# Kevin, you keep using that word.

Science deniers can massage nonsense all they want but in the end there is no escaping they’re holding a turd; case in point Kevin Behan’s reply to Dr. Abrantes’ most recent post on muzzle grabbing, itself based on a 2012 post.

Behan begins with the false claim that Abrantes “has projected a complex human psychology about social status into the minds of canines in order to account for the behavior.

Of course if he bothered to learn the meaning of ‘dominance’ and ‘fitness’ he wouldn’t make this ridiculous accusation. It’s Behan who is doing the projecting.

After rejecting the explanation by Abrantes, he offers one of his own and writes:

But there is a far more parsimonious answer once we understand the inverse relationship between emotion and stress, the interplay of these two aspects of consciousness being responsible for complex behaviors, such as why one dog might muzzle grab another.

So his parsimonious answer is to invent relationships about stress and emotion?

$EMOTION \propto \frac{1}{STRESS}$

And stress in an aspect of consciousness? It’s times like these when Behan’s BS comes down on his head burying him under piles of gibberish. Clearly ‘stress’ doesn’t mean the same thing it does to the rest of the English speaking world. In  “Your Dog is Your Mirror”, Behan provides his nonsensical definition of stress.

Stress is the physical memory of a positive attraction that wasn’t consummated and is then to be triggered by fear.

So the inverse of “a positive attraction that wasn’t consummated and is then to be triggered by fear” is emotion? Paint me dubious.

Again from his book:

A dog’s consciousness derives from its participation in one overarching will that is enabled by emotion and informed by feelings

And

I interpret emotion as a networked consciousness

Since Behan was the one who introduce mathematical relationships, let’s do a little mathematical substitution and test his parsimonious explanation.

But there is a far more parsimonious answer once we understand the inverse relationship between emotion and stress, the interplay of these two aspects of consciousness being responsible for complex behaviors, such as why one dog might muzzle grab another.

Becomes the recursive:

But there is a far more parsimonious answer once we understand the inverse relationship between a networked consciousness and the physical memory of a positive attraction that wasn’t consummated, the interplay of these two aspects of one overarching will that is enabled by emotion [networked consciousness] and informed by feelings being responsible for complex behaviors, such as why one dog might muzzle grab another.

Yeah. It’s parsimony-rific.

Related Links

Advertisements

## 5 thoughts on “Kevin, you keep using that word.”

1. Roger Abrantes is a man of science with loads of “hands on the job” experience.Behan should rather try to learn what he can from him.

2. If you can’t spell their name then I doubt you understand the research.

3. For a man of so many WORDS against others, I find it hard to digest any ounce of credibility for someone who lacks any creativity at all other than in attacking others. You’re witty and cunning and makes for superficial entertainment, but there is a lack of heart. I actually find that my mind is even more open minded to someone such as Kevin Behan after reading your articles because you have proven that he IS creative and anyone willing to go out and develop something unique makes me inquisitive. Its those willing to pioneer that discover new ground, not those standing on stale ground complaining.

• It’s unfortunate you lack the insight to see why his recursive definition – emotion is consciousness is emotion is consciousness is emotion is conscious…. – is so utterly worthless. It’s also too bad you lack the means to understand that pointing out this shortcoming are not ‘words against’ Behan. There is nothing unique about Behan’s garbage, he is repackaging some outdated ideas about animals from the middle ages, a touch of hydrodynamic behavior model and new age obscurantism. Feel free as you “pioneer” with 15th C thinking.

BTW you contradict yourself by first stating I have no “creativity” but then writing I’m “witty and cunning” Though this could explain why you are so easily taken by a con-man and his cheap sophistry.

Comments are closed.