Dog Cognition

What a shame that the work of forum members is not appreciated. With one arbitrary decision and a push of a button so many good posts are wiped out of existence. In nearly 50 pages, there has been a lot of garbage to be had, but also a lot of good too.

Burl, PoodledOwned, Spiritdogs and others posted intelligent posts, links to informative studies and interesting videos.

The capricious deletion is a disgrace and I am sad to see that contributions by the members is NOT valued.

Hi Milky way

It is a bit sad. What we could do though is have a crack at a muti disciplinairy approach to this subject, and try and see if we can come up with a new thought or two. I am just getting used to the idea that i can operate just out of my corner and not have to slug my way through a whole lot of biology and anatomy etc to get to some truth.

 My corner is maths , stats and pretty much anything electronic. I am a generalist in this area, and some of the things we are doing are pretty raw but exciting. An example is our new society on affective computing. You can have a look here

http://www.computer.org/portal/web/tac

Here is a quite touching editorial... gulp

http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/abs/html/trans/ta/2010/01/tta2010010011.htm

 I am playing with attempting to synthesis some of the thoughts and concepts of the above.

 I like to think i have something to offer in practical dog training. While stricly an amateur, i know my way around gun dogs, and the odd poodle or two :

I guess that my starting point is that dogs have cognitions. I am pleased to see papers that assume cogntion, that don't try and pretend that the anatomical truth must not be so to meet a strictly behavourist or dear i say it religous imperative.

TheMilkyWay

What a shame that the work of forum members is not appreciated. With one arbitrary decision and a push of a button so many good posts are wiped out of existence. In nearly 50 pages, there has been a lot of garbage to be had, but also a lot of good too.

Burl, PoodledOwned, Spiritdogs and others posted intelligent posts, links to informative studies and interesting videos.

The capricious deletion is a disgrace and I am sad to see that contributions by the members is valued.

This is absolutely correct.  I am giving the operators of this forum more credit than to assume that this is what has happened to our work.  I emailed the moderator to find out where our work actually went.  Closing and locking a thread is one thing, but destroying it after several months of daily active posting?? 

Burl

TheMilkyWay

What a shame that the work of forum members is not appreciated. With one arbitrary decision and a push of a button so many good posts are wiped out of existence. In nearly 50 pages, there has been a lot of garbage to be had, but also a lot of good too.

Burl, PoodledOwned, Spiritdogs and others posted intelligent posts, links to informative studies and interesting videos.

The capricious deletion is a disgrace and I am sad to see that contributions by the members is valued.

 

This is absolutely correct.  I am giving the operators of this forum more credit than to assume that this is what has happened to our work.  I emailed the moderator to find out where our work actually went.  Closing and locking a thread is one thing, but destroying it after several months of daily active posting?? 

For the edification of newer members, you can ask those questions in the "How are We Doing" or Technical section.  Hopefully, you will get some resolution.  I appreciate that people thought that my posts had some merit, although I do admit to being a tad irreverent at times;-)  Those who know me best here understand my predilection for short posts, and it was an effort to continue reading that thread, never mind respond coherently to some of the posits.

Anyway, I did want to jump in here and tell PoodleOwned that his Aussie sense of humor is much appreciated.  In fact, I live with an "Aussie sense of humor" here as well.  If you think you want to give up on Poodles, just try living with Poodles on crack - which is what the average Aussie resembles LOL.  However, I really do think that those who are owned by Aussies would tell you that they do have a doggy sense of humor all their own.  I always wonder at how they think, and suspect that there are breeds of dogs that just DO process information slightly differently, rather like the ADHD human beings, or the savants, process a bit differently than those who consider themselves "normal" (whatever that is).  A reminder that behavior happens on somewhat of a continuum, n'est-ce pas?

spiritdogs

nyway, I did want to jump in here and tell PoodleOwned that his Aussie sense of humor is much appreciated.  In fact, I live with an "Aussie sense of humor" here as well.  If you think you want to give up on Poodles, just try living with Poodles on crack - which is what the average Aussie resembles LOL.  However, I really do think that those who are owned by Aussies would tell you that they do have a doggy sense of humor all their own.  I always wonder at how they think, and suspect that there are breeds of dogs that just DO process information slightly differently, rather like the ADHD human beings, or the savants, process a bit differently than those who consider themselves "normal" (whatever that is).  A reminder that behavior happens on somewhat of a continuum, n'est-ce pas?

Oh i do like the individuality of dogs. One of the reasons that if i don't see random in any explanation of behaviour i am on a witch hunt. As you know (but many don't) Aussie Shepards have nothing to do with Australia! They are seen as very good working dogs here, and seem to excel in obedience agility and herding. The lines here seem shall we say , really compliant compared to many of the minis around the place!!  They are lovely dogs though. But for some reason, Sam Plus Aussies== fight. Just very conflciting personal styles.

I do think that dogs process differently. I bias my tracking programme to suit different breeds . I will give you some fairly clear cut examples of different processing in tracking. 

Labradors::: Have difficulty with fresh tracks, distracted by and will prioritse air borne scent. Very literal, often won't make the connection that the person making the track 1/2 an hour ago is the same person at 2 hours for example, or that a corner belongs to the straight track that they were just using. Shows heavy stress signs sometimes when in these conflicts , but once they do... get out of the way!! Unbelievable ability to sort tracking problems once taught though

Poodles  Have difficulty with fresh tracks, Minis saturate, can't handle or cope with heavy scent pockets. Actively avoid strong scent trails, but can read the track up to 30 or 40 m away!! Will body orientate to indicate corners a long way away sometimes. Not very literal at all. Very fast learners. Strong ability to put together fractured scent pictures like that in a mall for example.

 I have trained a couple of BCs but no Aussies, but there are a fair few Aussie Tch (tracking champions) out here!!

 Thanks for the links, it was interesting read.

I recently came across work by Pamela J. Asquith. I had read  some of her work before, and it's odd that the other thread did not remind me of  it. Anyways, Asquith notes that how we perceive the human-animal divide is linked to our culture. Behan's culture (i.e. Western) for example focuses (actually focused)  on human cognition and our ability think as the hallmark of human abilities.

Japanese culture makes a very different distinction. To them the separation is an emotional one and they have no problem attributing intent. As Asquith points out Japanese researchers were able to make some that Western scientists could not because of their cultural biases. It also makes me wonder if Kevin had been Japanese would his view of dogs reflect that bias, and we'd be reading about cognitive center of gravity. and dog's wouldn't feel but they would think.

"Japanese reports about animals' motives, personalities, and lives were, in their Western colleagues' eyes, highly anthropomorphic. As rationality is so central to the Western debate about human uniqueness, it is not surprising that the strongest invectives against anthropomorphism are about attributing rationality to other animals. Emotionality for the Westerner comprises a subset of arguments about rationality and, as mentioned, there is not universal agreement about it, even among scientists. To the Japanese researchers, questions about the rational uniqueness of humans did not arise and their reports were filled with mentalistic language. Western response to such reportage as unscientific, and hence dismissable, resulted in more than two decades' lag behind the Japanese in certain theoretical developments in primatology (Asquith, 1996). --- Anthropomorphism is Not Metaphor: Crossing Concepts and Cultures n Animal Behavior Studies" -     Pamela J. Asquith

 

Now, that there is good interaction between western and eastern researchers, I expect we will get increasingly more accurate views their emotional and intellectual lives.

TheMilkyWay

Now, that there is good interaction between western and eastern researchers, I expect we will get increasingly more accurate views their emotional and intellectual lives.

Yes! As i am an applied scientist, there is somewhat less conflict between eastern and western views. I travel quite a lot, and on way to start enjoying and learning from our cultural interactions is to leave my own western judgements at home.  There is a common scientific way of looking at things, I can pretty much communicate with other engineers without sharing the same langugae, but am prompted to learn another one!

We all share pretty much the some concerns, but do apprach things in slighly different ways!

Well how does this affect our views on dogs?

As some of the readings suggested ,models based on rational or cognitive processes are more readily accepted than models based on affective systems. When i try and bring engineers into this world , there is at first a sort of disbelief. We are talking abstraction, a way of applying the affective systems of the natural world to the computing or AI world. We are talking about using the same bits of silicon, the same processors , but applying a way of thought that allows us to come up with a better solution quicker.  Some of us are adept at Neural networks, and can apply the same language as biologists do, but i don't really think cells and neurons at al: I am thinking about how a circuit might be planned or built along Neural Network mimickry.

Just in case you think this is some kind of useless clap trap, Neural Networks are used in  a product that we design to repalce Quartz Halogen downlights in lighting systems. QH lights are very energy hungry, but to get more efficient replacements to work well with in existing infrastructure is very difficult. The network we use might be low dollars in implementation. Obviously as we extend ouselves our study of our canine companions AND ourselves may be used to make our life more palatable in other areas. One thing that i can almost see some clarity in is that it is likely that affective modelling amy be easier than say behavourist modelling. Notice the may bes. A corollary of that is more efficient software models of animal behaviour which will allow much more rapid and humane experimentation. It is an area that I think Panksepp overlooked; if we can get sytematcally closer to reality then the need to do what seem like bizare experiments to gain insights lessens. It is a lesson that engineers can bring to the table.

I think that practical cost of fending off the pseudo scientists is that i am spending time doing that rather than communicating with you (and others) with what seem to me really exciting stuff that really has to be done in a x disciplinairy way. 

Burl

TheMilkyWay

What a shame that the work of forum members is not appreciated. With one arbitrary decision and a push of a button so many good posts are wiped out of existence. In nearly 50 pages, there has been a lot of garbage to be had, but also a lot of good too.

Burl, PoodledOwned, Spiritdogs and others posted intelligent posts, links to informative studies and interesting videos.

The capricious deletion is a disgrace and I am sad to see that contributions by the members is valued.

 

This is absolutely correct.  I am giving the operators of this forum more credit than to assume that this is what has happened to our work.  I emailed the moderator to find out where our work actually went.  Closing and locking a thread is one thing, but destroying it after several months of daily active posting?? 

Nobody made an "arbitrary decision and a push of a button" to "wipe it out of existence".  There was a technical software glitch with the thread (which, as you all have likely noticed, we've had quite a few tech glitches over the last few weeks.)  The thread requires Admin technical intervention and will go back up once I.T. fixes the software problem.  That's it.  No devious plan.  No censorship.  No "wiping away" all the posts.  Simply isn't true. 

Thanks, Burl, for giving us the benefit of the doubt, and thanks, Anne, for pointing the newbies to the How Are We Doing section so we could clear up this conspiracy theory.  I am curious why nobody asked me directly, since I was the last Mod post in that thread, but so be it.  I won't derail this thread any further (PM me if you want to continue that topic).  Carry on....

 Paige

I am so glad to hear this news, because I enjoy the folks at this forum and really hated the thought of ceasing to post.

 I did immediately send you a personal message.  The next day when I saw no new message in my inbox, I looked at the contents and saw no sign that I had ever sent one???

 Anyway, given your patience with the contentiousness of the thread for so long, I immediately questioned what might have happened, and at worst, suspected someone else pushed a kill button.

 I am glad it was just technical in nature.

 Paige, I've also noticed other weird things going on, such as not being able to report spam on a particular post.  I assume that IT has a handle on the fact that things are not always running smoothly these days, but appreciate your attention to any sections in which newbies are posting their latest get rich quick schemes;-)

While I doubt anyone here is much interested in taking up the study I suggested, it still may be of interest for Panksepp fans to browse the linked article by Jon Mills who is talking about the primacy of desire and appetite in defining what subjective experience is all about.  This looks like SEEKING to me. 

I am awaiting my copy of Affective Neuroscience  to better understand how Panksepp's theories on affects might better serve the task of bringing Whitehead's philosophy of organism closer to a full-bodied description of mentality in the world.

 I have no problem being wrong, and rectifying my position when necessary. I accept the explanation and forward my apologies in case anyone was offended by my erroneous conclusion.

 Preparing for a possiblity of engaging in a philosophy podcast where the process philosophy of A N Whitehead will be the topic.  Am reading parts II and II of Adventures of Ideas (1933).  What jumped out is this quote at beginning of Part III:

 "...conscious descrimination is a variable factoronly present in the more elaborate examples of occasions of experience. The basis of experience is emotional. Stated more generally, the basic fact is the rise of an affective tone originating from things whose relevance is given [immediate environment].

I anticipate I will find a similar statement in Panksepp's Affective Neuroscience, when it arrives.  

There are times when I miss the old i-dog format, where things like this didn't happen as often. You could upload pics directly from your computer. The search function was good. Then, again, I tend to think like an engineer. If it works, don't fix it. Newer is not always better. And I miss my Elvis smiley .

Anyway, as for cognition thingies, something has to be said for complexity. Author Heinlein dealt with the computational theory of cognition in the story "The Moon is a harsh Mistress." In it is a computer maintained by a practical guy named Manny, short for Manuel. Anyway, he is responsible for all the maintenance and upgrades to this central operations computer on the Moon. And one day, the computer "wakes up." That is, becomes self-aware. And orchestrates a revolution on behalf of the humans who are being oppressed by others. Complicating this is that part of the Moon is also used as a penal colony, akin to the initial developement of Australia. The point being, at some point, reaching, as it were, a critical mass of connections, sub programs, including self-correcting ones, the computer became aware of itself as an entity, the difference between I or me and the rest of existence. And so the philosophical question was also asked in that story and other later stories involving that one (later Heinlein books developed a world and time line history based on alternate universes and time travel) was that couldn't this event in the computer also explain Man's sentience? Or that of any creature that reaches a certain level of complexity? And it is complexity, rather than physical size. Dogs, regardless of size, act the same way. The Chihuahua acts the same way as the Great Dane. Descartes posited "I think, therefore, I am." But it begs the question of when did I think and become the "I" that I am?

I am excited that others are trying to hunt this down through neurons. Will it lead to a shape and "snapshot" of a "soul"? Who knows? First, we have to define soul and what it exists of. I think it's a good place to start.

Of course, some of our observations may be informed by our perspective. Similar to the effect in quantum and newtonian mechanics of bringing an electron microscope to bear on an electron. The em field of the microscope will align the spin of the electron up or down, for simplicity. The observer affects the observed. I don't think we can escape anthropromorphism. It has to be explained in terms we understand from our experience. We can't view from an extra-human viewpoint because we are human. Even math is but a human language to describe something. But this does not deny ToM in Man or other animals. Dogs do know that we have a valuable perspective different from their own. And they understand this in a doggy way which, at times, appears symbiotic to man.

In the same breath as dogs do cognate, it is not always in ways expected by Man. That is, a dog does not have to think like Man in order to be able to think and this was my greatest contention with theories that paint dogs as unthinking creatures simply because it only appeared that their "thinking" was different from man, which is logically an impasse. If dogs can't think, then there is no difference between them and man. It's akin to the logic sequence that if you believe in the Devil, you must give credence in that construct to the existence of God. Likewise, if we say that dogs think differently than Man, we are admitting that they think, in general. ("It's not that the bear dances the waltz, it's that the bear dances, at all.";)

And because a dog's thinking is not always represented well or as "loft" as man idealizes his own thinking, doesn't mean that dogs don't have complexity and deeper thoughts. Dogs do mourn loss. As so eloquently and honestly portrayed by Burl's story. One might say that it is merely a neuronic level reaction to the loss of a smell that has been accustomed to being around and the change in the environment induces a "stress" until the change is assimilated. To me, that is like footprints in the sand. These are mechanical traces of greater complexity.

And I don't think the dividing line between sentience and non-sentience is whether or not a dog speaks a human language. Dogs do have language. I haven't quantified it but I can tell the differences in Shadow's barks. There is the normal visiting and carousing with the neighbor dogs. There is people and pets walking down the street bark. And then, there is the human visitor nearby bark. In addition, there is the alert bark. They are subtley different. Perhaps I am attuned to them because of my involvement in music. Because languages are like music to me.