Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit on NDT philosophy

Burl

Very good description of healthy agnosticism.  My PhD advisor's favorite way of stating this was "Everything is random [probabilistic] and non-linear."  And this is in probably the most deterministic branch of engineering there is - structures.

I like your supervisor. I must admit though that it isn't just Kevin that has mild tantrums in the face of this kind of philosoply. If we were just a little bit honest we would admit that many engineers never quite get it. They are quite painful to deal with. "You mean there is more than one answer?!!"

Kevin Behan

(albeit one which lacks a definition of emotion)

That isn't quite rght any more. Quite a few would gather around what Panksepp says. It is based on anatomical evidence and is a convienient way of working with behavorual phenomena arising from certain cirucits of the brain. 

Personally, I am hesitant to transfer my own personal experience and feelings to represent the whole. Quite happy to accept that i may not be the norm and really it doesn't matter. As soon as you are talking along these lines, you are talking about cognitive mediation of what you think emotions might or should be. Now that is a mess!!

What PoodleO said w/r to dog people who are interested in affect/cognition valuing Panksepp sounds right.  

Also, there were 5 points Kevin raised many posts back of basic beliefs of the majority posting here.  They are all probably items on which Panksepp (and most neuroscientists/ethologists) would buy into.

As for yet another list of points from Kevin asserting inconsistencies in what most here might hold in view of scientific skeptical approach versus what is fundamental fact, we have:

Kevin Behan

It's refreshing to hear that those here on this forum are not certain that sexuality is fundamentally about procreation, that behavior is not fundamentally about survival and competition over resources, that thinking is the most parsimonious explanation for complex intelligent behavior, that learning is not the direct result of material reinforcement, and therefore are open to those who are willing to question these assumptions.

This newest (and probably soon to be forgotten) list of items which are basic to evolution of species has not really come up on this thread in the manner suggested by Kevin's wording, but I think with the few marked alterations, we would all agree:

[T]hose here on this forum are not certain that sexuality is fundamentally exclusively about procreation, that behavior is not fundamentally simply about survival and competition over resources, that thinking is the most parsimonious [only] explanation for complex [what is commonly considered] intelligent behavior, that learning is not the direct result of material reinforcement [? what is material reinforcement ?], and therefore are open to those who are willing to question these assumptions.

 It's not at all a mess once instinct is separate from emotion and thoughts precipitated from feeling.

 I was pointing out a double standard. I'm certain about what I'm certain about, just as the others are certain about what they're certain about so the certainty question is a red herring. That doesn't settle the debate.

At any rate, in regards to properly articulating the consensus I will reprise what I think are agreed upon points for those in this forum, sans me.

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

Therefore given the above, the important question for me becomes, in your view, does this mean a dog can hide what it is feeling, or even fake a feeling since a dog is self-consciously aware of a feeling, and how what it feels and what it does thereby affects the minds of others that entertain divergent perspectives, and then how the consequences of how what it feels and what it does affects what others feel and do over the course of time via a linear cause and effect? 

 I was pointing out a double standard. I'm certain about what I'm certain about, just as the others are certain about what they're certain about so the certainty question is a red herring. That doesn't settle the debate.

 I think you have to be aware of what is at issue: it is your certainty about your enigmatic speculations on the nature of reality of which I and most others are equally certain not to be the case.  From our various statements, I glean the general consensus of most here conforms w/ the method and attitude of scientific skepticism and probabilistic analysis/valuation of hypotheses.

At any rate, in regards to properly articulating the consensus I will reprise what I think are agreed upon points for those in this forum, sans me.

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

 This is not your original nor my modified list you started with.  It appears you've given it a third face to go off on another tangent below...

 Therefore given the above, the important question for me becomes, in your view, does this mean a dog can hide what it is feeling, or even fake a feeling since a dog is self-consciously aware of a feeling, and how what it feels and what it does thereby affects the minds of others that entertain divergent perspectives, and then how the consequences of how what it feels and what it does affects what others feel and do over the course of time via a linear cause and effect? 

Emphasis mine.  Two things strike me here:

1) Why is this the most important question that arises from what you now hold to be the key tenets of most posters here?

2)  What exactly do you want to ask?

 Can dogs mask, and/or hide and/or deny what they're feeling in deference to context and/or point of view of others?

 I don't know.

But I have a question you like to answer at your site.  Peanut used to be the one to instigate a little tug play by selecting a toy and bringing it to one of us.  Red and Sissy would also then join in.  Time passes where little toy play occurred and Sissy is gone.  Martha brought home a few new toys and Red is gaga over a couple and shakes them like she's killing them.  Peanut stands back and emits whines and will not play w/ me and Red or alone w/ any toy.  What's up?

 I'll cogitate and offer an opinion on my site, but I'm a little unclear about what's happening. When you say Sissy is gone, you mean absent from the room or has she passed away? And so is this also unusual that Peanuts has no interest in the toy, and that she has only played with toys when Sissy and Red were in the picture so that now without Sissy she's not interested whatsoever, and then finally, what was the dynamic between Peanuts and Sissy, and Red and Sissy?

Sissy died of cancer 6 weeks back.  She was not as engaged when Peanut would grab a rope toy - Red would more likely join in; they might tug together as long as I kept my hand in the mix, otherwise, Peanut would re-engage rough pulling and shaking w/ just me and Red would walk to a window and look out.

 It is unusual that Peanut has no interest in even the old familiar toys she used to volunteer to bring out to play.  Peanut would do this whether or not Sissy and Red were in the picture.  I am not too convinced it is about Sissy, but maybe that there were three, of which Peanut was the 'jester', and now there are two.

 5 yrs ago, Red and Peanut shared outside time at the shelter where we go them.  Red had just had a litter of 4 and was about a year old, while Peanut was a 3 mo pup.  When they came to our house, we had Happy and Sissy, so the new ones were a pair, of which Red was the one Peanut followed closely.  They are females of 6 and 5 yrs.

Addendum:

Perhaps Red is sensed to be top dog and the interest in toys means Peanut should back off from toys.  Red is showing more interest than ever - she has actually brought two of the new ones outside where she lays during the day.

But they are generally fairly equal.  Peanut does not like to share what she sees as 'hers', like a spot on the couch or the bed when we sleep.  In both cases, Red will give up her space for Peanut.  In the case of the bed, at bedtime, both come in from peeing, and Peanut usually goes first to the couch in the LR, and Red up onyo the foot of the bed.  After 20 min, Peanut comes to bed up closer to our torso, and within a half hour (sometimes not) Red junps down and goes to the couch.  

The other day Red was on the sofa where Peanut likes to be when one of us is on the sofa.  I came to the sofa and Peanut followed. Seeing Red in 'her' spot, she gives the eye, lowers her head and slowly walks away...Red waits a min. and jumps down to the floor.  Then Peanut comes and takes up her spot. 

41 pages? Holy moly. I know I haven't been around in a while. That must be some bone to hold on to.

Shakespeare once said, "a rose, by any other name, would still smell as sweet." So, it's still about semantics, rather than any actual proof that disproves behaviorism or operant condition, neither of which require theory of mind, so to speak, which  was admitted by LCK to be a construct to help us humans think we are superior to other animals. Which sounds like a relgious belief. "For God gave Man dominion over the animals .." Not to belittle anyone's faith. It just seems like a matter of faith to assume that we are superior to the animals or that they can't think or reason because they don't speak the Queen's English and compose sonnets in iambic pentameter.

Oh well, back to the studio and the hot mic.

 If a dog is capable of ToM, of modifying emotional affects, of thought and of deception, then the logical consequence is that a dog must be able to hide, mask or fake a feeling.

 Kevin

 I added detail to the Peanut-Red-toy story.  It seems like the kind of thing you are comfortable analyzing, and I would appreciate your insights.

Meanwhile, I found an article on deception that is OC and strongly leans to the answer you would prefer on deception.

Kevin Behan

At any rate, in regards to properly articulating the consensus I will reprise what I think are agreed upon points for those in this forum, sans me.

Who gives a flying fig. Claiming cog sci is wrong doesn't make NDT right.

You can't prove RED is GREEN because you argue that RED isn't BLUE.

Saying 2+1=5 is wrong won't make 2+1=9 right. 

 Stop it with this crap.  Even if everything we know is wrong, it still wouldn't make the sheet you peddle correct. It has to stand on it's own merit, supported by evidence. Why is that so hard for you to understand? 

At least these guys were in on their joke, instead of being the joke.

Kevin Behan

 If a dog is capable of ToM, of modifying emotional affects, of thought and of deception, then the logical consequence is that a dog must be able to hide, mask or fake a feeling.

That's not logical at all. No more logical than suggesting an ostrich can fly because it has wings.