Poll: Your View of Domestic Dog Groups

mudpuppy

As far as I can tell they think in ways that are very similar to human thought processes.

I'm not as sure about that, in that I think dogs don't have the level of abstract thought that we do. Many times, they act or react in a way that is designed to help them survive and we decide which of those survival behaviors we like and don't like, labelling bad or good, a range of behaviors that don't inherently have such a quality. Also, with humans, you can punish for something that happened yesterday and the human will understand that this punishment now is for that thing yesterday. Dogs do not understand that. They only understand punishment for the thing they are doing at this very moment. Which is not to say that dogs don't think. I believe they do, I'm just not sure of the level.

ron2

"Fitness" is a concept in biology

LOL. Yes, I know what it means, I was using it to make a point. Thank you, though. Without an in-context definition, it's meaningless. Same as reactivity or dominance. And apparently energy (instead of electron flow, think more magnetic field. ) My point is that I know what all these terms mean to me, but without an in-context definition, it's difficult to discuss with other people. And after all the attempts I've seen here to define these terms, I have resigned.

ron2

But I don't know if there is a way to quantify or qualify a subject opinion on energy.

I don't either, but here's what Google has to say: 

A widespread belief in an inter- or intra-personal forces, for which no evidence has yet been found by the physical sciences. ... The use of the word "Energy" in psychological studies is comparatively new. although it was in use, in a casual sense, before the modern scientific concept of energy was fully developed. 

And I suspect that this non-physical form of energy contributes to maintaining the spacing and height of fitness hills. 

 Hi.

"Fitness" has a different meaning in terms of self-organizing systems than it does in terms of evolution. A self-organizing system can be anything from a cell, to an ant colony, to a city neighborhood,and would certainly, at least in my estimation, include wolf packs and dog/human dynamics. Fitness in this context means the individual part of the system's ability to stay productive in terms of maintaining its part of the system.

As for "energy," I thought that was clear, but I can see  now why it isn't.

Here's the way my friend Sascha Semyonova (nonlineardogs.com) puts it: "Your energy theory is (again) not as far-fetched as people may think on the face of it.  It's just that [they] have to think interdisciplinarily to get it. 

"Speculative thoughts:  Energy and matter are not two different things.  Matter is just a form of solidified energy (or energy a form of de-solidified matter).  Our brains are a solidified manifestation of energy (turned into cells which are organized into organs which are organized into an organism, which will eventually be broken down into energy again). 

"You could say that an energy exchange with an external environment doesn't only take place through food (internal combustion).  As two dogs look at each other, the electrical patterns in their brains change -- this is also a kind of energy exchange.  This can trigger changes in the physical structure of those brains in the long run.  Experience does cause physical brain changes, not only fleetingly in neurotransmitters and such, but also in actual and more enduring networks between neurons.  Here, energy taken from the environment is converted into solidified structures, in this case axions.  Part of the energy comes from food, part from looking at the other dog (which influences what neural connections the food gained energy is solidified into).  Because those brains are a sort of solidified past, they will indeed be responsive to one kind of energy related to that past, and not to some other kind of energy that wasn't there or wasn't relevant while the species or individual was becoming its present solidified form.   This covers both the species (a very long past, very long solidification process) and the individual (the individual brain changing as it the organism undergoes exchange with the external environment, ending up with a particular solidified brain at any given instant).  I hope this doesn't annoy you, I'm just searching for the mechanisms behind what I think is an accurate idea of yours -- you're just too ahead of your time (or too interdisciplinary) for most to follow, I think."

This is quite elegant, I think. And quite clear. I disagree somewhat on her last point. I don't think I'm ahead of my time, just that the dog training world tends to be focused on behaviorism and ethology, and not many people are looking outside those two (sadly outdated) boxes. Also, these aren't my ideas, they're Kevin Behan's (and Sascha knows it). It's just that Kevin's writing tends to be less clear than mine (he's told me so himself many times).

Here's another link, to a chapter from a book on epigenetic behaviorism. In it the author, states:

"We shall define behavioral epigenesis as a continuous developmental process from fertilization through birth to death, involving proliferation, diversification, and modification of behavior patterns both in space and in time, as a result of the continuous dynamic exchange of energy between the developing organism and its environment, endogenous and exogenous. The ontogenesis of behavior is a continuous stream of activities whose patterns vary or are modified in response to changes in the effective stimulation by the environment. In these epigenetic processes, at every point of energy exchange, a new relationship between the organism and the environment is established; the organism is no longer the same organism and the environment no longer the same environment as they were at the previous moment. Thus, in ontogenesis, both patterns of behavior and patterns of the environment affect each other and are therefore in a constant state of flux; that is, changes in the environmental patterns produce changes in behavior patterns which in turn modify the patterns of environment."

I hope that clarifies things a little.

LCK

 

Lee Charles Kelley

I hope that clarifies things a little.

 

Oh, sure, clear as mud. Whatever! This concept hurts my brain the same way the string theory and all that quantum physics hurts my brain. I'm just not smart in the kind of way that can easily link that explanation to behaviour and social interactions.

Okay, here's my problem with this: I can't see energy. I can't hear it, touch it, smell it, or taste it. I can feel it somewhere deep inside where I  haven't enough conscious thought to know what is happening and why it makes me do or feel other things, but that goes into another sense that we don't really have words for. I'm not convinced everyone even has this, going by the clumsy way my father deals with both people and animals. I think it might be emotional intelligence, but I don't really know.

What I do know is behaviour. I can see the way an animal responds to tiny, almost imperceptible changes in the balance of my body weight, where my eyes are facing, how I am looking at the animal, my posture, the tension in each of my muscle groups. Some muscle groups are more important than others, and some postures are strong signals and when all these things are combined, an animal responds in kind with their own weight balance, tension or relaxation, eye contact, and all the rest. We end up with what is basically a book to read. It's just in a different language and so it takes a bit to learn what it all means. It's not impossible, though. I can read my hare like a simple picture book, but he can read me like a novel. 

So I can use the word energy, which could mean anything in the realms of behaviour and beyond, or I could describe the behaviour in terms of what can be sensed by everyone in (presumably) much the same way. So, why would I use the word energy as some kind of catch-all for minute detail that can and should be described and interpreted in a traditional scientific manner? It's a clumsy term to me, because while words like fitness, dominance, leadership are all words that describe a particular state, energy describes really any state. So even if you do interpret a word like dominance differently, you're still going to be somewhere in the same ball park, whereas with energy, you could be on different planets. It's about good communication, that's all. If you mean the way two animals read each other and respond to what they interpret, then say it. If you mean the sub-conscious way social instinct might work, or the way experience molds behaviour, then just say it. At least then everyone will know exactly what you're talking about.

corvus

This concept hurts my brain the same way the string theory and all that quantum physics hurts my brain.

It's incredibly interesting to me that my response to the energy discussion is, "All right! Now we're talking about something real"! LOL

I think of energy as something that science doesn't fully understand and therefore cannot accurately define (although clearly, some are trying and doing very well), but it's there, nevertheless. Just because we haven't figured out how to measure it accurately and define it precisely, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We have to start somewhere. IMO, it probably is closely related to (and perhaps inclusive of) actual physiological bodily functions that cannot be "seen" with the naked eye and therefore get dismissed in regular behavioral exchanges. I think animals are much more in tuned with our heart rate, blood pressure and perspiration than we are. And since those (along with body language) can be observed and measured, we attribute all communications to them, when (I suspect) there is much more to it than that. They can also read our emotions, our feelings, our intention without any of the physiological signs.

If a person (or animal) is feeling fear, an animal can sense it. Not just by body language or the 5 senses, but by that something else. That 6th sense. Something akin to intuition.Not something physically seen, but rather felt on a non-physical level. And I think animal groups depend a LOT more on energy than they do on body language or physiological signals (although they certainly play a part). Yes, this is just "what I think" and I have no scientific foundation upon which to base this, but that's why (IMO) more exploration is necessary.

corvus

So, why would I use the word energy as some kind of catch-all for minute detail that can and should be described and interpreted in a traditional scientific manner?

Because traditional science isn't all there is? Science is not a closed subject. Science is growing into other realms just as everything grows and changes. And if you're using it as a "catch-all", then I don't think you should use it. When I say "energy", I know exactly what I mean, even if I don't have the vocabulary to express it well. But the only way we're going to know what we mean is to clumsily fumble around and do our best to describe and define it. I don't find it necessary for others to know what I mean, but now that the discussion is started, I'm loving it. This is where I live.

Energy is possibly what connects the physical to the non-physical. I know the physical sciences don't currently encompass psychic phenomena, but there's something there. Something unexplored scientifically. Just because the great scientists haven't nailed it down doesn't mean it's all imagination. You said you feel it inside. What if that is what we're talking about? You're in touch with it but your father is not. Or maybe he does feel it but discounts it because it's "woo-woo".

Energy does not fit into an existing scientific box. We need a new box. Then we need to figure out what to put in there so that we all understand the contents. Well, we don't need to, but I think it's exciting, interesting and educational.

corvus

Lee Charles Kelley

I hope that clarifies things a little.

 

Oh, sure, clear as mud. Whatever! This concept hurts my brain the same way the string theory and all that quantum physics hurts my brain. I'm just not smart in the kind of way that can easily link that explanation to behaviour and social interactions.

It hurts my brain in an entirely other way. LOL. Pseudo science. I like quantum physics.  Almost chose to pursue physics as my field of study, way back when. There is no unified theory in physics, let alone one that translates seamlessly into other disciplines like biology and ethology. So yay for physics...

BUT. BUT. BUT. (and this is one of my triggers)

I don't like it when people invoke the credentials of science but aren't talking science. Science is not the end all, be all*. Four is correct. It is perfectly valid to talk about things that are not scientific, or that science cannot examine at the current moment in time. And here's my "but" again - don't mix and match Talking about neurons and Hebbian learning in one breath, and talking about matter as energy in the next. I know it must seem like I'm attacking you, LCK. I'm not, in any personal way. I just vehemently disagree with your method of theory construction.  

 opinionatedly yours, Dog_ma. 

* - my undergraduate study ended up focused on religious studies and theology. I have no problems talking about unscientific stuff. 

corvus

I can see the way an animal responds to tiny, almost imperceptible changes in the balance of my body weight, where my eyes are facing, how I am looking at the animal, my posture, the tension in each of my muscle groups. Some muscle groups are more important than others, and some postures are strong signals and when all these things are combined, an animal responds in kind with their own weight balance, tension or relaxation, eye contact, and all the rest.

Right. Those things are all reflections of the emotional energy going on between you and the dog, or between the dog and the environment. Each change in behavior is caused by a change in the organism's energetic state. The behavior is a way of either releasing energy (stored in the cells), or accessing more energy.

corvus

So, why would I use the word energy as some kind of catch-all for minute detail that can and should be described and interpreted in a traditional scientific manner? It's a clumsy term to me, because while words like fitness, dominance, leadership are all words that describe a particular state, energy describes really any state.

I think using an energy theory for behavior is more scientific than "behaviorism" in that energy is something that can be quantified using some fairly simple equations. Behavior can't. Behavior can be interpreted differently by different people. Energy is much simpler. And you're right that "energy" describes a range of energetic states. But it terms of behavior it all comes down to two states: attraction and resistance. You can't misinterpret those things. They're actual physical states of being, directly observable in the behavior of the animal you're observing.

For example, in one of my posts I described an exercise I did with a boxer, where I "stalked" her until she barked at me, then I ran away and she chased me down the hall. When you describe that in terms of behavior -- stalking, barking, running away, chasing -- it's kind of meaningless in terms of what's really going on. You could interpret those behaviors in lots of different ways, most of them involving thought processes that we're pretty sure don't exist in dogs (and most of the time don't exist in human beings): the dog "thought" I was going to attack her, or she worried that I was, or she couldn't "figure out" what I was doing, or she "wondered" what was going on. Then she barked to "warn me," etc. We give the dog "reasons" for her behavior. But when you simplify it to its most basic element, the most basic element of all natural phenomena, energy -- I moved toward her in a way that built a certain level of resistance (repulsion) in her energetic system (body and emotions), which created a surge of energy, which was released through her vocal chords, and then I moved away which created another charge, a sudden "magnetic" attraction to my physical movement, which caused her to release some of that charge into me through her behavior. To me that's a lot more palpable. We don't have to "explain" the reasons for the behavior, we just describe the shifts in energy, which doesn't muddy things with rational thought at all.

I think the problem most people have with this is that the human mind is designed to assign "reasons" to phenomena. And when you start assigning reasons to an animal's behavior, you're basically saying that the animal has the ability to reason, to think logically and rationally, rather than to act out of pure emotion, which is the background medium for the energy exchange we call "behavior."

Still not clear...?

LCK 

Dog_ma

It hurts my brain in an entirely other way. LOL. Pseudo science.

Pseudo-science? You mean like how Skinner's attempt to be scientific grew into something quite insane? (According to him all of Shakespeare, Mozart, Aristotle, Picasso, etc., was the result of nothing more than mere conditioning...)

Dog_ma

I like quantum physics.  Almost chose to pursue physics as my field of study, way back when. So yay for physics...

Good! Then eventually, at some point, you'll come to see the beauty of what I'm describing. It certainly involves some principles of quantum physics, such as Bell's theorem.

Dog_ma

BUT. BUT. BUT. (and this is one of my triggers) - don't mix and match Talking about neurons and Hebbian learning in one breath, and talking about matter as energy in the next. I know it must seem like I'm attacking you, LCK. I'm not, in any personal way. I just vehemently disagree with your method of theory construction. 

Well, I didn't construct the theory. Kevin Behan did. (And apparently he did so alongside some other people in other disciplines.) 

As for "mix and match," I don't see how any synaptic changes can take place in the brain without some form of energy exchange being involved, can you? How can neurons process or transmit information without energy? Isn't information itself a form of energy?

And if you look at what my friend Sascha wrote, "you have to think interdisciplinarily to get it [the energy theory]." She's right you have to. But ultimately it really isn't a matter of mix and match at all. It's just looking at the thing (animal behavior) from as many different angles as possible. Don't stick just to Skinner or Lorenz or Pryor or Millan, don't stick just to "psychology" in general. Look at quantum theory, look at systems dynamics, look at chaos theory, fractals, artificial intelligence, information theory, emergence theory, cognitive science, philosophy, poetry, neurochemistry, neurobiology, mystery novels. Read Shakespeare and Joyce and William Blake. That's how you get the whole picture. And the more you know about these various disciplines the more it boils down to one thing.

Energy exchange. 

LCK

Dog_ma

my undergraduate study ended up focused on religious studies and theology. I have no problems talking about unscientific stuff. 

Cool, then you probably love Rupert Sheldrake's work. He's a biologist and a philosopher. Or how about Jaak Panksepp? He's an evolutionary psychiatrist (or was), and is now a professor of veterinary medicine. I think it's cool to mix and match!

Lee Charles Kelley

I think using an energy theory for behavior is more scientific than "behaviorism" in that energy is something that can be quantified using some fairly simple equations. Behavior can't. Behavior can be interpreted differently by different people. Energy is much simpler. And you're right that "energy" describes a range of energetic states. But it terms of behavior it all comes down to two states: attraction and resistance. You can't misinterpret those things. They're actual physical states of being, directly observable in the behavior of the animal you're observing.

For example, in one of my posts I described an exercise I did with a boxer, where I "stalked" her until she barked at me, then I ran away and she chased me down the hall. When you describe that in terms of behavior -- stalking, barking, running away, chasing -- it's kind of meaningless in terms of what's really going on. You could interpret those behaviors in lots of different ways, most of them involving thought processes that we're pretty sure don't exist in dogs (and most of the time don't exist in human beings): the dog "thought" I was going to attack her, or she worried that I was, or she couldn't "figure out" what I was doing, or she "wondered" what was going on. Then she barked to "warn me," etc. We give the dog "reasons" for her behavior. But when you simplify it to its most basic element, the most basic element of all natural phenomena, energy -- I moved toward her in a way that built a certain level of resistance (repulsion) in her energetic system (body and emotions), which created a surge of energy, which was released through her vocal chords, and then I moved away which created another charge, a sudden "magnetic" attraction to my physical movement, which caused her to release some of that charge into me through her behavior. To me that's a lot more palpable. We don't have to "explain" the reasons for the behavior, we just describe the shifts in energy, which doesn't muddy things with rational thought at all.

Yes there are simple equations to measure energy when it is for example going down a wire or how much energy it takes to lift a certain amount of weight a given distance.  However, those kind of equations have nothing to do with your "energetic system."  We have no way to measure the  "emotional" part of it.  I am not a scientist (and I hate string theory), but I think good science has to rely on agreed upon and very specific definitions.  Yes, different fields borrow concepts from each other, but to borrow the idea of "energy" from physics and to expand it to have an emotional and motivational aspect for ethology is to big of a stretch for me.

Lee Charles Kelley

Matter is just a form of solidified energy

I would tend to disagree, here, having studied particle physics here and there. First, Einstein was wrong. Second, E = mc^2 does not mean that mass equals energy. Energy is an activity displayed by matter that has mass. In fact, one of Einstein's first missteps was the fac that light displays energy but he said light was a massless particle. Anyway, not to discount any energy theory discussion, I just wanted to throw my two pesos in there.

FourIsCompany

I think animals are much more in tuned with our heart rate, blood pressure and perspiration than we are. And since those (along with body language) can be observed and measured, we attribute all communications to them, when (I suspect) there is much more to it than that. They can also read our emotions, our feelings, our intention without any of the physiological signs.

If a person (or animal) is feeling fear, an animal can sense it. Not just by body language or the 5 senses, but by that something else. That 6th sense. Something akin to intuition.Not something physically seen, but rather felt on a non-physical level. And I think animal groups depend a LOT more on energy than they do on body language or physiological signals (although they certainly play a part). Yes, this is just "what I think" and I have no scientific foundation upon which to base this, but that's why (IMO) more exploration is necessary.

I disagree with this. I think that an animal doesn't just "sense" it in some esoteric way. They sense it the same way I sense it when a bird is flying to its nest. That is, my brain sorts through my experiences, accessing memories I don't consciously even have access to, finding patterns, comparing them to what I am currently experiencing, and coming up with a likely conclusion. All in less than a second and completely sub-consciously. That is what intuition is. There's a great documentary by Sir Robert Winston about the human brain that explains it. I believe that's all it is because once I started discussing how birds behave when they have a nest with other people finding nests for a living, I found myself spouting these things I didn't even know I'd noticed and found a reliable pattern in. So what I couldn't explain as anything other than intuition suddenly had a sensible scientific explanation. Woo hoo! The brain is a truly wonderful thing.

 Animals are freaking good at body language. I think far better than we can really comprehend. That doesn't mean it's something beyond what science at this point knows. It's just a matter of finer detail. If erecting a few hairs on the bridge of the nose can mean something to an animal, what need do they have for something more? I don't have to be very afraid for my muscles to tense slightly. Any animal can see that, humans included. In fact, I don't even have to be afriad. I could be just anxious. My dog used to know several days before I left home for uni that I was going to leave her again. She knew I was going to leave the moment I started thinking about it. But the moment I started thinking about it, my emotional state changed. Behaviour is a reflection of emotional state. If my emotional state has changed, my behaviour has changed, even if it's too subtle for humans to notice. It's too subtle for any of the other animals in the house. The only one it matters enough to to be noticed by is Penny. That doesn't mean she can read my mind or anything like that. She just knows me well through experience, and it matters to her a lot when I leave for several months.

So I don't hold with the energy thing because I can see something else that explains it. I'm not going for something I can't sense, describe, or explain over something I can sense, describe and explain!

Lee Charles Kelley

 

corvus:

I can see the way an animal responds to tiny, almost imperceptible changes in the balance of my body weight, where my eyes are facing, how I am looking at the animal, my posture, the tension in each of my muscle groups. Some muscle groups are more important than others, and some postures are strong signals and when all these things are combined, an animal responds in kind with their own weight balance, tension or relaxation, eye contact, and all the rest.

  Right. Those things are all reflections of the emotional energy going on between you and the dog, or between the dog and the environment. Each change in behavior is caused by a change in the organism's energetic state.

Exactly, so why describe the invisible route rather than the visible symptom? We can certianly draw conclusions from the symptom that behaviour is, and it's more meaningful because anyone can see it if they're told what to look for. Behaviour is an honest signal. This explanation is like telling me the chemical make-up of ink when what I really want to know is what the words written in that ink say. I don't care if it can be subjective. And all behaviour has reasons, even if it is just an emotional response. It tells us about the individual and their emotional state. That can be a reason in itself.

 Tahnk you corvus.  I have attempted to reply to this thread three or four times, but was finding that I couldn't articulate my thoughts sufficiently for them to make sense on the screen, even to myself!  But here you have stepped into my brain, shuffled through my ideas and presented them clearly, all far better than I was able to myself.

corvus

I think that an animal doesn't just "sense" it in some esoteric way. They sense it the same way I sense it when a bird is flying to its nest. That is, my brain sorts through my experiences, accessing memories I don't consciously even have access to, finding patterns, comparing them to what I am currently experiencing, and coming up with a likely conclusion. All in less than a second and completely sub-consciously. That is what intuition is. There's a great documentary by Sir Robert Winston about the human brain that explains it. I believe that's all it is because once I started discussing how birds behave when they have a nest with other people finding nests for a living, I found myself spouting these things I didn't even know I'd noticed and found a reliable pattern in. So what I couldn't explain as anything other than intuition suddenly had a sensible scientific explanation. Woo hoo! The brain is a truly wonderful thing.

I especially liked this paragraph ^ ^.  I think it explains what is going on (or at least, what I think is going on) very well. 

And finally: Four, it's not just five senses.  We (and dogs) have many more than that.  Before leaping from the realms of the scientific to the non scientific, shall we exhaust the scientific first?

As corvus said:

corvus

I'm not going for something I can't sense, describe, or explain over something I can sense, describe and explain!

 

For a start, it's far EASIER to discuss!

William can barely stand up even when holding on to furniture.  I try to imagine what it must be like as a child to struggle to master this skill that we adults take for granted.... zooming around on two feet and reaching things that are practically in the SKY.... it's almost beyond comprehension.  Yet, with enough practise and experience (plus time to grow taller) the child will eventually be able to do this "magic" too, without even thinking about it.  But we don't have to leap into the realms of non-science to explain that, just because, looked at from ONE angle (in this case, on the bottom looking up), it seems amazing and "magical" enough that science couldn't possibly explain it.

Chuffy

Before leaping from the realms of the scientific to the non scientific, shall we exhaust the scientific first?

Firstly, quantum theory IS science. If you want to stick to what you know, go for it!   But I don't share the need to exhaust the scientific realms before discussing other possibilities. Science is not my God. Mind if I share some thoughts? Even if they happen to be non-scientific? Is this a science forum? Because in my opinion, sticking strictly to science is terribly boring and can only go so far.

Chuffy

For a start, it's far EASIER to discuss!

For whom? I'm not talking about magic here. I feel sorry for people who think that hard and fast science is all there is.

FourIsCompany

Chuffy

For a start, it's far EASIER to discuss!

 

For whom? I'm not talking about magic here.

I'm going to borrow corvus words here: 

  I'm not going for something I can't sense, describe, or explain over something I can sense, describe and explain!

I don't think I'm alone here. 

FourIsCompany

If you want to stick to what you know, go for it!   Mind if I share some thoughts? Even if they happen to be non-scientific? Is this a science forum? Because in my opinion, sticking strictly to science is terribly boring and can only go so far.

FourIsCompany

For whom? I'm not talking about magic here. I feel sorry for people who think that hard and fast science is all there is.

Excuse me?  Did I just step into the twilight zone?  Did you read what I wrote?

To clarify, I don't discount the non-scientific at all.  I don't want to stick STRICTLY to science.  I was merely suggesting, that we exhaust the plausible and scientific first.  To clarify even further, just for this ONE discussion, I think we could discuss all, oh I don't know, 20 or so known senses and see how they could assist a dog before leaping to the assumption that dogs regularly use some mystical "6th sense" not yet explored by science, in order to help them evaluate the world and other individuals in it....
 

Chuffy

To clarify even further, just for this ONE discussion, I think we could discuss all, oh I don't know, 20 or so known senses and see how they could assist a dog before leaping to the assumption that dogs regularly use some mystical "6th sense" not yet explored by science, in order to help them evaluate the world and other individuals in it....

20 or so known senses? What? I'll join you in the Twilight Zone! LOL

There are TONS of scientific studies of a 6th sense.  

Scientific Study of the 6th Sense 

More Science Supports The 6th Sense 

But this thread is so far off topic, I think I'll bow out.