Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit on NDT philosophy

 "At least give me the courtesy of reading and quoting my corrected material."

<>

1) a sense/instinct of balanced behavior amongst peacefully interacting creatures - fairness - keeps things orderly; it naturally keeps individual passions/desires tempered, otherwise no peaceful interaction in nature could exist - agression would be all there is.

<> 

 Consider that Candice Pert discovered the "psychosomatic system" comprised of the immune, endocrine and central nervous system in an equal three way interplay wherein the CNS is not in charge so I think assigning consciousness as the preserve of CNS is not going to hold up if that's the point you're making. And there is also the enteric nervous system which has to be taken into account. There's also a TED presentation on communication systems between bacteria, and the implications of this when we take into consideration that the bacteria in the gut and elsewhere, are in communication with other bacteria internally and externally and how this influences human physiology and consciousness. The presenter notes that there is far more bacterial DNA than human DNA in our bodies and without which life would not be possible.  

I think the neurobiologist in Spiritdogs’ vid would state with better terminology what I fumbled thru on fairness.  I am saying it is one of many social behaviors observed in higher order creatures – much like creatures  generally move to greet one another.

Panpsychism (ubiquitous mentality) does not dictate that all consciousness is of the same nature.  It is more reasonable to speak of panexperientialism (organisms – bacteria to Socrates - experience their environment).  Some experiences are richer than others.

Rather than continually chasing tangents that do not get to the heart of the matter, could corgidogs please come on now and give us the takeaway bullet points of what distinguishes NDT from other dog training paradigms.  We clearly are not moving together

 For example, a puppy should never be corrected and it should never be allowed to make mistakes. This formula would eliminate the euthanasia of pet dogs.

(Interestingly much is made here of the distinction between force and energy, when the distinction isn't particularly relevant since there can't be force without energy and science can't even say what energy is. Meanwhile, the distinction between fairness and a sense of balance is extremely relevant when the experiment by Range is wildly accepted as demonstrating an intellectual apprehension of a state of inequity and the ability to compare different points of view and over the course of time. Then the logical consequences of these statements are expediently sidestepped. Why would a dog sense a state of inequity if there wasn't the guilt attached when for example a given dog finds itself  displacing the inequity or balance of the situation if you like? It would make no sense. So if you're going to accept the interpretation of these latest experiments, then you must now go back and erase the last thirty years of behaviorism that's been inculcated in the dog owning public.There is also no integration here of the latest research that shows how consciousness is slowly but surely being revealed as a confluence of many systems beyond the CNS. )

 For example, a puppy should never be corrected and it should never be allowed to make mistakes. This formula would eliminate the euthanasia of pet dogs.

Excellent start on a short list of takeaway bullet points of NDT principles that distinguish it as a training method.

 If you're interested I wrote a book that is full of them and my second book with many more will be out in a few weeks. The most important point I'm saying is that the way a predator hunts determines its social nature, not the other way around, and that the information in the energy composes its mind (and this turns out to be a group cognition) determines its behavior, again not the other way around. This then begs an interesting question, what is the nature of information? 

 That's fine. But what might give one incentive is to realize that there are self-defeating logic loops in the current theories, that are even more pronounced when folks try to synthesize the two approaches. That's what led me to question the dominance theory and the learning-by-reinforcement theory. However if you think that you are presently dealing with a model that is only missing a few dots and you expect that the trajectory of discovery you're witnessing is going to connect said dots, I can see why you wouldn't have any incentive.

 The only self defeating logic loops we are liable to find in in your writings.  No once have you made a convincing point in regards to anything you've mentioned.  Time and time again, it's been a complete corruption of the facts, The arguments you put forth are devoid of any critical thinking, absent in logic both the ones you make in support of NDT and against science.  It's one tragic failure after another.

 The arguments put forth in defense of NDT are pure garbage, it' schizophrenic, magical thinking inspired rhetoric.  But even if it wasn't, it wouldn't matter.  In the end what matters is evidence, and when it comes to facts NDT has none and the other side has them all.

Kevin Behan

 So there is no energy?

As you so beautifully, and eloquently explained; energy is a build up of energy.

energy is a build up of energy

 So much for thermodynamics and entropy!

spiritdogs

Clever marketing always seems to win out, and the reason is that many people who have the IQ of a kumquat are willing to grasp explanations that make sense to *them* without having to exert the brain power or intellect that it takes to question something in a truly investigative way to come to a conclusion that can be proven scientifically.  Then, they hold tight to their beliefs, no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary, because they really need to be right about something in their otherwise unremarkable lives. 

Burl

Without a short list of salient takeaway bullet points of NDT principles that distinguish it as a training method, I have no incentive to pursue it over another.

Kevin Behan

 If you're interested I wrote a book that is full of them and my second book with many more will be out in a few weeks.  

Well how dense I am.  I have been naive enough to think all this time that you, Kevin, were seeking honest discussion and to perhaps clarify your own inconsistencies.  Your constant raising questions and critiques of the mainstream concepts of dog cognition led me to realize we needed a brief summary of your major points of distinction in the form of a short list of salient keynotes.  You refuse...now I see it.

 Spiritdogs saw it clearly as I could not: you are just here to stir up sales of a book, much as LCK was directing hits to his blog.  This whole thing is just a marketing charade.

 Apologize, please, and stop this b******t.

 You want me to boil it down to 5,000 bullet points? 

Kevin Behan

(Interestingly much is made here of the distinction between force and energy, when the distinction isn't particularly relevant since there can't be force without energy and science can't even say what energy is. Meanwhile, the distinction between fairness and a sense of balance is extremely relevant when the experiment by Range is wildly accepted as demonstrating an intellectual apprehension of a state of inequity and the ability to compare different points of view and over the course of time. Then the logical consequences of these statements are expediently sidestepped. Why would a dog sense a state of inequity if there wasn't the guilt attached when for example a given dog finds itself  displacing the inequity or balance of the situation if you like? It would make no sense. So if you're going to accept the interpretation of these latest experiments, then you must now go back and erase the last thirty years of behaviorism that's been inculcated in the dog owning public.There is also no integration here of the latest research that shows how consciousness is slowly but surely being revealed as a confluence of many systems beyond the CNS. )

Here we go

Some bullet points

science can't even say what energy is.

Kevin, it just is not a little take home message for you .It is a little complex....

Behavourism is naughty

Well many of us agree that it is time it move on, but your stuff would suggest that we should run deseperately back into the past into something that might work..

I  won't be buying your book, and i am ***** that you wasted my time trying to release it this way. I hope it bombs.

The rest of your stuff, as per usual is solid gold hard to understand bilge that isn't worth my time and energy decoding, trying to sort out what concepts you have mashed and how ...

 Whoa, sorry. I only mentioned my books in lieu of bullet pointing ad infinitum because I'm making an argument not a power point. (And you may rest assured I'm not counting on any support from these quarters.) You think I'm attacking you because I'm pointing out the logical inconsistencies with the mainstream interpretation of the evidence which apparently folks are supposed to accept without question or analysis. The point is that it's a one way street with the argument for thinking (i.e. the comparison of one moment or point of view to another) in dogs; Range says dogs can think about inequity and yet the logical extension that leads to guilt you don't want to deal with and the average owner and trainer is just supposed to accept that inherent contradiction out of deference to authority figures.