Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit on NDT philosophy

 Excellent dog experiment as reported in Science Daily: Conclusion as given in the article:

"This means that the way the dogs imitate is tuned to the goal of the action. If the dogs perceive the demonstrator being unable to use her mouth, because she holds a ball in it, they choose the easier, more preferred way to achieve the goal. But when the mouth is free, there appears to be a reason for the demonstrating dog not to use her mouth, and so the dogs imitate the action."

And then additionally:

"This reveals a striking parallel between dogs and human infants in that they do not simply "ape" an action, but only do so if it appears appropriate for the goal. In that sense, dogs seem more similar to us humans than are our biologically closest relatives, the chimpanzees, which will in similar tasks always opt for the more effective way of attaining the goal."

Not having found a video on experiment I reserve a definitive interpretation however it is immediately interesting that the more cognitively equipped ape does the more intelligent thing and quite possibly by filtering out the inefficient action of the subject under observation. Imitating something isn't always the thoughtful approach and so experiment seems to be documenting an uncontrollable urge in dogs to synchronize with its surroundings toward a common goal. Why would this be the case? In the eighties I came to believe that dogs are social by way of emotion as the basis of a collectivized intelligence. i.e. they feel what others feel. The operative principle being focused on common object (particularly involving resistance to getting it.) From here I built a model for the canine mind and then when something relevant in research popped up, I plugged it in. For example,a few years ago mirror neurons were discovered and this provides a neurological mechanism for this interpretation of the animal mind. So a dog experiences an observed action just as if it is performing the action itself, just as if it is its body moving through space and time performing said action. It feels viscerally connected to its surroundings and internally influenced by what it observes.
So in this experiment

1) Goal is to ingest food blocked by some kind of device.

2) Both dogs want food 

3) Dogs prefer to use jaws over paws as the mouth is primary organ of ingestion and investigation

4) So, if the trained dog has toy in mouth, observing dog feels its jaws and uses its jaws.  

5) If trained dog has no toy in mouth, then observing dog feels its feet moving and responds in sync.

 What is this uncontrollable urge you have to impose your views on the work of others?  There is nothing in the SD article or the actual paper that suggests an "uncontrollable urge in dogs."  It's something you are fabricating for the sake of convenience.  Did you completely skip over the section that reads "The phenomenon under investigation is known as "selective imitation"" and "However, the dogs imitated selectively."

 It's also incorrect to write that the chimpanzee is 'more cognitively equipped', at the very least the comparison is incomplete.

 As to why?  Well, unlike you, people who actually do research don't go around looking for the ultimate cause. To quote Courant again " To renounce the goal of comprehending the “thing itself,” of knowing the “ultimate truth,” of unraveling the innermost essence of the world, may be a psychological hardship for naïve enthusiasts, but in fact it was one of the most fruitful turns in modern thinking”   You've made energy/emotion into god, and naturally, god explains everything which is why you handwave away every reasonable explanation.  That being said, the tendency to imitate does provide some evolutionary advantages and as such it is not all that surprising. 

 As far as 1-5, maybe you should bill yourself as Kevin Behan - Dog Telepath

TheMilkyWay

 What is this uncontrollable urge you have to impose your views on the work of others? 

 

 

And report it as confirming you views Kevin. It makes dealing with you an energy sapping process as you can never be trusted.

In my world (and in many other applied scientists and scientists world) this would get you  ostracised at least. I notice this with a few of the dog gurus. Annoying.

What happens is that the real issues get clouded. Mimicry in dogs has been regarded as poor, but it seems like there is the possibility of mimicry

in different experiment designs. So may be Kevin you might like to lead a useful discussion on how you might apply this piece of knowledge to dog training?

Why haven't you shown any interest in my questions on bite inhibition? Are your concepts more important becuase they come from you?

 Gee it would have been fun to see your rocket get to the moon :)

 

 You submitted the link as proof that dogs think. I offered my interpretation in contrast to the researcher who was reading the dog's mind and assuming that the imitating dog was selective because it understood the trained dog was doing what it was doing "for a reason." 

I thought science meant things are open for discussion. A theology on the other hand doesn't tolerate questioning and condemns questioners. You can call me an emotional interpreter of dogs if you want, my thing isn't telepathy. All I'm doing is building a model, normal line of inquiry, like physicists determining an atom is made of protons, neutrons and electrons. Once you have a model, then you try to figure out how the various internal components interact to produce the external phenomena and see if the model holds up given what is observed. I also don't see what this has to do with ultimate cause, I am just looking at what's going on in the immediate-moment, rather than saying dogs do this because the ultimate reason is random mutations filtered by natural selection.

  

 

"3) What in the developmental process makes bite inhibition a good idea for a dog to learn?"

I missed your question which I don't follow since I don't believe dogs need to learn bite inhibition as for example per Dunbar's protocols and theory as in puppies have needle sharp teeth in order to elicit a rebuke from an elder, if that's what you're referring to. I believe this inhibits their emotional development. My approach is to not put the puppy into the situation that would elicit a grab and soon it outgrows the primal oral urge and can self-modify by way of its temperament, (i.e. that universal deep emotional core, as for example the lioness nursing the gazelle fawn, or the tortoise and the hippo after the 2004 tsunami, and then the most prolific of all, the domesticated dog.) 

You really don't care what something reads, you will impose your interpretation at any cost. The researchers were not reading a dogs mind, they were observing behavior and seeing a selective preference in the actions they chose to imitate. Your views otoh are all about reading the dog's mind, a power no one else has. Science means an empirical, naturalistic methodology. - you fail in every category. NTD is personal, interpretative, metaphysical and magical. It is based at it's core a revelation theology. BTW you know as much about the history of atomic theory as you do about the science of dogs. Dalton, Rutherford, Thompson, Bohr - all came up with their models because that was what the evidence demanded. You create a fiction and then corrupt the facts to fig into this chimeric - vitalism, spiritualism, animism, anectodal cognitivmism, anthropocentrism - monster of yours. You didn't build a model. You've built a theology around dogs - because you had trouble understanding the prevailing views. You created an ultimate cause, a prime mover that explains - in your words - everything. It's your god. What President Carter said about evangelicals holds true for you. He said that an evangelical cannot be wrong about god because it would mean god is wrong. Similarly, you cannot be wrong about your god.

Kevin Behan

saying dogs do this because the ultimate reason is random mutations filtered by natural selection.

We can add that to the list of corruptions. No one says that.

 So you deny any learning consequnece of this behaviour.

 

Could you show me trials that you have run  or others run that prove that this is a safe alternative to Dunbar's protocols?

 

 There are no trials. It's about trust.

 

Kevin Behan

There are no trials. It's about trust.

 

That's ok Kevin, but don't ever pretend that you are operating from a scientific basis. 

 

 

@poodleowned i don't think you're reading the same forum thread.

don't ever pretend that you are operating from a scientific basis.

kbehan has stated on numerous occasions and quite explicitly that these ideas are his interpretations based on his own personal experiences training dogs and readings from various scientific sources. what about that don't you understand? you are so hard to take seriously. he's not pretending to hold a degree from an institution or falsifying documents. he has a model that works, has written a book on it, the methods can be reliably repeated and produce consistent results w/ any dog and owner and he is articulating the mechanics of it. this is the extent to which it is scientific.

you make statements based off a set of assumptions you're not even aware of and you frequently bring them into the discussion where they have little relevance. [insert story about dog winning a meaningless trophy here]

i don't mean to sound condescending, however, a tone of condescension permeates each post you and milkyway write. i presume you can handle it. this wouldn't be that bad if you were at least making a coherent argument.

do you understand what kbehan is saying? i challenge you to articulate it. i seriously doubt you can repeat his argument beyond the sophomoric, superficial treatment you have been giving it.

the science has not proven definitely proven that dogs do in fact think. research is being done as we speak at the canine cognition lab at harvard and in vienna, most famously, to make headway in this area.

so if you are capable, entertain the absurd notion that dogs in fact do not think. how would you then go about explaining behavior?

corgidog

kbehan has stated on numerous occasions and quite explicitly that these ideas are his interpretations based on his own personal experiences training dogs and readings from various scientific sources. what about that don't you understand? you are so hard to take seriously. he's not pretending to hold a degree from an institution or falsifying documents. he has a model that works, has written a book on it, the methods can be reliably repeated and produce consistent results w/ any dog and owner and he is articulating the mechanics of it. this is the extent to which it is scientific.

 

I am glad that we now agree that it isn't scientific , it just pretends to be. I let other postees sort out the veracity of the rest of your complaints about me. I do agree then, NDT  is quite good speculative and imaganitive  theology, almost poetry. and Kevin has a bit of the De Chardin about him. (Look up the web before you get it wrong..)

corgidog

you make statements based off a set of assumptions you're not even aware of and you frequently bring them into the discussion where they have little relevance. [insert story about dog winning a meaningless trophy here]

Now here is something that you NEVER get off the hook for.NO real dog lover would stoop this low. I used the example of my own dog to illustrate my ability to judge drive. Obviously it was way to subtle for you, It was   above counting with your socks off. You have now suggested that a Tch is some kind of useless trophy. You insulted my dog, you insulted everyone that ever did tracking and felt at one with their dogs doing it. You insulted trailists.  You  made light of the achievements  of a fine fine fine dog who is now dead.  I have words for people that do these things, but really they aren't suitable for printing in this place. If i told you the full unabridged story it would pluck the heartstrings of dog lovers everywhere.

In future, i will respond to your posts with something that might get the point across to you, a maximum of three emoticoms. That is all any of your content is ever worth. Now you did this. It is no conspiracy. You wrote this awful posting. You shut down communication by responding in an idiotic , jealous and poorly researched way. You didn't win.

 

 

 You've misread CD's comments. It's clear to me that he meant that a dog's titles are meaningless in terms of relevance to this discussion. My view is that every dog activity presents its own unique set of problems, and solving these is an art form, so they are all meaningful. But at the same time we can't take the person with the most titles and while according them all due respect, say therefore they must be right about whether or not dogs think. I think a lot of people think I'm attacking their dog personally when I say a dog doesn't think, and then the behaviorists think I'm attacking science when I say it's not logical to say dogs think. What I'm saying is far more sublime than what you think I'm saying and is the only model (IMO) logically consistent with a theory of evolution by way of common descent. The central point CD is making is that you can't repeat the energy theory and so you have a fully formed opinion but not based on understanding. I can repeat the basic tenets of evolutionary and learning theory so I'm arguing from that vantage point. The first question (if you're interested) would be to reprise what you think I mean by energy.

   

 What did the researcher mean by "reason?"

Kevin Behan

  The first question (if you're interested) would be to reprise what you think I mean by energy.

   

 

 I'm a trooper, so I'll try.

 I think your assumptions of reality are what philosophers like to call deterministic naturalism.  Nature does what it does in a manner over which we have no real control.  Creatures, like planets, are subject to laws of physics, which has energy as the 'fundamental principle of any activity.'  Even biological activity, and even creature consciousness are all manifestations of energy doing things according to what nature dictates.  Any physical activity or creature behavior is simply evidence of the deterministic outcome of energized nature.

 

Comment (be somewhat succinct, please)?

 I mean a tension between two things that are in some way linked. 

So when I see two animals interacting, or looking at things, I see a fundamental state of tension in play. You can actually see the dog inflate with tension and then there is a collapse into either a coherent (play, drive, meet and greet) or an "incoherent" (growling, hackles, overloading) behavior.

The question then becomes, given what we know of evolution of consciousness emerging from single celled organisms, and before that proto-cells and then before that self-replicating mineral crystals, what is the most logical interpretation of the nature of this tension and the necessary linkage between the two parties in order for there to be tension; psychological principles or physical principles?

Also, this doesn't have to mean a predetermined outcome, I am arguing that an energy model is the only means by which behavior can be said to not be deterministic.  Whereas the theory of randomness (genes/learning) will always reduce to a deterministic mechanical model.