A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

To say that dog's brains are different from humans still doesn't answer the question as to why all the other parts of the brain that receive sense experience are in full working order, but not the eyes.

If dogs can see, their eyes in are full working order.

Lessans made ridiculous and illogical assumptions regarding dogs and facial recognition, he never explained why/how real time vision is related to recognition at all.

[LadyShea]

Unanswered from February

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This whole thing is due to both you and Lessans claim that if afferent vision is true, dogs should be able to recognize their masters from a photograph. I have been asking you to point out any scientific principle, law or tenet that indicates that dogs SHOULD have this ability.

It doesn't matter if they actually do or don't, for some reason Lessans thought they SHOULD. I can find nothing in science that says they SHOULD. Where did he come up with arbitrary use of should?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If dogs can see, their eyes in are full working order.

Lessans made ridiculous and illogical assumptions regarding dogs and facial recognition, he never explained why/how real time vision is related to recognition at all.

Yes he did LadyShea. He explained very clearly that if the eyes are a sense organ, a dog should be able to recognize his master from a picture. Science believes that their experiments are statistically significant (e.g. the one where the dog had been trained to push a lever when he saw his handler). It is so slanted, but they don't see it because they are just trying to confirm what is taken for granted is a fact.

[LadyShea]

if the eyes are a sense organ, a dog should be able to recognize his master from a picture

Why should a dog be able to recognize his master from a picture if the eyes are a sense organ? What scientific principle is that "should" based on?

As for the lever, I told you multiple times there was no lever mentioned in any experiment or study, I posited it as a possible method only (one of several). You are arguing against your own faulty memory.

[LadyShea]

Another problem with your idea that you never addressed

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Even if she's correct, and dogs can't recognize their master by facial features and all those tests are totally wrong, she hasn't explained why differences between human and dog facial recognition abilities are due to efferent sight, rather than differences in brain processes.

[LadyShea]

From over a year ago!

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why on Earth do you think this?
There is nothing about afferent vision that leads to this conclusion.
There is no "should" in the model of vision at all.

Recognition, and acting based on it, is a product of the brain processing the visual information, making associations, assigning importance etc.

No, there is no reason to believe they should be able to do anything of the sort. What a strange notion.

They can of course process what they see in some form or fashion, they simply may do so differently than humans. We don't know that they cannot distinguish facial features.

Perhaps they can but do not, perhaps they can and do. I don't know enough about how dogs process information to say one way or the other, though there is quite a bit of literature indicating they do recognize objects visually and I have no reason to believe they cannot recognize facial features.

I do know they process and act on visual input, meaning they can see.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Unanswered from February

I did answer that. He never said should, but if you think it through logically, if the eyes are a sense organ, dogs should be able to recognize their master from sight alone. But I haven't seen that ever. Why should the eyes be any different from any other sense experience coming from the external world? Why is it that dogs can hear and recognize sounds, feel and recognize touch, smell and recognize odors, taste and recognize certain foods, but not recognize their master from a picture? Your answer about dogs' brains being different conceptually doesn't add up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Excuse me, stupid, I said I wouldn't chase YOU around anymore with facts, evidence and logic; I didn't say I wouldn't post in this thread, as the mood suited me. You'll notice I did not address you, but spoke of you in the third person. Nor do I read your posts any longer, but only the respnoses of others to you. How many times did say you were leaving FF? And yet here you are. I guess that makes you a liar, doesn't it? But then, you and truth are like oil and water. What do you hope to accomplish? Do you seriously believe that anyone here is so dumb as to engage you at your Web site, where your moral and intellectual betters know in advance that you will censor them?

And no, I did not listen to the audio babble of Silly Seymour.

I know you didn't, because if you did you would be embarrassed by your ignorant behavior.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never said should, but if you think it through logically, if the eyes are a sense organ, dogs should be able to recognize their master from sight alone.

Logic is not your strong suit.

Can you see nectar guides? Bees can. Why can they see them, but you can't? The answer is simple: because bees can see ultraviolet light, but humans can't.

Different species' eyes are specialized for different things.

[Many flowers have patterns, sometimes called "nectar guides" that are only visible to species that can see ultraviolet light -- e.g. many insects and birds, but not mammals.]

An Evening Primrose (Oenothera biennis) as it looks to the human eye (left), and as it might look to a bee, which can see ultraviolet light.

A bat can navigate in total darkness by producing ultrasonic sounds and listening to the echoes. Can you? After all, by your own logic, if the ears are sense organs, you should be able to do it too. So why can't you?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did answer that. He never said should

You didn't answer it, you just repeated your assertion that they should be able to do this. You've never supported that "should" at all. Should statements need to be based on something. Should statements are connected by cause and effect. X should Y because of or due to Z.

You are missing the Z, you are missing the "because of or due to". Finish this sentence

If the eyes are a sense organ, dogs should be able to recognize their master from sight alone because of or due to ______________

but if you think it through logically, if the eyes are a sense organ, dogs should be able to recognize their master from sight alone.

You are still merely asserting that they should, but you are not explaining why you think they should. What is the "should" based on? Who or what says they "should" be able to recognize their masters from sight alone if the eyes are a sense organ?

[LadyShea]

hear and recognize sounds, feel and recognize touch, smell and recognize odors, taste and recognize certain foods

Also, your criteria for sense organ is very generalized with the other senses, yet very specific with the eyes.

According to your statements above, "see and recognize certain things by sight" is all that's necessary for the eyes to be a sense organ.

You are using fallacious reasoning when you go from very general to very specific

[thedoc]

On the other hand, if vision is efferent and the brain projects a label onto the blank screen the dog would project a label that would identify it's master, real or photo from past memories. But Peacegirl claims dogs do not recognize a photo of their master, so dogs are not projecting a label onto anything, and therefore do not see efferently. This is another case where Lessans makes a statement and people will say "Oh yeah, that's right." and not think too hard about it. Its just another 'red herring' or a stick to 'Muddy the Waters' and allow Lessans to make unsupported and unchallenges statements of nonsense.

If LadyShea is correct, that to "See and recognize things by sight" is the criteria for eyes to be a sense organ, and vision to be afferent, then humans do see afferently, because it is well known that Humans can recognise things, places, and people from sight (A Photograph) alone. Peacegirls double standard falls appart when you try to apply one standard one place and a different standard another. Vision is the same everywhere, for everyone, and everything. And even if she claims that dog vision and people vision are different, OK, perhaps dogs do see efferently, but people still see afferently.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People can start their own discussions, but not on my site. My site is specifically to spread this knowledge, regardless of who agrees or does not agree with his claims. If I listened to every naysayer, this knowledge would never be brought to light.

It will shield me from having to listen to the constant criticisms of people who resent this man, even when their criticisms are not legitimate.

Hence my earlier post: I'm sorry to hear that you are still wasting your time, energy, and money on this deluded nonsense. At least you've learned that your father's material needs to be shielded from open and critical discussion. Do you know why you are here updating us? Because you must surely be aware by now that everyone here places you somewhere on a spectrum between deluded fundamentalist and certifiably insane. Please don't allow your commitment to your father's work to compromise your financial security or your own health.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am doing just that; sticking to updating you on my progress. As I said, I cannot worry about the people who believe I am deluded, or that my father is wrong. I have to focus on the goal, which is to bring this knowledge to light, and I won't be swayed by a few nihilists.

I'm not a nihilist, you haven't found anyone yet who doesn't think you're deluded, and you are clearly not sticking to updating us on your progress. You have been restarting all sorts of previously discussed topics all over again. You really aren't very self-aware, are you?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He explained very clearly that if the eyes are a sense organ, a dog should be able to recognize his master from a picture.

No, he claimed this. He did not explain it at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never said should, but if you think it through logically, if the eyes are a sense organ, dogs should be able to recognize their master from sight alone.

Why would you think that? It's completely wrong. As you've been told several times before, facial recognition requires more than just functioning eyes as sense organs, but also requires the cognitive architecture in the brain that carries out the required processing. Dogs can recognize their owners from a picture, but even if they couldn't this could be due to still having afferent vision but without the cognitive capacity for facial recognition. Moreover, attributing efferent vision to dogs does not explain the alleged lack of facial recognition capacities, as you think us humans have efferent vision but obviously still do have the capacity for facial recognition.

And (as always) all of this has been explained to you a million times before.

[Angakuk]

Hi peacegirl You have been gone quite awhile, welcome back. Did you get your laundry done?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You, NA, thedoc, and David just want to crush him in the worst way, but you can't because he's not wrong. You don't understand the first thing about this book. How many times did he state that we can't stop blaming just because we have learned that man's will is not free. But of course you don't remember this because you never read it. Give up Vivisectus. And, by the way, you have no understanding of his chapter on dating and marriage. You are the exact type of individual that should not read the book or listen to the audio. I DO NOT recommend it in your case, not because I want to be in a bubble, but because you will never accept this knowledge, or even try to understand it, until science confirms it. You are already too far gone in your public denouncement of this book to ever renig on your position. You would have no way of saving face.

Have you noticed that you always put the blame for any disagreement squarely on the shoulders of the person disagreeing? This is funny behaviour for someone who advocates an end to blaming.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why should a dog be able to recognize his master from a picture if the eyes are a sense organ? What scientific principle is that "should" based on?

Why? Think about it instead of immediately jumping on Lessans, as if he said something weird. When a dog hears the sound of his master, doesn't he respond with familiarity due to this recognition through the auditory sense? When a dog smells his master, doesn't he respond with familiarity due to this recognition through the olfactory sense? Just answer the question with a yes or no, please.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As for the lever, I told you multiple times there was no lever mentioned in any experiment or study, I posited it as a possible method only (one of several). You are arguing against your own faulty memory.

Maybe I am. I thought that was an experiment that you were referencing. The point I'm making is that there has been no definitive proof that dogs can recognize their owner through sight alone. Sometimes empirical tests are flawed, big time, yet because people believe the eyes are a sense organ, they will try to make their conclusions fit to make it all work together. It's called unconscioius bias.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Have you noticed that you always put the blame for any disagreement squarely on the shoulders of the person disagreeing? This is funny behaviour for someone who advocates an end to blaming.

Vivisectus, that comment you just made shows me how confused you are, and it makes no sense for me to continue communicating with you. The jokes you made at my father's expense sickens me. You will have to read the book for you to get any understanding at all, and I'm not willing to discuss any further these principles when you have an attitude that you really think you know what you're talking about, when you know nothing at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Hi peacegirl You have been gone quite awhile, welcome back. Did you get your laundry done?

Not really. I've been working very hard on getting my website up. Ceptimus pointed out a mistake I made spelling my father's name wrong. That was due to rushing, and I found a lot of other mistakes. Then I found mistakes that the guy editing the audio did not correct. I have to take an entire day out reading the book again with the audio because I don't want to have to keep fixing mixtakes because I wasn't careful. So the laundry will have to wait.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why? Think about it instead of immediately jumping on Lessans, as if he said something weird.

I carefully explained why a few posts back. There is no "immediately" here, I've thought about it for over a year. I've asked you this question for over a year and you can't answer except with some hasty assumption only you and Lessans seem to have made.

It is a very weird conclusion to jump to without a solid basis in canine biology to justify the "should" statement.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

As you've been told several times before, facial recognition requires more than just functioning eyes as sense organs, but also requires the cognitive architecture in the brain that carries out the required processing.

Heck, there are plenty of people running around who have perfectly normal vision, but little or no ability to recognize faces. The human brain has a region known as the fusiform gyrus that's largely devoted to facial recognition. Damage to the fusiform gyrus can cause a condition called prosopagnosia (commonly called "face blindness") in which the person otherwise sees normally, but has difficulty recognizing faces.

The ability to recognize [human] faces is of obvious importance to humans, and it's an ability to which a significant portion of our brains are devoted. Why the hell should we expect other species to devote significant portions of their brains to the computationally-intensive task of recognizing and distinguishing individual human faces?

Nonetheless, it has been empirically demonstrated that several non-human species (including a number of bird species) can and do recognize individual humans by their faces. Field biologists often have to take this into account when doing their work, because members of some bird species quickly learn to recognize individual researchers.

And (as always) all of this has been explained to you a million times before.

Indeed.



And predictably, peacegirl ignores the fact that -- by her own logic -- our ears are not sense organs, because if they were, we should be able to hear ultrasonics, the way that bats do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Logic is not your strong suit.

Can you see nectar guides? Bees can. Why can they see them, but you can't? The answer is simple: because bees can see ultraviolet light, but humans can't.

Different species' eyes are specialized for different things.

[Many flowers have patterns, sometimes called "nectar guides" that are only visible to species that can see ultraviolet light -- e.g. many insects and birds, but not mammals.]

An Evening Primrose (Oenothera biennis) as it looks to the human eye (left), and as it might look to a bee, which can see ultraviolet light.

A bat can navigate in total darkness by producing ultrasonic sounds and listening to the echoes. Can you? After all, by your own logic, if the ears are sense organs, you should be able to do it too. So why can't you?

It is a fact that certain species can hear and see at different frequencies, which other species cannot. It is also true that certain species can recognize their prey at great distances by their movements. I am talking strictly about facial recognition, and the reason Lessans chose dogs is because they are able to recognize their masters by their other senses, so why not the eyes? That question has still not been answered adequately. I think my logic is doing just fine.

[The Lone Ranger]

Your "logic" stinks.

By your own logic the ears are not sense organs, since we can't hear ultrasonics but bats can. In fact, it has been shown that bats can distinguish between different species of flying insects, just from the sound profiles.

Since humans can't do this, by your own logic, the ears are not sense organs. Q.E.D.

Just to clarify, for the logic-impaired: since you can recognize a moth with your other senses, why not with your ears, the way a bat can? Since you can't, by your own logic, our ears are not sense organs.

[LadyShea]

I am talking strictly about facial recognition, and the reason Lessans chose dogs is because they are able to recognize their masters by their other senses, so why not the eyes?

Because there is no scientific basis on which to base an assumption that dogs should be able to recognize individual human faces (or to assume that they should not be able to either). Lessans reasoning was fallacious.

And what TLR is pointing out to you is that you are using fallacious reasoning yourself, specifically inconsistency of comparison. If you feel that canines should be comparable to humans regarding sensory input and processing, then why shouldn't humans be comparable to bats or bees or birds regarding sensory input and processing? You don't get to cherry pick then call yourself logical.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, your criteria for sense organ is very generalized with the other senses, yet very specific with the eyes.

According to your statements above, "see and recognize certain things by sight" is all that's necessary for the eyes to be a sense organ.

You are using fallacious reasoning when you go from very general to very specific

Would you please alter your comments to make them a question, instead of a statement? I really do resent people's arrogance before they even know if they are right or wrong. No I am not using fallacious reasoning at all. I am talking about dogs specifically which translates to dogs generally. Show me an exception and I will concede LadyShea. No dog that has been studied, as far as I know, that can recognize their owner from a picture. Therefore, this is not a specific statement, but a general one and I will stand by my conviction that Lessans was right.