Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit on NDT philosophy

corgidog

nothing is being peddled.

you haven't made an argument against ndt. post it here in a format that isn't supported by statements like "kbehan is wrong, anyone can see." this is all you have done.

and why oh why do you go back to creationism? ndt has nothing to do w/ god or religion. it's offering a different view of evolution based on the concept of physical laws of nature reflected in emotional makeup and behavior of animals.

your failure to even grasp the basics of ndt makes it so hard to believe you have any idea what you're talking about. you should regurgitate kbehan's argument in your next post, and give it a serious treatment, so we can see whether your comparison of the two ideas is adequate.

 Reality refutes Behan its that simple.  Thousands of scientific papers across dozens of disciplines refute Behan.  You're science illiteracy on this matter won't change the facts.  And since Behan is the one demanding we ignore research, then it's up to him to produce evidence. Evidence not metaphors. Evidence not rhetoric.  Evidence not illogic. Evidence not ignorance. Evidence not tortured pose. Evidence. That is what he needs to transform NDT from a joke to something worth contemplating. .

The sheer number of mistakes displayed so far boggles the mind. This poor guy has screwed up with bite inhibition, allergies, energy, evolution, chemistry, cell culture, the list of his erroneous statements is as long as his assertions.   I really wonder at the deficit of his followers. How many times must he get simple, basic facts wrong? Things that a well read child would know, he messes up. Not once, but time and time again. The fact that he has any followers only speaks to the lousy state of science education and general scientific illiteracy of our society.

 I have profound experience, here...there is one.

Sure. This is such basic Comms theory that i thought someone who pledged to know it all would know this fact, a bit like ohms law. The internet protocol is called TC/IP. Any reference on the web would show how the messages are packaged and dispersed and recieved. Sure it is flexible but it is very wasteful and highly redundant. What makes it useful for sharig and dispersing information in a robust way but quite slow and inefficient.

For those that are interested, TC/IP is a multi route protocol. The message gets cut up, sent out and routed and tagged thorugh multiple sub  networks. So a failure at any one node doesn't matter.   At the recieve end it gets all stiched back together again not neccessarily in the order that it was sent. It takes quite a  memory to put it back together..

I guess to take this analogy fiurhter, we would hope that our beloved canines who work in quite small networks would use a more appropiate system. When the complexities of a newtowrk are fiully inderstood, most would veer towards understanding that the intelligence might be waited towards a more distributed system, where the intelligence lies with the indidvidual. What CD suggests is that you only need a pretty dumb terminal on the internet and this is true..but this is assuming that the internet is doing the processing or containing the intelligence which it does.

 But the hassles are that when the terminal is unplugged , then it is no longer autonomous . And you can't make that arguement at all with most animals. :(( Very simple , very true.

What i am doing is synthesing many 100's of text books on the fly. If any one is truely intersted, then PM me or post here and i will give you  a list on these topics. Networking, comms, routing, queing etc are very complex topics... within the last few years that was my second major...

 No networks, or energy, or emotional centers of gravity... just chemistry

Once again Behan, your beliefs have no common ground with reality. If you had any sense of honesty or ability to feel embarrassment, you'd shut up about this stuff.

The reason this won't happen is that humans have one thing that dogs don't seem to have - overdeveloped egos. 

 Nice paper. :)

I will work through it more fully. As you can imagine Mr Panksepp caused me to do an update on Biology. I last did biology when i was 14 :)  I find this field absolutely absorbing...

 I guess that this is the arguement that i am making. It is slighly obtuse. Very complex structures, networks, long complex connections go wrong. Survivial of any individual actually relies on these things going right or correcting themselves, otherwise they die. Very simple. The probablity of some ephemeral poorly understood networking doing the job with a communcation system out of a fairy tale. ( I once heard that it was telepathy, at least that clap  trap has gone...) is nearly zero. I am amused at the prospect of say geese flying in a flock using anything other than a very simple rule based local FAP to keep in posiiton. It is sufficient and i hope evidence exists... We try and do similar things in the eletronics world... and keep to a similar philosophy.

I struggle as to where to point people to understand what i am saying. The maths is kind of complex, and the assumptions are at a post grad level. A sort of populist example is 

http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-298?firstview=1

You can download this book for free. I guess why make the arguement when he does it better?  Wolfram is a bright talented person .... 

He does over reach a fraction... There are flaws...

But it is an example of convergence. I would love to work towards convergence with other professions rather than fight of  NDT, but i guess that it has to be done.

Premise- Behan has created a new science and a new language.  The science is apparently based on undocumented observations, and backed up by illogical assumptions leading to strange conclusions, only explainable through using the new language. 

Question 1- how do you expect to win this argument?  There is no data to argue against, and any data that refutes NDT is ignored, minimized, or labeled wrong, misunderstood, or is refuted by undocumented unquantified observations.  You can not win against omniscience.

Question 2-Why try.  Will it go away if ignored, or is there a real chance it will spread.  Does it result in damaged dogs?  There are more methods to train than can be listed that actually work, basically because dogs are so adaptable(energy seeking?)

I don't know how to argue against his premises.  I don't understand him and don't wish to spend the energy learning  about NDT .  It's too complicated .  I like what is simple and proven to work.

poodleOwned

I once heard that it was telepathy, at least that clap  trap has gone...

spiritdogs

The reason this won't happen is that humans have one thing that dogs don't seem to have - overdeveloped egos. 

Oh spirit dogs, i might not agree.. i thought it might be  closely related, delusions of grandeur. 

TheMilkyWay

poodleOwned

I once heard that it was telepathy, at least that clap  trap has gone...

Funny you should say that. I just read LCK saying in Behan's site that dogs are telepathic.

Now let me guess, some scientist in the middle of China says so ... Not again !!!

DougB

Premise- Behan has created a new science and a new language.  The science is apparently based on undocumented observations, and backed up by illogical assumptions leading to strange conclusions, only explainable through using the new language. 

Question 1- how do you expect to win this argument?  There is no data to argue against, and any data that refutes NDT is ignored, minimized, or labeled wrong, misunderstood, or is refuted by undocumented unquantified observations.  You can not win against omniscience.

Question 2-Why try.  Will it go away if ignored, or is there a real chance it will spread.  Does it result in damaged dogs?  There are more methods to train than can be listed that actually work, basically because dogs are so adaptable(energy seeking?)

I don't know how to argue against his premises.  I don't understand him and don't wish to spend the energy learning  about NDT .  It's too complicated .  I like what is simple and proven to work.

DougB 

This is about the soundest arguement that i have seen of late. :) Now if i had your equanimity and emotional intelligence i would be doing what you are doing :)

I remember that Saul Alinsky, a noted US civil rights campaigner used to say that humour got you places that debate didn't. Some of the stunts he pulled were pretty funny, and crippled some systems. None were illegal. May be we should try laughing about it?

To be honest, half the time i do. :) The other half my blood boils. 

Does the following accurately sum up the consensus here in regards to all the research cited?

1) Dogs are capable of a theory of mind.
2) Dogs have a grasp of time and abstract concepts.
3) Affective systems are the deepest aspect of emotional experience.
4) A dog's higher cognitive processes (thinking/reason) can modulate emotional affective systems.
5) Dogs are capable of sleuth and deception.

 KB said:

Does the following accurately sum up the consensus here in regards to all the research cited?

1) Dogs are capable of a theory of mind.
2) Dogs have a grasp of time and abstract concepts.
3) Affective systems are the deepest aspect of emotional experience.
4) A dog's higher cognitive processes (thinking/reason) can modulate emotional affective systems.
5) Dogs are capable of sleuth and deception.


It feels strange to hear you express most if what others have said in their common linguistic style (not rephrased in your terms)…I am uneasy as to where you are headed!

These are major points we’ve covered, maybe not a total summation.  I mostly agree, though would have been less certain on some points, more like this (for me)

1) Dogs have what is known as ToM:  which simply means they are consciously aware that other subjects are likewise conscious just like them.
2) Dogs experience time as a facet of reality (like they do space) - they actively use it to direct their behavior (4 o'clock = let them know it's walk time), just as they would use space judgement to jump a chasm.  I do not know what level of abstract conceptualization they have – likely not much.
3) Affective systems are the ultimate evolutionarily developed categories of emotional experience of which creatures are consciously aware (feel).
4) A dog's higher cognitive processes (thinking/reason) can modulate emotional affective systems.
5) Dogs are capable of sleuth and deception.

poodleOwned

spiritdogs

The reason this won't happen is that humans have one thing that dogs don't seem to have - overdeveloped egos. 

 

 

Oh spirit dogs, i might not agree.. i thought it might be  closely related, delusions of grandeur. 

  I stand corrected.