Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit on NDT philosophy

Kevin Behan

 Enough science is in, more is on the way not to mention we all have direct access to observing dog behavior under an infinite range of circumstances.

 

That's the same out-of-touch with reality we hear from people who think the universe is 10 000 years old.  No Behan, there is no science to support any of your assertions.  

 And the fact you continue to dodge and avoid questions regarding a simple experimental scheme to prove your point shows the weakness of this position.

 

BWT you still haven't answered me how you turned selective imitation into 'uncontrollable urge'?

Kevin Behan

 My "theory" is that the oral urge evolves into the sexual urge so that yes it is ever present and never lessens and that it is manifested in a dog's amazing degree of physical sensuality, its capacity to enjoy tactile arousal without resorting to an instinct (as a cat must do when you arouse it too much and it either bolts away or clasps with its jaws and claws), and that furthermore, this sensuality is a higher level of information as in how to align with a "complex" object of attraction.

All of this is completely false and one more example of Behan fabricating stories for the sake of convenience. I also worry about his obsession about the sexual and sensual aspects of dogs... which is despite his assertion is no different than any other mammal.

As far as alignments... the one I'd like to see is one between the facts and something Behan writes.

poodleOwned

spiritdogs

By the way, you call your method "natural."  So, does that mean you train puppies without leashes and collars as some of us do?  Interesting that the first negative comment on Amazon about your book says that you rely "heavily" on choke, prong collars and the reader stated a tacit acceptance of electronic collars.  True or not true?

 

I am concerned. I have heard these rumours but kept them out of the discussion.

 

I believe you can find confirmation of his acceptance and use of shock collars on the blog, he callously writes that it 'electrifies' *yeah.. no kidding) the dog into action.

 Hi MIlky Way

You have to be careful about what you say about e collars. There is a case or two where manuafcturers have taken opponents to court that admitteldy did exagerate. I am very careful :)

 Usually with high fields (a lot of e collar proponents will insist that the current only flows more or less in a direct line form  terminal to terminal..) that could exist with the application of an e "stim" or shock, the resulant voltages along the line of nerves that are coincident with the field radiating away from these points are way higher than a typical action potential. There are two possibilities, that spasms occur, or that the brian shuts down for a while. It is believed that a brain shut down does occur . It is tremondously difficut to support this statement practically becuase it is hard to measure the brian activity in the presence of such fields.

There is a newer approach where low level stims are used.  It seems scientifc as you turn a knob until perceptable distraction from the dog occurs. It isn't  awhole lot better. I wont spell out the dangers and difficulties of such an approach. I am sure that an aware dog trainer would work out the pitfalls.

 Great interview for sure. You may be chagrined to hear it doesn't change my view but in fact reinforces it. I'm generally familiar with these concepts as they've trickled down into the various articles I've read. But it's refreshing to hear it concisely from the source and in particular how common parlance has misinterpreted and waylaid some of the points he's making. From my perspective, he's dissecting a higher level of emotion and the model I'm promulgating is beneath this, specifically the brain-to-gut connection which in my view implements a principle of "emotional conductivity."

From Scholarpedia (with emphasis added) http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Enteric_nervous_system

"ENS-CNS interactions

The gastrointestinal tract is in two way communication with the CNS. Afferent neurons convey information about the state of the gastrointestinal tract. Some of this reaches consciousness, including pain and discomfort from the gut and the conscious feelings of hunger and satiety, which are integrated perceptions derived from the gastrointestinal tract and other signals (blood glucose, for example). Other afferent signals, concerning, for example, the nutrient load in the small intestine, or the acidity of the stomach, do not normally reach consciousness. In turn, the CNS provides signals to control the intestine, which are, in most cases, relayed through the ENS. For example, the sight and smell of food elicits preparatory events in the gastro-intestinal tract, including salivation and gastric acid secretion. This is termed the cephalic phase of digestion. Swallowed food stimulates the pharynx and upper esophagus, eliciting afferent signals that are integrated in the brainstem, and subsequently provide efferent signals to enteric neurons in the stomach that cause acid secretion and increased gastric volume, in preparation for the arrival of the food. At the other end of the gut, signals from the colon and rectum are relayed to defecation centres in the spinal cord, from which a programmed set of signals is conveyed to the colon, rectum and anal sphincter to cause defecation. The defecation centres are under inhibitory control from higher CNS regions, and inhibition that can be released when it is chosen to defecate. The other central influences are through sympathetic pathways, which have been discussed under the sections on control of motility and regulation of fluid exchange and local blood flow, above."

My premise is that this prepping activity imprints the animal mind with the sense of emotional conductivity and that this is the first order of information in its experience of its surroundings, and this gastrointestinal role is far more fundamental than actual digestion of food as the brain-to-gut connection is transposed onto complex objects of attraction which either move rhythmically, or can be synchronized with. This then becomes a platform on which two separate animals can synchronize if they can feel these deepest bodily movements rather than being swept up in the brainstorm activity.

In the Wikipedia entry for semiotics there is a picture of two dogs tussling in play

                                          (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dogs_roughhousing_by_David_Shankbone.jpg)

as example of  "Metacommunications: signals that modify the meaning of subsequent signals. The best known example is the play face and tail signals in dogs, which indicate that a subsequent aggressive signal is part of a play fight rather than a serious aggressive episode."

But what is really transpiring is that the two dogs are beginning to differentiate according to the principle of emotional conductivity and they are not offering signs per se whatsoever. The two primal traits of prey and predator are being recapitulated via the brain-to-gut connection and it is axiomatic that they will be able to get along under more and more intense situations until they are completely emotionally bonded. All the dopamine, hormones, neurological activity sits onto of this fundamental template which is visible in all species and in all interactions, even across species lines, between prey/predator, male/female, parent/offspring, peer-to-peer. 

 

 Maybe we can focus closer on your statements of dog behavior and Panksepp at the new thread I just started.

 

As for the Scholarpedia quote, the 'feeling' of internal organ signals within the body would seem to have little impact on behavior until they reach consciousness.  We do not need to poop until we get a near-conscious feeling of the bowel-urge.

 

Your interpretation of Scholarpedia:

My premise is that this prepping activity imprints the animal mind with the sense of emotional conductivity and that this is the first order of information in its experience of its surroundings, and this gastrointestinal role is far more fundamental than actual digestion of food as the brain-to-gut connection is transposed onto complex objects of attraction which either move rhythmically, or can be synchronized with. This then becomes a platform on which two separate animals can synchronize if they can feel these deepest bodily movements rather than being swept up in the brainstorm activity.

 Since we have the same internal makeup of interioception as dogs, please explain this quote in terms of people interacting instead of dogs.

Kevin Behan

You may be chagrined to hear it doesn't change my view but in fact reinforces it. I'm generally familiar with these concepts as they've trickled down into the various articles I've read.

It is to be expected. The religious nature of NDT means that one cannot arrive to it by examining the facts and applying reason, so reason will never dissuade you from this belief.  In fact, the cultish nature of NDT means that NOTHING will ever be discovered that falsifies NDT because it is the elusive Theory of Everything hundreds of Ph.Ds have been working on for decades.  I expect the Nobel committee to contact you any time now.

 

Kevin Behan

specifically the brain-to-gut connection which in my view implements a principle of "emotional conductivity."

 That's not emotional conductivity. It's biochemistry.

 

 BTW, if you recall, in the past on your website, I discussed Whitehead's notion of our conscious experience as having an associated sense of 'withness of the body.'  He argued that by this sense of our bodies (memories of interioception, proprioception, and exterioception) we can inform Hume that there is a causal connection with things sensed and our sensory images...our bodies themselves.

 

The efferent  afferent signals in your scholarpedia article are instances of what Whitehead would call prehensions (feelings) of 'perceptions in the mode of causal efficacy.' 

FWlittleIW!

 

Except I recall your LCK fan trashing Whitehead as an irrelevant nobody...funny how much he projects himself.

 

Anyhow, this could be good stuff on a new thread.

Kevin Behan

My premise is that this prepping activity imprints the animal mind with the sense of emotional conductivity and that this is the first order of information in its experience of its surroundings, and this gastrointestinal role is far more fundamental than actual digestion of food as the brain-to-gut connection is transposed onto complex objects of attraction which either move rhythmically, or can be synchronized with. This then becomes a platform on which two separate animals can synchronize if they can feel these deepest bodily movements rather than being swept up in the brainstorm activity.

 

 

It's a premise based on nothing. What we observe in animals, in terms of preparatory biochemical changes is the same thing we observe in E.coli.  There is no need to go into overcomplicated explanations when one has a firm grasp of the biochemistry involved.  However when one doesn't understand such things, then there is a need to invoke magical complicated processes to explain such things.  

 

And still no experimental scheme or an explanation of how he transforms selective imitation into uncontrollable urge.

 Kevin

 

One of the issues here is your lack of comprehension and your inability to organise data and experiments to support your claim and just as importanly to recognise areas where evidence is weak or may not support your claims. If you have bought Panksepps book, there is a succint few phrases on the concept of attraction on pps 45 and 46. It is well supported with data and references. So if i read your stuff which isn't, and read his which is just have a guess as to which i would support.

This excerpt describes the quite simple mechanism of appetite. The smell and sight of food is indeed a stimulus. This stimulus causes a set series of behaviors. Some would use and manipulate this respsonse as the appetitive response to posiitve reinforcement . It is highly useful and i guess that we have agreement then that R+ is highly useful 

themilkyway and poodleowned, your lack of comprehension is unparalleled.

you say kbehan has a lack of evidence/data and experiments to support his position. but what you fail to understand is that kbehan is offering an interpretation. what data/experiments would you like to see that haven't been done?

how about this experiment...

take two dogs side by side, tease both with a cookie and only give it to one of them. kbehan predicts that one of these dogs will go into avoidance when the treat is delivered to the other dog.

the reason is that the physical memory of a correction as a puppy acts as a block toward the object of attraction. the dog experiences not receiving food as an actual correction and hence the avoidance.

this leads us to believe that if you raise a dog w/out correction they will not go into avoidance when teased w/ a cookie.

this interpretation is simple, elegant and makes sense. if dogs form associations w/ internal states/feelings but do not think, this perfectly explains what is seen in the experiment.

now, compare this with the interpretation of the researches in vienna, who are obligated to construct an elaborate TOM in dogs to explain this behavior.

the two are working with the same experiment and phenomenon but draw different conclusions. you can't make the claim that there is no evidence behind ndt. it is an interpretation of the evidence.

themilkyway, i don't think you know much about religion or dog training. to compare the two reveals your inability to make distinctions and is further evidence of your superb ability to conflate unrelated concepts.

this leads us to believe that if you raise a dog w/out correction they will not go into avoidance when teased w/ a cookie.

 So, with never corrected dogs,  if you continue giving to one dog and not the other, the slighted dog will not develop any negative response?  We've never corrected ours w/ food, and I haven't the heart to try.  But I just feel it in my gut that if I did, something negative would develop between them as a result of the unfair tease - it is just natural.

 

 

 When a dog is denied something it wants, it experiences intensity. This regresses the dog into physical memory. Many dogs will express personality displays or volunteer playful obedience behaviors or play bows, for reasons we could get into, but are associated with behaviors that led it to overcome earlier experiences of resistance/intensity. Whereas if the dog has been "overly trained" it will get stuck in avoidance behavior (as if it is being corrected for giving paw) as well as not displaying even earlier memories from its puppy hood and this is what caused researchers to misinterpret said dog as understanding that it was involved in a state of inequity. The pictures of dog in experiment are clear expressions of avoidance behavior as all people who work with dogs are well aware. 

 I am not sure I am can buy this.  With two dogs and one is slighted, that is a different experience than just a lone dog not getting something.  There is a group setting in the former.

 Corgidog your ignorance of basic science and its methodology is appalling. Any interpretation must be connected to the evidence, and Behan and you as his supplicant fail every time.   We all know that Behan has nothing, in fact he has less than nothing because much of the evidence refutes large portions of this ridiculous belief. Magical thinking is not required or allowed and that is just the case with Behan's interpretations.

 

Simply put your 'experiment' is garbage.  Until you show the existence of 'physical' memory - which btw is a lousy term since it is impossible for memory to exist outside the very physical brain.- you cannot  use it to explain away this very bad experiment. You also failed to show 'attraction' which is first required for NDT to make any sense.

All you've done is the same that Behan has done for the past 30 pages, which is to irrationally explain away things he doesn't like and shoehorn them into his theory of everything.

I was being polite.  NDT is more like a cult: the irrational nature of NDT, the ardent belief of it's followers in one guru, the unquestionable nature of its beliefs, the insular nature and shunning of anyone who doesn't believe...  It's why he no longer allows critiscism on his forum.. one cannot doubt the leader -  it's very close to a cult

http://www.rickross.com/warningsigns.html

 

Behan can you explain how you turn selective imitation into uncontrollable urge?

Can you come up with an experimental scheme to test your beliefs

And have you learned anything about immunology since you last posted on the subject?