Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit on NDT philosophy

So all I can say is that the science is headed in my direction and I can't help that the current consensus can't see the contradiction with the notion of an animal's self as a self-contained entity of intelligence.

Listen to Jill's description of the rational function of the left hemisphere of mammals to see that doggie also says 'I gotta be me.'  You cannot accept her description of the right brain as confirmation of dog cognition w/o also adopting the left brain functions, yet this is precisely what you do when repeating 'dogs only feel - no dogs think' 

 At 3:40 she describes the right, and at 5:10, the left, and the self at 6:10. http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

Maybe creativity is due to random neuronal firings. Or maybe it's due to subtle differences in perception due to the fact we are not machines. Or maybe it's just an early adaptive feature of our development.... or all or some of those and more. 

 Comprehension function set to on.    

    "Maybe creativity is due to random neuronal firings." (machine)

        "Or maybe it's due to subtle differences in perception due to the fact we are not machines." (This isn't saying anything, because without a model, no way to understand differences in perception. abakadabra logic)

        "Or maybe it's just an early adaptive feature of our development.." (not saying anything, abakadabra logic)..

         

        or all or some of those and more.

        (Maybe it's a machine or maybe it's not)

Kevin

I should have been more explicit in saying I would like you to address this.

Burl

Kevin said: So all I can say is that the science is headed in my direction and I can't help that the current consensus can't see the contradiction with the notion of an animal's self as a self-contained entity of intelligence.

Listen to Jill's description of the rational function of the left hemisphere of mammals to see that doggie also says 'I gotta be me.'  You cannot accept her description of the right brain as confirmation of dog cognition w/o also adopting the left brain functions, yet this is precisely what you do when repeating 'dogs only feel - no dogs think' 

 At 3:40 she describes the right, and at 5:10, the left, and the self at 6:10. http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

 That's interesting because I interpret what she's saying the exact opposite, focusing on her description of consciousness as an energy system. By focusing on dogs as wholly in the moment, I likewise arrived that exact same interpretation of animal consciousness, i.e. a state of resonance. Even with her stroke, there were higher human faculties coming in and out of line, whereas with the dog, they feel disconnected within, when she was able to formulate a sense of her self as disconnected from her surroundings. Also note that before her stroke as a neuro-scientist, she was not able to deduce from all that research what consciousness is like just as a function of the immediate moment. So there we are, different strokes for the same stroke data. Great link, thanks.

 Try again, Kevin.  This is your suggested collaborative.  That last post was ****.  You cannot say 'I'll accept what she says on right brain function, but reject what she says about the left.'

 My position has never predicated on brain as source of the dog's conscious awareness. It is the executive organ but not the source in toto, but rather a platform for elaboration in conjunction with the rest of the bodily processes, to which she clearly alludes. Furthermore a dog does not construct a sense of self as something distinct from its surroundings and a two hemisphere brain does not establish that such higher cognitive reflective capacity of detachment is there. Before her stroke, she could have said that her analytical linear mind had a sense of "me" but never could she have said about the immediate moment apprehension and how in that mode there was no sense of detachment. Yet, studying animals in terms of the immediate moment does render such a conclusion and without directly experiencing it.  The dog does have the capacity to focus energy and deal with the world as if it comprehends a linear cause and effect, but isn't the same as recognizing that there is me and there is other than me and this is also why the dog is exhausted by the exertion because it can't glide along by stringing one moment to the other through thoughts. Everything it experiences it internalizes wholly and viscerally, and this takes an emotional toll that the human intellect can side step by abstracting itself from the immediate moment.

Kevin Behan

BTW, random neurons firing as source of creativity is the stuff of a machine. In such a system Descartes will have the last laugh.

To say this, you would need to misunderstand two very important issues. The first is that the very random nature of behvaviour is ost likely the reason that our dogs are not wolves and have evolved to do the functions they have. Randomness is a feature of much of what we are and what we do. It is demonstrable, and to mesaurement uncertainty we are able to postulate to some degree of certaintly its magniude and variance. This very internet relies on what appears to be a pseudo random process to encode the data to spread it across the available bandwidth.. Now if i was religous i could almost wax lyrical about it.

 The second is that it may not be random firing, it may well be some other random process. We were postulating..

I agree the brain is necessarily involved in every aspect of processing data, just as a computer's cpu is involved in every aspect of its function. But this doesn't make it the source of consciousness any more than the computer cpu is the source of a given web page that shows up on the monitor. The Brain-to-gut connection is more fundamental and the signature of this is evident in everything the dog does and is the basis of what constitutes information, the first order of differentiation and variability between any two individuals in any kind of interaction and therefore all the higher processing. It is a platform of elaboration upon which all the higher CNS function ends up "making sense."

  When two animals interact there is nothing random about how the protocol goes which is why I don't believe a random process can account for the dog because it is the most vivid manifestation of this universal code. This protocol was highlighted in evolution of wolves and amplified even further in domestication process of dogs. If on the other hand someone wants to argue that there is a random process of whatever kind at the heart of the process, logically, this means we are dealing with a machine. The only logical way out of that position is abrakadabra, intelligence spontaneously emerging without any precedent.

Kevin Behan

Maybe creativity is due to random neuronal firings. Or maybe it's due to subtle differences in perception due to the fact we are not machines. Or maybe it's just an early adaptive feature of our development.... or all or some of those and more. 

 

 Comprehension function set to on.    

 

    "Maybe creativity is due to random neuronal firings." (machine)

        "Or maybe it's due to subtle differences in perception due to the fact we are not machines." (This isn't saying anything, because without a model, no way to understand differences in perception. abakadabra logic)

        "Or maybe it's just an early adaptive feature of our development.." (not saying anything, abakadabra logic)..

         

        or all or some of those and more.

        (Maybe it's a machine or maybe it's not)

Flip that switch again and check the circuits Behan. Comprenhension is still off.

Kevin Behan

That's interesting because I interpret what she's saying the exact opposite

Burl

Well, MilkyWay, I have about figured there is nothing left to say.  There can be no discussion with a person who insists he is absolutely right on a subject about which NOBODY can be absolutely certain – subjectivity itself.  Hell, we do not even know how we think, let alone our mute furry buddies.   I was trained to approach such matters with an open-mind.

So, does that mean this exercise in futility is finally over before we get to 50 pages?