Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit on NDT philosophy

 So a dog is aware that it is feeling something. It is aware that a particular feeling leads to a particular action. It is aware that another mind is affected by its actions and has its own distinct point of view. It is aware that this could bode ill for it. But it is not able to mask a feeling or deny a feeling in order to avoid a negative consequence?

 Before pursuing more theoretical scenarios, do you think I have assessed the toy situation w. Peanut correctly?

Kevin Behan

 So a dog is aware that it is feeling something. It is aware that a particular feeling leads to a particular action. It is aware that another mind is affected by its actions and has its own distinct point of view. It is aware that this could bode ill for it. But it is not able to mask a feeling or deny a feeling in order to avoid a negative consequence?

This tortured logic of your makes for tiresome discussions.

 Come up with an experimental scheme to test NDT ideas.

 

Tell me how you turned selective imitation into uncontrollable urge?

 

Tell me if you know the difference between bite inhibition and aggression

 

Tell me if you know the difference between overgrowth of intestinal flora and allergies.

 

There's a lot going on here so I'll just throw some of my principles into the fray and it will require fine tuning. 

 Burl: "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?"

((In general, when dogs are young, play is about the most intense thing they do. Then, if there are some serious intramural tensions, such as fighting, or if some intense fear of something develops, this new level of intensity becomes the organizing principle of their mind and to varying degrees all but one lose intensity to the play. Thus we see as a group of dogs mature, they develop a "hierarchy of wants" so that each develop a different level of intensity and interest in any given thing, except one thing, typically the owner. So all the dogs are exctied about their owner, but then they segregate so that for example one may be the ball nut, another a chow hound, car riding fanatic, friendly vs. aloof and so on. They deal with their internal frustrations by fixating on some place or activity and are more intense about it than the others. This hierarchy of "little wants" keeps them all differentiated and reduces friction. Then, if one of the members is removed, another one will fill in the void and roles can flip and there can be a period of uncertainty as this new order gets established. This is why I prefer the term "group mind" because Peanuts attraction to the ball was interwoven with her feeling of connection to Sissy, as well as Red. So it sounds as if Red is filling a void possibly because Peanuts has shifted her focus to direct confrontation with Red, and possibly absence of Sissy removed one more avenue of deflection.))

Burl: "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."

((At the shelter, I would wager that Red put a vibe on Peanuts when she was so young, (which is why she is so attracted to her) this intensity was deflected into furious play with toy, but now she's becoming more direct and active toward Red and shifting focus away from toy which opens up that emotional space for Red.))

Burl: "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."  
((They are so alike they are finding it hard to differentiate so that they can be in same place with same intensity at same time.))

There's a lot going on here so I'll just throw some of my principles into the fray and it will require fine tuning.

Thanks for the thoughts.  If it plays out w/ no probs, I will be OK with it.

 

I think the fact that dogs mask pain confirms a form of deception, maybe hiding a bone, also.  When they are really sick, they know they cannot hide it from savvy creatures of the wild, so they literally go off to hide themselves.

 

The mode of thinking is not reasoning 'if x then y', but a conscious awareness of affects experienced as feelings (fearful insecurity) that must be attended to or else something negative will happen.  Thought does not have to mean pure rational reasoning.

 Yes, something is going on in the mind of the dog, but my argument is that the body is more important than the brain in this mental life, which is why I'm arguing against thought as in ---> comparing one moment or point of view to another. So I don't see how ToM capacity stands up to the fact that a dog never hides what it's feeling, and I don't know of a dog masking pain. In fact, if you consider the dogs most stoic to pain, the ones that are the quickest to dish it out, are the ones that squeal the loudest, so this reveals more about Temperament than about masking due to a perceived necessity or advantage. In fact there is the famous example of what most call "feigned injuries" which I don't believe are feigned at all, but are rather being relived. I would also note that when a dog is "in drive" it doesn't perceive pain as making it the "object of attention" and thereby triggering negative memories. Rather, it is oblivious if not stimulated to a higher state of arousal by these sensations.

If you want to volunteer an example of thought without rational reasoning, which I believe would have to be devoid a sense of time, then I could be on board with that. We've talked before about images ala William Campbell and I agree with that. The example of fearful insecurity can be deconstructed further because the "or else" clause is still the apprehension of a linear sequence of events and I believe this approach obscures what is really going on.

 If a dog has a ToM capacity, and since higher cognitive functions are said to moderate emotion, then a dog should be able to disguise its feelings. This is your logic.

Kevin Behan

 If a dog has a ToM capacity, and since higher cognitive functions are said to moderate emotion, then a dog should be able to disguise its feelings. This is your logic.

 

That sounds right.  To be general, instead of disguise, how about 'control in some degree or manner'.  I agree. 

TheMilkyWay

 Come up with an experimental scheme to test NDT ideas.

 

Tell me how you turned selective imitation into uncontrollable urge?

 

Tell me if you know the difference between bite inhibition and aggression

 

Tell me if you know the difference between overgrowth of intestinal flora and allergies.

 

 

Remember Einstein?  The definition of insanity? 

I think this brings us to a fundamental point of departure and where I would argue the common sense we all have of dogs readily trumps the current interpretation of the modern research on dogs. It is evident that dogs cannot disguise what they're feeling, yet if they have a sense of time, a theory of mind, the rational connection of cause and effect, they should be able to. But I don't believe anyone will want to argue that a dog can fake a feeling, if so, it will prove interesting to pursue the logical consequences of such a position. Therefore in an animal, higher cognitive faculties can not be the source of, or capable of moderating, a true feeling. Rather there is a group dynamic as source and moderating influence so that the feeling controls the dog, the dog can't control the feeling. This is why I believe a dog's sense of its self, is a feeling, he can't reflect upon a feeling from the perspective of a sense of self that is to some degree detached from its emotional experience. Thus we observe that a dog can inhibit a bowel movement in deference to house training, but at the same time can't fake a feeling because 1) it's the emotional capacity of the dog that allows it to synchronize basic physiological processes to the activity of its group and 2) a feeling is always about synchronization. This is where its intelligence and adaptive value comes in.
A dog can't fake a state of synchronization. He can't pretend to like someone he's not attracted to, and if you give him a treat, he can't pretend to like it if it doesn't strike him as tasty, both of which very young children can do since in humans higher cognitive processes are available to inhibit or deny feelings and they can pretend to like something, even eat something noxious with gusto so as to either not get in trouble or to not hurt someone else's feelings. And as a person matures, their higher cognitive capacities make it easier and easier to fake the affective systems, but at a toll as not surprisingly they begin to feel strangely detached and alienated from others.
The dog participates in the feeling like an individual participates in the energy of the crowd. It's a collectivized consciousness, it can't be arbitrarily or rationally manufactured, it has a degree of intensity, and an inherent momentum that demands satisfaction, and an attractor as focal point.  There is the innate urge to sustain the momentum so that the actions of the individuals are synchronized around a common attractor in order to keep the good feeling going. It's an auto-tuning/feedback loop, rather than a mental cognitive process.

 I admire Einstein too, especially his willingness to challenge dogma.

I said: The mode of thinking is not reasoning 'if x then y', but a conscious awareness of affects experienced as feelings (fearful insecurity) that must be attended to or else something negative will happen.  Thought does not have to mean pure rational reasoning.

Kevin said: Yes, something is going on in the mind of the dog, but my argument is that the body is more important than the brain in this mental life, which is why I'm arguing against thought as in ---> comparing one moment or point of view to another…

If you want to volunteer an example of thought without rational reasoning, which I believe would have to be devoid a sense of time, then I could be on board with that. We've talked before about images ala William Campbell and I agree with that. The example of fearful insecurity can be deconstructed further because the "or else" clause is still the apprehension of a linear sequence of events and I believe this approach obscures what is really going on.


I mentioned a while back that some say REM consciousness (dream imagery) was the only animal consciousness prior to the animal cortex.  So primitive ‘thinking’ amounted to passive (automatic, instinctive) behavior responding to primitive affects, IOW, emotions.  But with development of higher cognitive functions possible with the cortical functions, creatures no longer behaved as ‘emotion robots’, but were able to actively and novelly respond from affects tempered by the ability to form simple propositions like ‘Startle – predator – panic – a few moments go by = freeze - ’that beast is new’ {a simple proposition} – fear – ’that beast eats leaves’  - somewhat lower fear – no interaction.  Next time, a memory of the herbavore leads to a less emotion charged encounter.

For once I can rely on my structural engineering to maybe help me make a point (and flatter my profession).  A residential building code is a thick book of ‘thou shalls and shall-nots.’  It is based on centuries of accepted homebuilding practices using bricks and sticks that have proven adequate.  Engineers have analyzed each facet of the structural requirements of, say, ceiling joists, and provide joist allowable span tables for 2x12s.  Contractors must adhere to the provisions in this code, and building inspectors watch over them to ensure they do.

A normal (natural) code of performance is thus established and hard-wired into a process that merely requires from all ‘organs’ do their roles in a passive acceptance and implementation.  Result, engineering is carried out automatically by non-engineers (carpenters, inspectors, etc.).  The building code is a pre-engineered document that guarantees a standard home will adequately withstand/survive the forces of nature (gravity, floods, wind, eqke, etc.)

The code represents primary affects  - the stuff of emotions.

But here comes novelty:  People migrate to an area where there is no wood, but lots of iron ore for steel…or, people are sick of standard floorplans and want open rooms greater than what is spelled out in the code.  In a word (Whitehead’s, actually), the process of reality generally leads to novelty which if properly dealt with, fosters creative advance.

Every building code implicitly states ‘engineering built-in’ AND states explicitly ‘exceed the code provisions at your own peril.’

Kevin, this is the ‘or else’ you mention above.

And then along came Jones!

How can the migrants w/o wood or the McMansions wanters manage to live and live better?  Engineering!  Yeah!  (Just kidding).  But seriously, the inspectors’ are policemen with the duty and authority to allow for creative surpassing of the established code by saying ‘Show me an engineer’s stamp on your plans that go beyond what the code provides for and it will be accepted.’

The engineer’s stamp represents an order of behavior surpassing what established emotions can deliver – a novel advance in emotive ‘thinking’.  With eons of trial and error, a cortex develops to handle the more and more frequent demand to surpass the limits of the old primitive code.

This is rough, and it wore me out, but I think it addresses your questions.  It has actually helped me see some possibilities for incorporating my philosophic interest into my first vocation.

spiritdogs

TheMilkyWay

 Come up with an experimental scheme to test NDT ideas.

 

Tell me how you turned selective imitation into uncontrollable urge?

 

Tell me if you know the difference between bite inhibition and aggression

 

Tell me if you know the difference between overgrowth of intestinal flora and allergies.

 

 

Remember Einstein?  The definition of insanity? 

Oh no, you didn't ....

Insanity: doing the same thing again and again, expecting different results each time. I.E., asking repeatedly for scientific data and experiments and expecting each new request to yield a new response, as opposed to the already proven response of no data, no tests. A rather piquant bon mot, if I do say so, myself. And I do.

Something I wish to reply to regarding the Peanut, Sissy, and Red thing. KB, you were making some good headway until you went to the group mind thingy. That's a leap of logic for which there is no underlying principle or evidence, other than exists in your concept of causality.Others' milage may vary.

Yes, Sissy is gone and that does change the dynamic. But it is not proof of group mind. The surviving dogs could change behavior with the loss of the 3rd for any number of reasons more provable, even included in some of your statements. For example, a dog maturing may no longer find a particular activity all that interesting. And the maturity could have resulted the relentless march of time or from a traumatic event, such as the dogs received with the passing of a friend. I know some things were changed about me when my first wife passed away. I was no longer afraid of death, and could no longer be intimidated by any person. Tornados scare the crap out of me, but humans, no. And, within my own analysis, I see the trauma of my wife's passing as a catalyst for that change.

 Since ToM is a human construct and perhaps we are using it to decide how much like humans dogs are, you have proposed that by saying that dogs have ToM, they also have the ability to deceive. And they certainly can, to avoid punishment. If the dog pees on the carpet in front of the t.v. and you resoundly punish him, he may learn to pee somewhere else in the house. Or, when you are not present, in effect, "hiding" the urination. Is that a true falsification or just training happening, i.e., the dog learned effectively on the first punishment not to pee in front of the t.v., but hasn't generalized "inside the house," as of yet.

Is your question or even the straw boss you may be setting up to say that dogs can deceive on the level of say, a con man?

First off, that's a sorry mark to measure by but since it is a human thing, can an animal "deceive" on purpose? Then again, is man lying on purpose? A chameleon changes color to match the environment, deceiving predators. Well, why does a person lie? To gain something. Or to avoid something, which often involves gaining freedom, as well.

Or are you saying that in order for a dog to have ToM, he must also be able to deceive, as does a human? Previously, it was implied that dogs didn't have ToM because they didn't speak a human language. Or write or use what most might think is an abstract language. Though, the actual scientists who really do study dogs can detect differences in how a dog is barking and what it may mean in a partciluar context. I've seen that myself, though you and LCK have discounted my experience on that and since it is not peer-reviewed, it has limited value. So, the goalposts are shifting. Now, it's that dogs can't have ToM because they don't engage in pyramid schemes. Or 3-card Monty.

But dogs do conceal. My dog will hide a bone. Why? Obviously, to conserve resources by hiding it from others. Is that an instinct? Possibly so. As instinctual as it is for humans to lie? Perhaps?

Most humans learn to lie to avoid punishment. So, it may be a survival thing, after all. And what is a lie or deception? A presentation that is different than what may have been an objective reality.