Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit on NDT philosophy

ron2

Not meaning to derail, but the baloney test also shows the failing the CO2 based AGW presented by the UN IPCC and it's supporters.

I am not going to engage too much on this topic, but it illustrates the difference between science and engineering. We solve the problems science creates. I work in the so called "green industry" and many do not get an  engineer's apprach.  We figure that there is a problem on severl different levels, not least that if we don't do something and reduce pollution every one else will and we will lose the jobs and industry created by solving those problems. Extended to dog training, we are likely to tie the science together to get practical training solutions.

There is often a stated gender divide between a desire to listen and a desire to solve and then put an engineering framework on top of that....

I overheard this conversation to my workmate's partner. " Why on earth did you tell me that if you didn't want a solution?? When i left home i looked like a male, and on top of that i am an engineer. What on earth did you think you were going to get when you told me your problem??"

And I'm too smart to be a scientist or engineer. I lke the part about the conversation. Essentially males try to fix things and that was perfect. No doubt, a woman told a man about something and he came up with a solution becuase he is a guy and that is what the gender does, and in addition, being an engineer and always having a solution. Green industry requires heavy subsidy because it's not profitable but that's a whole nother thread entirely.

This is getting derailed but...... i work in a country with stuff all in the way of subsidies, (even R+D ones!!)  and our product susbsidy free is break even to the consumer in less than a year. Even then consumers will need a lot of persuasion to buy it. I think that we would agree on heaps. I am not in favour of much of the technology and the method of application... I promise not to get any further derailed.!!! :)

Well, in America, wind and solar power is heavily subsidized because it is not profitable and actually uses more resources than using natural gas and oil. But, it's politically popular to want it, regardless of what an engineering fiasco it is. Some people have faith so strong that it defies science.

Yes, there is a point to this belief..... The payback periods are terrible too. It is a middle class salve to one's conscience.

poodleOwned

Yes, there is a point to this belief..... The payback periods are terrible too. It is a middle class salve to one's conscience.

 

 

 

Yes, like Al Gore, who formed a company to sell indulgences, I mean, carbon credits. Then, he can take the money you gave for essentially a piece of paper and invest however he wants to.

spiritdogs

I lump Behan, despite his relative gentleness, into the same pile as Cesar Millan and Brad Pattison.  They are all convinced but offer no credible science, and sometimes I think that the only thing they are interested in is a following.  Don't drink the Kool-Aid.  "Energy" "Pushing" "Hustle Up" - It's all the same nonsense - buzz words to make the uninitiated think the guru is omnipotent. 

Burl

 Kevin reveals his core belief of NDT:

Pull/Push of attraction, flow, resistance, compression, weightlessness, weighted, deflection, attunement, acceleration, deaceleration, release, relief, expansion, welling, collapse, propagation (rising/falling/rising/falling), repulsion, whole, incomplete, induction, blocked, in other words they feel energized or enervated and in resonance or not with their surroundings.

As a structural engineer, I can tell you that for anyone designing a building, bridge, tower, etc.  to withstand an earthquake, especially for tall structures, everything in the quote above enters the analysis – every single phrase!

In the quote above, as regards an inorganic  physical structure, “they feel energized or enervated” would more precisely be worded “they are energized.”  Now, here is the error in LCK and Behan’s thinking of the dog:  the correction to make Behan’s thought completely applicable to a non-living thing must also be made to properly apply to their concept of the dog.  This is because to ‘feel’ something requires a living organism to be consciously aware of its experience, and both NDT guys consistently deny that dogs are conscious.

I have often criticized NDT because it holds ‘No Dogs Think”, and views dogs as machines like cell phones or toasters.  It is now clear that this is indeed so.

My dogs are all conscious and they can feel animal emotions, pain, and various desires; they can also reason from the information their senses bring to them combined with past memories.  Just like me and you.

I keep being puzzled by his insistence that because we can't completely characterize and describe the difference in intelligence between a dog and human that it means dogs cannot think.  Yet, it would be equally difficult to fully describe the diff in intelligence between two human individuals, since intelligence is composed of multiple factors, both biological, experiential and environmental.

 I think it is a bit of vainglorious aggrandizement in that by demeaning the cognitive abilities of non-human animals Behan gets to elevate his own status.   A claim I make with some confidence given his statement that if all dog owners used his methods, dog's would not be ending up in shelters and headed for euthanasia.

 And as far as his explanation quoted.  He doesn't know that resistance is a component of all flowing media and it is not the opposite as he seems to think.  The same for accel/decel, weight and weightlessness, and all the other terms he used.

The problem I have had with the theories is that, on a good day, it is merely slippery semantics. Calling something a new name in order to deal with the emotional or religious (I'm not sure which, at times) conviction against using the accepted terms of OC and behaviorism. Nor do I have some special feeling about using the terms of OC. I see them as mathematical descriptions of cause and effect. I read the linked paper from Gallistel and it was actually not about actual verifiable evidence of the brain operating as a computer (computational learning theory) as it was about expressing the desire to change the thinking of current college students to this model so that one of them may find the evidence that proves the theory. Which is backwards from science. First one observes, then theorizes. Then tests the theory. Incompatible evidence must either adjust the existing theory, or scrap the old theory and start a new one. I'm not against computational theory and I don't see how it can be in conflict with OC. In fact, it would seem, to me, to compliment OC. Very much a binary thing. In fact, the operators +R, -R, +P, -P strike me as reminiscent of boolean logic. But Gallistel was hoping to "dismantle" OC, as was stated one time in this or another thread, before the crawdadding took on gargantuan proportions.

 Just in the interest of experimentation, I once tried an LCK method on Shadow. He likes to bark at dogs on the t.v. Praising him didn't stop it. So, I have failed to reproduce the results of that part of the theory. It should be as obvious as an apple falling to the ground. Well, the apple didn't fall like it was theorized to do. Therefore, the failed experiment has met at least one test of falsifiability, which any true theory has, if the theoretician is intellectually honest.

But I have called "off" and Shadow has broken off barking with a dog in mid-bark. And how did I do that? By training "off" with rewards. Disengaging became more rewarding. OC. Again, and again. Granted, if someone tried something OC and it didn't work, that could also count as a test of falsifiability. But, in either theory, mitigating circumstances might explain the null results. Such as the individuality of the dog. Praise is not my dog's highest reward. Smoked brisket is. Just as another dog might feel that praise is the highest reward. Or catching a frisbee. Or, hearing the phrase "goosenfrabe." But even the dog that breaks off a behavior because of praise is still explained by OC. Because OC is not a "belief" system, regardless of what emotions some may bring to it. It is a descriptive language, like math.

  Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

Ron2 said “First one observes, then theorizes. Then tests the theory. Incompatible evidence must either adjust the existing theory, or scrap the old theory and start a new one.”

This perfectly describes the manner by which I built my energy model. First I observed behavior without preconception. This led me to a theory, i.e. behavior as a function of attraction. I tested this theory against further observation and scrapped anything that didn’t make sense. It took several decades of not having a model and not resorting to projecting thoughts into a dog's head before things added up. While others were saying such things as “dogs learn by association”; “dogs are dominant or submissive” and being satisfied, I didn’t leap to such conclusions since such precepts never proved to be consistent explanations.

 Welcome to the forum, Kevin.

In explaining what emotions dogs feel, you said

Pull/Push of attraction, flow, resistance, compression, weightlessness, weighted, deflection, attunement, acceleration, deaceleration, release, relief, expansion, welling, collapse, propagation (rising/falling/rising/falling), repulsion, whole, incomplete, induction, blocked, in other words they feel energized or enervated and in resonance or not with their surroundings.

Excellent point Burl and one which brings us precisely to the distinction I’m making. All of the above terms are inflections or ramifications of an underlying state of attraction, not mere descriptions. I can understand that if one believes that emotion is synonymous with thought, then the above may seem like a description, (however if you were to apply such terms to an energy dynamic, such terminology is as explanatory as it can be as opposed to being descriptive). But at any rate you have indeed posed the all important question: How is the dog aware of its physical body? My theory is that an animal is aware of its physical body only by way of its “emotional body” which encapsulates the dog and whatever it is attracted to. In other words, its mind is organized around its most basic physiological/neurological processes so that it experiences the external world as if it is a part of its very body. It does not interpret its body directly, but in terms of its surroundings and the emotional conductivity of the moment. Therefore an animal does not perceive its “self” as distinct or apart from its surroundings. This will prove to be the only means of inferring the animal mind as well as one that renders a coherent definition of emotion as a phenomenon of consciousness distinct from instinct, feelings and thought. Additionally, once we factor in the emotional center of gravity into a discussion of animal consciousness, the above terminology is enriched immeasurably as explication.

There is never a moment of animal consciousness wherein an animal is not in a state of attraction. When an animal is not in a state of attraction, then it is in a state of confusion, it is suffering a “gap” in its consciousness, a de-fusion from its “self” i.e. a state of disconnect from its emotional center of gravity by which it feels connected to its surroundings. We don’t regularly see such gaps because of the existence of the emotional battery which serves up physical memories triggered by the intensity of the “energy” experienced in a gap crisis. This for example is why dogs can be trained to do bite work and “protect” their owners without damage to their character whereas cats/monkeys/apes/chimps cannot. In intense situations with a high rate of change a working dog doesn’t “gap” but rather fills in the dots due to skillful imprinting of the training program. (On the other hand if the training regime is not skillful they do gap and resort to instinct or coping habits.) On/board physical memories of the body/mind as an emotional battery putty over most gaps (even in most syndromes of dysfunction) and this accounts for many peculiarities of canine behavior as well as the canines inexhaustible capacity to adapt to human ways. One example of emotional battery as coping mechanism is the “dysfunctional” phenomenon of a dog that barks all day (which Coppinger misinterprets as a meaningless behavior) when left alone. This is induced by the physical memory of the owner staring/talking/attending to a dog as part of a chronic pattern of owner interrupting the dog’s drive invariably with too-much-attention. On the other hand, if an animal can call upon the earliest physical memories of life (flow/weightlessness/warmth, etc) to cope with a confusion inducing situation, then it can resist instinct and previous negative experiences and thereby adapt in a novel way. So the same dog that barks all day when left alone in the house tends not to bark when left alone in the car because the imprint of flow is so much more vivid in the car as dynamic energy system in which the group is entrained and this sense of flow “predicts” the return of the owner and the dog can calm itself. It has no “idea” that its owner is returning. It simply feels whole and feeling whole is as far as the dog can know that quality of consciousness, which produced the return of the owner. The dog willed the owner to return, it didn't figure it out, it made reality conform to the desire to remain whole by focusing on the feeling to remain whole. This is why such dogs follow their owner around the house incessantly, they are trying to remain whole because the feeling between them isn't a strong enough imprint of flow. And I put the term "dysfunction" in quotes because this kind of dependancy is a perfect mirror of what's going on in the dog's owner as well, such an owner likes their dog to be dependent.

The “emotional capacity” to feel flow in a conflict inducing situation is a function of a deep emotional bond with another being, rather than rational thought. In short, dogs are social by nature because given how the animal mind has evolved, it takes two to have a true feeling.  

Kevin Behan

Ron2 said “First one observes, then theorizes. Then tests the theory. Incompatible evidence must either adjust the existing theory, or scrap the old theory and start a new one.”

This perfectly describes the manner by which I built my energy model. First I observed behavior without preconception. This led me to a theory, i.e. behavior as a function of attraction. I tested this theory against further observation and scrapped anything that didn’t make sense. It took several decades of not having a model and not resorting to projecting thoughts into a dog's head before things added up. While others were saying such things as “dogs learn by association”; “dogs are dominant or submissive” and being satisfied, I didn’t leap to such conclusions since such precepts never proved to be consistent explanations.

 That would be true, except is is completely false. 

Not only do you contradict common sense, you also contradict yourself.  Several times. when describing how you came up with this quackery,  you've written that first you became disillusioned and dissatisfied with modern training methods and 'knew' that emotions and energy had to be involved. 

 You write

In the early eighties I found myself describing certain behaviors as “electric,” as for example when a dog is defensive, fearful or hyper, bristling, tense, taut and touchy, while other behaviors I intuitively would call “magnetic,”

It was not observation that led you to your views, but rather an inability to accurately describe behavior, perhaps because you lacked the knowledge to do so.  You fell back on terms words and metaphors that were familiar.  It was from this imagery, that you then adapted the ideas to fit the language.

Kevin Behan

All of the above terms are inflections or ramifications of an underlying state of attraction, not mere descriptions

Which immediately contradicts the claim that you "observed".  You cannot observed the so-called states of attraction.  In essence, you are describing stuff you've made up.  So, not only do you start off with a false premise, you carry that through your argument with you favorite self-defeating logic loops,counter-factual declarations, an unsubstantiated conclusions.

 When you write, "My theory is that an animal is aware of its physical body only by way of its “emotional body”, you fail to realize that that is not a Theory.  That is your wish, fantasy, opinion, whatever, but not a theory.  A theory is theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

 In fact I would call it a DECLARATION OF FAITH, inasmuch as that you have no objective, substantive, empirical support to believe what you believe. It is at it's core, a supernatural belief.

A few other statements in your declaration of faith

• its mind is organized around its most basic physiological/neurological processes so that it experiences the external world as if it is a part of its very body.
• It does not interpret its body directly, but in terms of its surroundings and the emotional conductivity of the moment.
• Therefore an animal does not perceive its “self” as distinct or apart from its surroundings.BTW the Therefore here is not justified.
  
• There is never a moment of animal consciousness wherein an animal is not in a state of attraction

There are many more in this response alone. None of these statements can be taken seriously, you've simply presented them as they were facts and demanded that they were taken as such. They are figments of your imagination.

 And we cannot factor in "the emotional center of gravity into a discussion of animal consciousness" because that's just more useless terms you've injected into the discussion to make up for the feebleness of your views.  Not only is is undefined, at least no definition that would be accepted outside your echo chamber site, you've also failed to show it's existence. You might as well talk about phlogiston.

The first post refer to "Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric"  and Behan does a fine job of illustrating this with "When an animal is not in a state of attraction, then it is in a state of confusion" a common logical error found in all his arguments, a dichotomous fallacy. And he follows it up with an irrelevant arguments by comparing a fully domesticated animal (dog) to (non and partially domesticated ones) cats/monkeys/apes/chimps. Whether he does this out of ignorance or malicious intent to deceive, the argument fails on either case.  

He then continues with the false arguments by presenting a caricature (Strawman) of Coppinger's position.

 So the same dog that barks all day when left alone in the house tends not to bark when left alone in the car  falls under 21. Confusion of correlation and causation.

 Kevin

1) There are 6 basic animal emotions shared by all higher order mammals: happiness, surprise, fear, sadness, disgust and anger.

2) I never say emotions are thoughts.  They are not.  They color or add valuations to thoughts and sense impressions.  They are indeed embodied, hard-wired nervous system modes of response.

In light of this, would you please re-respond to my question just posed to you in my previous post, keeping it to perhaps 1/3 the length of your 1st response and focusing on the fundamental points being questioned?

That will help in understanding.

Kevin..

Could you please use a smaller type set to aid in readability please. It is hard enough to  try and follow your argument without an additional handicap.

Please do not assume that my lack of a response is any kind of agreement.