🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1256@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes:
>In article <338@lloyd.camex.uucp>, kent@lloyd.camex.uucp (Kent Borg) writes:
>> did humans have any need for the abstract concepts of left and right?
>
>I'm not at all convinced that the concept of left and right is very abstract.
>
>This suggests an interesting experiment... using various animals,
>test to see which ones can be trained to distinguish between left
>and right.  If a dog can understand the concept, it's probably not too
>abstract.

I talked to a sheepdog owner/trainer about this very point.  She said that
they can train a dog to circle clockwise or counterclockwise around the
sheep, on symbolic command (whistle sequences, or words).  Apparently, the
dogs have a 'natural' tendency to stay opposite their master (surrogate
alpha-male?) when trying to control domestic (surrogate prey?) animals.
So, if the trainer moves clockwise, so will the dog, and if they move
counter clockwise, the dog does too.  So, they induce the dogs behavior and 
give the associated command, until they learn the command.

Martin Garnder, in "The Left Handed Universe", said that clockwiseness and
handedness are equivalent concepts (i.e., given one, you can define the
other), and called the general property "parity".

Now, left-right is by far the least salient of our three orthogonal axes.
Up-down dominates, and front-back is obvious.  I think we have to be
'trained' on left-right, too, and that it is not as 'natural' as the others.
I know I have trouble, and almost always have to think about it, and check
my wrists for watches!

David Mark, Geography
dmark@cs.buffalo.edu