Should the Game-Dog definition of Game/Gamess be updated?

oh ok thanks cause i always thought glock was a good one glad i was wrong on that quit thing and thanks for clearin it up.

 

<TABLE class="bbcode-rounded bbcode-rounded-quote" cellSpacing=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=bbcode-rounded-author>Originally Posted by Junebug </TD></TR><TR><TD class=bbcode-rounded-content>when animals are injured they run if the injury is bad enough, these dog do not. when animals in the wild are scared they usually run away that is why standing the line is different than jumping the box, well to me it is different they both quit but the one that jumped was truly preserving his life while the other simply did not want anymore

Boze: very smart people have gotten themselves in trouble by attempting to match one system to another when those systems are dissimilar. Are you extrapolating info from non-domesticated organism and making comparisons to domesticated ones? What are some of the pitfalls of that approach? scientist have a hard time matching (behavior)non-domesticated organism in captivity to the same ones that are free.

Here is a passage from designing minds (wasserman/blumberg):

A salient recent example can be found in a report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in Spring 2009,in which crows were observed to fashion wire into hooks that were then used to retrieve out-of-reach food items. These behaviors have been interpreted by some authors as products of this species’ creativity and insight. In contrast, other scientists have investigated similar “insight” problems in crows, monkeys and other animals; but by focusing on the origins of these behaviors, they have discovered the critical learning experiences, as opposed to forethought, that gave rise to them. Nonetheless, we seem to be in the midst of a resurgence of faith among some scientists that animal behavior can be explained by creativity, insight and other mentalistic concepts. For our part, we remain skeptical about the utility of such groundless explanations. Indeed, we are unconvinced that creativity and insight are proper explanations even for human behavior </TD></TR><TR><TD class=bbcode-rounded-footer>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>that is an interesting report you posted, and excuse me for not being quite up to par, but am i correct in saying that this suggests that dogs arent necessarily curring out when jumping the box, but just using problem solving skills to override behavior/instinct that has been bred into them in years? ive had this discussion with others about dogs that have been taken home and put on the chain which resulted in them doing some "thinking"......deciding they no longer want any part of this lifestyle not in the box, but at home healing. just a thought, and if im rambling, i apologize


That is one interpretation. I like it. I was more concerned with the last two statements: which basically says "hey, you cant do that! How did you come about the things you know? We have a hard time understanding "easier" subjects (Humans)....."
The other thing i was trying to illustrate was how accepted and universal this way of thinking is: I just got to my new issue of American Scientist and came across the passage in Marginalia (before any essays or book reviews).

I am very interested in your last statement/thought. Can you please elaborate. Take it to its logical conclusion.What would that debate look like? If you are attributing "thinking" to dogs than where does that end? What is its full expression (right wall)? if the dogs is thinking about this can he think about that? What can't he think about? Why can't he?

I remember reading some advice from an old dogman about matching your dog or maybe it was cajun rules........He suggested wearing the same colored clothes as the color of your dog to poss. affect the opposing dogs decision to come across. Got me to thinking, if a dog can think about things in the box other than the dog in front of him, how would that affect him (help/hinder)? What are those things?

 

that is some real intelectual shit lol i am being serious to. it might be more simple than that though, because the dog is not thiniking complex he is thinking go or dont go or sit or dont sit walk or dont walk bark or dont bark these are not really complex decisions. if you were wering the same color and that dog was really exhausted and blured vision he might think that dog is huge and stand the line, but all that means was the dog was a cur in the first place it just took that situation to bring it out f him

 

2nd question: Exactly! I think i have used that line of thinking a few times in this thread.

1st question: You would have to ask them ("they felt..."). If you'll permit me to answer for them on what they were thinking:

They probably looked at the totality of the situation in AND out. She was an atypical bitch. looked like santa's little helper, couldn't walk her in the city cause she was skiddish of most things (inanimate objects), never looked for trouble(i like this characteristic) etc.........including the description i used in my original example of not showing interest unless squared up. Funny thing is, these oldmen still talk about her till this day and use the A word to describe her.

 

that is some real intelectual shit lol i am being serious to. it might be more simple than that though, because the dog is not thiniking complex he is thinking go or dont go or sit or dont sit walk or dont walk bark or dont bark these are not really complex decisions. if you were wering the same color and that dog was really exhausted and blured vision he might think that dog is huge and stand the line, but all that means was the dog was a cur in the first place it just took that situation to bring it out f him

1st statement: sorry if i gave you the impression that i wasn't taking you seriously; on the contrary. You have made some valid points which is why i chose to respond to you.

2nd statement: The operative word there is "might". Yes it might be that simple but it could equally be more complex. I dont think we have ruled out either option. Although i hope it is the latter.

3rd statement: Yes, i think this is what the gentleman was getting at. Which opens up a whole host of questions....... the last part of your last statement is a profound one which a good percentage of people don't understand: All dogs are curs, all that is needed is the right historical path to realize it.

 

junebug....Ive gone with a combination of ‘blue berry’ and ‘cheese’ combined in a zoot to reply to your post…so I hope not too much is lost in translation

Becoming is a denial of being…..j krishnamurti

Pure survival mode…………….a state of being………a process……….. implying measurement ….…are you suggesting the the root cause is to be found in the fight or flight response…?…
not enough info posted in the example you gave to guesstimate the possible root of the animals displayed behavior……………..the duration (or length of time) the animal displayed this behaviour would be of interest. If the animal in question was tested through fatigue, going uphill in weight, against various styles……….with out respite………then to use occams razor…..if it walks like a duck it talks like a duck ect ….then it probably is a duck!……( or game)
If the animal in question was operating in pure survival mode…then what is causing the duration of the fight response..?……hormonal..?……if the animal in question displayed the fight response for a significant extended period then would this be the case..?….what would be operating on the response to cause an extension of the displayed behaviour…?…..the brain..?….the mind…?…chemical..? or a combination ..?

Isaac Newton "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes

..the only concern would be wether the animal is able to throw these traits on into her progeny.

Oh what games we play when we are having fun…….:o:confused::mad:... :help:

 

junebug....Ive gone with a combination of ‘blue berry’ and ‘cheese’ combined in a zoot to reply to your post…so I hope not too much is lost in translation

If that sincerely was your "hope" than i suggest you squash the silly talk and come correct. No reason to be cute when adults are talking. Are you ok tiger?

 

Pure survival mode…………….a state of being………a process……….. implying measurement

Erwin and his cat may have issue with the above passage. Something cannot occupy a state unless we measure it?

 

The majority of the rest of your response is based on a false premise. go back, reread and comprehend before proceeding. You continue to argue points that i have already made......

I just finished rereading Faigmans book "Legal Alchemy" in which i found a great passage explaining how a scientific conversation should proceed; you may find it helpful.

 

the only concern would be wether the animal is able to throw these traits on into her progeny

To them, that wasn't the ONLY concern. Don't know much about dogs but i don't think they were concerned about her poss. production record when placing a bet.

In short, i realized that it was a duck which is why i was more than happy to take her off their hands

 

Although Newton was a polymath, you might get a chuckle or two from practioners of the "softer" sciences for straying a bit. Hawking got in trouble a few weeks ago for talking about things which were out of his field of expertise.

 

......very good junebug............i feel i am in the presence of christ...lol

i will reply a little deeper when i have come down from my high induced laughter...

 

If that sincerely was your "hope" than i suggest you squash the silly talk and come correct.
No reason to be cute when adults are talking. Are you ok tiger?

First statement…..im not sure…..I have no way to measure it….:ohbaby:

Erwin and his cat may have issue with the above passage. Something cannot occupy a state unless we measure it?

Second statement……cool,…..how is the cat …alive or dead..?:neener:

The majority of the rest of your response is based on a false premise. go back, reread and comprehend before proceeding. You continue to argue points that i have already made......

Third statement…not arguing…..just trying to understand what was tested, for how long and why

I just finished rereading Faigmans book "Legal Alchemy" in which i found a great passage explaining how a scientific conversation should proceed; you may find it helpful.

Fourth statement…..cool I like reading…….I thought we were having a philosophical conversation about the nature of gameness……….I didn’t realise we were having a scientific one …is that even possible?:help:

To them, that wasn't the ONLY concern. Don't know much about dogs but i don't think they were concerned about her poss. production record when placing a bet.

Fifth statement….cool…..that would be MY….only concern

In short, i realized that it was a duck which is why i was more than happy to take her off their hands

Sixth statement……you sound smart enough to me..:love0055:
　
Although Newton was a polymath, you might get a chuckle or two from practioners of the "softer" sciences for straying a bit. Hawking got in trouble a few weeks ago for talking about things which were out of his field of expertise.

Seventh statement….was he talking or was it his speech synthesizer..?:neener:

im still not sure off your own position.......what is it???

 

im still not sure off your own position.......what is it???

Youngman, if, after six pages, you are still unsure of yourself............ Adults call that a conversation ender.

Follow the advice i suggested above:go back, reread and comprehend before proceeding. Also, do yourself a favor and turn to page 156 in Kuhn's "The road since Structure" where you'll find a helpful template on how a scientific conversation should proceed. Kuhn may also teach you the differences/similarities between philosophy/science. See Epistemological barriers to theoretical knowledge - you can read more about this in R. Laughlin's brilliant book "A Different Universe"

 

I may be asking too much from you so i'll help you along:

My "position" is the same as The AC in Asimov's "The last question".

 

very good junebug........we are of the same understanding...it has been a pleasure

 

unfortunatly junebug you have made some fundamental errors...:gotcha:
the first is in your missunderstanding of courage x determination.:gotcha:
the second is in you statement that all dogs are curs................:gotcha:
i will see if you are able to spot these your self............................:idea2:

and please no more references to the work of others..we dont need a library to have a conversation ......we dont need to be philosophers or scientist to relate.....we dont need to 'display' our 'acquired' 'knowledge' through books read, or through the crudentials of others we reference......a cowardly little trick any idiot savant can employ.....or any computer program can do far better.........are you either ...AC/junebug..????

 

Here are some of the books i ref. recently.
No tricks or computer programs. just some good ol' fashion reading.

 

unfortunatly junebug you have made some fundamental errors.

It would be unfortunate if my goal was to bash and not learn; fortunately my goal is to learn so i am very excited to be corrected by someone who has considerably more knowledge than myself when it comes to these matters. Proceed.......you have my undivided attention.......

 

and please no more references to the work of others..we dont need a library to have a conversation

You may want to look up the purpose of a bibliography; most smart people use it (i wonder why). Or are you interested in RE-inventing the wheel? If you have a question about X , are you not interested in finding out if anyone has asked the question before? What about the answer? REALLY:rolleyes:

That was nice of you to consider my knowledge "library" like.......very kind of you, also VERY revealing.