The first thing to say of course is compassion for the unspeakable horror the victim must have endured, as well as for the suffering of her family. The trainer was obviously full of life, she loved her work, and the world needs more people like her who fearlessly pursue their life’s dream. And I’m also not going to drum away on the obvious point that keeping a highly social animal, adapted to the vastness of the open ocean, in a small tank might be a bad idea. As one Orca advocate put it, “We don’t belong in their world and they don’t belong in ours.” And finally in cases such as these, for any of us that work with animals, humility rather than sanctimony is always in order. On a much smaller scale I’ve been through my share of training disasters, like the time a dog bolted from me, sunk its teeth into a cow, and started a stampede that drove over twenty tons of cattle back and forth across a quiet country lane (and this was during the pre-SUV era of tiny cars such as the Pinto and Honda Civic) and it was only sheer luck that no one was killed. So I know all too well that sinking feeling of helplessness and morbid dread when everything goes south in one split second, accompanied by the futile feeling of desperation that can so clearly be seen in the trainers at poolside, frantically slapping the water and trying to entice the Orca to them for a “cookie”. My sympathies are with them as well.

But there does unfortunately remain an important lesson to be drawn. As we all know there’s usually more to be learned from failure than success. One motivational speaker put it this way: it’s okay to fall, just make sure you always fall forward. And over the course of my career in dogs I’ve learned to always “fail” forward by never indulging in the luxury of telling myself a dog story. So one of the main reasons I’m writing this commentary is because it seems to me that in the aftermath of this incident, the PR machine at Sea World is hard at work crafting a whopper of a fish story.

The usual spin on these kinds of animal acts gone awry is a poly-sided bromide, one side being a dose of hard cold wild animal realism: “These (bears/Orcas/tigers) are wild animals and wild animals are unpredictable.” Therefore we should view trainers of dangerous predators such as Orcas as if they are aquanauts, the theme park equivalent of astronauts; and as such they knowingly assume the risk and understand the danger, all of which is in service to advancing the general public’s awareness and appreciation of the animals of the deep, just as astronauts quicken the public’s awareness and appreciation of space exploration.

And then another side of the spin is the romanticized version, as in: “That tiger wasn’t attacking Roy; it was trying to stop him from falling and hurting himself.” (I want to point out just how precise a control of its body an animal can have. I once took care of a large, overweight border collie/cross “Columbo” that would run across the yard and if I wasn’t paying attention, leap from the ground and delicately “buss” me on my eyeball. All I felt was a little smudge of wetness on my eye being that he was so gentle at the moment of making contact. And if it happened when I was wearing sunglasses he would slightly knock my glasses askew because the point of impact apparently remained perfectly calibrated for the lens of my eye. It was annoying, but I couldn’t help but marvel at the kind of physical dexterity Columbo manifested that an NFL wide receiver or principal dancer in the Russian Ballet would envy. So needless to say I don’t think a tiger would try to break someone’s fall by crushing their skull and I don’t think the Orca was playing with the trainer either.)

Eventually, the third side of damage-control, PR spin will end up being “pilot error”, although the reports seem to be conflicting. Was the trainer violating prescribed policy by being in the water with the Orca, or in the shallow pool, or was she outside the pool and on the coping when the attack occurred? I’m not sure what actually happened. However, the official version from Sea World seems to be in: the Orca seized the trainer by her hair and then violently thrashed her around and dragged her under because it was “curious” about her pony tail.

So does injecting the energy perspective into all of this shed any light? Yes I believe it does.

What strikes me the most when I watch the videos of Sea World performances, is the incredible degree of sensory stimulation to which these animals are exposed. In the audience’s mind the trainers are just dancing, – entertaining. But to the Orcas, arching out of the water and facing them on the fantail, it might seem that the trainers are writhing provocatively in black and white shiny wetsuits (if I’m not mistaken a human being is about the size of a seal). Perhaps the input isn’t being absorbed as simply good theater that it’s intended to be. Just as I always advise dog owners not to let their children wave their hands in a dog’s face or run past the puppy’s crate, I know I’d feel very uneasy sashaying around in the face of a killer whale. So the question is: since sensory input energizes the nervous system, and Orcas are bombarded with huge doses of it, where does all this energy go? I do know that in the deepest most primal recess of animal consciousness, when there is a high rate of sensory input, it means either danger or dinner; predator or prey; and either way the “computer” commands BITE.

The other thing that strikes me from watching the performances is what might the Orcas be experiencing as they perform their various routines. In the trainers mind they are conditioning the Orca to perform tricks, simple conditioned responses. The “cue” is the input, the behavior is the output. And in the trainer’s mind the output of behavior, no matter how complex the linked chain of behaviors, it nonetheless merely equals the input: in short the animal mind is basically a learning machine. But behavior is fundamentally about the transmission of energy, and energy has a quantity as well as a QUALITY to it, and so the relevant question becomes: what is the Orca FEELING when the trainer riding on its back points at people in the audience and then it flicks water in their faces by a sudden swoosh of its powerful tail? For example, if I were to condition my cat to flick its tail at a dog, I would worry if I’m inciting the cat toward feeling “aggressive” toward that dog.

Of course, the vast majority of times, with the greatest percentage of Orcas, the performance routines go off beautifully, and so this supposed primal command to bite by computer apparently isn’t being given. Or is it?

It’s my contention that the question, ‘why are Orcas the stars of aquatic amusement parks’ – - is also the answer to the question a to why most Orcas don’t maul their trainers while some do. Killer whales excel at these performances for the reason some attack, and most don’t. In other words, so far “Tilikum” has been characterized as a 12,000 pound Orca with a big problem; this may be his third victim, whereas an energy theory characterizes Tilikum as a big Orca with a 12,000 volt problem.

THE ANIMAL MIND IS AN ENERGY CIRCUIT; it absorbs sensory input and converts it into physical and psychic energy. Physical and psychic energy evolved to do work, to overcome resistance so as to move energy throughout an ecosystem. This is what truly drives evolution. It is more fundamental than the matter of gene replication or even survival. If an organism can capture, harness and move energy through an ecosystem, it thrives.

And in order for an energy circuit to reliably repeat itself, there must be an “emotional battery”, its purpose being as a reservoir for the sublimation of simple, pure emotion (pure emotion is attracted to a preyful essence) so as to be converted into unresolved emotion and stored as stress, with this stored energy being a built-up degree of force that can do work, but it is simultaneously information on how to align with others in order to do such work. (I.E. synchronize with others so as to overcome more complex and stronger forms of resistance.) This means that the purpose of sociability isn’t for companionship and for the pleasures of affection, as wonderful derivatives of sociability as these indeed are. Rather, the purpose of emotion, affection, love and its first cousin stress, is to do the work of evolution.

Meanwhile Sea World is peddling a Disney story that “love makes the world go round,” “We are one with the Killer Whales”, and “Orcas just want to be friends”. “We’re really good to these animals, we love them.” However, the fact remains that because Orcas are predators, this is how they are equipped to perform as they do. I’m no fan of the circus but at least old time Lion tamers cracking the whip, brandishing the chair (and we all knew there was a sniper off stage with a high power rifle) were selling honesty.

When animals are emotionally bonded, such as Killer Whales living in their pod, two, three, four or more synced up into a complex energy circuit, their many emotional batteries become one emotional battery, with this collectivized energy being for the purpose of overcoming more and more complex objects of resistance, – which is really what a complex routine of tricks represents. And interestingly as alluded to above, the featured star players at parks like Sea World are the oceanic equivalents of wolves, i.e. group hunters, such as dolphins and killer whales, and they evolved to herd schools of fish for efficient killing or disorient huge whales that are much larger than they are.

The emotional battery is “ionized” by environmental/sensory inputs so that the body/mind becomes “polarized” in a complementary manner. Thus the animal can align and synchronize with its peers in order to hunt collectively. I would guess that killer whales love synchronized activity for the same reason that dogs love car rides. And the higher the capacity of the emotional battery, the more adaptable the organism because its capacity for synchronization is higher. This then means all stimulation, be it gently petting and stroking the Orca’s tactile sensory regions; visual arousal; audio inputs such as blaring guitar solos and driving bass rhythms, is – in the final analysis – emotional energy. Neurons fire, bio-chemical energy is generated and so we return to the fundamental question: what is this energy “designed” to do? In my view, it is designed to do work, and the work that Orcas evolved to do is to pool their collective batteries in order to hunt.

I’m reminded here of an impromptu experiment Dr. Mech conducted when filming the “White Wolves of Ellesmere Island” with Jim Brandenburg. One can see this for oneself on the National Geographic video of that title. Mech and Brandenburg were set up above the wolf’s den and one afternoon while the wolves seemed fast asleep, Dr. Mech whispered to Jim that he was going to sneak down wind a couple of hundred yards and then let out a howl. Jim got excited; this was going to be an interesting field experiment.

When Mech got into position he began to howl, and he was very good at it because the wolves arose and became very excited. But then to Jim’s amazement, they began to fight, several of them biting and locking up and then tumbling into an alder thicket before they came to their senses. When Mech returned, Jim filled him in and recounted blow by blow what had just happened. And then he turned to Mech expectantly and waited for the interpretation of the results to the experiment. Oddly, Mech had nothing much to say. We had just observed an experiment, the results had been tabulated, and yet no interpretation was forthcoming.

So then, what happened? In my view, the wolves were summoned to a hunt that wasn’t. They got all dressed up but had nowhere to go. Their prey-making impulse, which in social interactions is sublimated into emotionally deflected behaviors via the emotional battery (i.e. mounting, posturing, rub-a-dubbing, rolling, flipping polarity, chase-and-be-chased, deflection  onto a common bite object), was in this context not available because they had been suddenly energized for the hunt and yet no prey was available to absorb this sudden arousal of energy. This meant that the only way out for the “charge”, – which is made of compressed prey-making arousal and normally reserved for the large, dangerous prey animal, – was each other, which is why they ended up fighting, or making-prey on each other. Between wolves, this not too big of a problem given that as canines they are endowed with the reflexes of a ninja and can avoid tooth to sensitive body parts, and then even when bitten their tough hide and thick pelt can virtually resist a leather punch. So no harm no foul. Whereas when a dog “flashes” a human, we can’t get out of the way, our soft skin easily tears and a relatively harmless pinch and twist of the incisors can need 20 stitches to close. In other words, over-stimulation can fry the circuitry and cause the batteries to violently dump energy as a survival response.

Currently in dogdom, everyone’s on the lookout for the abusive dog owner, – animal rescue 911 is all the rage on TV. Everyone thinks that the remarkable increase in aggression in dogs is due to abuse, but I believe it’s primarily due to over-stimulation of the emotional battery in conjunction with a romanticized version of what it is to be “one with an animal”. Dogs used to be tied to dog houses in the back yard, and now they’re invited on the bed if not under the covers. And yet the purpose of sociability is not companionship; it’s to move energy, and when no outlet for synchronized group action that can channel all this energy, stored up in the battery, is provided, instinct finds its own way out.

A further clue to what’s going on with the Orcas might prove to be the curled-over dorsal fin that is characteristic of a killer whale in captivity. It has been suggested that this is a physical condition of deterioration, however in a number of videos on-line where the Orca is actually making prey, the fin appears to be firmly upright. One clip shows three Orcas taking out a hapless Pelican that alighted in their pool, and then the videos of the various attacks on people that have been captured, in particular the scene of the Orca taking a “victory” lap with the trainer in its jaws being held by his ankle (2006), – again the fins appear to be perfectly upright. My hunch is that the disposition of this fin might very well correlate to a dog’s tail, with its set and action being configured around a dog’s physical (as well as its emotional) center of gravity: the core of the body/mind as an emotional battery. This would then suggest that being in a small enclosure, especially a hard reflective surface such as a concrete or metal pool brightly painted, would make the Orca feel compressed and curl the tail over, much like a dog with a tucked tail. It doesn’t feel “grounded” but then after the tumultuous download of its battery, just like a dog with the prey in its mouth and trotting along with an unmistakable bounce in its stride, the fin rises as does the dog’s tail. In all these cases, the emotional circuitry, which evolved in service to the fundamental purpose not of sociability, but of moving energy through an ecosystem (which in Orcas as in canines means the hunt), has run to ground. In the Orca’s mind, all that stimulation finally arrived at its energetic endpoint; the hunt has finally hit the stop signal.

I believe that the synchronized actions mimics for Orcas the experience of hunting, just as playing fetch with a dog, or taking a dog for a car ride, does for canines. Group synchronization is the basis of Orca motivation and why they enjoy performing their tricks. But apparently it must prove to be an exercise in frustration, like always praising a dog and getting it worked up and excited so that one day, seemingly out of nowhere, it bites. This is why I stress the concept of an emotional battery, as you can only fill it up so much with energy before it has to start downloading or crash. All input that can’t be conducted through the pure channel then goes into the emotional battery and is stored, – it doesn’t just go away after the lights dim and the crowd goes home. I’m suggesting that performing a back flip for a fish doesn’t constitute resolution of a 12,000 volt problem.

Sea World and learning theorists characterizes the system of training they do as being purely positive, but in the animal mind, the negative equals access to the positive. So even when we’re being 100% motivational (from our point of view), our dog is giving our “eyes,” i.e. our predatory aspect, credit. We are becoming increasingly negative, and if this isn’t grounded in purposeful work from an evolutionary point of view, things can run aground. (If I were to design the costumes at Sea World I would appropriate my design from the rubber workers in Burma. I would outfit the trainers in a garish wet suit with harsh right angles as the design pattern, and shockingly bright colors that hold in graphic relief two menacing eyes prominently featured on the trainers’ back. This might more effectively reflect the energy they project onto the trainers, back at the Orca’s and keep their energies on track and deflected toward the fish in trainer’s hand.)

Over-stimulation, rather than abuse, is why I believe there is a rising rate of aggression in domestic dogs. Owners are pouring so much energy into the relationship, and it’s got nowhere to go. The fact that most dogs can sublimate the energy and become even more intensely friendly is what confuses the real picture of what’s going on. If being positive could stand on its own, if it were possible to be purely positive in a way that meant something to the animal mind, then dolphin training as practiced at Sea World would work in the wide open ocean on free Willy. But the animals must be constrained so that they can perceive the trainer as the negative-as-access-to-the-positive. This is why the social hunters such as dolphins and killer whales are so readily motivated and able to perform amazingly synchronized activities. The hunt is what makes it worth it to an Orca to rocket out of the water, spin three times and then dive back in through a hoop for a fish. This is as close to hunting as it’s ever going to get, unless another unlucky Pelican wanders into its pool.

Orcas are constantly being summoned to a hunt that is never to materialize. And sadly, in some tragic instances, it becomes trick training run amok.

Related posts:

1. Why Do Dogs Love Car Rides?
2. Why Do Dogs Wag Their Tails?
3. Why do dogs chase their tails?

Our hand moves to our heart because the middle of our chest is the focal point in our body/mind as the place where we feel our projected physical center-of-gravity (our emotional c-o-g) that physically connects us to our surroundings. This is not a mental phenomenon, it is a visceral one. Physical organisms evolved complex nervous systems in order to render complex elaborations of simple physical phenomena (energy) as the invisible architecture of social structures. In a state of resonance with others or with our surroundings our heart becomes the epicenter of our emotional consciousness. Referencing our heart we are induced into a state of emotional suspension. One can only feel flow in a state of suspension. Flow is the perception of a virtual current of energy between the individual and the surroundings, not that it actually exists, but that it is an elaboration of the internal current (physical affects of emotional experience which Damasio interprets as integral to homeostasis) connecting the two poles in the body/mind. The feeling of flow softens the experience of the e-cog moving through the body after it has been projected onto external objects of attraction so that the movements and impacts of these external elements are likewise being apprehended as part of that overall sensual experience. And if the feeling evolves to be strong enough we feel “swept off our feet” because we are quite literally suspended by our heart (in our animal mind) in a field of mutual attraction.

Heart is where we feel potential energy. Heart orients us to the exact midpoint around which two entrained individuals achieve symmetrical alignment so as to turn their surroundings into a conductive medium. In other words, feelings evolve from emotion in order to turn the environment BACK INTO EMOTION, i.e. a field of mutual attraction that induces its constituents (via their feelings that make them feel conductive) to exploit their setting and thereby add new energy to the system.

The substratum of a subjective experience is not thoughts, but is due to one’s relationship with their physical memory, (the physical cog being the seed of all physical memory) which is simultaneously a feeling of where in the circle, or group, one feels connected. So one hundred people could be riding on a Ferris wheel and as it goes round, some are rising and some are descending and this universal spinning motion is nevertheless rendering a unique subjective impression within any given individual based on where on the circle one happens to find oneself in any given moment. The same energy, the same experience, depending on where in that frame of reference one is, determines the basis of a subjective experience and well before any thought or self-evaluation can ever take place.

It’s imaginable therefore that a subjective view of experience can be rendered far below any mental awareness and which will percolate up at some point, often slowly, until expressed in some kind of action and in the case of humans, can also potentially be grist for self-reflection (but not necessarily). Nonetheless whatever actions result will to some extent move the emotional momentum that’s been invested in the organism and this energy will run its course no matter what the human intellect might come up with as a means of interpreting what they are experiencing. This is because despite whatever thoughts are being pondered, there remains a thermodynamic reality to emotion in conjunction with the principle of conservation, with feelings being its means of implementation by way of syncing up with other like-minded beings, and these laws of nature will do the work they evolved to do no matter what a human being might think about what he is experiencing.

We can think about emotion in any way that we may choose, but nevertheless it will still act on us as if it is a virtual force of attraction, like gravity. We will have absorbed a charge of momentum and until it reaches terminus, it motivates us. And we may think about a state of suspension (feeling) in any way that we may choose, but it still affects us as if we’re suspended within a field of electromagnetism buffeted by arriving waves like a radio receiver and we will be differentiated in its course simply by virtue of our very nature. Our thoughts may distort or deny this energy but this can only serve to build up a charge and sooner or later, and nature has all the time in the world, it will come out on its own terms just as every drop of rain inexorably reaches the ocean no matter how many dams might be erected to hold it back.

So Damasio is studying the nuts and bolts of the neurological machinery by which this emotional dynamic is implemented into action and solely on the level of the individual; but he’s not actually studying the emotional dynamic, i.e. the heart. (To do that one must look at animals and their behavior as an expression of energy. There’s no other way.) We must remind ourselves that there is necessarily neurological machinery because heart can’t move a muscle and so it does indeed require nerve and a central coordinating apparatus to flex tendon, bone and muscle but this doesn’t therefore mean that the neurological mechanics is the source of the emotion or feelings. For example, I believe I could design (with the help of engineers) a doggy robot that could respond to other dogs and people in a way that would perfectly mimic how dogs respond and without any software or preprogramming whatsoever in regards to the core formatting of how the doggy robot would conduct itself and “know” what to do. My doggy robot would manifest complementary traits in response to the situation (or not if the moment was not conductive) and which would conscript other dogs and people into its “wave form” so that as an ensemble they could evolve into complex social actions and structures. The core computation would take place in real time and without preprogramming and would be based on states of energy evoked by batteries, magnetos, compasses, capacitors, and so on embedded in the robot. The process for robot dealing with an actual dog or person would be “written” on the spot in perfect compliance with the emotional conductivity and energetic parameters of the moment and yet even though this would be happening in the deepest recesses of the doggy robot’s “consciousness,” nevertheless I would still need a CPU and software layered on top of all this so that all these energy states could be fed into each other and then mirrored in the “higher” nerve centers in order that this underlying dynamic of “consciousness” could be executed into actual behavior via the hydraulics and appendages of the robot. This software/CPU “nerve center” would constitute the mechanics of implementation but it would not therefore be the source of the doggy robot’s core “consciousness.”

What Damasio terms homeostasis, which he sees as being in service to an individual agenda of survival and overall well-being, I recognize as “emotional ionization” which is in service to an interconnected network agenda, a networked-intelligence. These physical affects of emotional experience are in actuality capturing energy and then later during encounters with others, ultimately converting this captured energy into a “wave form” i.e. social energy.

When two dogs encounter each other, the friction between them will polarize them toward preyful or predator poles so that they differentiate from each other in a complementary way. This immutable tendency towards variability, Damasio misinterprets as homeostasis, when in fact it has nothing to do with stasis but is wholly concerned with flow and renders for each individual a distinctive subjective perception of what it is experiencing. But in the overall one dog has transmitted energy onto the other (predator – - > prey), and sure enough months if not years later the one that manifested prey-like traits (generally mislabeled “submissive”) and which absorbed the energy, then as if out of nowhere becomes predator-like (generally mislabeled “dominant”) in deference to this underlying template which prejudiced each other’s subjective impression of what they’ve experienced, and recruited them in the overarching dynamic by which the network moves energy through the environment to suit its purposes. Meanwhile behaviorism/biology says that respect, appeasement, dominance and submission has happened between A and B. And so while we all observed an obvious transfer of energy when A first met B, we then assume that all this energy somehow went into a mental ether; a psychology, and so we therefore miss that two to three years later that internalized energy in B has then finally emerged in some vigorous expression of action. A spring inside dog B was coiled, energy captured, and then released, energy returning to the flow.

Differentiating into complementary traits in order to turn environmental inputs into social energy; causes individuals to affect their environment so as to capture new energy. Feelings are not subjective (unique to that individual) in terms of being dependant on introspection or self-reflection, experience is subjective and unique to an individual because it is immutable that individuals will manifest these primary traits, two beings cannot experience the same moment the same, and then at some point exchange them if they create a true social framework.
The problem Damasio runs into with a top down, thought-centric model is how then to bring animals into the emotional fold because if they aren’t thinking, then they aren’t experiencing a feeling. And so we end up with a bifurcated model with body split from mind, animal from human; and human culture falling outside the domain of natural evolution.

An animals’ sense of its “self” derives from its relationship to its physical center-of-gravity which via Pavlovian conditioning evolves into an emotional center-of-gravity that is then “projected” onto complex objects of attraction so that given the bipolar, two-brain makeup of an animal, complex stimuli can be broken down into simple energetic conductors (what Damasio terms “emotionally competent stimuli”), and this then serves to help the projecting individual become the equal and opposite to such a complex object of resistance/attraction. This means that an animal can’t experience its “self” except through an external source of displacement, in other words, the animals’ identity depends on the external environment affecting it physically rather than via mental thought, or via an impression or reference of its “self” as something distinct and separate from its surroundings and then relative to its surroundings.

Damasio treats fear as an emotion, and as an irreducible aspect of experience, when with but a little introspection one can see that fear can’t possibly be a basic element on the periodic chart of emotions, but rather a compound construct several steps removed from emotion. For fear to be experienced, first there must be a state of attraction (emotion) as well as a sense of flow (feeling) that then collapses by an interrupting agent (construed by animal as predatory aspect) and the resulting sensations of falling (instinct) in the absence of grounding render the composite experience we understand as fear. All one has to do to verify this thesis is simply take note of what they experience when seeing a trooper suddenly looming in the rear view mirror.

A theory of stasis is a two-dimensional linear system that cannot explain the infectiousness of emotion. We can see that if someone laughs or vomits, others (because they involuntarily project their e-cog into the forms of their fellow persons) experience an involuntary reflex to emulate such behavior. Yet a supposition of maintaining stasis would suggest the opposite. How is vomiting in the absence of an actual toxin in the body returning the observing individual to a state of stasis? Rather it is upsetting an individual already in a state of stasis. That would be like riding a bike in a group and upon seeing someone fall off their bike then having to resist an overwhelming compunction to fall off in kind. But emotion is about flow rather than stasis, and so we emotionally project our e-cog into others in order to maximize flow, which is why we feel a simpatico infectiousness with laughter/vomit as an irresistible feature of our emotional nature, and then simultaneously we experience no urge to fall off our bike if our riding companion were to founder. The fundamental purpose of emotion is flow rather than stasis.

The basis of a “self” is resistance to acceleration, the degree to which when some force acts on a self, that self is capable of reflecting that energy back at that acting agent. This services the network’s impulse for complexity. Without that sense-of-self, then a feeling can’t elaborate from the underlying and fundamental state of mutual attraction that is the substratum of all consciousness and which compels organisms to differentiate into complementary traits.

The problem with a mental approach to emotion is that it leads to a sterile and bifurcated model because it is always preoccupied with the machinery of emotion rather than the emotional dynamic itself, which is the inculcation of virtual states of energy (gravity/electromagnetism) in consciousness, perception and experience. So Damasio sees culture as distinct and apart from nature, the brain as distinct and apart from the body – - and so then where is the role of the heart, the physical center-of-gravity, the symmetry of the skeletal arrangement, the tension between the dynamic demands of internal organs – - in the role of the mind?
A mental model of emotion is mechanical and ultimately denaturing and it will logically follow that taking drugs to numb an individual to what they are feeling will be seen as therapeutic since the mental machinery is always reducible to chemicals.

Related posts:

1. Definitions
2. Distinctions Between Emotion and Feelings
3. Final Post Of 2009

Occasionally Lee and I get involved in debates with behavioral scientists or at least those that seem to be well informed on the science of behavior since they post anonymously, and the back and forth follows a predictable course that ultimately doesn’t get anywhere because apparently I don’t have any data. I thought I had pretty good data, i.e. the things we see dogs do everyday. But the question persists, and it is at face value a reasonable one, how could a few dog trainers be right about an energetic logic as the basis for learning and complex social behavior, and which stands in complete contradiction with what the very best minds in science have determined? Why, if an energy theory of behavior is so comprehensive and accurate, hasn’t science arrived at the same conclusion? Well, it has, it just doesn’t know it yet.

By this I mean that science is inexorably moving in the direction of an energy theory and there are indications of it emerging everywhere but first it needs to be pointed out. For example, I have caught several episodes of the series “The Human Spark” hosted by Alan Alda. In it some major tenets of the theory are verified by the latest in behavioral experiments and brain research (for example; the human mind processes the ability to entertain another person’s point-of-view, and a point-of-view in the future, in the same region in the brain, and this is a structure animals lack. This is exactly my definition of a “thought,” the basis for how the human intellect constructs a view of reality, the intellect as a “relativity” machine that makes it different from animal consciousness.) Hopefully I will be able to obtain some clips of the various experiments featured on the program and then I will post them with an energy reinterpretation allowing one to decide for themselves which interpretation seems the most reasonable. The “Human Spark” also emphasizes the point that it’s reflexive in the human mind to project intention into everything, even inanimate objects; a proclivity present in young infants. In my view this intellectual reflex is precisely what blinds science to the self-evidence of an energy theory: such notions of competition, survival, territoriality, genes replicating for the sake of their replication, learning by way of reinforcement; are all complex derivatives of this instinctual reflex. Because of this behavioral theory gets more and more complex and based on human reason so that it can’t connect the dots with the research that’s already in hand and which the behavior of dogs and the manner by which they learn reveals every day.

For the last six months I’ve been trying to put enough information on this site to develop the model more fully. And while this will continue because we’re just getting started, however I want to shift my focus toward creating a section that will feature a series of pictures and/or videos to put the model directly into action by learning how to see the energy through the actual behavior of dogs and animals. Also, I hope to flesh out the training/method section more fully for the practical benefit of these understandings.

However, in answer to the question posed above, why is an energy theory considered anti-scientific? in the following article and from time to time I will bring the reader’s attention to an experiment or book that’s directly speaking to an energy model, even though it might not explicitly recognize it as such. One such book that I ran across while searching the web for Darwin’s illustrations of dogs and emotional expression (the subject of a future article on the “principle of antithesis”), is entitled “With Pleasure: Thoughts on the Nature of Human Sexuality” by Paul R. Abramson and Steven D. Pinkerton. I haven’t read the book but have excerpted some important points from some on-line reviews that I think boil the book down succinctly, with the link provided below. My point with this kind of article is that the data for an energy theory is already in hand, we just need to connect the dots. One such linkage is my thesis (which at first might seem radical) that the mechanics and emotional basis of human love-making is identical to canine prey-making. This is relevant because it shows the universal aspects of emotion as the basis for a networked-intelligence, the logic of which is the basis of the animal mind and the manner by which it learns.

One of the most difficult notions for the current marketplace to accept, and which impairs the advancement of the NDT theory and method in the current climate of the modern marketplace, is the idea of sexuality as a social positive, and which I then further argue is actually information as in the form of animal magnetism that informs animals how to self-organize into social structures. Curiously behaviorism has no problem regarding sexuality in a positive light when it comes to Bonobos, but in truth this seeming openness is really in service to a political agenda (From the book notes I suspect that “With Pleasure” is going to muddle itself as well because by not being an energy theory, it will entangle itself in surface political ax-grinding as well.) rather than straight science because behaviorism and biology does a telling abrupt about turn over the issue of neutering in canines.

In 1978 I recognized the direct linkage between the prey drive and the sexual impulse through a remark that Bernhard Mannel made to me: (“The only way one can appreciate the canine prey making drive is through the human sexual drive.”). Upon reflection it then became obvious to me that sexual energy results from the predatory impulse meeting resistance and yet the individual can still perceive the preyful essence at the same time. (Whereas if it can’t perceive the preyful essence: then the feeling collapses and instincts/habits take over and that’s the end of the elaboration process that potentially could have resulted in a state of social alignment.) Thus, when the emotional energy the “predator” (anything projecting emotion onto something, is acting from the predatory aspect of its being, even a bunny rabbit, and this is also why most animals only manifest predatory reflexes and aggression in regards to breeding because that’s the only time they can hold the predatory and preyful aspect in mind at the same time due to hormones, and which then justifies the old paradigm view of neutering as socially calming) is projecting onto an object of attraction, is then reflected back to it by the predatory aspect of the object of attraction (its head/eyes), this internalized energy of stress is then converted into sexual energy by virtue of feeling grounded via the preyful essence into said object of attraction, and this energy is then internally displaced into other areas of the body so that the individual becomes sensually polarized. Now when two individuals move around each other, this animal magnetism releases a sense of pleasure in affected body parts (due to where they perceive their emotional-center-of-gravity) and this is a group circuit which will serve as a physical memory for alignment on sight. And this is not for purposes of procreation but for creation, i.e. to facilitate more and more complex manners of alignment (social structure) in order to create new energy. So the highest expression of sexuality is a sensual state of attunement with an object of attraction so that in tandem neuro-chemical energy in both brains, affects them as if they are magnetized and which thereby enmeshes them into a new emotional dynamic system, two magnets becoming one electromagnetic dynamo.

Since the primary property of energy is to do work, this electromagnetic dynamo is simultaneously the means by which the individuals attune to their surroundings, and in canines, enables the capacity to hunt a prey they couldn’t overwhelm singly or even in numbers but rather through the communication of energy, i.e. “the charge.”
This also means that the secondary purpose of sexuality is recreation, the simple pleasure of tactile contact which I suppose is the focus of the book “With Pleasure,” and which facilitates bonding for the purposes of cementing more and more complex expressions of sociability. Lastly, the business of procreation is not only, not fundamental, but rather is merely the tertiary function of sexuality which is of course necessary so that genes replicate and create the physical hardware necessary to implement more and more complex expressions of sociability.

In short, the experience of pleasure is integral to creating the group dynamic so that the many minded become but one mind.

So in 1978 because I was learning how to not project human thoughts into what dogs were doing, which means that I was developing an energy theory for why dogs do what they do, it became obvious to me that human sexuality was likewise the direct derivative of the predator/prey dynamic as well. In other words, the prey/predator module was the main conduit for the transmission of emotional energy be it between predator and prey, male and female, peer to peer, parent to offspring, child to teddy bear, and then this primal means of transfer and medium for synchronization, elaborates into complex social structures. The higher the emotional capacity of a species, the greater its sexual nature and the greater its sexual nature, the more it can project its “self” across the species divide and create trans-species emotional bonds and social ways of living, dogs and humans being the highest examples of this capacity that’s ever evolved between any two species. This book “With Pleasure” is halfway to seeing this connection, and it’s only halfway because it doesn’t yet recognize that the experience of pleasure through the phenomenon of emotional projection and the principle of emotional conductivity, is the organizing principle of animal consciousness and the basis of all behavior and so therefore precedes any genetic agenda for replication, it doesn’t follow from it. In other words, emotion and the experience of pleasure as the implementation of the principle of emotional conductivity is the basis of evolution, it did not evolve from evolution.

Nevertheless this is a huge breakthrough because for the first time that I’m aware of modern science is entertaining the premise that the foremost purpose of sexuality isn’t procreation. So dear reader if you sometimes think that you must walk the plank of intellectual rationality by subscribing to NDT theory and method, it might be helpful to remember that “Natural Dog Training” presaged not only the demise of the dominance theory, but the compelling thesis of this book “With Pleasure” by several decades. (Also note that the book cover is particularly interesting, picture of woman biting a man’s ear, i.e. “making prey.”)

I’ve included a number of blurbs that summarize the book’s thesis and to indicate that science is taking the thesis seriously, and then after these is a fuller review with link provided.

Quote from the book “With Pleasure”

“From the pristine vantage point of religious, political, and evolutionary doctrine, it is sometimes argued that the sole function of human sexuality is reproduction. As a consequence, non-reproductive expressions of sexuality are deemed illicit, immoral, or illogical. However, we believe the primacy of reproduction to be vastly overemphasized, and the insistence on procreation as the end-all of human sexuality to be inherently misguided.”

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q9Wgak5gl18C&dq=With+Pleasure+Pinkerton&source=bn&hl=en&ei=ErhZS_G6A46isgPJ6rnQBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=4&ved=0CBcQ6wEwAw

Description
Challenging everything from the mandates of the Catholic Church to the hotly debated ethics of pornography, and from the controversy surrounding gay rights to issues of gender and feminism, With Pleasure explores a new theory of human sexuality that ignites every hot topic in the public domain. What role, authors Paul Abramson and Steven Pinkerton ask, does sexual pleasure play in our lives? Is the pursuit of sexual enjoyment in our blood? Our brains? Our very nature? Regardless of the source, it can be agreed that the joys of sex are widely appreciated. Why, then, is pleasure so often overlooked in discussions of sexual behavior, and why do cultural, historical, and religious treatises so often fail to emphasize, or outright ignore, this obvious aspect of human sexuality?
Responding to these and many other questions about our most private affairs, “With Pleasure” provides a profoundly original challenge to the cherished truisms of human sexuality. Abramson and Pinkerton proclaim the paramount importance of pleasure, while at the same time overthrowing traditional ideas about gender, pornography, contraception, homosexuality, abortion, and much more. Supported by rigorous research, With Pleasure argues that human sexuality cannot be understood if its significance is limited to reproduction alone. The authors posit that in humans reproduction itself occurs as a byproduct of pleasure–not the other way around–and that it is the strong drive for pleasure that makes people overcome many obstacles–and even life-threatening dangers such as AIDS–to have sex. Ranging from discussions about the church to current debates about pornography, and from evolutionary theory to questions about the future of sex and pleasure, Abramson and Pinkerton argue persuasively that the pleasurability of sex cannot be restricted to purely reproductive behavior.
Stimulating and informative and written with ample wit…. The authors’ central argument is that sex is for pleasure, not procreation, because it is usually pleasure that provides the motivating force for human sexual activity.”–Scientific American

“A fresh and theoretically enticing approach to the study of human sexuality….Sure to spark intense debate among those concerned with the study of human sexuality.”–Kirkus Reviews

“Abramson and Pinkerton amass an array of evidence that sexuality in all of its myriad manifestations is inherently pleasurable. Moreover, they argue that sex-as-pleasure is primary over sex-as-reproduction as the evolutionary and psychological motivator for seeking sexual outlets. Furthermore, they insist that embracing all consensual, adult sexuality will make sex safer and perpetuate the species but with increased pleasure. Thus, With Pleasure is a scholarly, provocative, and brave book that will both evoke discomfort in the sexual puritan and instill hope in the sexual liberal as it increases the tolerance of all to the celebration of sexual pleasure.”–Donald L. Mosher, Professor of Psychology, University of Connecticut

“With Pleasure is a thought-provoking, insightful examination that takes pleasure out of the closet and challenges us to rethink commonly-held assumptions about the nature of sexuality. It is a welcome addition to my library that I predict will drive public discussion and future academic research.”–Angela Pattatucci, Associate Investigator, National Institutes of Health

Humans evolved to have sex not only for procreation but for pleasure, argue Paul Abramson and Steven Pinkerton, the latter a native of Seattle. As social animals, we use it to enhance love, to make peace after fights, to relieve tension, for social advantage, for recreation and for income.
“Pleasure has evolutionary advantages,” said Abramson.

Natural and necessary

This distinction is important, they contend. If sex is seen only to produce offspring, then anything that does not contribute to that goal – oral and anal sex, masturbation, homosexuality, pornography and prostitution – can be seen as morally offensive, unnecessary and subject to censure, legal prohibition or religious injunction.
The psychologists theorize that humans, as social animals who choose mates for a variety of reasons, evolved sexual pleasure. Natural selection may have favored ancestors who developed pleasure centers –

http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/WithPleasure.htm

Quote From Review:
“Abramson and Pinkerton discuss evidence from physiology, psychology, and culture in order to demonstrate that pleasure is not an irrelevant byproduct of the drive to procreate.”
“It is probably undeniable that pleasure originally developed in order to promote procreation — the more pleasurable an activity is, the more likely individuals are to engage in it. Those who have sex more will produce more offspring, and so the genes that make sex pleasurable get passed on.”
“That, however, is not the final word on how evolution operates. Traits that develop in order to meet one need can be co-opted to fulfill entirely different purposes. In the case of sexual pleasure, it turns out that this pleasure facilitates things such as interpersonal bonding, promoting interpersonal relationships, and reducing social tensions. These may not have been reasons why sexual pleasure developed, but they certainly helped ensure that it stayed with us and spread through the population. Today, perhaps, reproduction is simply a byproduct of sexual pleasure.”
“There is far more sex-for-pleasure than there is sex-for-reproduction, that is indisputable. It is because of this that one can conclude that, for homo sapiens at least, sex exists primarily for the sake of the pleasure it creates rather than the children which are only sometimes created.”
“It is because of this that Abramson and Pinkerton don’t merely present their observations about human sexuality; instead, they also advocate that we all develop a more realistic perspective on sexuality. We have been misled into thinking that sex is just about procreation, but once we recognize it for being about pleasure, we’ll be able to handle it better and live our lives a bit better.”

KB – - > I would like to hark back to the theory of Symbiogenesis which I mentioned elsewhere, the theory that new species are created when one organism is ingested by another and then its genetic material is assimilated rather than consumed. I believe that on the lowest forms of life this is one of the earliest physical embodiments of emotion moving through the predatory/prey module, and that this has continued to evolve into the complex emotional nature that is fully expressed in the sexual nature of animals. This distinction is important because it means that evolution isn’t a process of natural selection by way of random mutations that then produced pleasure as a function of gene replication, but rather pleasure is the principle by which genes mutate in concordance with shifts in the network and then replicate in order to implement itself.

In my book “Natural Dog Training” published in 1992, there is a chapter entitled “The Pleasure Principle.” It states:
“By grasping that pleasure in canines is defined in terms of the prey drive and is the means by which a canine can learn; we see that it isn’t a whimsical or casual state of being in the natural scheme of things. The pursuit of pleasure isn’t an act of hedonism or of selfish indulgence on the part of the individual and nor does it have much to do with trial and error. It only flows in accord with a pulse inherent in the drive to bite. It follows a specific rhythm that is time worn and deeply grooved by the genetic imprint the prey drive has etched in every canine’s temperament.”

“The group dynamic intrinsic to the pursuit of pleasure is incredibly important to us as dog owners for it is the basis of the canine’s ability to learn to cooperate.”
“However, in dogs and wolves there are other and more elaborate releasers which permit action than are to be found in frogs and perhaps any other species of predator – save man. For example, the form of a body, with a bulbous shape and a horizontal back line rather than a vertical line, attracts the drive to bite. And then finally, in the canine species there is available an additional class of emotional releasers which through domestication have been emphasized even further in the modern dog. Without these, which we’ll consider below, the wolf and the dog would be much less flexible in their range of responses to the outside world.”

“When canines are emotionally attracted to one of their own kind and yet there isn’t a releaser of motion to permit biting, they nevertheless remain attracted. The attraction doesn’t just dissipate and go away on its own. As they go forward through the impulse to bite, and they encounter resistance because the object of their ardor isn’t acting like prey, an amazing phenomenon occurs in two stages.”

“Right after the charge to bite is internalized, and right before it has the chance to shock the individual out of his biting impulse, the next phase occurs whereby the charge can next serve to arouse the individual sexually. As a result, emotional energy is diverted away from the jaws and radiates into the body arousing it, particularly of course in the genital area. Therefore, two canines interacting socially, even though they are attracted to each other through the prey/predator impulse, because it can’t come out through its primary avenue of expression, i.e. bite and grip, it is displaced into the sexual circuitry. Their bodies grow “polarized” so that they will position and realign themselves in response to this more complex urge quite like stacking batteries positive to negative ends in a flashlight. When so polarized, dogs studiously smell each other from top to bottom trying to ascertain where and how to “plug in.” A sexual attraction is a latent charge to bite, internalized and stored when the flow of raw emotion is deflected into social activity. This in turn produces all the leg lifting, nasal investigation, and sexual posturing to be observed within the wolf pack and between dogs. The sexual mechanism is how the simple prey instinct becomes the complex prey drive, sexual/sensuality being the means of making contact. The many become integrated into the one, a complex integration which it is vital to note, includes the prey animal as well. In other words, the sexual nature of canines allows for emotional energy to cross the species divide.”

“Often when puppies play and are observed mounting and thrusting with a pronounced pelvic action, it is interpreted in the Pack Theory as being a reflex occurring out of sequence in the normal adult context. It is recognized as a hallmark of immaturity. Presumably the puppy is working the kinks out of his instincts and when he’s an adult he supposedly learns to put the sexual reflex into its proper place in his repertoire. But the reason puppies vigorously mount well before they are able to breed is precisely because sexuality is directly linked to the prey drive and they are responding automatically to this alternative and more complex means of prey making. When they go towards something to bite, and they then meet with a degree of resistance, (the object of their attraction doesn’t act like prey) a puppy will become sexually aroused as his nervous system, being highly stimulated by the prey instinct, will then trip on the sexual circuitry through a feeling of vulnerability. This reflects that the simple urge to bite is being channeled into a new and far more complex avenue of pleasure. And if the other individual if of the same mind, it will be receptive to becoming the prey and the two will play as this complex integration is now the only way either of them can fulfill their complex pleasure circuits.”

“Sexuality in canines is primarily concerned with alignment for the purposes of hunting and only secondarily does it have to do with procreation. It is fundamentally concerned with the processing of resistance encountered in simple prey making into group and pack behaviors: the complex aspect to the prey drive. Because the prey drive has a sexual component, and because the prey drive was amplified through domestication, in my view is why the modern breeds of dogs are so much more sexual than the wolf. Wolves breed once a year and in general are not sexually active until about two years of age. Sometimes they even mate for life. Dogs on the other hand will breed promiscuously, they can breed when as young as six months, and females come into season twice a year. Sexuality in the domestic dog is quite detached from the natural rhythm of the earth’s cycles as it is more attuned to the magnetic attraction between animals inherent in the simple prey instinct. The emotions of dogs are more weighted towards the active aspects of prey making, searching, chasing, and biting. Whereas the wolf’s nervous system remains more attuned to the seasons of the earth and to the migratory patterns of the prey species which themselves are responding to the earth’s magnetic field and influences of the sun, moon, and perhaps stars. Wolves are more limited by instincts.”

“Traditionally, sexual behaviors have been misinterpreted as a drive to dominate, or to submit, or to claim territory, and have been seen as causative and the means by which a pack is formed, but that is far off the mark because it merely reflects the projection of human concepts such as survival, territoriality and dominance onto the behavior of animals. The alignment of the group into the structured order of the pack is due to the influence that the simple prey instinct has on the nervous system and temperament of the individual. When the individual is deeply aroused to bite, he is vulnerable and uninhibited. If in sync through the prey drive, he is freed from stress and able to align. Cooperation and order isn’t created as the Pack Theory has suggested through a dominance hierarchy.”

Natural Dog Training failed to shift the fundamental thinking on dogs because this notion of the prey drive as overarching mechanism for a group dynamic was criticized as being too simplistic, and of course it contradicted the modern notion of dog as learning machine, or dominance/submissive automaton in the opposing school of thought, the tendency toward neutering and just about every other dogma as well. However today, revealingly, absolutely every high end system of dog training is moving toward training by motivating a dog’s prey drive. Perhaps taking stock of the direction mainstream science and conventional training is moving, with such articles as this, it will become easier to consider how Predator/Prey – - > Male/Female – - > Social follows one from the other via pleasure as the group circuitry.

Related posts:

1. Why Do Dogs Wag Their Tails?
2. A Challenge
3. Questions for the New Year

KB: I think we are using emotion and feelings in two different ways, and I think this is because I’m seeing emotion as the operating system of a networked-intelligence without any thoughts whatsoever being ascribed to the nature of emotion and feelings. I’m treating them solely as energy as I shall attempt to explain below.

I do think feelings can be likened to colors, especially in regards to an electromagnetic wave form, but emotion exists on a far deeper plane, which is why I prefer to say emotion is like gravity, a virtual force of attraction, a field wherein all objects of mass are responsive to all other objects of mass, whereas feelings are more sophisticated (from our point of view) as are the wave functions of the electromagnetic variety such as light. Emotion evolves into a feeling as consciousness’ resolution of the unified field problem. What we perceive of as time; is consciousness’ connection to all the physical energies. In other words, consciousness apprehends how all things are connected even though we don’t.

Feelings (which inform organisms how to evolve) evolve from emotion just as animals evolve from emotion because I see emotion operating on a plane far deeper than our sense of awareness. For example, I go to the store to buy a variety of things and I look at the money I spend, the goods I receive as well as the work I perform in terms of my own particular frame of reference. But as a consumer I’m just one charged particle of the economy and in a way unbeknownst to me, my economic activity contributes quantitatively to such things far beyond my awareness, such as the trade deficit between American and China and the exchange rate between Iceland and Lithuania. All this deep “network” information is embedded in every transaction and exchange of goods and services that I am part of, and yet it exists far below the awareness of any participant in the economy and ends up affecting me so indirectly I (and apparently most economists) can never connect the dots. A feeling is easier to be aware of, but emotion as its organizing principle is far more subtle. If I’m Xenophobic, I have no idea I’m attracted to foreigners. I think I hate them and then I think of all kinds of reasons why my hatred is justified so that I can mitigate my fear which is based on a layer of unresolved emotion held deeper still.

In my mind emotion is a medium that physiology and neurology evolves from so that all organisms are attracted to each other and in order to implement the principle of conductivity so that no matter what they do it will end up in service to the network. In other words, if information only arises from the network, it’s not possible for any organism to generate information that is in contravention to the network. Nature doesn’t leave evolution up to individuals to decide on their own any more than an economy lets consumers print their own money and so emotion can’t be understood as a self-contained phenomenon in isolation from the whole of the network and that arrives at meaning by virtue of what it comes to mean to any given participant. I’m arguing that organisms didn’t evolve to have emotion anymore than they evolved to have gravity. Organisms evolved in response to emotion just as they evolved in response to gravity. Emotion enforces a thermodynamics on every individual, just like an economy puts everyone in debt just by being present in it, and so they must contribute or else, and so emotion works on us in ways far deeper than we can be aware since it’s the principle on which our very viscera is founded.

Emotion has three phases that serve as the logic to the network, Emotion – > Unresolved Emotion – > Resolved Emotion and feelings evolve from this medium to become the message, i.e. how to resolve unresolved emotion by networking with others.

One problem with the color wheel analogy, at least as far as I’ve seen it represented, is that there’s no place for sexuality or personality. Lust is on the same wavelength as love (as in more intense-and yet incongruently at the same time more shallow) but then aggression doesn’t fit in with sexuality on that same color wavelength. We can’t get away from the linear systems of relationships.

The other problem with current ways of looking at emotion is that there’s actually no such thing as emotion, it doesn’t exist as something that can be measured in isolation from the whole body/mind as it’s the confluence of physical and nerve energies into a state of tension, the release from which is emotion, so it’s not actually present as anything tangible. We have to take the whole of the organism to understand the presence of emotion. This is why (according to Jerome Kagan: “What Is Emotion?” his answer to his title being: no one knows) no philosophy, psychology, neurology has a whole model for emotion, especially one that can accommodate animals as well as humans, sexuality, animal behavior/learning, etc.

QUOTE: “William James, in the article ‘What is an Emotion?’ (Mind, 9, 1884: 188-205), argued that emotional experience is largely due to the experience of bodily changes. The Danish psychologist Carl Lange also proposed a similar theory at around the same time, so this position is known as the James-Lange theory. This theory and its derivatives state that a changed situation leads to a changed bodily state. As James says ‘the perception of bodily changes as they occur IS the emotion.’

KB: I agree that emotion on the level of the individual is affiliated with bodily changes, but this is indicative of how change is emotionally ionizing the organism in a network coherent way, i.e. formatting the emotional battery. So in my view perceptions don’t arise from a purely subjective interpretation of what’s transpiring because there is always a heavy network agenda freighted with every interaction. If emotion is how we “explain and organize our actions,” then it seems James is meaning that it’s a mental phenomenon and then there are two possibilities which I could not concur with: either, animals don’t have emotion, or they think and thus are capable of emotion.

“James further claims that ‘we feel sad because we cry, angry because we strike, afraid because we tremble, and neither we cry, strike, nor tremble because we are sorry, angry, or fearful, as the case may be.”

BURL: This theory is supported by experiments in which by manipulating the bodily state, a desired emotion is induced.[4] Such experiments also have therapeutic implications (e.g. in laughter therapy, dance therapy). The James-Lange theory is often misunderstood because it seems counter-intuitive. Most people believe that emotions give rise to emotion-specific actions: i.e. “I’m crying because I’m sad,” or “I ran away because I was scared.” The James-Lange theory, conversely, asserts that first we react to a situation (running away and crying happen before the emotion), and then we interpret our actions into an emotional response. In this way, emotions serve to explain and organize our own actions to us.”

KB: We’re arriving I think at some good points of distinction. So in my view of emotion as energy that works as a “force” of attraction, I’m not attaching any thought to the pure emotion or to a true feeling. Also, I’m suggesting that the phenomenon of perception is involuntarily and subconsciously shaded by the emotional battery well before the thought process (in humans) can get going. As a matter of fact, by the time the “charge” reaches the brain, the real show is over. Something is happening in a discrete patterned way well before the higher processes of the nervous system has anything to deal with. First, the body/mind is displaced by change and there is an involuntary rising of the degree of tension effected upon the individual. If a preyful aspect can be sensed, then the individual senses a release from tension and this is what we perceive of as a “current” of emotion. If a predatory aspect is sensed, then there is a gap in consciousness, this disconnect triggers a fear and accesses a physical memory. Either way, the animal will feel attracted to the source of change, but already its perceptions have been organized in service to the network.

If the individual can still sense the preyful aspect through the influence of physical memory, then a feeling will evolve in order to make contact or connect with this stimulus. The stronger the arousal through hunger (sensing preyful aspect) circuitry then the stronger the feeling and more fully it can manifest as a pure force of attraction (recapitulating the underlying emotion) that simultaneously can facilitate flipping of polarity to fit with object of attraction or magnetic deflection of energy of attraction to calm the object of attraction. If at any point during the experience there’s more energy in the system than the emotional capacity of that individual can handle (and here in regards to carrying capacity is where a feeling of being connected to the network comes in to shape the nature of the perception) then ingrained habits or instincts take over, and even this can happen well before thoughts can make sense of what’s going on, and in this latter case a feeling does not even evolve into being.

In regards to crying, in my model this happens because there’s more energy going through the system than the individual can handle, which is why crying can occur throughout all kinds of states, fear, joy, laughter, pain, sadness. The crying individual is becoming more prey-like, melting the boundary between its form and others, its persona and personality are dissolving; they are moving their basic physical essence, becoming conductive and thereby attracting the emotion of others. People seeing someone crying concentrate on the vulnerability of such an individual (preyful) and this helps them get past the predatory aspect of that person and they divine a new being with whom they can attune; they feel capable of going up and connecting. When dogs smell each others saliva and tear ducts they too get past the boundary erected by the central nervous system as well as physical memories of resistance they are carrying.

Striking out (breaking one’s fall due to the violence of the emotional collapse) or trembling (radiating a lot of energy) are also overloads of the emotional capacity and a true feeling hasn’t been able to evolve into existence in order to channel this energy. Notice how when a football player gets hit on the opening kickoff of a game their nervousness (and perhaps even trembling) immediately dissipates. By being struck they are “back” in their body and their mental perception is wiped clean so that a feeling can begin to evolve. Their will, i.e. a faith in a feeling, can take over.

Since the Big-Brain can harbor mental memories of emotion, and because it is the only agency that can execute physical action, therefore everything about the emotional process is mirrored in nerve function, but that doesn’t mean it is therefore the source of emotion or what renders the deepest sense of meaning. Criminals and psychopaths are able to mimic emotion because they have the math of it in their brains (as do insects, bacterium, and viruses in their manner of organization) and they are able to convince others of the validity of their state, but it’s just the mental mechanics, they aren’t feeling a thing. So I can see how manipulating body states can induce these mental memories of emotion as can an electrical stimulation of some ganglion or brain structure. But other than therapeutic approaches that are designed to keep someone rooted in their body and cultivate their will, I believe these prove to be artificial and short term, like taking a drug to get high and artificially inducing the feeling of weightlessness, but out of context with the E->UE->RE template that must be serviced over the long haul, and therefore drugs prove transitory and self-destructive because it’s not part of a natural, organic process by which true feelings evolve. It’s akin to electrically stimulating a muscle and getting it to react as if by conscious direction, but it’s just an artificial stimulation that isn’t part of a coherent pattern of movement. In the dog world we see owners doing all this technically correct learning theory but it’s out of context of group purpose and the puppys emotional circuits are fried: too much stimulation without grounding.

Also, because emotion is the operating system of consciousness, even thoughts, no matter what they are, always contribute to the force of attraction in the system. On the deepest level of emotion, from the network’s point of view; it doesn’t matter how the individual perceives or interprets the experience. From the network’s point of view, the fundamental question, and this is the one that the individual’s very physiology and neurology is organized around, is: was more unresolved emotion acquired, or was unresolved emotion resolved? Other than this it doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things what the individual does with this energy because no matter what happens the individual has been energized and one way or another, sooner or later, maybe not even in his lifetime; it will evolve into a feeling. Humans may hate but that’s merely an incredibly intense form of attraction that has overwhelmed the emotional capacity of the individual thus charged, however from the networks’ point of view: nevertheless there’s more energy (force) available to the system and when it becomes aligned in a more complex manner it will then be able to accommodate the movement of that energy and unresolved emotion will be resolved.

And then there’s another very important consideration here to return to James famous example of being frightened by a bear. Because unresolved emotion potentiates the higher centers of the nervous system, (which means that how we respond to how unresolved emotion makes us feel determines how we construct our network) where we are in the emotional process, in other words where our feelings plug us into our network, another way of saying this is where we feel we are on the circle, are we at the prey or at the predator polarity, predetermines how we will perceive the bear and interpret the experience and this is happening well before any thoughts can be thought. So in my model, a person having been scared by a bear is nevertheless first and foremost energized and thereby attracted to the bear, but in this case, with a force that is more powerful than their capacity can handle and so they run (attraction collapsed into fear). If they cry their tears are an involuntary “appeal” so to speak to the mercy of the bear’s predatory aspect. (The bear as a “being” triggers a physical memory, most likely of an intimidating father figure.) Now on the other hand, to an unarmed Indian Warrior counting coup, because of where he feels connected to his circle, his tribe, he feels an arousal in his attraction to the bear that is stronger than his balance/fear of falling and so he acts like predator going toward the bear as he tries to touch it. By acting like a predator, he can reflect the energy of attraction the bear is projecting at him, right back to bear and this might be more than the bear can handle and so we observe flipping of polarity between them happily increasing the odds of said warrior returning to his people as a hero, with bear alive as sacred totem.

If “emotion is the subjective form of physical feelings;” then this seems to me to be in contravention to the infectious nature of emotion that is such an overwhelming feature of emotion. For example, someone throws up because they have either eaten something noxious or have just learned something violently noxious to their well being, that’s their subjective perception of their bodily changes. Yet others, observing them, and who have no such subjective experience of an internal discomfort be it physical or psychic, nevertheless feel an irresistible urge to vomit. This is because by default as highly social beings they have projected their e-cogs into that individual and so when energy moves in that individual, they feel a corresponding virtual movement within their own bodies that predetermines what they will perceive; their body will change in conformance to how the network has constructed its constituents and this predetermines their subjective experience.

Similarly, we can also note that there are musical chords of universal emotional content; or a universal mathematical expression of symmetry that defines the emotional attraction to beauty in every race and society (a sense of beauty equals release from the specific kind of unresolved emotion that is caused by the instinctual aspect of the human intellect) and again these operate beneath the level of subjective interpretation. So there is a universal principle of emotional conductivity implemented through the nature of every organisms emotional make-up and which determines that all change that is experienced will become part of consciousness as a monolithic force of attraction. Feelings are the auto-tuning/feedback dynamic by which all the elements of the network will end up self-organizing so that this force will ultimately be harnessed to create new energy.

Related posts:

1. On Damasio and the Feeling Brain
2. Definitions
3. Why We Push

ENERGY: An action potential, a differential of force between two poles. Energy in animals builds up by virtue of a bipolar, two-brain makeup each with its own divergent agenda just as if they are two terminals in the body/mind as an emotional battery attracting ionized charged particles. The tension can be defined as such, the Big Brain seeks stasis; the little brain seeks input. (Thus, all physical, hormonal and neuro-chemical energies are funneled through this divergent agenda into a whole body state of tension. The body/mind is displaced by stimuli which thereby augment the underlying state of tension that must seek release. This means that the confluence of all this energy functions as a virtual “force” of attraction toward that which can render relief/release. The body/mind becomes a displaceable medium, like a standing pool of water, an elastic membrane or like the space/time continuum. Thus whatever one can say of gravity, one can say of emotion and vice versa.) The Big-Brain-in-the-head projects energy, the little-brain-in-the-gut absorbs energy. The B-B is the predatory polarity; the l-b is the preyful polarity, two halves of one circle.

CONSCIOUSNESS: Energy that reliably repeats itself by reflecting back on itself. It is therefore a circle, a circle is the means by which energy becomes information (energy traveling in a circle, or wavelength, is energy coming-into-form – - > in-form-ation). This is not as simple as it first appears because since consciousness is energy that reliably repeats itself, it must therefore create circuits with the external surroundings and therefore, given the reality of friction and fractiousness on planet earth, these circuits sustain themselves by always adding energy to the network. Thus we observe the evolution of complexity and ultimately, self-consciousness and self-awareness as the highest expression of energy reflecting back on itself.

INFORMATION: Nobel laureate Dr. Gell-Mann in his book “Quark and the Jaguar” states: “Basically, information is concerned with a selection from alternatives, and it is most simply expressed if those alternatives can be reduced to a sequence of binary choices, each of which is between two equally probable alternatives.” However I feel this is a classical view of information. The most basic definition of information is that because consciousness requires energy to reflect back on itself, the easiest way to do this is to create a field of mutual attraction around a midpoint so that all entangled particles are part of an auto-tuning/feedback dynamic to sustain the circle. Therefore all animals are motivated first and foremost by a virtual “force” of attraction so that they revolve around a midpoint. The most basic form of information is the network that sustains and regenerates itself by constantly adding new energy. Information requires a network because the easiest way to create a field of mutual attraction is by virtue of components being attracted to each other. Organisms attracted to each other in such a way that adds energy to the network is the most fundamental definition of information. Thus we see that animals are always attracted to energy in consonance with the fundamental motive of the network to add energy, and are self-organizing into complex social structures in consonance with the fundamental definition of information. Energy is motion. Form is motion that repeats itself. Consciousness is a form of energy that reliably repeats itself. A circle turns energy into form. It takes a network to make information.

EMOTION: A monolithic (dull) “force” of attraction caused by a release from a state of tension instituted in an animal’s constitution by virtue of an animals’ two brain makeup. Furthermore, it is a source of momentum that requires a discrete amount of motion in order to render a null value. Emotion comes first, and then the physical aspects arise on its template. Emotion is consciousness’ interface with the physical dimension. As the physical embodiment of the laws of nature, it is the operating system of animal consciousness so that life forms can respond coherently in the natural realm, which is likewise organized according to the laws of nature. As a “force” of attraction, emotion is always positive.

UNRESOLVED EMOTION: Energy is always conserved, it cannot be destroyed; it simply changes form. This law of conservation in conjunction with the principle of conductivity means energy can be the basis of memory because if energy moves according to a principle of conductivity, then the byproduct of resistance to such movement can serve as a record of such an event. Unresolved emotion is a physical record held in the body of the resistance experienced (no matter how slight) to the expression of emotion. The body of every animal serves as a data bank of resistance in regards to every experience it’s ever had, a track record of how things rate according to a standard of emotional conductivity. So while pure emotion as a current of energy can be likened to a current of water which requires a constant source to sustain its flow: unresolved emotion can be likened to water in its solid state, ice, and unlike emotion, it is cumulative. One can not hold on to emotion, but one can hold on to unresolved emotion. Unresolved emotion is how information of an emotional content is transmitted reliably through time, and is how animals receive information over distance. By this I mean, one animal can observe another animal that is acting prey-like and this can release unresolved emotion in the observers’ body and render it sensual over a distance just as if energy had been transmitted over distance as a wave.

RESOLVED EMOTION: The resolution of unresolved emotion is facilitated by becoming aligned and synchronized with a triggering agent of unresolved emotion. Resolved emotion can be likened to water in its gaseous state, a feeling of contentedness and well-being that is ephemeral and the most fleeting form of emotion. Unresolved emotion can only be resolved by a feeling, not by a thought. Only the heart can resolve unresolved emotion.

TRAITS: Emotion moves from a place with a higher concentration of energy to a place of a lesser one just as heat radiates from a warm object toward a cooler one. The relative heat values of two objects are their most primordial “traits.” The predator trait reflects the projection of emotion, and as an external influence on other animals, resists the expression of energy toward it thereby reflecting energy back at it, whereas the preyful trait absorbs the projection of emotion and conducts the expression of energy directed toward it. All complex traits (even personality) elaborate upon this primordial platform.

DRIVE: Emotion plus stress (triggering of physical memory) strengthened by sexuality and guided by Feeling is Drive. Drive seeks to make contact with object of attraction and resistance to contact is converted to a stronger force of attraction by Temperament, or Heart. Drive follows the path of highest resistance, whereas instincts, habits, fear follow the path of least resistance. Drive is how the animal does nature’s work of evolution.

THOUGHTS: The capacity to compare one point of view to another; or one moment to another: and all the concepts that follow from such a platform.

EMOTIONAL CENTER-OF-GRAVITY: When emotion meets with resistance, unresolved emotion (stress) is formed and this accretes around the physical center-of-gravity as the physical memory of an emotional experience. The e-cog is projected onto complex objects of resistance in order to induce a feeling.

FEELINGS: These are the emotional circuits. Emotional circuits are not contained within any individual. (Note that autistics have trouble with eye contact because this accesses the e-cog and so they have difficulty creating emotional circuits and going by feel. Autistics work off the mental aspects of emotion that are part of how the higher aspects of the nervous system execute the emotional phenomena.) When the emotional center-of-gravity is projected onto objects of resistance because the emotionally entangled parties recapitulate the principle of emotional conductivity in each other through their synchronized actions and mannerisms, (as object of resistance they first triggered each others’ unresolved emotion and by virtue of being prey-like they simultaneously attract each other’s emotion, in other words, they cause energy to reflect back onto the other and then give it the opportunity to move toward them, this is the circle again), all motion of affiliated parties eventually average out into a state of suspension, a wave function, and this FEELING when fully formed takes up residence in the heart. (This is why our hand irresistibly moves to the middle of our chest when we feel moved, whereas meanwhile emotional researchers are always focused on the brain.) All true feelings feel good because they add energy to the network. Feelings are an auto-tuning/feedback dynamic that implement the principle of emotional conductivity.

HEART: Heart is a circle; it is the source of a true feeling. When a feeling is fully formed; the movement of entangled “parties” thereby inflects and add energy and nuance to the original feeling just as if it is a chord being plucked and so that the feeling continues to elaborate and evolve into complex social structures. In other words, there are quite literally, heart strings. Feelings elaborate like light waves propagate. In other words, the heart pumps waves. Heart is an engine of light.

EMOTIONAL CONDUCTIVITY: The Brain-to-gut connection creates a “virtual” action potential in the body/mind so that on one fundamental level, consciousness functions as an emotional battery. Composed in this manner, the body/mind turns environmental inputs into emotionally ionizing events, in other words, physical energy becomes consciousness subject to the principle of emotional conductivity. A stimulus energizes the Brain in the head and this sensation of disequilibrium then needs to be “brought to ground” by being absorbed in the gut, i.e. converted into a smooth, wave action of the intestines, peristalsis. This is the principle of emotional conductivity: nerve energy of the Brain “grounded” internally within the digestive system by bringing external objects of attraction “to ground” and which thereby calms the physical organism. All complex objects of attraction either amplify or short circuit this internal connection.

SEXUALITY: The processing of the emotional center-of-gravity so that it can be reflected back and forth and onto a common object. In other words, two individuals are sensualized in a complementary way so as to form a circle in their behaviors and in their manner so that feelings can evolve between them because their mutually complementary mannerisms and actions recapitulate the principle of emotional conductivity.

TEMPERAMENT: Behaviorally, it is the mechanical aspect of heart, just as physiologically the heart organ is the mechanical pump of blood. Temperament is the capacity in an animal to perceive the predatory aspect relative to the preyful aspect and hold both in the same frame of reference around a midpoint, e-cog, in order to perceive a being composed of primordial traits, (Prey/Predator) and magnetic traits, (E,W,N,S). In the absence of this, instincts, habits (and in humans) thoughts end up running the show.

PERSONALITY: A defensive response to the movement and/or vibration of the emotional center-of-gravity.

FEAR: Fear is not emotion. It is a nervous sensation that results from the collapse of an emotional state of attraction. It is as close as the central nervous system can get to emotion and so it has been confused as such. Fear serves as a registration tag for deposits of unresolved emotion in the body/mind as an emotional battery.

SOCIABILITY: The purpose of sociability is to externalize the internal wave functions of the body/mind into an external wave function which is observable as a current of synchronized actions. This reconstitutes a wave function which is a circle, and motion along a circle becomes information so that any physical material object or environmental energy that is incorporated into that wave function is now part of consciousness in service to its evolution. Physical objects and energy thereby become information and thus are capable of causing motive, i.e. creating an external action potential between beings that seek to possess such objects. Social behavior is a wave function that repeats itself by constantly creating new action potentials as psychic motive.

HEART: The third self-contained, electro-chemical dynamo within every animal, the seat of the auto-tuning/feedback dynamic itself: the faculty of adaptability, sociability, the place in the body/mind where the energies of balance and hunger confluence and the divergent agendas of the two brains are reconciled by feeling the midpoint (the null or averaged-out value of all motion) around which all emotionally entangled parties orbit and thereby recapitulate for one and the other the principle of emotional conductivity so that unresolved emotion can be resolved. In this state, heart beats synchronize individual actions.

Related posts:

1. Why We Push
2. Glorious Accident?
3. Distinctions Between Emotion and Feelings

As certain laws become clear I keep my eyes open for scientific evidence to attach to such principles. I know it has to be there because I’m convinced that emotion is energy and its principles of movement are the basis on which physiological systems and organs evolved. I’m confident in this conviction because this is the most conservative interpretation of evolution, the formed arising from the unformed, matter from energy. This means that various aspects of the emotional dynamic are mirrored by specific organs, systems and physiological adaptations because as hard as it is for our linear intellects to apprehend, the latter are based on the former.

Unfortunately I’m not able to mine the research directly because I would have to understand its technicalities and in all its intricacies in order to pull out what I’m looking for. Rather I have to wait until a scientific journalist, or a scientist trying to reach the public brings out some finding or paradox from which I can glean its network implications. Often what I’m looking for comes out in a throwaway line of no seeming consequence. For example, in his book “Balance” Scott McCredie observes that camel jockeys and elephant drivers, no matter how experienced, often experience motion sickness whereas equestrians no matter how novice, never do. It was mentioned as an interesting but inconsequential factoid whereas it hit me like a ton of bricks because I realized that the horse shifts its emotional center-of-gravity to include the rider, unlike any other animal, and therefore even the rank amateur on their first ride at a dude ranch is no more likely to experience motion sickness than were they walking on foot. And this explains the incredible connection between man and horse, the only animal other than the dog of which we can say is “all heart.” The horse can feel in its heart the rider-plus-its-self and then move accordingly, two beings composing one emotional body via a common wave function.

Finding just such a scientific correlate may have happened yesterday when reading the comment sections on the NPR story concerning the dog experiment I wrote about. While we should for now remain skeptical about the source until the information is fully verified, the author Margaret Hyde seems knowledgeable and credible and so I feel comfortable quoting her remarks below. I hope this exchange can prove an opportunity to vet the remarks.
It appears to be a very promising confirmation of the model of how emotion becomes unresolved due to resistance and then this physical memory is projected onto complex objects of attraction, i.e. other social beings, by way of piggybacking on primal and seemingly unrelated systems.

It’s been my experience that the most vital clues are most often seen as meaningless (junk DNA) or as accidents. For example, mainstream biologists interpret the fact that since the organs of sexuality also double as organs of elimination this is evidence of unintelligent design, nature as a haphazard random cobbling together of parts, rather than as perfect telescoping of network functions from primal systems. (See the article http://naturaldogtraining.com/blog/why-do-dogs-investigate-the-eliminations-of-other-dogs/ )

In her passage, I’ve added emphasis to what I find especially compelling.

Margaret Hyde: “Just for your information about how this part works. At 3 years of age, the frontal lobes complete the formation of the pathways that go from the frontal lobe to cells deep in the anterior medulla’s reticular formation that are responsible for informing the temporal lobe that there are changes in the baby’s external universe (these cells are mentioned below). The anterior medulla houses clumps and scattered cells all over it (reticular formation, cranial nerve nuclei, metabolic, satiety, and emotion centers). THESE STRUCTURES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR RELATING OUR EMOTIONS TO OUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH FAMILY AND OTHER PEOPLE AND PLACES FROM THE PAST AND TO THE FUNCTION OF MUSCLES, BONES, LIGAMENTS AND TENDONS. (Why are emotions linked to the latter? An embryological accident-the mesoderm giving rise to the latter lies directly over the part of the nervous system that will develop the anterior medulla and thus is segmentally allied with it at the start). The anterior medulla also houses the pons which executes commands and sorts incoming sensory information from all over the body. Critical to the functioning of the anterior medulla is our external and internal universe–a map of what we see, hear, smell of the world around us.”

In other words, physical and psychological systems are predicated on emotional systems. What’s happening within the body and brain is a direct extension of what’s happening in the invisible emotional mind because the emotional mind requisitions these systems by virtue of how they are composed so as to interrelate in a network coherent manner.

The body’s means of registering resistance to physical movement is directly linked to family and social relationships (and I can think of no greater source of resistance to emotional movement than a family member). This linkage is no accident. When the infant experiences physical resistance to movement toward an object of attraction, she experiences stress; and this is stored in the body/mind as emotional battery, the core repository or densest layer being what I call the emotional center-of-gravity, and this core composes the animal mind’s sense of its “self.” This is that aspect of consciousness displaced by eye-contact and deflected onto where another persons’ focus is directed.

This e-cog is then projected onto complex objects of attraction that offer resistance to emotional expression in order to divine and break down the energetic signature of that complex being. This then allows her to become the equal/opposite in order to fit (two beings aligning around a common emotional c-o-g) with this complex object of attraction, and this subsequent mutual interlocking then allows the group they thus form to overcome greater challenges by virtue of being able to work together (i.e. create an overarching feeling or bond, a.k.a., a wave) that can entangle others and other objects into its function.

Two beings so aligned comprise one emotional body and the emotional body works according to the same principles as the physical body. The emotional body has a backbone (axis of connection between A and B), a center-of-gravity common to A and B, and a brain (the heart as an auto-tuning/feedback dynamic that serves as a synchronizing meter between A and B). And just as every physical expression of a body’s movement is symmetrically aligned around the body’s physical center-of-gravity, likewise, every physical expression of the emotional body’s movement is symmetrically aligned around the emotional center-of-gravity. The physical body generates rhythms over distance; the emotional body generates rhythms over time. In some behaviors the symmetry can take days, months or even years to manifest.

Unfortunately we miss this symmetry because to our intellectual eye we think we are seeing two separate entities of intelligence endowed with two separate brains as sources of their separate and distinct intelligences. We then read thoughts into their behavior because we’re so impressed with their capacity to synchronize over time. Whereas I’m arguing that the physical body with two poles at either end (Big-Brain/little-brain) composes the animal mind as a collective intelligence rather than just the Big-Brain in the head.

Emotional resistance is processed the same way that physical resistance is processed. But of course we should say physical resistance is processed the same way emotional resistance is processed.

Just as the Brain can’t feel a thing, Heart can’t move a muscle because it doesn’t exist within any one being. It takes two to make one Heart. (No animal is an island) Heart must evolve into existence in real time; it cannot be genetically encoded because genes are too static and also because the function of genes is to receive information that Heart generates and then reliably transcribe this, genes don’t create information.

In this interplay within the body/mind, Heart cannot communicate with the Big-Brain directly; it must go through the little-brain in the gut. This implements the principle of emotional conductivity. Hence we have “gut feelings” as precursors to integration. So I call the Big-Brain in the head the executor of action, I term the little-brain-in-the-gut the social brain, and Heart is the network brain. At the moment the Big-Brain gets all the credit and seemingly is the source of all the information but I believe a proper reading of animal behavior will ultimately prove that this is as sensible as saying that what comes out of a radio, or what is on a computer’s screen logged onto the internet, was generated by the radio or by the computer’s CPU. I’m proposing that we likewise turn our attention to the invisible waves that animate and inform such complex electro/magnetic devices. I’m proposing that animals are picking up a signal that they collectively generate.

Related posts:

1. Definitions
2. Why Do Dogs Smell Each Other
3. I agree there is energy – everything does have energy – but there are also plain old basic learning principles that have been around for a long time.

NPR reported on the following study and I’ve quoted it in its entirety below. This is an interesting study because from my point of view it shows the correlation between physical memory and feelings. It is also interesting because it shows how experimenters are misled by a personality theory and see the dog as a self-contained intelligence relating to another being as a self-contained entity as well, i.e. the test dog perceiving the human test-giver as teacher dispensing information. The scientific interpretation of this experiment is why I say we can’t think outside the box, because thinking is the box.

September 3, 2009
A new study shows that dogs and young human babies both make the same classic error in a famous psychology experiment — while wolves raised by people do not.

The experiment was originally devised decades ago by the well-known child psychologist Jean Piaget. He found that if babies 10 months old or younger repeatedly see a toy placed in location A, they will look for the toy there even after watching the toy being placed in location B.

This is called the “A-Not-B Error.” By 1 year of age, children have grown out of it. But it’s such a weird observation that psychologists have been talking about it for decades. Some think it has to do with how babies perceive the permanence of objects. But others think it has something to do with how infants learn from people.

Adam Miklosi of Eotvos Lorand University in Budapest, Hungary, is interested in how dogs have evolved to live with people, so he decided to see how dogs and their wild relatives, human-raised wolves, would do on this test.

In their experiment, wolves were generally not misled by what they had seen humans do before, according to a report in Science. They’d make a beeline for the right hiding place.

But dogs would act like a 10-month-old baby, going to screen A even though they’d just seen someone put the toy behind screen B.

The Human Influence
Miklosi think this means that dogs interpret the situation as a learning situation and choose to trust what the human is communicating rather than what they see with their own eyes.

“The dogs are sort of looking at the human as a sort of a teacher that has the privilege of some sort of information and they don’t want to override it with their own understanding of the case,” says Miklosi.

When the experiment was rigged up so that it involved no people, and the toys were instead dragged from place to place by a moving string, the dogs were less likely to make the mistake. They suddenly acted more like their wolf relatives.

“If there’s no teacher there, then the dogs are switching back, and then they are solving the problem on their own,” Miklosi says.

Human babies also were more likely to find the toy in the correct location if it was moved by a string instead of a person. “For me,” says Miklosi, “this was the biggest surprise.”

He believes all this shows that the presence of a person — social interaction — has a profound effect on how both dogs and babies interpret the situation.

For Dogs, It All Depends On the Person
There was one difference between dogs and young babies, though. When they redid the classic experiment but had more than one person do the hiding, it didn’t matter to the babies. They kept reaching for screen A, suggesting they were able to generalize about people.

But adding a new person changed everything for the dogs. “For the dog, if you’re changing the person, the knowledge is gone,” says Miklosi. The dogs ignored what had previously happened and, like the wolves, went straight to the toy.

“It’s a very original approach. It’s a very thought-provoking experiment,” says Clive Wynne, who studies dog cognition at the University of Florida. “I think like a lot of good studies, it doesn’t lead so instantly to conclusions. It leads to new questions.”

For example, he says, “there’s a puzzle in this paper in that you’ve got adult dogs behaving like 10-month-old children, when 10-month-old children are only going to act like this for two more months. They’re going to grow out of it very quickly.”

Still, he thinks we need more studies like this one, to learn about both human cognition and the inner lives of our canine companions.

“It is important that we understand how dogs think about us,” Wynne says, “because we have 70 million of these animals in our homes in the United States — more dogs than we have children.”

# #

KB: What’s actually going on in this experiment is that the dog is orienting toward the place with the strongest feeling as it is triggered by physical memory, which is why changing the person proves to be so critical TO THE DOG. Because dogs go more by feel than any other animal, and do not grow out of this proclivity unlike human babies, and because the wolf goes more by instinct, i.e. shortest path to the target without apprehension of deflection in deference to physical memory, the dog exhibits an orientation to the specific memory as triggered by a human more than babies and wolves. (In other words for the wolf the apprehension of the physical memory of human will be qualitative and trigger habits and instincts, whereas with the dog the physical memory value can be apprehended quantitatively as basis of a true feeling and this computes an angular momentum as well. So the dog always feels a strong force of deflection when dealing with complex objects of resistance, i.e. human beings.)

I first became aware of this kind of thing when training police dogs for Search and Rescue. The softer dogs were more likely to become confused when trying to work out a faint scent. I remember one incident when the police handler, knowing where I was hidden on top of a ridge, kept moving in my direction while his dog was casting a bigger and bigger circle until finally it began searching for its handler instead of me. When we could see that this was going on we decided to terminate the exercise and start over with an easier problem and so the handler standing next to me on top of this high ridge, yelled out to his dog which we could see in the valley below. The dog was about 200 yards away and looking directly at the handler, turned on its heels and then ran at full speed just as it does when coming to its name all the way back to the patrol car parked in a lot perhaps a mile away. Once the dog reached the car and his handler wasn’t there, he turned around and quickly joined us on the ridge. The dog was going to the last place he had a strong feeling for his handler in his physical memory bank. He didn’t trust his eyes; he was going by feel and he had a stronger feeling for his handler in the police car than he had on that remote ridge when in a state of confusion, i.e. a weak feeling.

Related posts:

1. Physical Memory Is A Circle
2. On Training a Dog to “OUT”
3. The Mind of Squirrel Dog

From a previous discussion….

LCK: That said, I still disagree with the concept of the emotional battery.

KB: The most relevant point to the notion of a battery is that it stores energy; it doesn’t have to actually be electrical, even though dogs may act just as if it is electrical in basis as when they touch the positive terminal of one to the positive (head to head) terminal of the other, and then we see sparks if not the fur fly. Also, if we are largely in agreement that there is some kind of an energy dynamo at work then we would have to recognize that there would be no point in generating energy if there wasn’t a means of storing it for times of need. This is why wind/solar hasn’t taken over the energy grid because there isn’t yet a means of storing enough energy to get past the times when the wind’s not blowing and sun’s not shining. So if it’s possible to entertain that an organism is a kind of energy dynamo, it would surely follow that there would have to be some kind of storage faculty as well, just like the body has fat reserves for lean times or a spleen as a reserve of blood. The emotional battery in my model likewise serves as an emotional spleen to carry the animal through “gaps” in its consciousness and to keep it on course when there is no readily visible path forward. It’s what keeps a body in motion tending to stay in motion until acted on by an outside force.

LCK: This idea seems a mixed metaphor to the writer in me, and much too inexact to the dog trainer/natural philosopher. If emotions could be stored as latent or potential electric energy, then there could be an emotional battery. And I could be wrong, but it seems to me that emotions aren’t compatible with electricity. For instance, emotions can be repressed and even <i>com</i>pressed, but I don’t think there’s any compression going on inside a battery.

KB: Actually, I believe inside the battery there is a form of compression as in pressure and I’ve included a link to a thread below. But I can readily appreciate the difficulty with the idea because the Emotional Battery continually evolves into more and more complex sources of energy and information beyond its simplest role as energy reserves and emotional ballast. And this is exactly the problem, emotion cannot be stored, it’s transient and this is why we need a compressed form of emotion, i.e. stress in order to reliably transmit information of an emotional content. And while there’s no compression per se, there is pressure which we experience emotionally as compression, or stress, emotion’s latent form as stored energy.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=166904 The following is from someone who posts under Xezlec

“Think of the electrons in a metal as a sort of “gas” of electrons. They are free to move around in the metal, and they repel one another. If you pack more electrons into the same volume of metal, then they have a higher “pressure” because they are all repelling one another. The voltage between two terminals is simply the difference in electron pressure between one and the other.”

Xezlec: “Now what if you build a “pump” that pumps electrons from one piece of metal to another? Well then you have a pressure that builds in one piece of metal and a vacuum that builds in the other. The vacuum piece is said to have a higher (more positive) “voltage”. The voltage between two terminals is simply the difference in electron pressure between one and the other.”

Notice that the so called “positive” terminal isn’t actually positive by virtue of being populated with protons, carriers of an actual positive charge. Rather it’s only positive RELATIVE to the negative terminal which has a surplus of electrons collected around it. So it’s a virtual form of positive. So if Physics there is a virtual and an actual way of generating a positive charge.

Because there are divergent agendas between the two brains, when stimuli displace the body/mind it creates a voltage. The voltage is the inability to connect the front end to the hind end by ingesting something without resistance. And if that voltage can’t be reconciled through acting in a pure flow manner that also brings the stimulus to ground, then I maintain this is internalized as stress through some kind of bio-mechanical mechanism which on the surface merely appears to be fulfilling some other bodily function but I believe can one day be shown to be fundamentally about capturing this energy and holding on to it for subsequent processing in order to render a greater degree of complexity. I think Dr. Pert has put her finger on the mechanism, what she calls the psycho-somatic network comprised of the central nervous system, the immune system and the endocrine system, but she doesn’t recognize its larger network function because of course like all mainstream scientists emotion must always be made to fit into the model of it as a self-contained phenomenon within the organism relentlessly in service to the agenda of gene replication. (I predict that the psycho-somatic network will one day prove that viruses and RNA are far more important to the evolution of organisms than DNA since these can rewrite DNA in terms of the environment, i.e. the network.)

The two brains have divergent agendas which inculcate a constitutional state of conflict, the release from which we perceive of as emotion. (In this sense, the Emotional Battery is the body/mind as a displaceable medium, just like the space/time is a displaceable gravitational field, there is not yet any virtual electrical bio-mechanical stuff going on.)Then, when the act of expressing emotion encounters resistance, I believe neuro-chemical/hormonal/antihistamine byproducts are produced and/or deposited throughout the body in response to the individual’s sense of being compressed, or pressurized. (This is now the electrical component.) Then when at some point later the individual achieves emotional suspension with an emotional counterbalance, its physical center-of-gravity projected externally as the e-cog onto the midpoint, this induces a virtual form of magnetic induction which I then believe releases the natural opiates in the cells, again courtesy of Dr. Pert’s research. This loading and unloading taking place on the cellular level would be the same as electrolytes in a battery.

Since the Big-Brain can only allow action (at lower levels of organization) when the balance imperative is satisfied, when a stimulus is complex the B-B will hold the organism back from action since the preyful essence is not immediately apparent. So we have a thrust at one terminal, B-B, and a void or vacuum at the other terminal, l-b. This divergence creates a voltage, or force. Hence there is a constitutional pressure, just as if there’s an electron pump as described above so that a voltage is impressed onto the opposing terminals of the body/mind as an emotional battery. (When the electrons are grounded in the little-gut, the void would shift to Big-Brain, and when the individual is entrained with another and not concerned about balance, then B-B can serve as North Pole of the magnet, so we move beyond the electrical battery metaphor and into a magnet one.)

In the electrical schema: for the Big-Brain output (physical action) must equal input (sensory stimulation). But if it meets resistance it ends up capturing more charge and so this upsets the balance circuitry all over again and so left to its own demise it’s locked into a never ending loop, like Sisyphus pushing the rock eternally up the hill. Thus the Big-Brain tends to hold back and this increases the voltage in the system because the little-brain isn’t getting its needed input. This is how emotion according to the principle of conductivity compels action. Meanwhile, for the little-brain, input (ingestion) must equal output (output being Big-Brain nerve energy) and so unlike the Big Brain it craves movement rather than stasis. When stimulated the l-b will furiously churn and demand input. But it just can’t take in any input, the l-b is limited in its own way because this input must be digestible; it can’t ingest things arbitrarily (we’re talking about a highly evolved digestive system that can only process that which can be processed, it can’t generate new bio-chemical approaches to an input as can the immune system or the sense of smell, in other words whatever it ingests must be conductive) just to satisfy the constitutional problem of the overall organism, although dogs try their darndest by eating grass, rocks, socks, sticks, shoes, TV remote controllers, not to mention self-mutilation.

In a fundamental way the emotional “electrical” battery solves this basic conundrum. When a peak state of intensity is reached, the emotional battery as energy reserve must kick in because it’s reached its holding capacity and so outlets a brief spike of energy, (the individual feels the uprising of the physical cog along the 1^st Primal Pathway, gut/spinal cord) and this brief outburst can scare the object of resistance and compel it to move and thus make it conform to the principle of emotional conductivity, i.e. emotion’s desire for motion. (For example, the cat stalks and then pounces on the motionless mouse once it gets close enough to a critical distance, even though the stationary mouse isn’t acting emotionally conductive. Another example of this is an antelope “stotting” as a means of dissipating its battery when it’s attracted to a lion but obviously can’t connect with it. By punching the ground with its front feet it’s dissipating the drive to make contact which given the charge of a lion has pushed the antelope well over its holding capacity.)

But I immediately have to add that it is more than just an energy reserve, the emotional battery is also a source of information in terms of a specific physical memory that is summoned to the surface of awareness at that peak of intensity so that in a critical moment it can supply the memory of a preyful aspect and now the organism is given permission to release energy because the inhibiting agent is now perceived for a brief instant as a preyful aspect. (The cat perceives the motionlessness of the mouse, as a vibration, and in fact the mouse is actually quivering given how wired it is, and as an incipient flight movement.) We can see this exact physical memory being imprinted in infant pups when they begin to stalk and pounce on an unsuspecting litter mate that’s just trying to stand in one spot. Because the little pups are such pure embodiments of temperament, any tiny quiver is perceived as a significant degree of movement that does indeed elicit the principle of emotional conductivity.

Xezlec: ”And if you connect some conductive path (wire) between the two, the electrons will zoom from the higher pressure to the lower pressure, through that path. The bigger the pressure difference (voltage), the faster they will whiz through the path. The rate that the electrons zip through that path is called the “current”, and is measured in Amperes. So current through a path is proportional to voltage.”

KB: When the prey/predator roles are clearly differentiated between the two beings the principle of emotional conductivity is fulfilled and the energy runs at high “amperage” between the virtual circuit between them to resolve the charge.

LCK: “So unresolved emotions would have to be stored in something more like a reservoir. That’s why electricity works for describing the nervous system (which runs on it), and emotions are more properly (at least in my view) described through fluid dynamics. There are parallels — both water and electricity are said to flow in “currents” — but like water, emotions are more tangible. (Remember, the brain can’t feel anything.)”

KB: What I’m trying to articulate in my limited way, is that because of the principle of emotional conductivity, what starts out as gravity, and then a simple fluid dynamic, and then a simple electrical battery, then goes on to evolve into more and more sophisticated kinds of electromagnetic dynamics, nuclear fusion and even quantum mechanics. This is why the fluid model of emotion hasn’t succeeded in psychology because the range is too limited to account for the infinite variety of expression of emotion and feelings, and diversity across cultures. In my model there is only one emotion, a virtual force of attraction due to displacement of the body/mind, just like gravity. But then as a current connecting the front-end-to-the-hind-end, just like water it has three states, fluid (pure emotion as a current), solid (unresolved emotion as physical memory) and gaseous (resolved emotion as an ephemeral state of contentedness when unresolved emotion is resolved). E – - > UE – - > RE is how emotion via the organism as an emotional battery, and according to the principle of emotional conductivity, can fulfill its network function of turning energy into information by evolving through all forces of nature. It’s akin for example to how the industrial age began by harnessing water to turn potential energy into mechanical energy in order to turn waterwheels and grist wheels, and then to turn turbines in electromagnetic generators. (Apparently the evolution of consciousness bypassed the nuclear fission phase.) That’s exactly what happens in the evolution of consciousness including nuclear fusion and quantum mechanics.(The e-cog facilitates the fusion of external objects and beings into the organism’s sense of its “Self” or nucleus.)

Note that a feeling of self-satisfaction is not easily transmittable through time or from person to person, and that it is virtually impossible to transfer a state of bliss to someone else, whereas a state of stress is easily transmittable through time and it is easy to make someone anxious, or jealous, envious etc.. Note that one doesn’t wake up at 3 in the morning blissed out, but rather stressed out. This is because we are first and foremost designed to be carriers of an emotional charge that makes us feel incomplete and disconnected. Our thoughts then race to find a source of this stress so that we can take action to find a connection and drain our “juices.” Interestingly when a battery is drained we say it has no juice.

Finally, because stress is so easy to transmit, it is therefore easy to relieve a person from stress so as to help them feel more positive about a situation then to actually help them achieve a true state of bliss. This is a virtual form of giving them energy. They feel energized by the words of someone consoling them but that person didn’t actually give them any real energy, rather the person shifted their perception by which their reserve of stored unresolved emotion was converted into a sense of release.

So a virtual static-electricity between two individuals, who haven’t yet differentiated so as to induce the principle of emotional conductivity in the other, is perceived of as pressure, and this is the compressed file of information that is then internalized as physical memory, or an emotional charge, registered in the emotional battery according to intensity. It’s not that electrons have been compressed, it’s that a voltage has been impressed between the two brains, and which I believe has very real physiological and neurological consequences, that only by connecting with the source of that charge, or something of the exact same intensity value, can reduce the voltage.

Feelings then are the projection of emotional mass that has accrued around the physical c-o-g, onto objects of attraction, in order to define a midpoint and recreate a wave function. Through this synchronization process the balance circuitry is subsumed into a pure tuning device, which I believe then synchronizes heartbeats between individuals so entangled. Ultimately through the resulting emotional bond unresolved emotion can thus be resolved. No animal is an island.

I’ve taken the following schema of a battery and below each passage of explanatory text have written in italics my translation of its mechanics into my emotional model. The link has a simple rendition of a battery.

http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/Power/2-how-do-batteries-work.html

How do batteries work? Electricity, as you probably already know, is the flow of electrons through a conductive path like a wire. This path is called a circuit.

In the Emotional Battery the circuit is the behavior that can conduct energy so as to connect with object of attraction and so as to reduce the charge to neutral. But in behavior, the circuit must constantly be refreshed with new energy so that it can reliably repeat itself.

Batteries have three parts, an anode (-), a cathode (+), and the electrolyte. The cathode and anode (the positive and negative sides at either end of a traditional battery) are hooked up to an electrical circuit.

In the Emotional Battery: the Cathode is the Big-Brain-in-the-head which can be charged by external stimuli, the Anode is the little-brain-in-the-gut that receives these “electrons,” the electrolytes are the cells in the body.

The chemical reaction in the battery causes a build up of electrons at the anode. This results in an electrical difference between the anode and the cathode. You can think of this difference as an unstable build-up of the electrons. The electrons want to rearrange themselves to get rid of this difference. But they do this in a certain way. Electrons repel each other and try to go to a place with fewer electrons.

In the Emotional Battery, displacement of the body/mind by external stimuli causes neurological and physiological activity that arouses the hunger circuitry, just as if there is a concentration of electrons at the anode so that the organism craves an environmental input in order to ground out this charge. This we experience as butterflies, morbid dread, in addition to hunger itself, and so on deep in our gut.

In a battery, the only place to go is to the cathode. But, the electrolyte keeps the electrons from going straight from the anode to the cathode within the battery.

Because cells burn energy they demand nourishment and this prevents the Emotional Battery from being self-neutralizing. It must interact with the environment to receive input. In other words, cells don’t metabolize to provide energy to the muscles as their primary function. Rather their primary function is to serve as electrolytes by burning energy to create an energy deficit which then implements the phenomenon of a virtual Emotional Battery by not allowing the organism to dissipate the charge through its own on/board mental activity. It must move, i.e. create an emotional circuit with another being.

When the circuit is closed (a wire connects the cathode and the anode) the electrons will be able to get to the cathode. In the picture above, the electrons go through the wire, lighting the light bulb along the way. This is one way of describing how electrical potential causes electrons to flow through the circuit.

In the Emotional Battery if the action that’s being expressed is moving in conformance with the principle of emotional conductivity so that a preyful essence is being perceived and absorbed by the organism, then it’s just as if its front-end-is-connected-to-its-hind-end and virtual electrons are flowing through the behavior as a virtual circuit. Ultimately when the wavelength is strong enough, there is a collapse of an electrical current into a magnetic field that collapses into an electrical current which then collapses into a magnetic field. In other words, just as a light wave self-propagates. This is what we’re seeing when we observe two dogs flipping polarity at will and developing an unbreakable emotional bond.

However, these electrochemical processes change the chemicals in anode and cathode to make them stop supplying electrons. So there is a limited amount of power available in a battery.

Because the Emotional Battery evolved to solve the problem of entropy, when the Emotional Battery is returned to neutral so that the individual feels complete, the interaction has also generated information, i.e. a wave form with its emotional counterbalance. Therefore the Emotional Battery can also be likened to a computer because when two beings encounter each other and since they have the same emotional problem to solve, the Emotional Battery is able to transcend this limited schema of a simple electrical battery and evolves into the basis of an electromagnetic dynamo so that when one individual moves in an emotionally conductive manner, it induces new energy in its counterbalance. Ultimately becoming emotionally entangled with another emotional being turns two Emotional Batteries into two cells of one Emotional Battery thus recharging the system in terms of a heightened state of complexity. In other words, raw energy has been turned into information and now this unified battery is charged anew and affiliated beings need to seek higher paths of resistance to overcome.

When you recharge a battery, you change the direction of the flow of electrons using another power source, such as solar panels. The electrochemical processes happen in reverse, and the anode and cathode are restored to their original state and can again provide full power.

Simply by being conscious and stimulated, the Emotional Battery will become recharged and the animal perceives this as becoming incomplete. And then when animals flip polarity, they reverse the electro-chemical flow of the cells as electrolytes. This is the process of emotosynthesis, capturing the energy of resistance and turning it into information, just as photosynthesis in plants turns the energy of the sun into matter. And just as photosynthesis makes life on earth possible emotosynthesis makes intelligent life on earth possible.

A Final Note. If it wasn’t for the the Emotional Battery and the principle of emotional conductivity, then animals would not be able to be conditioned because the body becomes partitioned into a positive and negative end, and then the e-cog moves around the memory of p-cog in the body along these regions and in specific ways, as if it’s travelling along circuits of more/less resistance. This virtual flow of energy through the animal body/mind as emoitonal battery becomes as reliable as water coursing through a riverbed, thus animals attune to their bodies and reliably repeat behaviors that led to them feeling good, and avoid that which makes them feel “bad.”

Also, there’s no real circuit connecting dog A to dog B, it’s just that A becomes the cathode to B as anode, this can flip in another emotional context, and so they each become the means for resolving the constitutional state of conflict they render in the other until ultimately they fuse into one battery, and set out to magnetize others in terms of this nuclear fusion.

Related posts:

1. Why Do Dogs Smell Each Other
2. Behan is too new-agey in his explanations to be taken seriously. He also dismisses large tracks of learning theory and psychology and ethology. He prefers undefined explanations like “emotional circuitry of dog and owner” Frankly I tend to dismiss and distrust anyone that talks about ‘energy’ or ‘vibrations’ to explain animal behavior.
3. Why Do Dogs Prefer to Drink From Toilets?

So a car could be parked with the engine revved, and the tachometer registers 3000 rpm and to a passenger the car is generating a lot of vibration. Then, on the open highway the car could be going 80mph at 3000 rpm and now to the passenger it all seems grounded since the energy is being smoothly transferred to the wheels and translated into forward motion. The two situations appear completely different but then if the driver were suddenly to kick the car out of gear, then the underlying intensity of engine output would be apparent. And then in between these extremes, the car could be in 1^st, 2^nd or 3^rd gear and we would again see various degrees of vibration coming from the system at 3000 rpm, but the intensity value, the rpm of the engine, is exactly the same and so whatever resistance is being encountered from the systems’ or car’s point of view would be categorized in terms of that same intensity level.

That intensity ratings can run consistently across the behavioral spectrum is significant because it is how animals are able to link a chain of moments together into a contiguous sense of experience. For example, as a dog is “loading” it becomes more intense; let’s say it’s going from 1 to 10 on a scale of intensity, and then on the other side after taking action at the peak of a state of 10, on the descending side of the energy curve it will revisit 9 through 1 as matching values on its way down. What this means is that say for example a dog won’t push-for-food on the ascending side of the scale because that increasing rate of intensity (high-rate-of-change) has shut down its temperament through negative/instinctual experiences, but then after an outburst at a peak of 10, as its coming down one is far more likely to induce a dog to push in for food since it’s experiencing the rate of intensity as decreasing and is in the process of relaxing with that specific energy state. (This is akin to being physically and mentally okay with the same degree of pain on the descending side of the healing process, whereas it was fear inducing on the ascending side of the pain curve.) So I slip in the behavior I want on the downhill slope of the energy scale, i.e. push-for-food at say level 5, knowing that this vastly increases the likelihood that I can induce push-for-food at 4 if not 5 on the ascending side of the slope.

I’m thinking here specifically of taking a dog with incredible prey instinct down to my chicken yard. (This training sequence may be on/line as a Quantum Canine episode via FACT TV). As soon as the dog sees the chickens it goes into “missile-lock” and so I wait for it to begin to express energy into action. Meanwhile I’m holding the dog on a long lead at some distance from the chicken yard. At some point after dissipating some degree of tension in a futile expression of energy, the dog will turn to me and begin to show interest in the food, and then because I’ve already pre-conditioned the response I’m hoping for, it begins to push in with a fury. It’s now channeling chicken-energy into me at intensity state 5. On subsequent outings, its ability to turn to me for its release quickens. Soon, before it locks up it begins to willfully seek me out for the pushing outlet at full bore and little by little I increase MY INTENSITY to equal the high state of 10 that the chickens are able to induce. This becomes what killing a chicken begins to feel like. I’m turning prey instinct into prey DRIVE, i.e. be in harmony with me AND with the chickens. (Once I can get reliable drive energy, I can soon have dog and chickens eating food cheek to beak in the chicken yard with dog on a loose lead. Then I have dog search for egg in yard with chickens squawking and flapping so everybody gets the essence that Drive craves.)

Now the dog is learning that an increasing rate of tension doesn’t necessarily lead to a peak overload and paralysis of its temperament. This is why it’s so vital in the NDT system to not correct a dog for explosive behaviors (however I must make it clear that until the dogs’ Drive is strong enough to solve matters on its own, the dog is only put into safe situations so its expression of energy can’t do any harm to other dogs-or chickens-OR ITS OWN TEMPERAMENT.) because no matter how successful it may look in the short term, it only reinforces the old pattern of a shut down temperament in a high rate of change moment and with energy going toward the path of least resistance.

So resistance is synonymous with intensity, and all sensations of intensity are on the continuum of the fear of falling. For example, when someone is in our face, even though they may be passive in the way they’re intruding, we begin to feel a compression and this is directly related to the intense sensations affiliated with falling as an infant. These old physical memories are what make a “bad” feeling feel bad, although I also have to add that the physical memories of cramps and nausea are instinctual templates for why “bad” feelings feel bad innately. (When you think about it, why should a bad feeling feel bad?) When someone is compressing us either with their physical proximity or their words, if we pay close attention, we can feel the physical memory of our physical center-of-gravity rushing up our “First Primal Pathway” (spinal cord and alimentary canal) and then getting stuck in our face. (This is why we reflexively smile to dissipate nervous energy when we encounter someone (balance) whereas we intuitively smile in a far more relaxed manner as we open up and “ingest” or let someone into our being (hunger); like the newborn baby looking at her mother, no resistance, no physical memory; the wide open eyes and smile a pure expression of unmitigated Temperament.). And as I believe I mentioned somewhere else, we seek to “break our fall” by pushing them away with our hands, either physically, or literally with words. The most extreme expression of this would be slapping someone in the face.

All physical memories are catalogued in the body/mind in terms of the sensations of intensity. So let’s just say that a dog has the physical memory of having stepped on broken glass and cutting its foot, and a year later a door opens on its foot, the intensity values relative to that part of its body sensitized by physical memory are close enough so that it will relive the broken glass experience. I believe this is where the phenomenon of sympathetic injuries comes from. A dog breaks its leg and an owner tends it with great care, the intensity of the experience now being affiliated with the R value of the owner. Then a year later the owner gets mad at the dog and it “feigns” a broken leg. It’s not faking it, it’s reliving it. Then, if that works in this new context, it takes on a life of its own as a way of dealing with stressful situations of that intensity value.

Since Temperament is a circle, physical memory is a circle as well. It is a memory of how the body was aligned in a sensual/sensitive pattern about the physical center-of-gravity that either led to unresolved emotion being acquired, released or resolved. This is how dogs know how to “plug in” their body to another body, sensitive (-) pole to sensual (+), sensual (+) pole to sensitive (-).

I want to preface the following by saying that life on planet earth is characterized by friction and fractiousness (unlike the weightless resonance of life in the womb or the vacuum of outer space) and so by default it is impossible to have an experience, even in the first seconds of life, without acquiring physical memory because there will always be sensations of intensity that the world of resistance imposes on its constituents.

A physical memory isn’t a logical and literal remembrance of what happened, rather it’s formatted according to energetic terms, in terms of Temperament as a circle, with a direction of rotation for the flow of energy, like a clock hand sweeping clockwise across the clock’s face. This hand can only move in one direction, towards increasing complexity, which is why I believe we perceive Time as having a discrete direction and why calculus cannot work the same forward and backward in terms of evolution, as it can with the movements of billiard balls.

When the hand isn’t moving in sync with the conductivity of the surroundings, the individual experiences a sense of compression and unresolved emotion is acquired. The emotional collapse of this circle is directly hardwired into the balance circuitry and the more sudden the collapse, the more intense the sensations affiliated with it, and the more unresolved emotion is acquired and stored in the deepest cells of the emotional battery.

From the individual animal’s point of view, this clock hand “points” toward the most intense predatory aspect in the situation, this becomes 12:00 high, this is the negative (-) pole, and if energy can move toward that variable, that feels to the animal like “access-to-the-positive,” the positive or preyful aspect that carries the most arousal value to ground out the intensity. If this movement is in accord with the conductivity of the surroundings and context, some degree of unresolved emotion can be released. If not, then more unresolved emotion is acquired. Taking on more of a charge may be a problem from an individual’s point of view, but not from evolutions’ perspective because Nature has all the time in the world and from its point of view, energy has nevertheless been captured by the individual becoming charged.

When access to the positive becomes secured, we should now visualize Temperament evolving into a compass face, with a North, South, East, West Poles, and North/South and East/West axes, and finally a center, or midpoint. This is a vital elaboration because it allows individuals to “flip polarity” from one magnetic pole to another WITH NO LOSS OF EMOTIONAL MOMENTUM and really get the needle spinning like the armature in an electromagnetic engine.

This invisible architecture is embedded in any and all states of attraction and serves as the scaffolding for physical memory as it’s acquired when an emotional state of attraction leads to resistance or to a collapse. If the whole of this imprint can be felt by the dog (when dogs go into a new situation, they orient around it like homing pigeons flying in a circle when first released, trying to pick up these temperamental values of rate-of-change, most intense variable, most preyful arousal, direction of energy transfer, magnetic attunement to the variables in the moment), then I say that temperament is on/line and in this state the dog can calmly learn.

However the intensity of a past experience can be so severe that it may not be able to sense the circle in its entirety, and this could lead to avoidance or missile-lock. That the circle must become physically manifest each and every time is why when two dogs meet they must initiate it like a booting up process a computer goes through when turned on (although with fast doggy buddies it can happen so fast we may not see it.) So whenever a dog “wants” something and/or is attracted to something, this template or some lesser aspect of it is the filter it sees through, not to mention whatever physical memory is attached to the particular degree of intensity triggered by the situation at hand.

Here’s another classic example of physical memory from the wild. When the ruffed grouse is fledged, it flaps its wings rather uselessly in its first attempts to fly. It’s arousal for flow knocks itself off/balance. Then when it has chicks of its own and a predator comes around, it flaps its wings rather uselessly, the “broken wing” ruse and the predator comes after mother hen while its chicks get lost in the ground cover. The grouse isn’t cognitively trying to protect its young. It’s more attracted to the predator than usual because its prey drive is aroused by its young, but the predator has so much of a charge it knocks mother hen off/balance and so it can only express its attraction to predator with the broken wing. My rooster does the same thing when it’s courting (hassling?) the hens. It circles them in the broken wing dance.

Here’s an example of a reflexive response (rather than Drive) to physical memory from human behavior. And in the case of dysfunctional behavior we’re dealing with the analogy of a clock face for Temperament as a circle instead of the compass with the four Cardinal points since we’re dealing with an electrostatic discharge. So you could say that the clock face evolves into the compass when the flow of emotion as electrical current renders a magnetic field.

At any rate, a boy is beaten by his father and he then grows up to be a father and is going to have to contend with the physical memory of having been beaten. One might think that the tendency with intelligent human beings would be to have an undue compassion for his own son but unfortunately we know that the exact opposite is the truth. The man’s emotional battery carries the imprint of energy moving along the path of least resistance, from a place of highest resistance (father figure at 12:00 High) to a place of least resistance (young boy at 6:00 low) so that father-losing-temper-at-son is energy moving from 12:00 to 6:00. Then that boy grows up and when he finds himself at 12:00 as a father, when his young son cries, whines or acts up, he will be revisiting, compliments of his emotional battery, the exact same experience of intensity that he experienced as a boy. In his animal/emotional mind HE DEFENDS HIMSELF from his son who is causing the recapitulation of the memory, in other words, his son is his father from his animal point-of-view. The abusive father is now expressing the energy he was forced to internalize when he was helpless. Instinctively, the man accords to the predatory aspect of his son the intensity value of his father, but since his son lacks the emotional mass of his father, he now has the instinctual license to vent from 12 to 6 in accord with the imprint in his emotional battery. (Alternatively he may leave the room, go for a drive, develop a cutting wit, or even tune out in general as a means of coping.)

In the father’s animal mind, he is only defending himself from his father who is no longer present logically, but energetically certainly is within the deepest layer of his emotional battery, in the physical memory and habituated reflex of energy dis-charging from 12 High to 6 low.

Physical memory is omnipresent. It’s impossible in my view for a dog to ever have a conscious experience that hasn’t first been filtered through the template that formed in the first days of life, and then did build up some degree of physical memory; for example, the struggle that the newborn puppy experiences in the first seconds of life, which is an incredible surge of nervous intensity that can’t be grounded into smooth muscle action because the pup doesn’t even have the motor capability yet, and then being flipped over and rolled around by its mother every day for the next weeks to boot. (I am going to go into this at great depth in my next book, “Your Dog Is Your Mirror” which will be published by New World Library in fall (hopefully) 2010.) This is necessary because physical memory is the only means consciousness could evolve to reliably transmit information of an emotional content through time.

Degrees of intensity are the basis of all later sensations related to the experience of any kind of resistance whatsoever. So while a dog may have a thousand different types of experiences from a door shutting on its toes, to climbing a steep grade, to prolonged eye contact, these are all related to the intense vibrations of its central nervous system associated with the condition of being “disconnected” from the womb. And given the fractious and friction-filled reality of life on planet earth, this problem is constantly relived every time there is some degree of change in its environment. Our task is to see through the mirror of our own thoughts and see the truth of how energy moves. And there’s no better guide than the one already available to us, the animal most familiar and ubiquitous in our world, the most misunderstood animal on earth, the dog by our side.

Related posts:

1. Errors and Physical Memory
2. Why Does the Universe Do Everything In A Circle?
3. Why We Push

Because dogs are social by nature, they do everything in terms of a social or group frame of reference. This means that they don’t freely or randomly arrive at an interpretation of reality based on some kind of self-contained analysis of their experiences. They are not free to choose from a list of alternatives or possibilities that they can either look back over or cogitate on their own. They perceive; experience and learn through a filter, a networked-intelligence that affects them through the physical memory they carry, a storehouse of unresolved emotion which is not only a record of the past, but can also serve as an emotional counterbalance with those to whom they’re attracted and thereby shape the future according to desire.

Unresolved emotion as emotional ballast is a primal form of communication. Each dog imposes the physical memory it’s acquired, a data bank of resistance to the expression of emotion, a literal track record of every experience it’s ever had, onto complex objects of attraction. This puts “spin on the ball” which then affects any being it interacts with. Over a long enough period of contact, the physical memory of one is transferred to another in a process akin to emotional sonar. A dolphin can paint an object with sound waves, the return signal giving it a visual image of that object. It can then rebroadcast that returning pattern of clicks to another dolphin and now the dolphin receiving the signal sees something it’s never encountered.

Furthermore, the individual with the most emotional mass will displace the consciousness of others the most. Because humans have the highest capacity emotional batteries and live the longest and therefore acquire the most emotional mass, this means that the fundamental aspect of a dog’s behavior is the human that is in its life and most displacing its consciousness. Such a state of entrainment given the way the canine mind works, leaves but one choice available to a dog. Our dog either does what we want them to do or what we need them to do. These are their only options and it’s my goal in living with a dog to get the former from my dog as opposed to the latter, although I hasten to add that no matter how loving, enlightened or technically pure one may try to be, because of our domesticated mind with thoughts confused with feelings and wants confused with needs, we will be tested.

The lengthy discussion that follows is about how nature is a mirror and how it thereby conforms to the power of desire. While understanding this concept is not 100% necessary to training a dog, hopefully it will give you more insight about the nature of canine consciousness and this is always germane to living and working with a dog because as I’ve discovered, if we’re clear about what-we-want, our dog is clear about what-we-want him to do.

There are two main reasons why I think we should concentrate on emotion as a virtual field through which emotional beings differentiate in order to complement each other. First, until science solves the unified field problem and understands what time and gravity is: we can’t measure it and so focusing our attention on an actual field will prevent us in the near term from intersecting with mainstream science argumentatively. Whereas if we recast the functions of the genes, organs and neurons of the animal so that their larger function is to mimic this unified field then I feel bio-physicists if interested would be able to quantify this energy model and build an overwhelming circumstantial case that energy is indeed what behavior is all about. Yes there is a unified field, but we don’t have to concern ourselves with it at the moment.

The second and I think more important reason has to do with quantum mechanics, although because my understanding is quite limited in this regard, this explanation may be incomplete or in error as a basis for explaining what I’m trying to say. As Neils Bohr once said “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t understand quantum mechanics.” So then again perhaps not understanding quantum mechanics isn’t disqualifying in regards to having some thoughts on the subject.

First of all I need to emphasize that the basic problem nature as a network has to contend with in order to evolve, and since I’m maintaining that the network evolves as a whole rather than as sets of insular gene pools of the species evolving relative to each other, is that the network must constantly be expanding in deference to the 2^nd law of thermodynamics. If the network isn’t growing, it’s dying. I feel this expansion of the network is what we observe as evolution which in my view is species changing and coming in and out of existence in order to accommodate shifts within the network, in other words, the network shifts as a whole, and then species pop up to connect the new dots. I feel this explains Stephen Jay Gould’s observation of evolution as a process of “punctuated equilibrium” characterized by sudden bursts of evolution rather than it being a process of gradual, incremental change. For example, the internet began to expand in utility and ubiquity and then suddenly Amazon.com sprang into existence as a full fledged  business model absolutely unprecedented in regards to the business of selling books in brick and mortar bookstores. It may look like it came out of nowhere, but it was merely connecting two points on an expanding circle, books and book buyers, in a new way that had yet to be exploited. Therefore, dinosaurs and Neanderthals went extinct when they could no longer add new energy to the network.

The network expands, or evolves, by capturing the energy of change, which normally degrades the ordered state of systems, what’s known as entropy or “heat loss,” and then is able to turn this change into information so that the degradation of a system not only contains the seed of its own renewal but at a higher level of elaboration with more energy now available to it. It’s vital to my argument to note that the information that’s needed for capturing and harnessing the energy released by change must precede the system undergoing change otherwise that energy of change is toxic to the system. (This is why I believe that animals experience things first virtually through the effects of physical memory, and then materially by making actual contact with objects of attraction.)

For example, the sun, the moon and the earth are entrained in an auto-tuning feedback dynamic so as to form a network, a system of energy that reliably repeats itself. No matter what the earth does, how it spins, wobbles or flips on its axis, the network has the information (the physical mass and momentum of the sun) to capture and convert these shifts into synchronized movements of the network. However if too big of a planetoid were to come through the solar system and displace each planet’s orbits beyond the Sun’s capacity (information) to hold the earth in position, then that’s the end of the earth, the moon and the sun as a network. Unless the information is available to the network ahead of time so that this input can be captured and converted back into the synchronized movements of the earth, moon and sun, then the network either explodes or implodes. Likewise nature, which must change if it’s always to be expanding, can only change in a way that enables the network to capture these inputs and then harness them for its aggrandizement. It can’t even stay the same because unlike a solar system operating in the vacuum of space, a network of organisms on planet earth are always dealing with resistance and the above mentioned problem of the 2^nd law of thermodynamics. And because information must precede change, one could say that the network imposes an expectation on the environment, and this is where we return to the subject of quantum mechanics.

What’s most interesting about experiments in quantum mechanics and which in the early part of the 20^th century rocked the physical and philosophical underpinnings of humanity’s view of reality, is that an act of observation imposes an expectation on a quantum event, and to which subatomic particles then behave in a way that conforms to that expectation. And although an act of quantum measurement and an act of conscious observation are not the same, nevertheless it turns out that how one designs an experiment, for example, trying to answer the age old question as to whether light is a wave or a particle (photon), does indeed determine how light will behave. This is mind boggling because there have been experiments which demonstrated that a photon “retraced” its steps billions of light years in time and then reappeared as a different result in conformance to a cleverly designed time-delayed shift in imposing an expectation on which way a photon “chooses” to go. And while I don’t understand all the distinctions to be made between a quantum measurement and an act of observation, apparently there’s no such thing as a detached observer of nature as in the Classical view of science and the classic assumption we all have in our minds when we are watching deer grazing or dogs playing. Somehow consciousness displaces reality because as it appears from quantum experiments an act of observation unavoidably affects the quantum realm.

Now normally this kind of interference between the observer and the observed is said to only happen in terms of things that are very, very small and moving very, very fast, the tiny particles that populate the microscopic world, the sub-atomic things that make our cell phones, TV sets, GPS systems and computers work but which don’t go on to affect the everyday, macroscopic world of relatively large objects moving relatively slowly, such as deer grazing or dogs playing. For all intents and purposes Newton’s classical mechanics of mass and motion is said to hold sway in the macro-scale world. Furthermore, physicists say that our models or visualizations of the sub-atomic realm, as in the idea that electrons orbit around the nucleus of an atom on well defined tracks like planets in orbit around the sun, are idealized representations that don’t really exist. (Running in parallel to this kind of misconception is the classical interpretation in biology of a wolf pack as a dominance hierarchy.) Rather, electrons exist in a state of “superposition,” in other words they are in all places at all times as a fog or smear of energy until that is, there is an act of measurement on the quantum level. Then, such an act of quantum measurement collapses this “wave function” of probabilities and the electron leaps into an observable reality. This is called the “Uncertainty Principle” because one can never know simultaneously the two prime values of an electron, its location and its momentum, one can only say probabilistically where an electron might be found.

“Measuring the position very accurately, will affect the momentum so that we know nothing about the momentum. Conversely, the act of measuring the momentum very accurately will affect the position so we no longer know anything about the particle’s position. The more accurately we know one of these quantities, the less accurately we know the other. We can know where it is or we can know where it is going, but not both at the same time.”

http://particle-physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/heisenberg_uncertainty_principle,com

Apparently, location and momentum are inverse functions of how physical matter is organized, so if energy condenses into a single point, then of course it can’t be spread out as a wave and be everywhere at once, and if it exists as a stretched out wave, then it can’t be a single particle.

Now the reason quantum mechanics can’t be brought to bear on relatively large objects that move relatively slowly is because of the problem of “decoherence” which means that all the billions upon billions of quantum effects that are happening sub-atomically in the atoms that comprise any macro-object, interact with their environments and are cancelled out, the phenomenon of quantum entanglement dissipating. This is because as soon as the electrons within an organism get entangled with the electrons in the atoms that make up their surroundings so that there is some exchange of energy, no matter how slight: “The quantum system will inevitably become entangled with the fate of billions of particles in its environment, and this entanglement will cause decoherence (“Quantum Evolution”). The classical rules of physics now take over because the quantum mechanics that guide the tiny things (atoms, protons, electrons and neutrons) that make up the big things of everyday reality can’t accumulate to affect the way things work on our macroscopic level.

(Perhaps an example of something similar is how the magnetic domains that surround every atom don’t end up making every object magnetic because these small magnetic domains aren’t aligned along a common axis and thus end up canceling themselves out, whereas in contrast in naturally occurring magnetic rocks the sub-domains of atoms are aligned and add up to render a net magnetic charge, an overall magnetic domain as the sum result of all the tiny atomic electromagnetic dynamos.)

“Decoherence can be viewed as the loss of information from a system into the environment (often modeled as a heat bath).” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

The only way I’ve heard of quantum mechanics being applied to our macroscopic reality is with the concept of parallel universes so for example, when someone (a real person from the point of view of someone in our universe) comes to a fork in the road and they choose to go left, their quantum doppelganger in a parallel universe goes right as an expression of a quantum entanglement, and so therefore it’s theorized that we don’t exist in a universe but in a multiverse. While on the one hand this isn’t too fantastic given how weird quantum mechanics reveals itself to be, it nevertheless strikes me as more of an expedient intellectual device that distracts us from finding a more meaningful expression of quantum mechanics in the macro world. It may work out mathematically but it doesn’t really mean anything when it comes to the nuts-and-bolts of living on planet earth. (Some theorists say that even the notion of particles and time are illusory and so quantum weirdness only seems weird to us given the way our classical minds interpret reality. Because these are very intense mathematical treatments I am not able to weave my way through these competing views critically, but nevertheless I believe an accurate interpretation of animal consciousness can bring us to a more practical resolution to wit: consciousness is energy that reflects back on itself and thereby acquires a kind of “mass” that can then displace the space/time continuum. I believe that this will ultimately yield a more accurate reconciliation between the seeming paradoxes between quantum and classical treatments of nature once that is, a quantum physicist begins to understand the nature of animal consciousness as I’m attempting to explain it. I would like to convey to scientists that the more I learn of physics, the more I understand animals. Conversely, the more physicists were to learn of animals, the more they would understand physics.

My reading of animal nature suggests that the Uncertainty Principle might be more accurately called the Certainty Principle, because . . . what physicists call the Uncertainty Principle means that even though electrons have a negative charge they can’t collapse into a positively charged nucleus of an atom as they should be wont to do, because then their position and their momentum would be the same given the incredibly small scale of resolution within the nucleus of an atom. So even though we can’t predict where an electron will be in an atom, it is certain that it won’t be found in the atom’s nucleus and thanks to this principle we have electrons in quantum orbit around the nuclei of atoms and therefore we have the matter on which our reality is based. I am seeking to extend this organizing principle to the evolution of organisms because just as electrons won’t fall into the nucleus, the “Certainty Principle” guarantees that energy of change will be captured by animals and be channeled into more and more complex behaviors and social organization.

If the network is to capture the energy released in entropy, the future must be in flux, indeterminate, uncertain; not determined by a calculus projected forward predicated on current positions and momenta. Newton’s laws of motion can’t be factored out so that the future is predictable. The future must always be in some kind of shape that is capable of conforming to an expectation just as if the future is a function of random probabilities, nothing fixated in form, existing as a smear of energy stretched along a wave pattern. And yet, while the network requires an indeterminate future, this future must be determinate in the sense that it must conform to the network’s desire to expand. It cannot collapse at random. The possibility must always exist that the environment can collapse into a state beneficial to the evolution of the network, even though it’s composed of macroscopic objects that are immune to quantum mechanics and can’t be said to be in a state of quantum flux that can conform to quantum expectations since every material thing has already collapsed from the wave of infinite possibilities into a fixed state, everything has already become materially real as a tangible fixture of the natural environment, and everything that comes from that is also decidedly materially real and apparently immune to quantum expectations.

So how could the future be composed of concrete things, and yet still be functionally in an indeterminate state of flux, just as if it exists as an infinite range of random possibilities like an electron stretched out in a wave function?

The solution of this conundrum is found in the construction of the animal mind as a confluence of hunger and balance that due to the principle of emotional conductivity, this thereby allows animals to evolve from “particles” of consciousness into emotionally entangled quantum beings of one group-mind. Since the natural world in which we evolve exists on the macroscopic plane, whether we are considering its past, present or future, it is always concrete and therefore can’t actually collapse as if it is in a superposition of states. Instead it will require actual material agents of change, physical organisms and animals that can tangibly deconstruct and then reconstruct it with physical appetites and appendages, actual bone, teeth and claws – -  just as if the environment exists in a superposition of states that collapse according to a quantum measurement and an act of observation. In other words, the degradation normally associated with entropy, things collapsing and systems losing their vital heat, ends up being a form of potential energy that the network as a collectively organized web of life, captures and then harnesses in order to sustain the expansion of the network. The loss of heat in the environments’ ordered systems becomes the physical memory in the animal’s body/mind that then generates a view of its reality and which then becomes the information needed to deconstruct and reconstruct the material world so as to put that heat back into the system, only now in a more complex form.

With animals as material agents acting on it, the environment dissolves from a formed state into one that conforms to a projected expectation. If all organisms impact the environment in a coordinated manner, it is certain that the environment will “collapse” into a state that’s beneficial to the network via cycles and patterns of behavior that may take eons to radiate throughout all the ecosystems of the world, but still every action remains but a part of a whole. Even seemingly random episodes of change such as volcanoes and lightening storms will be absorbed and emotionally internalized by organisms and animals and then this energy will go on to animate and inform them as to how to interact with the environment and change it according to a network coherent standard.

We can see the signature of all this whenever any two dogs meet and greet. When dogs A and B first encounter each other, they can be considered as individuated “particles” of consciousness. As such, the first criteria guiding their interaction is that it must be determined in which direction energy will flow, from A to B or from B to A; because just as heat can only radiate from a warm object to a relatively cooler one, the two dogs must differentiate so that one has energy to give (predator=warm) and one has energy to absorb (prey=cool). This is why we experience emotion with such a strong thermodynamic component as in “hot under the collar,” “my blood ran cold:” and we describe others as being cold, warm, cool, and so on, and this is our first measure by which we apprehend such a person’s approachability.

Often we’ll see friction when the differential between two individuals isn’t immediately apparent and which is then misinterpreted as expressions of dominance and acts of competitiveness. It’s easy to misinterpret it this way because the more alike things are the more they are drawn together and the more likely there is to be friction. When dog A sees dog B, and vice versa, their respective body/minds are displaced by the appearance of the other. They are both unsettled and their sense of equilibrium can only be resolved by their counterpart. Whereas if B is inconsequential to A because their differential is so apparent, then it is less destabilized and less need to reconnect with its “self” by making contact with B.

But for purposes of our discussion let’s say that A and B are exactly alike in terms of their emotional charge and therefore we’re dealing with two static “particles” another word for which is personality. So a behaviorist might look at both A and B acting exactly alike and say that they are both dominant individuals. Whereas in my energy way of looking at it, I would say they both have the same “heat” and so therefore it’s not clear which way energy can move. In fact, within A and B, their respective Big-Brain nervous activity is perceived quite literally as heat and as pressure, the epicenter of this sensation of compression being located in their heads. And then let’s just say that they both “vent” toward the other and there’s some kind of an outburst that gives both dogs some sense of relief. NO MATTER HOW CLOSE THEY MAY BE IN TEMPERAMENT OR EXPERIENCES, THEY BOTH CAN’T EXPERIENCE THE SAME EVENT THE SAME WAY. WHY?

Because animal consciousness is the confluence of the physical and nerve energies supplied by a two-brain makeup via the hunger and balance circuitry, it is a displaceable medium, just like the space/time continuum. And just as two rocks can’t occupy the same space at the same time, until a state of “emotional entanglement” has been achieved, in other words, as “particles,” two individuals can’t both be in hunger or be in balance at the same time.

When A is displaced by the presence of B, A must now ground out Big-Brain energy (balance) into its little-brain (hunger) smooth wave action in order to feel whole again. Once displaced, A’s front end is no longer connected to its hind end and so it focuses on or moves toward B from a state of arousal (hunger). This then immediately displaces B’s balance circuitry. So arousal in A causes vulnerability in B because A will be putting pressure on B, which then sets up the same need for grounding in B and it will then focus or move toward A. This is like a game of musical chairs so that if there is an outburst at some point, by definition either A or B will be orienting from either the balance or hunger circuitry and cannot perceive the same moment the same way. Because of this, there is an immediate differential after that initial outburs. This is because the Big-Brain is primarily concerned with output to balance out the input, and the little-brain is primarily concerned with input to ground out the Big-Brain output, and so orienting from one of these perspectives will leave one individual with energy to give (predator polarity or balance) whereas the other individual will have energy to absorb (preyful polarity or hunger). So if A and B were to get into a fight, one would attribute it to a matter pertaining to balance whereas for the other it would have been triggered over a question of arousal and where they were in the loop at the moment of the outburst will profoundly affect who gets to win. Sometimes a superior physical specimen will easily be bested by what chair it got stuck with when the music suddenly stopped. But at any rate, a direction of energy transfer would have been established.

However the reason that 99.9% of these explosive outbursts don’t lead to actual violence with any real injury inflicted is because of the emotional battery and the principle of emotional conductivity. Since both individuals aren’t physically aligned and synchronized and both are objects of resistance, no matter who wins the fight they are both going to end up with more unresolved emotion than they were able to discharge and will therefore acquire an even more intense charge and feel even more incomplete even though in the immediate short term by having a fight they did indeed experience some degree of relief. We can tell that even the winning dog is left in a state of unresolved emotion because the dog does not eat what it has “made-prey” on. It is blocked by the “mirror effect” and thereby accrues more of a charge. Also we can notice that when two dogs fight and one goes belly-up, even the so called victor withdraws and shakes itself off just as does the “loser.” It’s trying to dissipate the charge it’s ended up with which it really shouldn’t have to do if by virtue of “winning” it had achieved a status of high rank. When the general pins the bars on the lieutenants lapel, the newly commissioned officer doesn’t have to shake it off.

Dogs are so sensitive that even in the midst of an explosive encounter they can sense that on a deeper level they are acquiring more compression that the relief they’re experiencing on the more surface level of awareness. This is akin to a dog’s capacity to be able to scent the perfume of a rose underneath the acrid stency of skunk spray. Relieving the energy of vibration is not the same as gaining energy because the latter requires true movement and that can only come through creating a wave form with one’s counterbalance. (And this is because it takes an external trigger to activate physical memory, the more complex and the more resistance value; the deeper the level of memory activated and brought to the surface and therefore the more profound the capacity for achieving a state of emotional suspension with the triggering agent going on to serve as the emotional counterbalance.) The complexities of the emotional battery acquiring unresolved emotion and resolving unresolved emotion according to the principle of emotional conductivity, is what motivates animals to self-modify against violence so that the vast majority of instances of aggression in the animal kingdom are ritualistic rather than lethal combat.

Once the relative heat differential is out of the way so that a direction of energy flow is established by virtue of  the delineation of the two prime traits of temperament, predator and prey, their process of differentiation will continue to evolve into a wave function that leads to each being the opposite and yet the equal to the other. I call this more complex phase “emotional ionization.” (We can also note that in this progression of a social interaction, we’re goingfrom a gravitational kind of orientation, displacement, to a thermodynamic principle (energy transfer), and now to an electromagnetic template for interrelating (ionization).) For this to happen their partner must become their counterbalance and to do that, their partner must apprehend its emotional mass in Toto, as a net sum quantitative mass rather than qualitatively in terms of its specifics. This is akin to an entrepreneur saying, “Okay, my net worth is 3.2 million, how do I leverage that to make more?” Rather than dwelling qualitatively on all the aggravation he endured and the fears he overcame in order to amass his fortune, and which might then motivate himto seek only to protect it.

To put this into behavioral context, in the pack, we are observing the particle aspect of animal consciousness so that energy radiates from the “hot” individual to one that is relatively cooler. Whereas in the group we are observing the wave aspect of animal consciousness with the emotional charge freely ping-ponging back and forth depending on emotional context.

The easiest way to induce an emotional counterpart to go by feel in real time rather than by experiencing the moment in terms of the past; is to act in a manner that is emotionally conductive to that individual, and the easiest way to do this, is to OBJECTIFY THE MIDPOINT.

By this I mean that if they can find the sweet spot between them, by monitoring the degree of compression in their heads so that it doesn’t reach the virtual bursting point, and which they then next experience that the other is doing likewise, this degree of compression (which is both a discrete distance between them as well as an intensity of bodily movement) becomes an intermediary stage of feeling connected. They’re not quite connected, but there’s a tentative auto-tuning/feedback dynamic by which they’re learning that whatever they do, is instantly reflected back at them and so by softening their approach and intensity, they get back a softened boomerang effect. (Finding the midpoint is akin to two children adjusting where they sit on a seesaw, especially if there is a weight differential, in order to achieve a stage of balance, preliminary to achieving a feeling of weightlessness.) They begin to feel that they are controlling the other by modifying their own behavior and deportment.

After this midpoint is sensed the next step is to deflect their arousal toward each other onto an object so that both individuals can feel hunger at the same time, and this is what’s happening when dogs urinate and then investigate by smelling and even licking the urine, and then begin to orbit around the scent mark as a physical manifestation of the emotional midpoint. When the midpoint becomes to take physical form, it becomes what I call the “emotional center-of-gravity,” the physical center-of-gravity projected outside the body. What’s most significant is just like a physical center-of-gravity the e-cog can be displaced onto other bodies and common objects such as large prey, or as mentioned above, simple scent marks and prey objects, and now the dog experiences the midpoint as the physical embodiment of its own physical center-of-gravity. So all of its accumulated information in its battery, is now being perceived in its totality and as something new. And when the other individual moves around the emotional cog, it feels just as if its internal physical center-of-gravity is moving within its own body and this emotional induction softens old physical memories of stress in whatever region of the dog’s body they are “remembering” their p-cog having been in. (This is also why in contravention to this effect but according to the same principle, dogs will guard a place or object from an individual it’s not synchronized with. The other individual is cutting the dog off from its feeling of connection, with its “self.” See my article on “Why do dogs fetch?” http://naturaldogtraining.com/why-dogs-do-what-they-do/why-do-dogs-fetch/ )

Just like a physical cog, the emotional cog can be displaced onto anything to which the individual feels connected and so the dog perceives others revolving around the e-cog as if its own physical center-of-gravity moving and when the wave form is fully established, the dog feels just like the kid on a seesaw experiencing weightlessness. It experiences this as new energy through the release of natural opiates in the affected body parts.

Remember that the dog still has a physical center-of-gravity in its body even with an e-cog floating around out there, (this is why and how Labs are able to “mark” successive kills left floating in the water for later retrieval in order to not disturb the overflight of ducks or geese) and so now when in a state of emotional suspension, when it references its physical center-of-gravity through its balance circuitry, there is no fear of falling, but the thrill of weightlessness/excitement and again, this makes it complementary to the other dog. For if A is in hunger, B can now choose to reference its balance without fear of falling and in this state, A and B can flip polarities rapidly and the more intensely they can do this, the deeper into the battery’s levels they can trigger, and the greater the pleasure in their interaction and the stronger the bond that can evolve between them. Now, energy is not going in one direction like a direct current (DC), it’s going back and forth like an alternating current (AC). Dogs can even have a momentary lapse and have a fight in this state, and then quickly get themselves out because it feels so noxious compared to the feeling of weightlessness they had just achieved. This is the state at which I believe an aggressive dog can be said to be healed.

Finally, when they get down to the deepest layer, this will induce them to strike out in search of an object of resistance that they can synchronize around and bring this to ground. This is the genesis of hunting or group energy. So the quantum view of social organization is distinct from the classical view of a dominance hierarchy because it reveals that canines organize according to a hierarchy of feelings, in other words, whoever wants something the most, i.e. the one with the most unresolved emotion when in a state of suspension, is the one that is most uninhibited and goes first, the rest happy to follow. The group conforms to the power of desire.

Because nature is an infinite hall of mirrors, tracing the ping/ponging of energy can appear hopelessly complex, but it is always elaborating upon a simple platform as outlined above and this can be experienced for oneself. All one has to do is go to a local playground with a friend, or better yet a child, and revisit the childhood delight of the seesaw. The greater the weight differential between partners the more instructive the exercise as it is of course remarkably easy for both parties to self-modify their position on the beam in order to achieve equivalence. By tuning in to what one is feeling in terms of balance relative to the degree of arousal (the desire for movement, i.e. wanting to ride the seesaw) creates a confluence of internal energies and by focusing on the midpoint these energies average out into a composition, a feeling. As you go through this process pay close attention to which part of your body you are referencing. From the whole body matrix of sensations that are flooding in from balance-monitoring activity, orientation in space and actual points of physical contact with the seat and handle, you can feel the body’s physical center of gravity moving from the tips of the toes to the top of the head with all of this movement ultimately averaging out into a unified feeling which I believe you will find takes up residence in your heart because only the heart can feel the midpoint. The midpoint is the catalyst to the wave function, whether it is between two people on a seesaw or whenever any two dogs meet and greet. The midpoint is therefore the source of potential energy (experienced as a state of resonance, in other words, weightlessness) and this is essential to social behavior because the feeling of potential energy is what leads to an actual flow of energy. Only the heart can feel potential energy, the Brain can’t feel a thing.

Now since all animals feel sensations related to hunger and balance exactly the same way, I think it’s easy to imagine how any two beings can potentially ascertain the midpoint between them and thus be able to communicate. The dogs experience this interaction of becoming entrained (triggering of stress that is then grounded by smoothed out wave action of its partner) just as if they are reaping an input of new energy. But there is no real energy, not yet, rather it’s the old energy of stress that’s been captured as physical memory through life experiences now being reconverted via Pavlovian conditioning when these mirroring movements of A-in-sync-with-B release the natural opiates present in every tissue of the body. (Dr. Candice Pert: “The Molecules of Emotion”)

A and B, are on what I call the quantum seesaw. Whatever one feels, the other feels the exact opposite, and then if their interaction continues to evolve they will invariably be able to reverse these “poles” so that over time they both end up feeling the same thing, resonance or weightlessness, just like two kids on a classical seesaw.

So whenever any two animals interact, they change each others’ perspective so as to complement each other. Thus, no two animals can respond to their inner quotient of unresolved emotion exactly the same, but as the mirror image to the other, equal yet opposite. Another way of saying this is that when one dog acts as a “particle” (focus due to impingement of balance) the other begins the process of nudging them both toward a “wave” (deflected due to hunger for grounding) through this mirroring back and forth process of syncopation.

It is possible however that at some point in this ping/ponging of the emotional charge going back and forth that the emotional carrying capacity of either A and/or B may be breached, at which point their feeling of attraction and synchronization will collapse from this range of indeterminate possibilities into a hardwired instinctual reflex or some previously learned habit. They will then either act on their environment or on each other (and any action directed toward another ultimately results in acting on the environment) as material agents of change in terms of how much of a wave form they were able to manifest.

But nevertheless the possibility always exists that even though they are “particles” of consciousness, individuated entities in the classical way of looking at them, the ping/ponging can continue to elaborate to a point of super-conductivity by which I mean that the deepest layer of stress in the emotional battery is smoothed out into a pure wave form as each dog acts in a manner that first triggers the deepest layers of stress, and then smooths this out so that they next evolve into an emotionally entangled pair of beings, in synchronized movement and disposition with each other as a permanent kind of wave function, what we recognize as an unbreakable emotional bond. We could call them “paired-photons” so that no matter how far from direct contact they may be from each other, they will perceive their situation from the perspective of their complementary part of the group mind as imprinted via their respective physical memories. (I believe that when two individuals become emotionally entangled by being able to flip polarity without resistance in order to complement that to which they’re attracted, that electrons arcing across synaptic gaps in the two brains do indeed become paired in a state of quantum entanglement, creating what I call an “emoton” and this quantum state is what takes up residence in the heart which we feel as weightlessness or resonance and is reflected in the way we speak: (“high on life” “feet ten feet off the ground” “walking on air” etc., etc.)

Here’s an example of two dogs as paired emotons. Last summer various members of my family made three separate trips to our camp in Maine. The first two trips my male GSD “Hessian” went along while I remained behind with his littermate, “Hexe.” The camp has sliding glass doors with screen sliders and Hessian could never get the “idea” that it wasn’t enough to just see an open glass door: there could still remain a closed screen door. He was constantly running into the screen door and derailing it. At the very end of the summer, my wife and I returned to Maine with both dogs. It was Hexes’ first trip to the camp. I let them out of the car and Hexe runs up on the deck while Hessian jumps in the lake. I open the glass as well as the screen door to let her inside but no dice, she won’t cross the threshold. It was just as if she had picked up the vibe of the head-butting screen door just by being in the presence of Hessian back home in Vermont. And while Hessian is charged to go through the opening: Hexi holds, by default, the equal and yet opposite charge of holding back. No matter how much I sweet talked her to join me inside, she refused to enter. So I went to the back of the camp and opened the regular, wooden door and she came in without hesitation. After a few days she got over the impasse but it was fascinating how Hexe had picked up hesitation-at-screen door just as if she had run into it even though she had never seen one before, and then responded to the incident completely different as the equal and yet opposite to Hessian. Two dogs going through the screen slit was wonderful example of a quantum canine two-dog version of the two-slit photon experiment.

From such a state of emotional entanglement will emerge a group mind and all in the group will respond to all things in this syncopated manner even when they are not together because their perception will always be affected by the residual influence of physical memory that each have “tuned” in the other, and so they will perceive any resistance or change they subsequently encounter as the equal and yet opposite of their paired mate. So because Hessian had already occupied the active/direct polarity relative to the charge of the screen door, Hexe took up station at the reactive/indirect polarity relative to that charge. In this way, when a group of wolves confront a moose, each wolf will focus on a different part of the moose’s body as an access point for their drive.

And taking a look through a more wide-angled lens, from an ecological perspective, through this syncopated style of action, which can entangle more and more individuals into a common bond, this wave function will radiate out into their environment and replicate in other places and individuals if the conditions end up being emotionally conductive in such interactions. And in this highly energized state, all animals swept along and synchronized into this wave form will ultimately perceive and then act on their environment in a coordinated manner. The composition of an entire ecosystem can thus shift due to an emotional wave form of the group mind.

“After an absence of 70 years, wolves were re-introduced to Yellowstone Park in 1995, and elk populations began a steady decline, cut in half over the past decade. Also, the presence of a natural predator appears to have altered the behavior of the remaining elk, which in their fear of wolves tend to avoid browsing in certain areas where they feel most vulnerable. The two factors together have caused a significant reduction in elk browsing on young aspen shoots, allowing them to survive to heights where some are now above the animal browsing level.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070726150904.htm

The arousal of wolves counterbalanced by vulnerability in elk: a quantum seesaw that materially affects the ecosystem. In other words, it wasn’t that the numbers of prey had declined and this saved the aspens, rather the elk were afraid of going into the wooded areas even when not hunted and this feeling, or wave form, allowed the aspens to regenerate. So animals materially affect the environment by mechanically decomposing it and then recomposing it, but my belief is that this is always in a way that adds new energy to the network.

In the short term when dog A meets dog B, there is no new energy even though from the point of view of A and B they would swear they are indeed experiencing it, but what the individual is actually feeling is the physical stress memories being released by pleasure chemicals, and this then animates and informs them how to respond to change—via the group mind—and it is this syncopated, social style of orientation that will indeed in the long term beget actual energy to their material benefit. First comes the emotional gratification, the virtual energy; then comes the actual gratification, the real energy. Notice that this is exactly how the digestive process works. We feel weak which then motivates us to eat, even though we truly haven’t depleted the body’s energy reserves, and then as soon as we’ve eaten and before anything is actually digested with energy being delivered to the cells, we nonetheless feel renewed and energized. The virtual preceding the actual.

Any given animal’s view of reality will be distorted by their mind being organized according to network protocols, so that animals interact with their environment in a coordinated way in accord with the network’s expectation for expansion.

Animals perceive their surroundings via the prism of preyful and predatory aspects, and if they become entangled they will experience their reality through complementary perspectives in terms of how their physical memories affect them. They become like polarized photons. One will focus on the predatory aspect, the other on the preyful aspect, one will be more concerned with balance and the other with hunger and these perspectives can constantly shift depending on context and the two dog’s relationship to each other in any given moment. If their emotional capacities allow them to elaborate to the highest level (i.e. resolve deepest layer of unresolved emotion) they will then set out to impact their surroundings in terms of this complementary style of perception. This phenomenon while easiest to observe, test and demonstrate with dogs, must be a wholesale, network-wide phenomenon and not specific to dogs as that wouldn’t make evolutionary sense. It’s simply easiest to see in dogs since they go more by feel, less by instinct (and not at all by thought) than any other animal on earth.

Therefore, given the malleability of perspective, it’s just as if the material world is indeed in a virtual state of flux, in a superposition of states even though it is composed of macroscopic objects that for all intents and purposes are absolutely fixed in static form. Animals have no logical interpretation of reality because their minds are composed in a manner that is plastic and relative to emotional context so that their perception of external objects and beings will always be in a state of flux. And if an animal could think in such terms, it appears to an animal just as if the environment is always in a state of flux, quite literally as if it exists within a superposition of states. This is why a dog doesn’t feel that the head bone is necessarily connected to the neck bone, to the backbone and the tail bone, or that its front end is necessarily connected to its hind end.

Emotion is consciousness’ solution of the unified field problem and ensures that nature conforms to the power of desire. Organisms and animals synchronize in terms of a common desire (resolve unresolved emotion: E–>UE–>RE) and it’s just as if the environment is in a state of superposition because it ends up shifting through the coordinated action of every living thing to conform to this universal desire. Energy becomes emotional mass that then becomes a wave form to which the environment does then conform. Desire is the information that causes change to be fortuitous rather than deleterious. Nature “wants” unresolved emotion to be resolved, and so too does your dog.

So I’m not focusing on an actual field of energy because that doesn’t address the problem of decoherence for material objects. We’re still stuck with the multiverse and that particles aren’t really particles, and there’s no such thing as quantum jumps and leaps, that these are nothing more than tricks of the classically conditioned eye, not to mention how then can the future, if indeterminate and since it contains macroscopic objects, therefore conform to the intangible force of desire since the actual environment is already fixated into material form and not able to be in a state of superposition? Something tangible has to affect the material world and this is the function of organisms operating on the macro-scale. They are emotionally designed so that they will mechanically impact the material world and change it with tangible, physical actions but again, only in accord with the desire of emotionally entangled beings implementing a universal wave form.

To put it another way, the impact of physical memory on the neurology and physiology of animals IS quantum mechanics playing out in the macroscopic world. Because animals physically interact with the world and learn according to the E–>UE–>RE emotional continuum, it’s just as if all the quantum effects happening within an animal on the cellular level remain coherent and can then bubble up to the surface to be expressed in behavior.

The physical actions of animals are organized just as if they are experiencing a field of energy, so that they can model change virtually before putting it into mechanical motion. They make no logical sense of change, rather change changes the way they feel toward other animals and this ultimately factors out into a wave function. Every action adds up into a whole, all the tiny virtual microscopic quantum effects going on in their physical systems, in effect total up through their behavior into one coherent whole animating and informing animals to materially affect their surroundings so that it is shaped to fit the network’s expectation.

This is why an emotional charge is intensified and compounded in a wolf pack or grouping of dogs instead of being canceled out. All one needs to do in order to observe a wave form evolving into existence, is go to a local dog run where the dogs haven’t yet sorted out the complementary trait basis of relationships. You will see one of the dogs beginning to play by making itself conductive (because it is referencing its hunger circuitry) and then it goes forward and attempts to knock over another dog’s sense of balance, i.e. dislodge it from its particle nature. Little by little the other more tentative dogs will soften as juices start flowing and you will see a wave form start to emerge, its development characterized by surges and collapses, fits and starts, until a coherent wave form becomes fully entrenched in what we see as playing but is really the beginning of entanglement.

By being complementary to one another, there is a coupling of charge which allows ten wolves of one mind to accomplish far more than the sum of their parts, because they can bring their combined emotional charge to bear on complex objects of resistance, such as a defensive formation of Musk ox. The relationship that evolved between canine and man is the ultimate network expression of this synergistic dividend.

Since physical memory crystallizes around the physical center-of-gravity as the basis of an emotional charge (e-cog), and since the physical center-of-gravity can move anywhere within a body, be shared by beings, and move outside and leap from one being to another, the attendant physical memories attached to the e-cog also going with it, all of these effects leading to more and more advanced forms of social organization, it turns out that there is indeed quantum tunneling and leaps going on in the macroscopic world of tangible reality. We can see it whenever dogs meet and greet and in every dog run in every town and city across the country.

Instead of thinking of parallel universes in order to incorporate quantum weirdness into our interpretation of reality, we could think of animals (and even bacteria and protozoa) as carriers of an emotional charge and therefore as virtual leptons, bosons, electrons, photons because depending on what aspect of emotion they are contending with, they act just as if they are leptons, bosons, electrons, photons, protons, neutrons, atoms and molecules and all manner of micro-electromagnetic systems that turn mass into information. (Physical objects becoming emotional centers-of-gravity; and interestingly particle physicists call their growing stable of sub-atomic particles a “zoo.”)

I don’t believe we have to be a particle physicist working on the Hadron Collider in Switzerland to see inside the atom. Animals are sub-atomic particles, carriers of a charge that makes quantum leaps from one animal to another and can be said to exist in a superposition of all states, and the emotional center-of-gravity (attached to p-cog via Pavlovian conditioning) does tunnel just as does the electron through material objects as if by magic. We are living within the wave function: we are actually inside the universe’s greatest linear particle accelerator, nature, and our best guide is our dog. The emotion we feel inside us is the amorphous smear of energy not yet in form until a feeling emerges allowing us to entangle with the environment, unless and until this either collapses into a thought, habit or instinct. A feeling will always continue to evolve through the principle of emotional conductivity (E–>UE–>RE) into new emotional bonds which animates and informs us how to affect others and ultimately our surroundings.

If we were next to consider that what we perceive of as time is not segmented into a series of chunks as in minutes, hours, days, years, epochs; millennia and so on, but rather one continuous, contiguous sheet of energy, then nature is in a state of superposition even though it is constituted by relatively large objects going relatively slowly. Given the two-brain bipolar makeup with heart as the network brain that implements quantum effects, every animal is a potential carrier that can manifest a universal charge and which zips around the psyches of animals leaping from one to the other changing energy states and in ways that can be mechanically measured. At some point when its capacity is breached it collapses into an instinct, habit or a feeling, but then the feeling reconstitutes itself just like a light wave in the effects this collapse has on other individuals affected by that behavior.

I have seen a dog “know” where coyotes are on a far ridge, and a canine handler at the Stamford Hospital, Tony, relayed to me how he was pulled by his dog, “Lord,” with the wind at their back and the dog not scenting whatsoever, across a huge parking lot to a car where a man had just committed suicide after the ambulance brought his wife, who it turned out he had murdered, to the ER. I believe the dog felt the discontinuity in the field which is basically what protection training a dog sensitizes them to apprehend in criminals.

The following is a common way for owners to explore the quantum phenomenon with their own dog. When I first start a dog in hide ‘n seek with its owner, I hold the dog and the owner runs away. Once they go far enough so that they’re out of sight, they then turn off the trail and hide behind a wall or a tree about 30 feet in. Typically as the owner is running off, the dog is barking, whining and pulling on his lead and by the time I let him go, all he is focused on is where he last saw his owner and he is so excited when I finally let him loose that he’s just looking and not smelling whatsoever. I run along behind the dog and then what happens in most cases is truly amazing. When the dog hits the exact spot on the trail where the owner turned off, a turn the dog couldn’t see because the owner was out of sight when they turned off the trail, and again without scenting, the dog stops dead in its tracks just as if it has hit some kind of a wall. Invariably it then turns in the exact direction the owner went, just as if the owners’ movement had carved a tunnel through an invisible medium. The dog still isn’t using its nose and I can’t even say it’s really looking. Its eyes have this zoned out, glazed over non-focused disposition as it follows this “displacement” until however, the sight and overt presence of its owner overrides its capacity to feel this distortion in the continuum or field of energy. The dog jumps all over his owner happy to be reunited.

But what’s particularly interesting however is that once the dog gains some experience and capability with the hide ‘n seek exercise, the dog shifts over fully to the senses of sight and smell, and in fact before it’s really good at the scenting part, when it becomes confused because the problem is too hard, rather than being able to resort to its infallible sense of the invisible field, instead it will fall back on sight which most often merely deepens its state of confusion. It starts running around more and more frantically, revisiting previous finds, sometimes even heading back to the last place it felt its owner, I once had a dog run all the way back to the parking lot where the car was. Also, with the police dogs I trained that became expert at S&R, they never ever fell back on using their infallible quantum capacity over their sense of smell, other than these out of the blue situations such as with Tony and Lord. They always relied on their nose when working out arduous problems.

Concordant with this phenomenon I believe, are those rare instances when dogs navigate a vast unknown to rejoin an owner, sometimes after its owner had in the interim been forced to move across the country. I believe that all dogs are capable of this but the ones that are real friendly, will end up in some family along the wayside before they get hungry enough to work this out, whereas the one that are too frightened will be overwhelmed and won’t be able to tune in whatsoever.

So why isn’t this infallible faculty a dog’s primary means of apprehension? I think the reason dogs invariably resort to their material senses is because the fundamental function of animal consciousness is to affect the material world by solving the problem of decoherence through an emotional/physical process as this is how the network expectation is imposed on the material world. I think the most evolved capacity of the Big-Brain in the head is to tune out most information. So while I do agree there is a field of energy that animals can tap into, nonetheless I believe this is secondary. The real purpose of animals is to materially affect the material world in concordance with the principles of quantum mechanics so that the material world can be made to conform to the network’s desire for expansion. Einstein was right, Dog does not play dice with the network.

Physical memory imposes the past on the present thereby determining the future so that nature will conform to the power of desire. Even though dogs are creatures of the immediate moment, and even if every day yields nothing more than the same-old-same-old, “oh-boy-oh-boy-oh-boy,” a dog sure can’t wait until tomorrow.

Related posts:

1. Definitions
2. Why do dogs howl?
3. Distinctions Between Emotion and Feelings