round of semantics. My bad.

So if the affective system is repeatedly triggered (and if nothing material happens to the individual) does the animals' threshold to the trigger lower, rise or stay the same?

In my model, a cat that arches its back and spits is maximizing its predatory aspect. This reflects/interrupts emotion. A dog showing its vulnerable side or underbelly is acting more prey like, this absorbs, conducts emotion. 

In my model, aggression is blocked attraction, no block, no aggression. Play is modified prey-making, this is what makes it pleasurable. Nothing need be lost in translation once one sees it all as a function of attraction.

 Gun/knife fight? Sounds like an affective system not being moderated by higher cognitive function.  

I just want to point out that if we understand emotion as the basis for a group consciousness, then we can understand how dogs are more adaptable to man's way than apes by virtue of a group dynamic that is deeper than instinct, and less available to apes that have evolved into a highly advanced brain is adaptively speaking, a highly specialized dead end. Again, I'm not saying that dogs are not intelligent and are insensate robots. I'm saying that their cognition is a function of emotion as a medium for a group consciousness.

 I'm not playing semantics. I'm offering a logical argument for why dogs are especially symbiotic with humans. And I'm argumentative because I'm striving to show inconsistencies with mainstream biological interpretation of that same evidence so I'm bound to ruffle the top line. I also don't know anyway around the assumption that human beings have the most developed intellect, and in my mind this isn't antithetical to being self-destructive because in my model emotion is what keeps the entire network coherent and this is why I also take issue with that feature of Panskepps' model that says higher brain functions are necessary to moderate affective systems.

We also can't simply declare arbitrarily that symbiotic attunement to man is a dog's affective system, when Panskepp is saying that these systems are universal to all animals. My argument is that such declarations are not part of a whole model and will therefore never be able to embrace all the evidence in a logical manner.

The intellect can override emotion and as far as I'm concerned this is the source of most misery on earth. (In my model fear is not emotion, fear is the collapse of emotion.) There doesn't tend to be anything wrong with any given despot's intellect, they usually get to be where they are through clever cunning. Rather it's the lack of their heart that is the problem. I'm trying to show that there is an emotional dynamic that is universal to all animals but through the evolution of wolf and the domestication process, it has become the most pronounced feature of the dog's makeup and therefore this group dynamic is easiest to see and study in dogs. This group dynamic is what allows emotion to elaborate into the high social virtues of cooperation, altruism and empathy and it is almost the entire scope of the domestic dog's consciousness, aside from instincts. This will prove to be the reason why dogs go to where humans point, love to ride in cars, are able to herd sheep through a prey drive without having to kill sheep through a prey instinct. The group dynamic can moderate affective systems because they allow the individual to feel something more rewarding, the potential energy of being in harmony with their group. Apes and our other primate first cousins that share most of our genes and more of our brain structures than any other animals, cannot participate in this group dynamic beyond their narrow environmental niche and only under a limited rate of change. 

Hi Kevin

 There are bits that you have wirtten all over the place that i am responding to, so i am sorry that i may not quote you correctly. I sort of look for convergence with most people and i think that we have it in one area nearly. But the rest...

First, i think that you are confusing two different physics laws, that of conservation (the total energy is always the same, it just gets converted to different sorts of energy) and Entrophy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy which is a very different and not neccesarily related concept. This word is used all over the place, even in data comms. The use in data comms nearly has no similarity compared to it's meaning in other physics disciplines.

Entrophy related to behaviour would be nice , but is not neccessary.Conservation of energy is neccessary. There is a school of  thought that would suggest that entrophhy is a goal, but there are many examples that would suggest this is doubtful.

 Where i converge is on play. Play is practice, but i would say judging by what i see so far, that it is Practice for Prey and social behaviour as well. Within the framework of play dogs seem to expect to be given a bit of liscense to be a bit loose with me. I let them. This is an open question for me.

I am going to leave off at this point. Many others in this series of posting can work in their strengths.

 "Conservation of energy is neccessary."

In so much as if a behaviour consumes energy, (not the emotion!!) then over a period of time there must be an input of energy to replace it. 

I will give you an example. Often when humans are "stressed" their metabolism rate increases and energy output increases. Many humans will increase their food input to compensate. This is over a much longer term (days) compared to the moment to moment emotional states.

 We often overstate the energy attached to particular behaviours.

 I simply cannot see the relevance of energy to behavior.  In like manner, I cannot see the significance of AC current to Microsoft Word.

Burl

I simply cannot see the relevance of energy to behavior.  I

I can see energy consumption possibly being a constraint to an emotion SEEK . but that is about all. 

I cannot see the significance of AC current to Microsoft Word.

the significance of AC current to Microsoft Word is indirect. I swear that when ****** Word does something foul to me again i will throw my computer through the nearest window then the AC current will stop... Most of it is PICNIC though problem in chair not computer..

I actually use a mix of machines. Right now i am using my good old trusty 5 year old toshiba  with Linux on it. It is like an old friend. It still does most things quite well. Next to it is this dam thing with Windows on it, i just have never got to like it...