When I was in grad school I took a class on the anthropomorphism of animals taught by a rock star scholar (Lorraine Daston). Readings included the wonderful “What its like to be a bat”: http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf
The class definitely eschewed attributing human emotions to animals, I think we do too much of that, but I’m glad its not completely taboo anymore. The dogs that I have loved, seemed to love me, and I can’t accept the idea that its all projection.
1 Like
From the linked PDF:
we have at present no conception of what an explanation of the physical nature of a mental phenomenon would be.
Them’s fighting words.
Keep in mind that “at present” was 1974.
I missed that one. I saw the PDF’s generation date was in 2004 and thought that guy was some kind of denier of our neuroanatomical studies. I mean, we can reconstruct visual data in blinded studies using FMRI. FMRI isn’t perfect by any means, but we’re starting to see the physical mechanics of how mental phenomena work.
But yeah, 1974, now what he’s saying is making a lot more sense. I thought that it was written recently.
The class was at the University of Chicago, where we say “That’s all well in practice, but how does it work in theory?” And I was in the class circa 1996?
It still seems rather odd that he would claim that we have no explanation of the physical nature of mental phenomena at all, even back in 1976.
We had electrodes and EEG back in 1976. We could say that mental phenomena depended on the functioning of the brain, and that people with damaged brains have a different experience of the world than people with intact brains. That’s the first level of reduction.
Then we could say, that certain types of brain waves are strongly correlated with states of perception and consciousness. Someone who is sleeping has less activity in their brain, and the pattern of activity is different than someone who’s awake. Then we can narrow it down to neural bundles and gross anatomical structures playing various roles in a phenomenondoo doooo, doodoodoo, and today if we’re willing to stick enough electrodes into someone’s brain, we can get a pretty good idea of which neurons will fire for a specific thought or mental image or what have you.
Additionally we know stuff about the different chemical signaling pathways between neurons, and we can examine how one chemical pathway kicks off a certain set of behaviors and such. Even during brain surgery we keep the patient awake so we can stimulate different parts of the brain and have them report on their mental experiences.
The argument against reductionism to me seems like an argument against reality. If the brain is irreducibly complex, then why study how it works at all?
ETA: I kept reading through the paper more, and ooooooh, he believes in Qualia, and thinks that’s important. That’s why I’m feeling like I’m getting rubbed the wrong way.
It turns out that he’s the kind of guy who believes that a perfect simulation of a human is distinct from a human. I disagree with that intuition.
Well he is a philosophy professor after all…
1 Like
How dogs mirror us?
Via Imgur
1 Like
It makes sense to me.
1 Like
Thank you, I will check it out! I will be interested to see how he distinguishes the paterfamilias role as distinct from the alpha role, since in my mental model of the dog pack those are typically an identity. (I would also be interested in alternative explanations for the empirical success of Cesar Milan and his ilk.)
I was mauled by dogs a couple times as a child, and one of my neighbors has aggressive dogs that occasionally escape into my property, so I am very interested in canine physiology and psychology. Thanks again!
For starters check out the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior and type “Cesar Millan” in the search window. Find their policy statement on “Dominance Theory” which doesn’t mention him by name but speaks to his techniques.The American Humane Society called for the cancellation of his show a few years ago. Much has been written by many decrying Millan’s use of shock collars, prong collars, hitting dogs, etc.
1 Like
I didn’t know he used them. But I can easily envision strong measures being necessary if you want rapid results from a dog that’s been horribly mistrained/mistreated. I can also easily envision a very skilled dog person getting better final results by going slower, and using gentler methods. But I know I’m certainly very far away from being an expert on dog training; my studies of dogs have had a different focus.
In my opinion, dogs cannot usefully be held responsible for the incredible ongoing carnage they wreak, as individuals or as a species. The owners are at fault; they are not facing up to their responsibilities. Most people are not competent to safely own dogs (obviously, this is also just my opinion, although I’ll strongly defend it) but any sap or bloodthirsty idiot can easily buy a dog and ruin it. There isn’t even a written test, much less a review by a qualified examiner!
I agree with you except for the part about using strong measures on a dog that’s been mistrained or abused. How would that dog know the difference between physical corrections by a “trainer” and the abuse it suffered before which is what made it afraid, self protective, and distrustful. Aggression is an expression of fear, after all.
2 Likes
I’ve used prong collars raising my dogs from puppies (I never introduce adult dogs to the prong collar).
They’re very easy to abuse, and you should only have the dog wear it for short periods. Never make the prong collar the full time collar, because that leads to ulcerations and makes it far too easy to put the dog in pain just trying to get ahold of them.
I usually only use prong collars when walking my hyperactive boy. He’s just too distractable and enthusiastic for a regular collar to keep his attention. The prong collar, when properly (and gently used) doesn’t bite into the skin, or poke. It’s meant to briefly pinch.
I don’t really use the prong collar anymore anyway, because it can also lead to a reliance on it. It’s better to train your dog to pay attention to you and stop using the prong collar, or to use positive conditioning and get rid of the annoying or painful disincentives altogether.
Perhaps it would be best to get rid of prong collars altogether. I really dislike shock collars too. Their use doesn’t work well with the way dogs process logic anyway. Dogs fare much better when they have direct connections to things. They can see the leash, they see you holding it, they feel the collar, they feel you tug on it. But food incentives work very well too.
My absolute favorite method, when it works, is the attention and praise incentive though. Turn the training into a game the dog can participate in, and then being a good boy who follows instructions becomes its own reward.
People who use shock and /or prong collars want a quick fix to their dog’s pulling on leash. I’m glad you’re not using the prong collar anymore because as you said, training is the only reliable way to get the lasting behavior you want. Also, there’s the Halti which fits like a halter on the dog’s head so you lead it by the head like a horse, not to mention various halters some of which are designed to inhibit tugging. In fact, some dogs just pull more when the leash is attached to the collar. Yes, positive re-enforcement with treats, tennis balls, or whatever turns your dog on is the way to go. Patience, consistency, and having the will to see your dog succeed will see dog and person form the truest, most reliable bond and understanding. In short, if someone has to revert to painful corrections they’re failing to communicate successfully to the dog in a way the dog can understand.
1 Like
My friend’s lab is always quite excited to see me and I never feed him anything. I think he just enjoys my company. WHO’S A GOOD DOG!
1 Like
It depends how you cook them.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
