Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit on NDT philosophy

 Not so sure that is the same definition you've offered in the past.  Regardless, tension is a force, it is not an energy.  A force moving through some distance does some work and both share the units of energy, foot - pounds.

 

Energy = force x distance moved along its line of action

 According to Wikipedia, force is magnitude plus direction, so the distinction seems to be that force is a subset of energy because without the energy there is no magnitude. But in any regard I mean energy as in an action potential, a build up of energy, or tension between two poles, whether it be within the individual organism or between two organisms. Once we understand the nature of this tension, then the issue of direction can be taken into account. My argument is that there is a principle of conductivity we can study by observing what in nature releases and relaxes this constitutional state of tension for an animal (imparts direction) and that this reveals the nature of the work that the behavior of the animal is doing. 

 On the one hand you say that because an animal shares many brain structures with humans, and because humans have high order cognition, it is reasonable to presume that animals are capable of high order cognition. I agree that this is a reasonable statement (even though I don't think in the final analysis it is the most logical interpretation of the evidence.) But then you say that chimps aren't more cognitively equipped than dogs, even though chimps have advanced brain structures that are far closer to level of human. This is a logical short circuit.  

Kevin Behan

I offered my interpretation in contrast to the researcher

  YOU don't get to interpret 'selective imitatation" into 'uncontrollable urge"  That's not an interpretation, that's you, trying to fix the results.

 One of the annoying things about dealing with you is the dishnoest way you deal with facts, counter arguments, refucations. etc  Time after time you've been called out on factual and logical errors, and on some outright untruths.  Each time you ignore it and the move on to the next trivial point in the hope that everyone forgets about it.  So we have 23 pages of Kevin Behan spouting off demonstrable untruths and you pretending no one noticed it.

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.

Thhis is why I have called NDT a revelation religion.  It is not based on any objective reality. It's all about Behan pretending to know something that he can't possibly know and at the same time calling into question 350 years of scientific progress.  It's a false religion distorting science in order to gain some repectibility.

Behan's model dones't work, He's has a badly written book, full of spelling and grammatical errors. And his methods are about as scientific as astrology.

 

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]

Which shows how ineffectual you guys really are.  In the light of objective evaluation you all fail.  So it's not meaningless at all.

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.

 This is also typical of the NDT supporters.  Their hypocrisy is palpable.  While it's fine for Corgidog to defitively state, despite the evidence, that dogs can't think.  To state the contrary and offer up studies in support is not enough for them. 

So why make the foolish concluson that dogs can't think when all the evidence supports that they can.  I would no more make that assumption that I would assume the earth is flat.

Kevin Behan

I'm saying and is the only model (IMO) logically consistent with a theory of evolution by way of common descent.

Funny because the people who actually study and know about evolution find your ideas absurd.  Even if I didn't know anything about evolution a common sense test would not come out on your side.  Let's see, on one side thousands of researchers world-wide and the other side the guy who has never studied the subject, but 'feels' he's right. 

 

I can repeat the basic tenets of evolutionary and learning theory so I'm arguing from that vantage point.

Kevin Behan

Whereas the theory of randomness (genes/learning) will always reduce to a deterministic mechanical model

The second quote proves the first one is a lie.

First  he claims energy is " a tension between two things that are in some way linked"

Then energy is "action potential"

Then the tautologous enerygy "is a build up of energy". Meaning that energy is a build up of energy.

It's like a child defining a circle as a circle.

 So there is no energy?

 If it would prove fruitful, I could go back and pick out numerous logical inconsistencies I've pointed out in your words which you then choose to ignore, as in higher cognitive capacities relative to dogs and chimps. Also, the researcher used the term selective imitation, which is already an interpretation because the process of selection was by way of a reason. I simply said they selectively imitate in order to be in synchrony, and this is buttressed by discovery of mirror neurons.

Kevin Behan

 So there is no energy?

 

 

Force IS NOT energy.

 Right, force is a manifestation of energy, but I don't follow your point, what then is your definition of energy?

Hi Kevin

"" Right, force is a manifestation of energy, but I don't follow your point, what then is your definition of energy? ""

This is where is gets so tiring.. I personally don't give two dams about your definition of energy, force, power or attraction. The definitions are exact and  long since  defined. I use the word energy at least a dozen times in the day, i understand what force is. If you really want to cut ice with scientists then you have to learn the language not the other way around.

I am way past gone with any idea of energy and your understanfing of dog behaviour. There have been some interesting concepts about energy states and animal communities, often called entrophy.

If you were involved with any kind of  communications, you would not only mathematically understand, you would also intuitively understand that comms are fraught with difficulty, that they are difficult,and when you add more than a couple require quite an amount of processing power.

You might not be as extreme as some, but you would probably say as many do that the intelligence lies with the indidvidual  unit. There are strong logical arguements to insisit on indidvidual autonomy for group behaviour. I gave some examples of how this might be so,and some references. I talked about Chaotic behaviour. I actually shared some of my self and my professional skills.

I think that scientifically you are extremely naive, and if you wish to pursue your ideas, then you need to educate yourself. You see ideas are only so much, the ability to check them out , experiment and come to many logical conclusions and eliminate the ones that don't fit are the things that sperate the BS merchants from the real thing.

I was dissapointed with the posting of your mate Corgi. It always seems when you can't get someone insult them or worse their dog. Looking forward to his PM saying sorry .

You will be pleased to know that i am travelling for the next week. So you won't have to answer me so often.

 

Kevin, I agree that this is starting to get insulting to our intelligence.  You may not agree with what or in what tone (should be lowered) the others are telling you, but as a member of this planet, you must agree with facts, and you cannot make them up.

Let’s rewiew mine and your recent back and forth:


KB-1: The first question (if you're interested) would be to reprise what you think I mean by energy.


B-1: 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)?


KB-2: 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.


B-2: Not so sure that is the same definition you've offered in the past.  Regardless, tension is a force, it is not an energy.  A force moving through some distance does some work and that is one form of energy with units in foot - pounds when dealing with forces, watts w/ electricity, calories in biology, Btu in HVAC.  But for a force,

Energy = force x distance moved along its line of action


KB-3:  Right, force is a manifestation of energy, but I don't follow your point, what then is your definition of energy?


In B-1, I am pretty sure I have succinctly summed up your outlook on reality as that of a deterministic naturalist. In KB-2, you dodged my assessment of your metaphysics.  Rather than a succinct response to what I wrote, you give yet another of your unending definitions of energy (now it is a force), and insist that physics is not deterministic (it is the most deterministic science there is).

Now after explaining the difference between force and energy in B-2, you make a completely absurd statement that force results from energy.  NO.  They are two different things entirely, though they can be related as I mentioned.  Long ago I gave you a whole list of other ways force and energy are related at your website.

You end KB-3 asking me to define energy after starting out in KB-1 asking anyone to show that they knew what you mean by the term.  It is clear that you are unclear.

I will give you a little insight that might help your own thinking about force, emotion, feeling, consciousness, energy, and dog, but I do not subscribe to this at all:

We can certainly feel a force – we feel a blow to the jaw in a fight; we feel our weight as the earth’s gravitational field attracts us.  You might wish to liken this weight (a true force, pounds) to a ‘force of attraction’ and the feeling likewise likened to ‘consciousness’.  But unlike some previous statememts you’ve made, force of attraction and consciousness are not at all the same. Furthermore,  note that consciousness is not energy, as you often say – in this case, it is awareness of an affect/emotion = feeling.  

As for energy, if dog don’t eat enough calories (a real form of physical energy), dog don’t feel anything – that is the extent of energy for a dog.


Kevin, I went to your website a year or so back where I saw what you were saying, and I brought up many points just made.  At that time I urged you to get a rational framework for your thoughts on dog behavior.  There are many to choose from, and you can mix and match SO LONG AS YOUR TERMINOLOGY IS COCSISTENT ACROSS THE BOUNDARIES where you mate up two or more sciences, philosophies, or psychologies.    

I am trained as an engineer who has spent much of the last several years increasing knowledge in the area of one of my big avocations, philosophy.  (Dogs and RVs are two others).  I think I am knowledgeable enough in philosophy now to counsel you to back off of your focus of the ontology of the dog, and focus on its epistemology.  

By this I am saying the nature of the dog’s existence (ontology, mode of being in reality) is not where the fruit of understanding dog behavior is to be found.  Rather, you should study ‘how’ the mental processes of a dog work, how it subjectively knows (epistemology, psychology, cognition).

This took 2 hours to write!

 

I am working with the standard scientific definitions of energy.

Kinetic energy is motion energy. 
Potential energy is energy stored in matter.

I'm saying that the body/mind evolved to be, fundamentally, in the confluence of all its systems, physical and neurological processes, an action potential, a constitutional state of tension, the release from which is emotion. I am talking about "energy" in real concrete, biological terms and which can be verified by any impartial observer who is merely open to looking through this lens. (The woman who discovered infrasound communication between elephants first FELT the vibration herself standing at the elephant exhibit at the zoo, and through her study of whales understood its significance. Then the scientific method was applied to her discovery. Likewise anyone can watch any two dogs interact and see these principles for themselves.)

In the overall: when the expression of emotion into behavior meets resistance it engenders stress, an elaboration (and an amplification via interaction with the environment) of the underlying constitutional state of tension. Stress makes the organism a more complex manifestation of potential energy.All organisms (IMO) feel stress the same way and so this provides a platform for a universal form of communication. Two individuals resolving their mutual states of stress in an interaction (IMO) accounts for complex social behavior and simultaneously addresses the issue of entropy.  

Wiki Entry:

In physiology, an action potential is a short-lasting event in which the electrical membrane potential of a cell rapidly rises and falls, following a stereotyped trajectory. Action potentials occur in several types of animal cells, called excitable cells, which include neurons, muscle cells, and endocrine cells, as well as in some plant cells.

                                            <<<<     In neurons, they play a central role in cell-to-cell communication.>>>

In other types of cells, their main function is to activate intracellular processes. In muscle cells, for example, an action potential is the first step in the chain of events leading to contraction. In beta cells of the pancreas, they provoke release of insulin.^[1] Action potentials in neurons are also known as "nerve impulses" or "spikes", and the temporal sequence of action potentials generated by a neuron is called its "spike train". A neuron that emits an action potential is often said to "fire".