3 ms·

> he groundbreaking part of the experiment was that it showed there are responses which are not part of the conscious mind and which are not willingly controlla

> he groundbreaking part of the experiment was that it showed there are responses which are not part of the conscious mind and which are not willingly controllable by the conscious mind. That's... interesting. How did they know that? Did they interview the dogs and ask them if they actively and consciously decide to produce saliva? Did they ask the dogs to try to surpass the reflex and the dogs failed to do it? Is "dogs have human-like conscious mind" even a scientific consensus?

estearum 8mo ago
Your opposing theory is that the dogs consciously chose to salivate?
- raincole 8mo ago
  The parent commenter's claim is: > The key discovery is that there is a physiological reaction which cannot be suppressed anymore consciously. My opposing theories are 1. dogs don't have conscious minds that are similar to humans' so the whole experiment can't be extrapolated to humans or 2. dogs can suppress it consciously if they really want, like we can suppress the 'hanger reflex', it's just we don't have a way to tell dogs to do that I really don't know how Pavlov experiment nullified these theories, and if it did, why "training animals to do circus tricks" didn't. Are we sure 'doing circus tricks' is equal to consciousness, and how?
dust42 8mo ago
Actually Pavlov did research about the digestive system for which he got the Nobel prize of medicine a few years earlier. > Did they interview the dogs and ask them if they actively and consciously decide to produce saliva? > Is "dogs have human-like conscious mind" even a scientific consensus? That's exactly the point - once you have understood the significance of the experiment you understand that it is not important: A veteran with PTSD can have a surge in adrenaline, heart rate, and cortisol when hearing a car backfiring but he can not suppress it. Whether the dog was conscious or not about the salivation is completely and utterly irrelevant. In 1907 this was for the first time evidence of a mind-body connection not being accessible to the consciousness. Seriously, forget about the dog. This is all proven beyond any doubt for conscious humans. Nobody cares about what the dog felt. Associative learning was already known at that time which in its simple form is just circus tricks. The experiment extended this to physiological responses which are not accessible to consciousness in humans.
- GoblinSlayer 8mo ago
  Isn't it because stimulus is fast? A slow stimulus like arachnophobia is manageable.
- moi2388 8mo ago
  That’s not the point at all. It’s not about consciousness or being able to suppress it, or for example neurofeedback training or exposure therapy wouldn’t work either. It’s about transference of an innate stimulus response mechanic which can be transferred to another stimulus if paired in quick succession of the original stimulus, thereby eliciting the same response. It says absolutely nothing about this being conscious or not, or impossible to suppress.

estearum 8mo ago

Your opposing theory is that the dogs consciously chose to salivate?

raincole 8mo ago
The parent commenter's claim is: > The key discovery is that there is a physiological reaction which cannot be suppressed anymore consciously. My opposing theories are 1. dogs don't have conscious minds that are similar to humans' so the whole experiment can't be extrapolated to humans or 2. dogs can suppress it consciously if they really want, like we can suppress the 'hanger reflex', it's just we don't have a way to tell dogs to do that I really don't know how Pavlov experiment nullified these theories, and if it did, why "training animals to do circus tricks" didn't. Are we sure 'doing circus tricks' is equal to consciousness, and how?

dust42 8mo ago

Actually Pavlov did research about the digestive system for which he got the Nobel prize of medicine a few years earlier. > Did they interview the dogs and ask them if they actively and consciously decide to produce saliva? > Is "dogs have human-like conscious mind" even a scientific consensus? That's exactly the point - once you have understood the significance of the experiment you understand that it is not important: A veteran with PTSD can have a surge in adrenaline, heart rate, and cortisol when hearing a car backfiring but he can not suppress it. Whether the dog was conscious or not about the salivation is completely and utterly irrelevant. In 1907 this was for the first time evidence of a mind-body connection not being accessible to the consciousness. Seriously, forget about the dog. This is all proven beyond any doubt for conscious humans. Nobody cares about what the dog felt. Associative learning was already known at that time which in its simple form is just circus tricks. The experiment extended this to physiological responses which are not accessible to consciousness in humans.

GoblinSlayer 8mo ago
Isn't it because stimulus is fast? A slow stimulus like arachnophobia is manageable.
moi2388 8mo ago
That’s not the point at all. It’s not about consciousness or being able to suppress it, or for example neurofeedback training or exposure therapy wouldn’t work either. It’s about transference of an innate stimulus response mechanic which can be transferred to another stimulus if paired in quick succession of the original stimulus, thereby eliciting the same response. It says absolutely nothing about this being conscious or not, or impossible to suppress.