Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit on NDT philosophy

I attended a lecture by Dr. Margulis on symbiogenesis. Her opening statement was that all mutations are deleterious. She's a credentialed first tier scientist who doesn't believe in theory of random mutations.

You are lying or misunderstood her.  I am familiar with Margulis work (essays, articles, books, papers etc) nothing in her published history would support such a claim.  You might as well claim that Fermat didn’t believe in prime numbers.

 “To renounce the goal of comprehending the “thing itself,” of knowing the “ultimate truth,” of unraveling the innermost essence of the world, may be a psychological hardship for naïve enthusiasts, but in fact it was one of the most fruitful turns in modern thinking” – Richard Courant (NYU’s Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences}

One point about theories and models that seems to escape the attention of Behan is that ALL THEORIES are incomplete. There isn’t a single model that can account for every conceivable phenomenon. That being said, the incompleteness of a theory does not make it incorrect. Behan’s seems to believe that unless we know everything about a thing, we don’t know anything about it.  And he has convinced himself and a few victims that he has managed to discern the totality of a dog.  

Kevin uses this incompleteness to carry his attack of argument by exclusion. Proclaiming current views on learning theory wrong, he then concludes that NTD is the only possible alternative.  This fails for two reasons 1) even if the current scientific view was wrong, it does not mean Behan correct and 2) by implying that because one scientific explanation is wrong they all are.

At no point does he really offer any explanation of the empirical evidence. “Energy did it” is the best Behan can muster.

 

However by definition if emotion is a universal feature of animal consciousness, it cannot therefore be a function of instinct since instincts are species-specific fixed action patterns dependent on more customized sets of genes and which keep the various species specifically adapted to their evolutionary niches.

Another fail. For argument’s sake we shall say that emotions are feature that a particular clade has in common, this not however mean that there can’t be a species specific reaction to those emotions.

He also fails to realize that animals can adapt their behavior, as if an animal is fixed in it’s response to emotional experience.  

As Michael Levin demonstrated in ‘The Evolution of Understanding” there is no need for emotion to be involved in order to achieve communication.  There is no need to invent a constructs like ‘networked intelligence in order to explain communication in animals.

Once again, Behan introduces unnecessary elements that add nothing.

 

Kevin Behan

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 think you should retract this statement. It is pretty ugly and just further undermines your position. At least two of us that are currently debating with you use the scienctific method every day and we don't get to make mistakes because if we  people may die. Pardon us for bringing the same concerns to our life with dogs.

There are also several other trainers on this board that just don't seem to want to claim their specialness in observations, but are quietly going about changing peoples and dogs lives without this level of self importance.

As for me i am just some kind of amateur mug. My dogs aren't Shutzhund breeds, but you might know if you cared to do even basic research what they had to do to get a couple of the titles in FRONT of their name.On top of that is the tracking group i take which is had more than it's share  of success with non fancied breeds often with poor starts in life. I also have co started a group that considers some of these new theories and puts them in to training. My older dog has this weird title UD after her name. Now it wasn't easy with her, she had a hassle or two on the way but i am dam sure that some of Panksepps ideas got me there. She is one of the very few minis in our country to have a UD title,and i am pretty sure the only one to have UD and TCh. You might like to look up your own AKC records and see how many minis on your country have TDX...

I sure did read you book I unfortunately paid you more politeness than you are paying Panksepp. Frankly to me it was indecipheral rubbish with huge mistakes in science nearly every where i looked. I tried to be charitable but that was my view. Where as with Panksepp and some others, despite the academic orientation gave me clear lucid well researched referenced and well trailled concepts that enhanced my training.

So lets stop the slagging of some Brilliant Scientists, and the increase of your own importance by claiming special knowlegde, climb down of the pedestal and be gracious about being licked.

As Monty Python said " he aint the Messiah , just a naughty boy...." sic porbably got the quote wrong :)

 

i find it striking that you could possibly have that interpretation of kbehan. he has been personally attacked on this thread numerous times and you take issue with him articulating his defense, the position that he does indeed have something valuable and different to say about his profession? it's actually kind of funny and strange that you include the titles your dogs have earned to make the simple point of panksepps usefulness in training. whose self importance are we discussing here? i can't possibly see how winning trophies is related to this discussion -other than bragging rights. which is fine and congratulations btw, but to then accuse someone else of having an inflated self worth while being unaware of doing the same thing, is ironic. i don't get the impression at all that kbehan is slagging on brilliant scientists. he is simply looking at the problem from a different angle. the fact that commenters consistently need to move the conversation to a personal level and away from the actual questions raised makes one doubt any intellectual curiosity.

TheMilkyWay

I attended a lecture by Dr. Margulis on symbiogenesis. Her opening statement was that all mutations are deleterious. She's a credentialed first tier scientist who doesn't believe in theory of random mutations.

You are lying or misunderstood her.  I am familiar with Margulis work (essays, articles, books, papers etc) nothing in her published history would support such a claim.  You might as well claim that Fermat didn’t believe in prime numbers.

themilkyway, it's clear that you disagree with kbehan and you think that his ideas are just mumbo jumbo nonsense. anyone reading this thread would not mistake you as a proponent for the ndt philosophy. so... you need not constantly repost the same thing with different verbiage.

you say above that kbehan is lying. can you go on record and clarify how kbehan is lying and explain dr margulis's view on symbiogenesis and evolutionary biology as it relates to this discusion?

also can you explain this quote taken from wikipedia on dr margulis which tends to agree with the point kbehan was making?

"She does, however, hold a negative view of certain interpretations of Neo-Darwinism, excessively focused on inter-organismic competition, as she believes that history will ultimately judge them as comprising "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology." She also believes that proponents of the standard theory "wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin - having mistaken him... Neo-Darwinism, which insists on [the slow accrual of mutations by gene-level natural selection], is a complete funk." She opposes such competition-oriented views of evolution, stressing the importance of symbiotic or cooperative relationships between species."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis

And this teaser as well.
How do species originate?

Lynn Margulis presents an answer to the one enduring mystery of evolution that Charles Darwin could never solve: the source of the inherited variation that gives rise to new species.

|These researchers argue that random mutation, long believed (but never demonstrated) to be the main source of genetic variation, is of only marginal importance. Much more significant is the acquisition of new genomes by symbiotic merger.
http://www.isepp.org/Pages/San%20Jose%2004-05/MargulisSaganSJ.html

 

Sure i have bragging rights on my dogs, but the idea that some how looking at a bunch of information without critical assesment is dangerous. It borders on the "take my word for it" kind of science. Our two favourite kind of Sales People, the "Trust MeS' and the "S**t yehas".  I did read his book, it has nothing much useful or coherent to say. Of course you are welcome to start itemising these points and you might like to point to the places in his book that would solve intense nosie phobias in a poodle, and actually show evidence that in the heat of competition that it worked. You might like to tell me also how you would get a bunch of novice handlers and quit edifficult dogs and get them tracking... from his book. After all it is based on "practical " knowledge.

The point that i was making was a little indirect. In my dog life and my professional life, when there is doubt no one believes you unless you turn up with "practical results".Some how "practical results" mean a whole lot more than succesful deduction based on scientific principals. This phrase dirves me through the roof, but there you go i have just given you some "practical results". Since i am not a particually practical person i don't seek them per say. They happen as a result of the training that i do.

Do i have special knowledge? Of course not. As i said i am just an Amateur. Does Kevin .. of course not.

 

i agree with you, however, that is not what this discussion is really about. this thread is about the logical ramifications of believing in ToM that dogs do/do not possess. actually, the thread is really just we don't like ndt and we're going to make fun of it. both sides can accuse the other for lack of critical assessment when the two camps hold different criteria for what is critical to assess. so i'm not sure that mode of dialog is worth pursuing.

though, i'd agree that lack of critical assessment can be dangerous in certain circumstances. however, we're talking about dog training. and not training them to build bridges or fly airplanes. so it's really not that dangerous. furthermore, when you consider the level of aggression of dogs in america/the world and the lack of kbehan's ideas in the marketplace, you can't possibly say it's dangerous learning and practicing ndt. if you're interested in reading about the practical applications of ndt you may be interested in neil sattin's blog http://naturaldogblog.com/forum people have success stories with aggressive dogs (including neil himself) as well as implementing other very practical methods derived from kbehan's philosophy. i think that a new thread could be started if there is interest in discussion surrounding practical side of ndt so as to not change gears on this discussion.

corgidog

though, i'd agree that lack of critical assessment can be dangerous in certain circumstances. however, we're talking about dog training. and not training them to build bridges or fly airplanes. so it's really not that dangerous. furthermore, when you consider the level of aggression of dogs in america/the world and the lack of kbehan's ideas in the marketplace, you can't possibly say it's dangerous learning and practicing ndt

 

I am not so sure of that at all !!  Are you now saying that it doesn't pass muster scientically, so lets just do it in any case?  I guess that isn't any worse than any other of the gurus around the place but i prefer soundly based science to train my dogs thanks. My dogs my responsibilty and quite frankly the best that I can do for them. It doesn't include stuff that doesn't or only partially works.

 

corgidog

people have success stories with aggressive dogs (including neil himself)

Pardon my sceptism.I had this emotional sense of entire weariness. (Not one of Panksepps!!!)   Unfortunately this is the usual claim of every dog training charlatan out there. A few do something, quite  a few are just plain cruel, and the rest just burn up money and time. I think a large number are palebo effect only. But that is my observation only. Any others care to comment? Am i being too cycnical?

 

It's not God-like powers, one's digestive system recognizes the essence (energy) of things. At the risk of being graphic, if a dog has an unformed bowel movement, disgusting. If it has a formed one, not disgusting. Food that is plated and eaten in a civilized way, not disgusting. Food mashed together and eaten with mouth open, disgusting.

There's nothing mystical about what I'm saying, the confluence of energies in the body and brain (these are real because they are generated by the body and brain's physiological and neurological processes) are attracted to emotional grounds, and this can be verified by anyone who pays attention to how one feels. 

In fact a 50% divorce rate proves that attraction cannot be extinguished because due to the principle of conservation, a state of attraction is conserved as its equal and opposite form, stress, hence the divorce. 

 

Kevin Behan

There's nothing mystical about what I'm saying, the confluence of energies in the body and brain (these are real because they are generated by the body and brain's physiological and neurological processes) are attracted to emotional grounds, and this can be verified by anyone who pays attention to how one feels. 

 

 

This is absolute nonsense. Would you care to rephrase so that my opinion has some chance of being changed ?

Burl

Did you ever tickle the hare?

 

Hehehe, tried, but he's not keen on physical contact. He's sometimes amenable to a head or shoulder rub, which to him is kind of like laying his life in my hands. He occasionally boxed my hand when he was a baby, though. It's hard for a hare to translate hare behaviours to a human context.

If we can maybe cut the hostility for a moment, perhaps Kevin can explain what his theories add to the body of knowledge in animal behaviour? I for one am still a wee bit confused about what the point is. To me, little old scientist with a splash of experience with small, wild animals, there are lots of odd little things that go on with attention. I like the general idea of push and pull, here. I know the best way to put a wary bird with a nest at ease so she goes to the nest and shows you where it is is to pretend you are completely disinterested in her. To me, it's all in the advantage of being able to read some kind of universal body language. If I'm a small prey animal, it behooves me to pay attention to what large prey animals are looking at. If they are looking at me, I should be worried, because they might want to eat me. If their body is taut and they are staring at me, I should be bloody terrified because chances are they are going to try to eat me. I don't have to be able to think all that consciously to fly away before the cat pounces on me. I just have to see things that frighten me. It would make sense that I am wired to find these things frightening. I don't like my chances of learning it when a mistake could cost me my life. There's a theory that negative stimuli tend to be more uniform across species and individuals than positive stimuli, because the stakes for negative stimuli are high.

The other thing is it pays to be curious. In some circumstances. A population appears to usually have both shy and bold animals. Sometimes it's good to have a high flight threshold and sometimes it's bad. Animals can be born one way or another and change their behaviour depending on the environment. It's all very elegant and makes perfect evolutionary sense to me at least.

So my question is, if it behooves animals to be born with a sense of body space, and a sensitivity to attention and basic, universal body language (an animal about to explode into action ALWAYS looks tense and bunched up), what does push and pull bring to this? Why can't an animal just have a natural tendency to pay attention to these things because if they don't they get eaten?

Did you see the video yet, Kevin?

To Kevin “This is absolute nonsense. Would you care to rephrase so that my opinion has some chance of being changed ?”

Kevin and Sean, there is a reason so many detractors of Kevin’s writing will agree with this quote, and I think you both must know it is about his insistence upon speaking atonally – I literally cringe when trying to read Kevin.  Amd I REALLY do try. Honestly, it hurts me in a visceral way, as though my intelligence is being assaulted while I am expected to endure a wandering ramble of incoherent metaphor expressed in terminology totally unconnected with the subject at hand.

“we're talking about dog training. and not training them to build bridges or fly airplanes. so it's really not that dangerous. furthermore, when you consider the level of aggression of dogs in america/the world and the lack of kbehan's ideas in the marketplace, you can't possibly say it's dangerous learning and practicing ndt.”

Please, for the sake of argument of this thread, list the top 5 novel insights of NDT, and we can judge as to whethere it differs from what other trainers and behavioral researchers say.  

Sean, your writing is lucid, as is LCK’s.  For heaven’s sake, if Kevin really has something novel to bring us and you know what it is, why don’t you write it up in an article and post it on your site.  I would love to read that.

 

(In answer to the concise point of your question) The body extracts energy from nutrients and produces things, bile, blood, ions, hormones, heart beats, fat, peristalsis, synapses, etc., etc. and I'm saying that we're looking too narrowly at the specific functions of these, as in for example that the fundamental purpose of neurons is to produce instincts, habits or thoughts. Rather, the various organs are organized to be in a dynamic state of tension (Joseph Campbell) and then around which consciousness is organized. This tension (the "competing" needs of the organs for the same nutrients) is another word for energy, and moreover, it is information because it now compels the mind to be attracted to that which can resolve this internal state of conflict.(Damasio says the homeostatic condition of internal things functioning smoothly is the psychological basis for the experience of well being. I'm taking this a step further.) So for example the waste products of a body aren't actually waste products, they are statements of resolution of this constitutional state of tension and this is the best explanation for why dogs RUSH over to investigate (and often consume) other dog's (not to mention human's) eliminations, (a tendency that directly contradicts the central thesis of modern biology--Matt Ridley in "The Red Queen"--that parasite/host interplay is the basis of sexual selection.) Anything that resolves this constitutional conflict I call a "preyful essence" or an emotional ground. So a mother looks down on her baby's healthy eliminations and feels completed, a stranger feels disgusted.

To expand on this, I'm saying that the body/mind evolved to be first and foremost an action potential, an energy dynamo, as its fundamental role which I have come to believe is far more basic then gene replication or individual survival. If we watch dogs in particular from this frame of mind, then what they do takes on a new meaning for we can then see the principles of movement and inherent properties of emotion in the complex things they do as these are physical embodiment of the laws of nature, i.e. energy, put into overt acts of behavior. And if we follow it out, we find that the resolution of this internal conflict always ends up in linked-minds because it is very easy for two beings to share the same feeling, because at bedrock a feeling constitutes an advanced statement of resolution of the internal constitutional conflict. So having someone hold our hand during a difficult moment doesn't actually do anything to prevent what's going to happen (although latest research is exploring how the electromagnetic field of the heart can in fact change the brain waves because the former is 5,000 times stronger than the latter) but we're sharing a feeling and thus are already in a state of resolution. Therefore dogs have adapted to human ways not because they figure out what we're thinking and come to share our reason, but because they feel what we're feeling (even when we don't know what we're feeling) and come to share the deepest part of our mind.