Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit on NDT philosophy

My point is that man's ways are novel in regards to instinct. Therefore, if emotion is instinctive, there would be many circumstances in man's worlds wherein emotional affects would prove to be maladaptive. Therefore are you saying that the key to the domestic dog's social adaptability to man's ways the capacity of higher order brain functions to moderate emotional affects?

 IMO, we live well together as we as species are open to social gathering.  But we do not do the same things all day.  I have to go rake the leaves, Red and Peanut get to lay in them and watch.  I had to go to work to teach and publish, Happy and Sissy stayed home and slept.

PoodleOwned Says: "Emotions may jst as  easily result in distance being placed between animals, and in a huge number of cases does. You can look at Lion, Zebra interactions, for example. I can't accept this a all. it seems shallow and doesn't reflect the most basic of objective observations. It does nothing at all to understandings."

Avoidance and flight is in fact best explained as a function of attraction.The stronger the degree of attraction, and Zebras are intensely attracted to Lions as they are intently paying attention at all times, then the greater the intensity of the collapse of said attraction and the greater their experience of fear. Thus they are inspired to run and otherwise maintain a discrete distance. You can test this for yourself when driving a car since emotion is a universal system of affects that runs according to an energetic logic. To avoid the sensations that would result from a collapse of the feeling of flow toward a destination (attraction) one maintains a discrete distance from other cars which is directly proportional to their fear of such sensations. Cars segregate themselves on the open highway according to the temperamental comfort thresholds that each driver has in this regard. So if one wants to know what a Zebra is feeling when a lion comes too close, just consider exactly what you are feeling (but not thinking) when another car enters your driving "bubble." (or better yet, a state trooper suddenly appears)

 So then why are dogs more open to social gatherings?

Kevin Behan

 

PoodleOwned Says: "Emotions may jst as  easily result in distance being placed between animals, and in a huge number of cases does. You can look at Lion, Zebra interactions, for example. I can't accept this a all. it seems shallow and doesn't reflect the most basic of objective observations. It does nothing at all to understandings."

 

Avoidance and flight is in fact best explained as a function of attraction.The stronger the degree of attraction, and Zebras are intensely attracted to Lions as they are intently paying attention at all times, then the greater the intensity of the collapse of said attraction and the greater their experience of fear. Thus they are inspired to run and otherwise maintain a discrete distance. You can test this for yourself when driving a car since emotion is a universal system of affects that runs according to an energetic logic. To avoid the sensations that would result from a collapse of the feeling of flow toward a destination (attraction) one maintains a discrete distance from other cars which is directly proportional to their fear of such sensations. Cars segregate themselves on the open highway according to the temperamental comfort thresholds that each driver has in this regard. So if one wants to know what a Zebra is feeling when a lion comes too close, just consider exactly what you are feeling (but not thinking) when another car enters your driving "bubble." (or better yet, a state trooper suddenly appears)

 

According to what you just explained, it would appear that we humans and animals respond exactly the same way to avoidance and flight.  

 Nothing to gain by bringing in function of attraction.  Both vid speakers address the seeking affect.  There is no warrant to create new jargon.  Conscious awareness must always be awareness of some thing.  Did you watch the vid yet?  If you didn't see the vid, maybe a local library or Sean would have hi-speed access.

 The energetic principles of emotion are exactly the same across the animal kingdom, (attraction, collapse, flow, grounding, etc.) However when most species experience a collapse, the intensity of the sensations overwhelm their emotional capacity to feel and then genetically encoded hard wired patterns are triggered and this is one level of response. So for example, when a gull chick sees the red spot, its state of attraction collapses into a pecking instinct. So we see animals segregated according to environmental niche. Thus an organism can respond by instinct, highly conditioned habits, thoughts in the case of humans and perhaps primates, and then I am adding, they can also respond by feel. 

The problem with the word "seeking" is that it is not very precise. Seeking what? One must immediately impute an intention in order for there to be some meaning to it. A dog chases cars out of a seeking impulse? And every species of animal is seeking something different, then how can emotion be universal?

When I watch the video I will be looking for a distinction between thinking and feeling. Perhaps someone who has already watched it can make this distinction if in fact it is being made there.

Kevin Behan

 The energetic principles of emotion are exactly the same across the animal kingdom, (attraction, collapse, flow, grounding, etc.) However when most species experience a collapse, the intensity of the sensations overwhelm their emotional capacity to feel and then genetically encoded hard wired patterns are triggered and this is one level of response. So for example, when a gull chick sees the red spot, its state of attraction collapses into a pecking instinct. So we see animals segregated according to environmental niche. Thus an organism can respond by instinct, highly conditioned habits, thoughts in the case of humans and perhaps primates, and then I am adding, they can also respond by feel. 

 Interesting ground rules. First NDT is accused of peddling phony baloney, and then in response to direct questions about being vague as well as adding unnecessarily terminology to the lexicon, I apparently have made the error of rendering definitive answers and drawing precise distinctions and putting forth a fully developed model for such, all of which can be tested by direct personal experience for oneself in the examples I give, however I'm then advised to keep the answers short so it's easier to follow (fair enough), and so with it all pared down to pure pith, now I'm accused of not interacting in the spirit of what exactly?

I'm articulating what I've learned from a lifetime of observing dogs, easily many tens of thousands, and many other animals as well, without projecting thoughts into their heads. Eventually over several decades, emotion as the organizing principle of the animal mind and as the basis of a group consciousness, became apparent and this is why I don't use other terminology because 99.99% of it is embedded with particular meanings that aren't what I'm trying to say. You may not think such practical experience on the farm/kennel/woods is valuable, but I believe it offers a window into the animal mind unavailable any other way and I very much look forward to showing any scientist who is truly interested in the emotional underpinnings of empathy, cooperation and altruism, a thing or two about what I've discovered. I can assure you a good time will be had by all.   

 Kevin, I have no doubt you can help dogs and their humans, as long as you stick to praxis and leave theory to trained researchers in the field of animal neuroscience.  But you are not qualified to do the latter, and your inexperience in communicating in a scientifically critical manner only serves to demonstrate this point.

 Kevin

In followup to my “IMO, we live well together as we as species are open to social gathering,”  I see I missed a comment where you asked “So then why are dogs more open to social gatherings?”

I do not know.  I assume it had to do with wolves working in groups.

 Yes exactly, and NDT is the only theory, philosophy and method 100% predicated on how wolves work in "groups" (rather than as they live in packs). This premise was published in 1992 years ahead of the researchers (for example Dr. Mech) who according to your earlier post are the only ones qualified to have an opinion as to why dogs do what they do. 

Kevin Behan

 Interesting ground rules.

I'll remind you ALL that you've agreed to our Forum Rules, which require no personal attacks.  I encourage you to review your posts, consider editing those which may violate that rule, and keep future posts to discussion of the applicable theories this thread is based upon, not personal attacks.  Some are dangerously close to a time-out if they cannot heed this rule.

My premise is that a state of attraction is emotion, emotion is an “energy” of attraction and it results from the confluence of all the physical and neurological energies of the body and brain, and these are very real energies indeed. The terms I'm using: Inflection, induction, acceleration, etc. are all but variants of an underlying state of attraction and which add energy, and thus pleasure, to the experience.

The problem here is that repetition won't make this any truer today that it was yesterday. It relies on circular logic that emotion is energy of attraction and energy of attraction is emotion. The circularity is a necessity in Behan’s approach because he cannot define, detect or even allude to these energies much less to their characteristics (i.e. ‘attraction’), so he is forced to rely on a self referencing system.  Thus he is forced to rely on vague, meaningless terms - Inflection, induction, acceleration, etc.- to hide that this approach cannot explain anything.  It is so arbitrary that we could easily take these beliefs and reverse/invert them and claim that SUBTRACTING ‘energy’ and REPULSION add pleasure.  In either case, nothing would be explained… merely explained away.

Happiness is a function of “being in the flow,”

This claim was made by Behan in his site (from which he cowardly deletes those who question him) and in it I responded with a parody mocking it by using the same nonsensical language.

 The point being that anyone can make a claim about anything.

 Needless to say that Behan is completely wrong – again – when he talks about disgust. Digusts is not about “essence without form”, whatever that may mean, it relies on some very specific physiological responses - nausea.  In 1978 Grill and Norgren showed that CONDITIONED disgust is mediated by the forebrain circuitry and unconditioned is mediated by brainstem circuitry. 

He also fails and like he has so many times before (as per comparison of domesticated and non-domesticated animals) he makes irrelevant comparisons.  In this case, he incorrectly compares conditioned and unconditioned disgust reactions. On top of that Behan’s example is already well explained by habituation and desensitization. 

But it makes me curious as to what God-like powers Behan must posses that he is able to know the ‘essence’ of a thing.  The rest of the world has to settle at describing things.

50% Divorce rate disproves the claim that attraction cannot be extinguished. And since disgust was brought up, we can condition disgust to previously favored foods by infusing them with lithium chloride.  Easy peasy; “attraction” extinguished and Kevin is proven wrong.

 The problem of arguing with someone like Behan is that he has the freedom of making up absolutely anything he wants and so we are forced to defend against lies, metaphors, and one counter factual claim after another.  He doesn’t have to present evidence, facts, research or even logic.  Since his ideas don’t have to conform to reality – mainly because he believes reality conforms to desire – it is difficult to use reality to counter his claims.