Check Out Lee's Latest Blog

At the risk of sounding like a mutual admiration society, (but if we don’t who will?) Lee has eloquently and concisely articulated virtually the breadth of the discussion of evolution, consciousness, and the phenomenon of the modern family dog in one article.

Again, we’re not saying that dog’s aren’t intelligent, we’re exploring the possibility of a group consciousness and if we want to extrapolate to a broader metaphysics, if consciousness is energy, in other words if one believes they have a consciousness that supersedes the form and material matter of their physical makeup, then the principles of consciousness are very likely the same principles as energy and therefore physics would be our entry point. Physics would be the mind of God playing out through the process of evolution. And if we want to know what God is “thinking” we might try divining the principles of physics in one of the most spectacular feats of creation that has evolved, the dog by our side.

Click here for access to the article.

Published July 31, 2010 by Kevin Behan
Tags: , ,

9 responses to “Check Out Lee's Latest Blog”

  1. Wow. Wish I’d come up with that last line!

    Thanks Kevin,

    LCK

  2. Christine says:

    I have read Lee’s article and found many of his arguments persuasive; except where he refers to organisms evolving into higher forms. If we are all evolved from a singular point, why is it that only within ‘kinds’ can breeding take place? When I look at the universe on a macro or a micro scale, I see the beauty of design at all levels. Evolution calls for blind and/or random chance. I agree that there is change, after all that’s what happens with conception, but that is a far cry from evolution. To say that humans evolved from apes/chimps is inaccurate. Humans are a ‘kind’ all to themselves (and yes I do believe that Adam & Eve were real, historical people). Canines have a number of branches in their family tree and so, within this ‘kind’, interbreeding is successful (i.e. wolves/dogs can interbreed and produce offspring that can procreate; whereas donkeys/horses interbreed and their offspring are sterile.) Evolution as a process of change I readily embrace as “…the scene of this world is changing.”(1Cor 7:31) And so, might I add, is the Universe. However, I am convinced that we are the product of Creative Thought, Intelligent Design by a Creator, an Individual, a Person. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it‼ LOL ☺

  3. What you’re saying about higher forms is true on a certain level. There are many lower life forms whose physical configurations within the overall scheme of evolution, haven’t changed a whit since who knows when. (I recently came across a study that purports to determine how and whether certain types of bacteria have changed or not changed over the eons.)

    And you’re right about dogs. There are many other life forms too, who — at least as we can presently determine — have stayed within a certain basic part of the overall fractal pattern of evolution as a whole, while still displaying fractal similarities to others within their particular phylum, etc. (Dogs are the most fractalized animal on the planet!)

    I’m sure you’re right about there being some kind of design (or designer) involved, but that subject is way above my pay grade.

    LCK

  4. Heather says:

    The article is great, Lee. It is good to hear slightly different angles regarding the same topics.

    Becoff (sp?) Is interesting – though his agenda does not leave him open to all possibilities. Even assuming for argument’s sake that dogs think (as we’ve defined thinking above, and to be clear I don’t believe that they do), there is no reason why the NDT metaphysics is false, I see tthe force of attraction as the organizing principle of all sentient beings, including humans. The physics is the same, but human behavior would at first appear to defy the physics, because of how ignorant (meant factually, not as a derogatory statement) we are about our own natures. Imagine as Sean does a world where we’re all inthe zone all the time, I think the physics would be more evident.

  5. Heather says:

    Re Bekoff, I think that humanizing animals serves the overarching “greater good” of raising awareness of the ways we are all connected. If people see animals as different from us only in degree, and see them in spiritual terms, then they will have more respect (ie, not eat them). So he’s going at it from the top down like Whitehead. I personally go at things from the bottom up, which I think is what NDT does. Both are dissatisfied with behavioral science’s approaches.

  6. Heather says:

    Also as a vegetarian myself, I am all for people taking the time to consider their food choices (although that’s where I’d leave it). I do think though that dogs being of a group mind, and of their owner’s heart, is far more romantic than them being self-contained thinking beings, so I remain confused about how one can see NDT as reducing the dog to a machine, unless there is no real understanding of what NDT is saying…

  7. kbehan says:

    @burl …anything w/ more than 2 or 3 links goes into the spam folder by default. too many links is an indication of spam comment to the computer algorithm.

  8. sean says:

    aside from the mid 80’s soundtrack, ndt has little in common w/ ramtha! i know, since i grew up around ndt. ndt as a philoshpy/method is born out of dog washing, walking, (un)training and the other nitty, gritty doggie duty details.

    my understanding of burls objection, and heather’s question, (dog as robot) concerns the level of determinism in ndt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

    i think that it is just a philosophical abstraction anyway. but ndt doesn’t consider dogs as robots bc of emotion, i.e., emotion as a network intelligence. as @kbehan says “it takes two to have a feeling” therefore, we have a dynamic, ever changing and evolving, real time free will machine (i.e., self determination)… so long as fido isn’t in a vacuum, isolation chamber.

    it seems self evident to me that emotion is a shared experience. and that emotion is intelligent, it seems to have strong opinions… as long as you don’t consider emotion merely chemical driven, irrational subconscious. this position would be very a deterministic one, imo!

    ndt is saying… that emotion is real. it is not just a romantic idea. it has principles and we can see them in dogs… precisely because they don’t think (i.e., have a processing level above their emotional experience like we humans do) we can see it in the raw. dogs unlike humans, when we have a feeling, can mask it w/ complicated reasoning and perform actions based on intention. they feel, they do.

  9. Heather says:

    “Push It” by Salt & Peppa, that would spice up the pushing exercise a little.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: