Why This Surliness Towards Clickers (and other great questions)

Lee Charles Kelley

Okay, fine. But in the absence of any real proof, and due to the fact that there are a number of very strong indicators from various dedicated and hard-working scientists in various (you might say a multitude of) disciplines, and given the proscriptions of Ockham's razor, not to mention Morgan's canon, I think I'm in pretty safe territory with what I'm saying. Could I be wrong? Anything's possible. But so far no one here as offered anything close to real proof that I am

ron2

  And I appreciate that the least convoluted explanation is likely the right explanation. And I remember in that other thread where you suggested a, in my opinion, convoluted path to a dog's behavior that was more easily explained by the dog having ToM. So, Occam's Razor seems to be flexible, being used comveniently.

I think you have a basic misunderstanding of what Ockham's razor and Morgan's canon both mean. It's not that the simplest explanation for a phenomenon is usually the best, but that the one which explains the phenomenon itself as being simpler which is preferred. Morgan's canon, which is based on Ockham's razor, says that any behavior which can be explained through the functioning of a lower faculty of consciousness should not be explained through a higher one. So, in other words, you may have thought that my explanation of the energy theory of behavior was convoluted, and you may be right. But that's only a fault of my writing style, not that I'm using Ockham's razor in a convenient or flexible manner. No matter how convoluted my explanation might seem, it's still based on seeing behavior as coming from a lower faculty of consciousness than the idea that dogs have a ToM, which comes from several notches further up the psychological scale.

Lee Charles Kelley

Morgan's canon, which is based on Ockham's razor, says that any behavior which can be explained through the functioning of a lower faculty of consciousness should not be explained through a higher one

I'm not sure I agree with that one. But then, I, too, haven't always agreed with popular scientific opinion, either (horror of horrors). Especially if the pop science violates what I view as logic. If you would ever like to have a giggle at seeing the razor and canon thrashed and trashed, you should read "The End of Physics" by David Lindley. In it, he explains the current cosmological theories, from superstring to salad bowl (I'm not making that up).

Just as many have found that the use of clickers and learning theory as described by operant conditioning does not account for the soul (all those skinnerian (?) responses), learning theory also does not disprove the existence of a soul. Or emotions in dogs, for that matter. Nor does lack of soul in the theory invalidate learning theory. So, the canon does not disprove symbolic thought in a dog. It's a proscription against creating a more complicated theory if a simpler one will do. And that would depend on the scope of investigation. And conversely, if the lower faculty explanation only goes so far and doesn't, at least in my opinion, account for all, then the lower theory has served its purpose but is not complete. To me, it's a guideline, not a physical law.

And I have been in your shoes, so to speak. Back in the 90's and the days of BBS's, I participated in a physics board. Let me tell you, you can't go into a den of armchair physicists and say that Einstein was wrong and not draw blood. The best reception for my views came from a friend who was in the middle of his thesis for a PhD in physics. Poincare's 3 body problem and chaos theory. Now, that will put some hair on your chest. I won't go into that as that would really derail this derailed thread. But I have been on the end where I see the simple answers that are quite effective and others build higher and higher houses of cards, based on basic misconceptions. And I still see, from my viewpoint, that sometimes, ToM and symbolic thought is the easier or more appropriate, if you will, explanation.

I appreciate your logic even if I don't agree with some of the initial conditions, as it were. And some of your observations on dog behavior coincide with mine, but from different directions. For example, many times, a dog diagnosed as dominant is not. That much we may agree on, even if it is from different angles. I agree that you can use a dog's natural drive to train. And that is what I am doing with treats. Dogs are scavengers and work to secure resources. In fact, I would be so bold as to say that all the other drives, not including mating, lead to the procurement of resources. Including fitting into a social scheme. I wouldn't take prey drive as far as you might, in that I do not want my dog scared of me. And granted, you might feel that even the discrete drives we may list in a dog are too high an explanation and wish to reduce it to tension and release, analagous to how I might reduce the other drives to that of seeking and getting resources.

And I have used a drive to train. I have used resource guarding to curb and control resource guarding. But then, I have likened treat training to using resource guarding in a way that suits us. The dog is going to always work for resources and we show the way to get them.

I think you bring value with what you say, I just don't think it's the total explanation, though I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. And since I am still breathing, it's possible I will be wrong, again.

ron2

Lee Charles Kelley

Morgan's canon, which is based on Ockham's razor, says that any behavior which can be explained through the functioning of a lower faculty of consciousness should not be explained through a higher one

if the lower faculty explanation only goes so far and doesn't, at least in my opinion, account for all, then the lower theory has served its purpose but is not complete. To me, it's a guideline, not a physical law.

You're right. In my last post I neglected to put the finishing touch, so to speak, on Ockham's razor, which is that the simplest explanation, as long as it satisfactorily explains all aspects of a phenomenon, is usually the best. And as the wording "usually" suggests, it's not a physical law. This is why I always strive to see if whatever theory I'm working on can explain all aspects of behavior.

I'm not familiar with Animal Bodies Human Minds, but I'll look into it. It sounds interesting. I've always thought Alex the parrot was remarkable because of the deep relationship he had with his owner/trainer. Not because he had any real linguistic abilities.

LCK 

Lee Charles Kelley

 This is why I always strive to see if whatever theory I'm working on can explain all aspects of behavior.

Ha ha, as someone who worked for a few years in animal behaviour research, I can cheerfully say that no one's theory EVER explained all aspects of behaviour. There's just too many variables, and there's always some smart ass individual out there doing something vastly different to everyone else that throws what was shaping up to be a very satisfactory theory into disarray. There are always exceptions, and that's what I always loved about behavioural ecology. Even being wrong was an exciting result, and even no result was something to talk about. My friend working on his engineering PhD was constantly fretting because he wasn't getting the numbers he was supposed to be getting, while I was swanning around in the field celebrating every time I got a data point no matter what it was and whether it was aligning with what I thought I'd be seeing.  

corvus

Ha ha, as someone who worked for a few years in animal behaviour research, I can cheerfully say that no one's theory EVER explained all aspects of behaviour. There's just too many variables, and there's always some smart ass individual out there doing something vastly different to everyone else that throws what was shaping up to be a very satisfactory theory into disarray.

That's such an important point. It's like the joke in psychology, unlike other disciplines we have two laws. Only two. Everything else is all just speculation *G*.

That's because human and animal behaviour and cognitive processes are so complex that we are constantly learning new things to change the previous things. And within most aspects, it has come to be seen, there is no one law or theory that has all of the answers, rather there are sets of theories that all contain accurate information in some form, that on their own would not be good enough, but paired with other theories achieve the most accurate picture (that being what we currently know to date, as it's always changing). After the time I've spent studying animal and human behaviour and cognitive processes, if I've learned anything is that there is no easy, one-size-fits-all answer (aka theory, which is subject to change with time).

I can so picture you, Corvus, jumping for joy at those data points. *G* It reminds me of the winter study we did watching wild wintering birds (mainly finches, but some others) at feeding stations and gathering data in -35 degree weather. Or the study we did on constructing a duck ethogram and getting all excited when "yay, the duck just did another preen!". Fun times, huh?

Such is the behavior of us science-type geeks. I get a kick out seeing the moon in my telescope. Or Serious. I have to wait about another year and a half for Mars to be in full opposition (center of the night sky.) But for the last month, I have seen Mars rising next to Venus. And the best part is thinking about what I see.

My major in college, starting in 1982, was Electrical Engineering. But at work, we just use a bigger hammer.

Kim, a wise zoologist once told me: "Find a really nice place you want to visit, then find an animal that lives there to study." He then went on to study Rainbow Bee-eaters on an island in the Great Barrier Reef.

I do remember sitting on the beach writing "loafing" every 30 seconds as I watched oystercatchers defy all reason and sit around doing precisely nothing during the 6 hours of the day they could actually forage. Turns out oystercatchers don't need to eat much. But the important thing is, I was on the beach sitting around enjoying the ambience and my friend was slogging through leech-infested, prickly, wet forest all day. Conclusion: oystercatchers are a good choice!

Ron, you crack me up. My engineering friend would've liked you, once he'd got over his anxiety about his marginally incorrect numbers.

corvus

Ron, you crack me up

Sometimes, I crack myself up. I misspelled. I meant to write Sirius, instead of Serious.

For you friend, all I can say is hang in there. I sometimes find a difference between calculated value and what I actually measure. And that's because there are fluctuations and bumps in the real world that affect it. That's the tough part, knowing all of the original factors.

ron2

corvus

Ron, you crack me up

Sometimes, I crack myself up. I misspelled. I meant to write Sirius, instead of Serious.

For you friend, all I can say is hang in there. I sometimes find a difference between calculated value and what I actually measure. And that's because there are fluctuations and bumps in the real world that affect it. That's the tough part, knowing all of the original factors.

Ah, those fluctuations and bumps...and the theorists probably thought that the big road would always bump us about to the point of kidney damage.  Good theory til some truckersmartass with a brain (there are some of those - I once met a really charming and erudite trucker with an advanced degree in organic chemistry) invented  the air ride seat.  There's always more to learn and do, even as regards the simplest problems or hypotheses, as well as the complex.  And, as has been so aptly pointed out, there is much yet to learn.  I really liked each of your points in the post about the physics board.  This subject is too vastly complex to make any assumption that we have solved the entire mystery. 

Now, back to surliness and clickers... 

Lee Charles Kelley

spiritdogs

As expected, another arrogant remark from you, LCK.  You are not the only one who has studied, not the only one with a brain, and not the only one with an opinion on a topic which has many scientists at odds with one another on which hypotheses will eventually be proven or unproven. One thing is for sure - if you are so rigid in your belief system, you may end up still thinking the Earth is flat, even when spacecraft are circling it in orbit...

 

You see, this is what I'm talking about. Instead of discussing the issues and making cogent counter-arguments, based on a true understanding of the issues, you turn this into a personality contest. How is that discursive?

And I'm sorry if what I said offended you personally, SpiritDog, but a) I was responding in kind to Kim's emotional statement of how wearying this has become for her. And b) I have yet to see anyone but Kim show anything close to the kind of in-depth understanding of these issues that I would expect from the people in this group. No one here has given any examples of dogs communicating through the use of symbols, it's mostly been just a lot of opinion, attitude, and wishful thinking.

LCK 

Edit by self

Carry on 

Chuffy

Lee Charles Kelley

spiritdogs

As expected, another arrogant remark from you, LCK.  You are not the only one who has studied, not the only one with a brain, and not the only one with an opinion on a topic which has many scientists at odds with one another on which hypotheses will eventually be proven or unproven. One thing is for sure - if you are so rigid in your belief system, you may end up still thinking the Earth is flat, even when spacecraft are circling it in orbit...

 

You see, this is what I'm talking about. Instead of discussing the issues and making cogent counter-arguments, based on a true understanding of the issues, you turn this into a personality contest. How is that discursive?

And I'm sorry if what I said offended you personally, SpiritDog, but a) I was responding in kind to Kim's emotional statement of how wearying this has become for her. And b) I have yet to see anyone but Kim show anything close to the kind of in-depth understanding of these issues that I would expect from the people in this group. No one here has given any examples of dogs communicating through the use of symbols, it's mostly been just a lot of opinion, attitude, and wishful thinking.

LCK 

 

Edit by self

Carry on 

I don't think anyone here has suggested that dogs use symbols, such as words or drawings, and I think that most of us have certainly indicated our belief that humans do have a more advanced "language" capacity.  I do think that it has been suggested that dogs use language.  It is the definition of language that we disagree on.  You define it in human terms, and we define it as the use of communication that one organism uses to transmit information to another organism (that understands what has been transmitted).  Whales "sing", dogs bark, horses whinny - and they all use body language.  All of it has meaning, or they wouldn't need to do it - nature has a way of eliminating the superfluous.  But, since your arrogance requires that you only use the definition you wish, what others say is responded to with condescension - doing that is just bad form, ol' boy..  It isn't very pleasant trying to communicate with someone who disdains you as ignorant.  But, I can think of a "symbol" I wouldn't mind using...

Popping in briefly ....

Look, LCK isn't interested in having a conversation. He wants us to talk about *his* ideas. Not ours. We're closed minded or intellectually inferior if we don't find his ideas valuable. Oh well. 

On an amusing side note, nice to see a thread on surliness staying surly! Bwahahaha.  

My dogs recited the Declaration of Independence tonight while writing quadratic equations with their least capable paw. I don't have to mention that they were tap dancing at the time, chewing gum, and playing a mean game of poker.