A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, I added the word "gait", but he implied that movement was not included in the following paragraph:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality p. 122

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight
distance away cannot identify his master. If the eyes were a sense; if
an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic
nerve then he would recognize his master instantly as he can from
sound and smell. In fact, if he was vicious and accustomed to
attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his sense
of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no way of
identifying his master’s face even if every feature was lit up like a
Christmas tree, and would attack.

Did he perform any experiment to test his prediction? No.

Have others performed such experiments? Yes.

Did those experiments confirm his prediction? No.

Does he support his claim that dogs would recognize faces if they see afferently? No.

Is there any reason to think that claim is true? No.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Dogs recognizing their masters from pictures has NOTHING to do with the mechanism of vision, as you inadvertently conceded in your earlier post.

You're right. It has to do with cognition and language ability, which is what Lessans was trying to explain. If the eyes were a sense organ, dogs should be able to recognize their master from a picture, just as they recognize their masters from smell and sound, but this is a cognitive skill that dogs don't have, which is why their sense of smell and hearing is better than humans.

[The Lone Ranger]

And your evidence that dogs can't recognize that a photograph of their master is a photograph of their master is ... that dogs don't respond to a photo of their master as if it was their master.


How many people do you know who respond to a photo of a loved-one as if it was their loved-one?

By your own "logic," it is thus proved that people do not have the cognitive ability to recognize loved-ones in photographs.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You have to stop just dropping unsupported claims like that. WHY not? What was wrong with the test?

Remember Peacegirl - switch on the brain before responding! She did NOT recognize the gait - she did not recognize me at all!

There is little chance to recognize anyone's "gait" as I have tall hedges all along the front of my house. You pretty much appear suddenly at the gate, to an observer at the window. Nor does that explain the enthusiastic behaviour long before she can smell me. Both my dogs can tell family from strangers easily, from sight alone. Even if they are standing still at the gate!

Just because she gets excited as you round the corner doesn't mean she actually recognizes your features and knows positively that it is you. She probably is use to the routine, which is her cue. My friend's cat use to sit by the door at 8:00 sharp every night waiting for her owner to come home from work. Of course, if someone else came in, she would know immediately that it wasn't him because of the person's smell.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right. It has to do with cognition and language ability, which is what Lessans was trying to explain. If the eyes were a sense organ, dogs should be able to recognize their master from a picture, just as they recognize their masters from smell and sound, but this is a cognitive skill that dogs don't have, which is why their sense of smell and hearing is better than humans.

You've just tried to agree with me by repeating the very claim that you yourself just refuted. If it has to do with cognition and language ability, then it is FALSE that the eyes being a sense organ should be sufficient for dogs to recognize their owners from a picture. Dogs might instead have afferent vision but lack the relevant cognitive/language ability instead.

And if dogs having efferent vision is supposed to explain this (non-existent) lack of facial-recognition skills in dogs, how come WE can recognize faces despite (allegedly) seeing efferently?

The two issues of facial recognition and efferent vs. afferent vision are COMPLETELY independent.


And... How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

He won't turn out to be right. He has already turned out to be wrong. Real-time vision is impossible, as amply demonstrated by your inability to posit any coherent and consistent model capable of answering my questions about it.

Unless those photons were always at the film, or came into existence at the film, then they did have to get there.

Did these photons at the film previously exist? If not, then you have them magically coming into existence at the film.

If so, then was their previous location ever different (i.e. other than at the film)? If not, then you have stationary photons again which have always been in the same location.

If so, then you have photons which were once at point A and are now at point B. That means they had to get there somehow.


How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?


So you have photons at the film when the photograph is taken. How did they get there? [Answer goes here]

Did they exist, say, 10 seconds ago? [Yes or No]

[If Yes, then...] Where were those photons then? [State a location]

How did they get from wherever they were 10 seconds ago to the film where they are now? [Answer goes here]


What does happen to the non-absorbed photons hitting the object if they don't bounce off and travel away? ((P)reflection isn't an answer - you need to explain what happens to the (P)reflected photons by specifying their location and behavior after they hit the object.)

Bump for the weasel who is desperately trying to change the topic (from light to dogs).

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality p. 122

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight
distance away cannot identify his master. If the eyes were a sense; if
an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic
nerve then he would recognize his master instantly as he can from
sound and smell. In fact, if he was vicious and accustomed to
attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his sense
of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no way of
identifying his master’s face even if every feature was lit up like a
Christmas tree, and would attack.

More ignorant BS from Lessans, Obviously made up nonsense since he had no knowledge worth listening to. My opinion of peacegirl is very low but I don't doubt that she can induce me to think less of her. My opinion of Lessans is that he made an elaberate joke but Peacegirl doesn't get it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And your evidence that dogs can't recognize that a photograph of their master is a photograph of their master is ... that dogs don't respond to a photo of their master as if it was their master.


How many people do you know who respond to a photo of a loved-one as if it was their loved-one?

By your own "logic," it is thus proved that people do not have the cognitive ability to recognize loved-ones in photographs.

I really think you're all out to argue with me just to argue. Didn't you read my post where my son talked to his dog on Skype, and the dog recognized his voice but could not recognize his face. The dog was staring right at the monitor. This dog is very devoted to my son because he rescued her, and it was a week since she saw him, so she missed him and would have been excited to see him, but she had to recognize him first. She showed confusion by cocking her head to one side because she heard his voice but could not recognize his face on the monitor. I know this is anecdotal but empirical observation counts, and is sometimes more accurate than the most controlled experiments. Can you show me a video where a dog shows true visual recognition, with or without sound? I only found this.

Skype Dog - YouTube

[The Lone Ranger]

You're weaseling.

What on Earth makes you think that a dog is so stupid that it wouldn't be able to tell that a flickering, 2-dimensional image is not its master?


And yes, you were given links to experiments in which it was shown that dogs can and do distinguish videos of their masters/handlers from videos of strangers.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really think you're all out to argue with me just to argue. Didn't you read my post where my son talked to his dog on Skype, and the dog recognized his voice but could not recognize his face. The dog was staring right at the monitor. This dog is very devoted to my son because he rescued her, and it was a week since she saw him, so she missed him and would have been excited to see him, but she had to recognize him first. She showed confusion by cocking her head to one side because she heard his voice but could not recognize his face on the monitor. I know this is anecdotal but empirical observation counts, and is sometimes more accurate than the most controlled experiments. Can you show me a video where a dog shows true visual recognition, with or without sound? I only found this.

LOL.

This is her evidence, and the ravings of her father!

Hey, peacegirl, you seemed to have missed the science story in The New York Times that I linked to a long time ago, in which it was shown not only that dogs recognized people on video displayed on computer monitors, but understood their goddamn gestures. Understood facial and social cues.

Someone please quote this for her in case she currently has me on Pretend Ignore.

[But]

Originally Posted by davidm

LOL.

This is her evidence, and the ravings of her father!

Hey, peacegirl, you seemed to have missed the science story in The New York Times that I linked to a long time ago, in which it was shown not only that dogs recognized people on video displayed on computer monitors, but understood their goddamn gestures. Understood facial and social cues.

Someone please quote this for her in case she currently has me on Pretend Ignore.

BUMP.. er QUOTE

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've just tried to agree with me by repeating the very claim that you yourself just refuted. If it has to do with cognition and language ability, then it is FALSE that the eyes being a sense organ should be sufficient for dogs to recognize their owners from a picture. Dogs might instead have afferent vision but lack the relevant cognitive/language ability instead.

But learning language is an efferent process.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And if dogs having efferent vision is supposed to explain this (non-existent) lack of facial-recognition skills in dogs, how come WE can recognize faces despite (allegedly) seeing efferently?

Our ability to use language, which differentiates objects in the material world.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The two issues of facial recognition and efferent vs. afferent vision are COMPLETELY independent.

No they're not.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 126-127

It is obvious that this baby looks out through her eyes and sees
various animals and people in motion, but she is not conscious of
differences. She may be drawn to play with one animal in preference
to another, or may prefer to play with one toy over another, but in so
far as she is concerned all she sees are a bunch of objects. As her eyes
are focused on a dog I shall repeat the word dog rapidly in her ear.
When she turns away I stop.

This will be continued until she looks
for him when hearing the word which indicates that a relation between
this particular sound and object has been established and a photograph
taken. Soon this relation is formed which makes her conscious of a
particular difference that exists in the external world. As she learns
more and more words such as cat, horse, bird, sun, moon, etc., she
becomes conscious of these differences which no one can deny because
they are seen through words or slides that circumscribe accurately
these various bits of substance. This is exactly how we learn words
only I am speeding up the process.

Before long she learns house, tree,
car, chair, door, kitchen, television, airplane, moon, stars, nose, teeth,
eyes, hair, girl, boy, and so on. Until she learns the word cat she
could very easily point to a dog when hearing that word because a
negative of the difference has not yet been developed, just as a fox
cannot be differentiated from a dog until a photograph of the
difference has been developed. She also learns the names of
individuals: Mommy, Daddy, Linda, Janis, Marc, David, Elan,
Justin, Shoshana, Adam, Jennifer, Meredith, etc. My granddaughter
can identify her mother from hundreds and hundreds of photographs
because the difference is a negative that not only reveals who her
mother is, but who she is not.

In other words, as she learns these
names and words her brain takes a picture of the objects symbolized
and when she sees these differences again she projects the word or
name, but the brain will not take any picture until a relation is
formed. Consequently, these differences that exist in the external
world which are not identifiable through taste, touch, smell, or sounds
are identifiable only because they are related to words, names or slides
that we project for recognition. If we would lose certain names or
words we would have amnesia because when we see these ordinarily
familiar differences we are unable to project the words or names
necessary for recognition.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And... How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

You're lost because you're not thinking in terms of efferent vision whatsoever. You think you are but you're not because you're not considering the conditions that make real time seeing possible, and without violating the laws of physics. All you're doing is thinking in terms of photons bouncing off of objects which have to travel a certain distance to reach the eyes, and they can't get there without traveling, or else they're teleporting. That's all you keep saying.

[davidm]

She quotes the buffoon again and thinks that settles it.

Yep, it does settle it, for you and other dumb and dishonest people.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know this is anecdotal but empirical observation counts, and is sometimes more accurate than the most controlled experiments.

Do you really not see any inconsistency in claiming that our experiments don't count because they were (allegedly) not suffciently controlled, and also that your anecdotes should count despite being completely uncontrolled?

Why do you suppose it is that you have such completely different standards of evidence for that which you think supports Lessans vs. that which you think does not?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

BUMP.. er QUOTE

I never said I was putting you on ignore, but don't press your luck. You sound really angry, and I'm not putting up with this kind of interaction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you really not see any inconsistency in claiming that our experiments don't count because they were (allegedly) not suffciently controlled, and also that your anecdotes should count despite being completely uncontrolled?

Absolutely. Sometimes wrong conclusions come out of well-intended experiments.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why do you suppose it is that you have such completely different standards of evidence for that which you think supports Lessans vs. that which you think does not?

I don't. I believe in empiricism, but just as I have never seen apples fall up from trees, although I have not seen every tree, I have never seen a dog that recognizes his master's face from a still photograph, even though I haven't seen every dog. Somebody should be able to find evidence of this. I'm not referring to gestures.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right. It has to do with cognition and language ability, which is what Lessans was trying to explain. If the eyes were a sense organ, dogs should be able to recognize their master from a picture, just as they recognize their masters from smell and sound, but this is a cognitive skill that dogs don't have, which is why their sense of smell and hearing is better than humans.

The language and congnition ability of dogs is different than humans and has no relevance. It has not been proven that dogs cannot recognize a person from a photo, only asserted without proof, so this to, has no relevance. The language and cognitive abilities are independent of the sense of vision, and so again have no relevance. What is relevant is how much crap Lessans was pulling out of his ass in writing his joke.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But learning language is an efferent process.

Huh? Now you're going to claim that we can't learn language unless we see in real-time? And your support for this is...?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No they're not.

Yes. They are. There is no connection between the two whatsoever.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're lost because you're not thinking in terms of efferent vision whatsoever. You think you are but you're not because you're not considering the conditions that make real time seeing possible, and without violating the laws of physics. All you're doing is thinking in terms of photons bouncing off of objects which have to travel a certain distance to reach the eyes, and they can't get there without traveling, or else they're teleporting. That's all you keep saying.

You're making up excuses for not answering the question. The question does not presuppose anything that you yourself have not claimed to be true. You've said that there are photons at the film. Unless they are newly existing or stationary, then they had to get there somehow. So...

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely. Sometimes wrong conclusions come out of well-intended experiments.

Can wrong conclusions ever some out of well-intended anecdotal and uncontrolled observations? The inconsistency you claim not to be able to see, is that on the one hand you claim that adequate controls are required, while on the other hand you claim they are not necessary at all. Do you see it now?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't.

But you do. For evidence against Lessans, you insist that it must have adequate controls. But for (alleged) evidence in his favor you insist that completely uncontrolled anecdotal observations should count. Those are different standards of evidence.


And... How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never seen a dog that recognizes his master's face from a still photograph, even though I haven't seen every dog. Somebody should be able to find evidence of this. I'm not referring to gestures.

One thing is for sure if you don't look for something, or turn a blind eye to it, you will never find it.

I believe it's called willful ignorance.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump for the weasel who is desperately trying to change the topic (from light to dogs).

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can you show me a video where a dog shows true visual recognition, with or without sound? I only found this.

Skype Dog - YouTube

So it appears that the dog in the video recognized the other person, how does this support your position.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said I was putting you on ignore, but don't press your luck. You sound really angry, and I'm not putting up with this kind of interaction.

LOL, lying again. Of COURSE you said that -- many times! Of course you never really put anyone on ignore, because you are such a narcissist that you crave even negative attention.

Also, I don't consider myself "lucky" not to be on real ignore by you.

I also love your repeated use of the "anger" card against your interlocutors. No one here is angry. You're not worth such an emotion. What we are, is a group of intelligent, honest people who are offended by your dishonest distortions of truth in an effort to make a buck off a pile of crap book written by your buffoon of a father.

Now then, peacegirl: When are you going to explain why NASA uses delayed-time seeing of celestial bodies, as factored by the speed of light, to send spacecraft to those targets, when if Lessans were right, and we saw in real-time, those spacecraft would miss their targets by wide margins? When are you going to account for this blatant disproof of your father's asinine ravings?

Oh, I know!

NEVER!

[LadyShea]

If the eyes were a sense organ, dogs should be able to recognize their master from a picture.

The word "should" is used illicitly here.

There is no reason to think that they "should" use vision in any specific way, especially when they have stronger senses.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're lost because you're not thinking in terms of efferent vision whatsoever. You think you are but you're not because you're not considering the conditions that make real time seeing possible, and without violating the laws of physics. All you're doing is thinking in terms of photons bouncing off of objects which have to travel a certain distance to reach the eyes, and they can't get there without traveling, or else they're teleporting. That's all you keep saying.

So then help me to understand.

When we do think in terms of efferent vision, and when we do consider the conditions which (allegedly) make real time vision possible without violating the laws of physics, then how do the photons at the film get there without either traveling or teleporting there?