Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit on NDT philosophy

corgidog

if your compass does not know where north is, then you are lost.

http://www.wikihow.com/Find-True-North-Without-a-Compass

Kevin Behan

If Panskepp is being cited as the definitive rebuttal of my theory

Kevin Behan

I am also maintaining there is a deeper emotional system (emotion as universal "force" of attraction), and that this is the part of our unconsciousness that subscribes to a network template

Kevin Behan

and that this is the only logical model that is consistent with the phenomenon of evolution.

Funny how a guy with no educational background, who has never done any research, or even understand our modern view of evolution can be so adamant about something he does not understand.

Kevin Behan

I've also commented that given fractal mathematics and how it has been shown by Mandlebrot to be expressed everywhere in nature

We also know that simple rules can give rise to complex patterns.  A school of fish for example, is govenred by the simple rule of keeping body-length distance around each fish.  Another example is Conway's the game of life

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CellularAutomaton.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life

Actually, when properly understood, it cannot be used in support of NDT but rather against it.

Kevin Behan

This template can be shown to run through all behavior as in the dog/deer video linked on my site.

Kevin Behan

Each gene is a distinct unit of information

Kevin Behan

the definitive rebuttal of my theory

Kevin Behan

Thus when someone falls in public, they feel humiliated/embarrassed because they perceive that force (that interrupts the flow) as the memory of being shamed or scolded.

corgidog

haha, lame response dude.

TheMilkyWay

We also know that simple rules can give rise to complex patterns.  A school of fish for example, is govenred by the simple rule of keeping body-length distance around each fish.  Another example is Conway's the game of life

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CellularAutomaton.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life

Actually, when properly understood, it cannot be used in support of NDT but rather against it.

My point entirely. If you start quoting Mandlebot or Fractals, you are saying that simple (and hence low compexity rules) in individuals give rise to most of the groups behaviours that we observe. I think that i have been pushing this barrow since the first few posts in this series....

Kevin Behan

If Panskepp is being cited as the definitive rebuttal of my theory

Kevin,

Panksepp is a convienient and credible source quoted by the likes of myself who are a little under resourced in this area. he is not definitive, and would be horrified if he was described as "definitve".His references are impeccable.

In many ways you have some real quality here over several disciplines. You have milky way who knows his way around biology and other closely related  disciplines. You have Burl who is done great things in his own area and some new areas for himself. He has proven  credentials. I have some pretty good skills in Maths and Electronic Engineering and related fields like computing and data comms. I am a generalist in these areas.

You can choose to work with us, check out your stuff and modify it, of you can continue to get our backs up by pretending to know everything and get no where .The choice is yours. I know that for example when i wrote my chapter on how dogs scent in my tracking book, i was only too happy to have proven scientists look over it. No skin off my nose, nothing wrong with not knowing everything.

 So the challenge is to work with us, to change what is rubbish and find out what is good. I think that what you may face is pure naked fear. What if what you say isn't right? What say you need to find other answers to how you work that explains for you what you do? In my book the really big person is the one that says "look i think that i got this wrong and i need to change what i am saying and doing in these areas"..

I went through a hell of a journey to address a particular passion of mine in my own profession.. for over twenty years. Within the last 20 years i would have proved myself wrong at least a dozen times, changed direction dramatically.  The end result was to be able to solve a particluar problem quite eleganlty if i may say so myself :)

This journey is similar for many many academics and those in related fields.

Your choice..

TheMilkyWay

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CellularAutomaton.html

Hi TheMilkyWay

It is good to see mathematica used elsewhere. I nearly live in it at the moment. :) But more seriously, there is a comment at the bottom of the article in wikipedia on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton which should be taken note of .. that these constructions while accuring in nature and elsewhere are not a universal or definitive answer.

I think at this stage it is neccessary that we reiterate that most "numbers" or locations in the physical world are actually statistics. Electron location is a probabilty function, all maesurements have some kind of error. I think it was you that said that humans seem to want to find patterns in randomness. I always find it amusing that people always want to rearrange patterns generated on random numbers in two things, duration exercises like heeling and SD layouts. Many people seem to find it unavoidable to walk an initial 6 steps and then reward/leash pop their dog at any level...

So we want to find reason when randomness will do..

 I think at this stage it is neccessary that we reiterate that most "numbers" or locations in the physical world are actually statistics.

 Which is why we can say "2 + 2 = 5 for extreme values of 2."

Burl

Which is why we can say "2 + 2 = 5 for extreme values of 2."

And why we use interval Arithmetic, and realise very quickly that in the simulation of systems , it gets so complciated that we need to work through so many cases of random variables . Commonly known as the Monte Carlo Method. So even in what people see as clear cut numerical examples like the florescent tube lighting their room, at the end of the day Stats had to be used to work out whether they would work over enough of the production. Corrollary:  Random will do fine thanks!!!!

corgidog

haha, lame response dude.

Yes, this was.  Possibly the lamest yet.  

poodleOwned

So the challenge is to work with us, to change what is rubbish and find out what is good. I think that what you may face is pure naked fear. What if what you say isn't right? What say you need to find other answers to how you work that explains for you what you do? In my book the really big person is the one that says "look i think that i got this wrong and i need to change what i am saying and doing in these areas"..

This is precisely how many of us switched from the many different training techniques of yesterday to something that is working better for us today.  Had some people not been prepared to be wrong, we'd still be clinging to Koehler and the Monks, and our dogs would be still slaving under the influence of those less than positive forces.  The more we learn how dogs REALLY think, the better we will be able to communicate with them.  So, none of us should be afraid to be wrong, rather we should remain inquisitive.  I want to know more about dogs, and be able to enhance my relationships with them.   But then, I'm an information junkie, and want to know more about a lot of things.  What I don't want is for people to blindly follow, or refuse to let go of, theories in favor of evidence.

 This is a philosophrt/psychologist I always love to hear from.  Her insights on infants, emotion systems, and evolutionary similarity w/ other species are profound and uplifting.

 http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2011/01/pze_20110129.mp3

Just consider the profundity of how a newborn only recently in a womb, will stick out its tongue to respond to your doing so.  Early foundational circuitry for ToM, it would seem.

Burl

 This is a philosophrt/psychologist I always love to hear from.  Her insights on infants, emotion systems, and evolutionary similarity w/ other species are profound and uplifting.

 http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2011/01/pze_20110129.mp3

Just consider the profundity of how a newborn only recently in a womb, will stick out its tongue to respond to your doing so.  Early foundational circuitry for ToM, it would seem.

So funny that you mentioned this!  Granted, she's the only dog here who does it, but Sequoyah, very early on, would stick her tongue out when I did.  This is not something I have deliberately marked and reinforced.  Just seems to be a little game she's willing to play - but it should be no surprise that such a dog was also the one who learned to open a baby gate by watching me do it;-)  What I find interesting is that she transferred the skill from watching my hands to being able to do it with her nose - she didn't use her paws.

I must say, though, that Sioux was marked and reinforced the first time I could do it when she sneezed.  I added a cue "achoo" later.  But, oddly, she will also sneeze when I do my fake sneeze at her.  So, she recognized what I was doing, and mimicked it (presumably to get the cookie she knew I would produce).   Don't really know what went on in her little head, but we have a good time doing it together anyway:-)

What I find interesting is that she transferred the skill from watching my hands to being able to do it with her nose - she didn't use her paws.

 I thing things like this demonstrate a degree of abstract reasoning.  Its not brain surgery, but who wants a dog that could perform one!

"Panksepp is a convienient and credible source quoted by the likes of myself who are a little under resourced in this area. he is not definitive, and would be horrified if he was described as "definitve".His references are impeccable."

My original point when I cited Kagan (science has no definition for emotion because the three avenues of investigation yield different results that cannot be reconciled) is that to date, there is no model for emotion, and since emotion is a profound if not fundamental component of animal behavior, therefore it is credible that the arena of emotional intelligence will be able to encompass what is currently being interpreted as thinking in an abstract time/contextual mode.