A Fractal Pattern
What excites me about my energy model is that I believe I’ve discovered a constantly repeating fractal expression of behavior: a simple and easily recognizable module that constantly repeats itself to factor out more and more complex behaviors and ultimately, a social and cooperative nature. Since all of nature seems to be an expression of just such fractals, from the “golden ratio” that is evident in the anatomy of mollusks to human beings, the spreading circulation systems that are found in watersheds, lungs, to tree branches and root systems, the photo-voltaic effect that empowers all green plants, the two pairs of amino acids that make up every gene, I’m convinced that this must be true of behavior as well.
In my view this behavioral fractal is an expression of how energy moves in nature, from a place or pole of higher concentration, to a place or pole of lesser, an “action potential” that constantly recapitulates itself so as to realize more energy through complex social behavior. I am using the term energy exactly as science does, as an action potential, the same energetic dynamic by which our nerves and cells function and so it seems sensible we might find this same organizing principle in the behavior of animals as well. The advantage to an energy interpretation (as fantastic as this might sound) is that it allows us to see inside the mind of the dog. (We might recall that simply by studying the radiation of heat from a warm object as a function of energy, the “ultraviolet catastrophe” this ultimately allowed physicists to see inside the atom and divine the existence of the photon. And this came well before there were linear particle accelerators.)
My search for a fractal pattern for behavior came from a belief that evolution is correct, that which is complex evolved from that which is simple, that the formed evolved from the unformed, in other words, energy. I was also searching because I saw that the current models for behavior didn’t encompass all the evidence and failed to articulate just such a fractal building block.
On the other hand, and understandably, if one believes that dogs are all figured out by science, then one wouldn’t see the need for a new theory of behavior. So I postulate my energy idea, a few people see the sense of it, at least in part, because it’s very hard at first to apprehend it in its totality, it only took me three decades, but the majority in the mainstream say it is ridiculous or an over-complication of what already has been said.
I have posed a number of questions which the folks who say an energy theory is ridiculous or irrelevant have so far failed to address. For example, why does a dog sit for a cookie, or is afraid of slippery floors, or lifts its leg, and so on. On my last site I had a questionnaire that I will dust off and fix the wording so the points are clearer, but again, there is criticism without exposition. When I talk about the eye contact technique as revealing how the canine mind as an energy circuit works, the experts say this is merely operant conditioning, and yet the technique doesn’t have to be conditioned so it’s as if we are speaking two different languages wherein the same words mean different things. If something doesn’t require conditioning, how can it be Operant conditioning?! I invite someone from the dominance or Operant perspective to explain precisely why my explanation for why-a-dog-sits-for-a-cookie or looks-into-eyes-for-access (flipping of emotional polarity) is ridiculous or overly complex by way of explaining why in their view a dog, and only a dog, sits for a cookie or looks-in-your-eyes without training. In short, what’s going on inside the dog?