A revolution in thought

[ceptimus]

When all else fails we can always resort to 'future empirical testing'.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's all well and good. Show me the evidence. Show me that when the retina is bypassed, and only impulses are entering the brain, that a person can see normally. If this is the case, I will concede.

Ah there is the hint! Suddenly the goalpost is moved, and Bionic eyes need to provide "normal" sight - with Peacegirl as the judge on what constitutes "normal" sight.

[Adam]

Also, you'll need to prove that "only impulses are entering the brain". Maybe the real function of the eyes it to hold open those holes in the front of the face to allow the magic vision-granting pixie dust a path into the brain, and all the bionic eye is doing is replacing them as glorified doorstops.

[Vivisectus]

Maybe it is the lenses that focus out on to the object and allow the non-reflected light to create a mirror image at the bionic retina, which is the other side of the coin of the object that has to be in the field of view in order for the object to be seen if the efferent account is correct, which means that we project word-slides outward onto a screen of undeniable essence?

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by Adam

... a repository of hilariously eccentric hypotheses about light and dogs and fucking on the dinner table...

This should have been the thread title.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wonder if this dog recognized his master on Skype? I'd love to find out because that would give us relevant info.

https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.ph...type=2&theater

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a major flaw LadyShea. In the book Lessans said that if all other cues were to be disconnected, the dog would not recognize his owner even if he was lit up like a Christmas tree. So why would you give me videos that have sound unless you didn't read the book?

Lessans never mentioned Skype as credible evidence, that came from you. I was going by your statements.

And I was asking where is the flaw in the controlled experiment where the dog chooses a picture as per the diagram and photograph of the set up. They are still pictures, no movement, and there are no levers.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Uh uh, you're not going to play this game with me.

I am just trying to get you to commit to a set of criteria since you keep changing it every five seconds in your desperate flail to hold onto your faith in Lessans infallibility.

I haven't moved the goalposts multiple times, that would be you. Why do you suddenly want to stop playing the games you start?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, because smell was his most dominant sense and vision gave him too little information to identify what was on the screen.

Smell? Those are digital images on a screen. They don't have an odor. The dog indicates its choice by walking up to one of the two images presented. There are no other cues. So, where's the flaw?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's all well and good that you thought this was the reason dogs couldn't recognize.

I absolutely think the dogs did recognize the people on the screens. I think they both saw and heard familiar people and were upset that they couldn't physically interact with them and were confused as to why they were there in one sense and not there in another sense.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have a different take completely and unless you set up an experiment (even if it's anecdotal) that gets rid of the contamination, this is all bullshit.

There is no set up you will accept. You've dismissed the controlled experiments as flawed, without identifying any flaws. You've dismissed the anecdotal evidence because it is not controlled, though you had previously stated that no controls were needed.

It doesn't matter what you are shown, you are going to believe Lessans statements are absolute truth no matter what contrary evidence comes along. You are a True Believer and always have been. You always will be too, because you've shut your brain down from any information not originating from your dad.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh no, you're not going to put the blame on me for your failure to provide me with the correct videos. Stop making me the bad guy.

You are the one who keeps moving the goalposts. You are the one playing games. You are the one with a strong and emotionally charged belief in need of protecting.

You never said anything about silent, still Skyping because such a thing wouldn't even exist. Who the hell uses Skype then doesn't talk or move? The whole point of Skype is to communicate face to face over distance, so that's how people use it.

If you didn't want to see Skype videos then why did you ask for them? Why do you dismiss the controlled experiments that use still photographs if that's exactly the kind of test you want? Why are you such a flip flopping lying weasel?

[Vivisectus]

Can we have a brief re-cap at this point and establish exactly where the goalposts are at the moment? I am getting confused. Do we now need Bionic eyes to produce sight that is the exact same as that produced by a regular eye, to be judged by Peacegirl, and do dogs need to greet a person on skype who does not talk or move as if their owner just walked in the door?

[Stephen Maturin]

Oy gevalt.

It's very simple. At any given moment, the goalposts are precisely where they need to be in order to establish that Lessans was absolutely right about everything and that data suggesting Lessans was incorrect about anything at all is inaccurate, inconclusive and/or deceptive. Sure, the goalposts' location varies from post to post, but that's only because of institutional scientific bias, greedy vaccine manufacturers and jealous, Lessans-hating meanies.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

do dogs need to greet a person on skype who does not talk or move as if their owner just walked in the door

..............

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would consider it proof that dogs can recognize their master if they sat in front of a screen and showed signs such as excitement, wagging of the tail, whimpering. But that isn't what's happening in these videos. The dogs have so many cues that there is no way to tease out the variables. There still has to be the removal of all cues other than photons that are bouncing off of the screen and traveling to the eye.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Why would a dog, that was excited to see it's master, just 'sit' and wag it's tail.

Why? Because that's what dogs do when they haven't seen their masters in a long time. They show a sign of recognition.

Originally Posted by thedoc

You are deliberately placing impossible demands on the proof required so that there can be no proof. Just like you demanded that the delay in seeing, due to the speed of light, be demonstrated on Earth, when the very speed of light made that all but impossible, and you knew it. This shows that you have no understanding of dogs or dog behavior, or light and the properties of light.

If the speed of light goes that fast (which it does), then how can we get an image of anything? It would pass right us over.

Originally Posted by thedoc

FYI, the light is not bouncing off the screen, the screen is emiting light, you can't really be that stupid, can you? Do you ever proof-read your posts, and is it with the same care that you proof-read the book?

Stop changing the subject. You got my drift.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Can we have a brief re-cap at this point and establish exactly where the goalposts are at the moment? I am getting confused. Do we now need Bionic eyes to produce sight that is the exact same as that produced by a regular eye, to be judged by Peacegirl, and do dogs need to greet a person on skype who does not talk or move as if their owner just walked in the door?

I would think that to prove the eyes are afferent we would need to bypass the retina to prove that the impulses are causing sight after being interpreted by the brain. I'm not sure if that's even possible. I'm not changing the goalposts. I just want it to be a fair test.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!

Is there anyone so out of touch, that they did not expect this? Peacegirl is just being Peacegirl, a chip off the old blockhead.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would think that to prove the eyes are afferent we would need to bypass the retina to prove that the impulses are causing sight after being interpreted by the brain. I'm not sure if that's even possible. I'm not changing the goalposts. I just want it to be a fair test.

Ah good! We are done then. The chip does indeed bypass the retina, and enough sight occurs for people to be able to read. Et voila!

[Vivisectus]

Wait for the backpedal. Wait for iiiittttt...

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why? Because that's what dogs do when they haven't seen their masters in a long time. They show a sign of recognition.

Yes, dogs show signs of recognition, but they would not be "sitting on their ass" like you are, they would be up on their feet jumping at the screen, you really don't know anything about dogs, do you?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the speed of light goes that fast (which it does), then how can we get an image of anything? It would pass right us over.

You can't possibly be that stupid, so it must be willful ignorance.

Did you sell any of your 'over-priced' books yet? It's all about the money, isn't it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wonder if this dog recognized his master on Skype? I'd love to find out because that would give us relevant info.

https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.ph...type=2&theater

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You had said controlled tests weren't necessary, that "observations" of dogs using Skype would work, but now you insist that only now you want controlled conditions with still photographs and no sound. Nobody does these experiments at home with their dogs and puts them on YouTube, because why would they?

Yet, you dismissed the test below, which uses still photographs in controlled conditions...deeming such tests "obviously flawed". Where is the flaw?

It's a major flaw LadyShea. In the book Lessans said that if all other cues were to be disconnected, the dog would not recognize his owner even if he was lit up like a Christmas tree. So why would you give me videos that have sound unless you didn't read the book?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans never mentioned Skype as credible evidence, that came from you. I was going by your statements.

He didn't mention Skype specifically because he didn't have Skype.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And I was asking where is the flaw in the controlled experiment where the dog chooses a picture as per the diagram and photograph of the set up. They are still pictures, no movement, and there are no levers.

I'm not playing games LadyShea. Why wouldn't you realize that any kind of movement or sound would ruin the integrity of the test?

I realize that it's a digital image but the dog doesn't know that. He goes up to see if he can confirm what he is looking at through his sense of smell. I believe that dogs can tell the difference between non-humans and humans, but I have yet to see it proven that dogs can recognize their master among a group of strangers barring any other cues. Why don't they present the actual video so we can see it for ourselves?

No, that's not why.

I didn't mean no controls at all LadyShea. I meant no controls that are contrived like rewarding a dog when he chooses his master, and teaching him to push a lever. Why is it that they only publish the results and not allow people to see the actual experiment as it's progressing?

And you aren't doing the same thing? You are blinded LadyShea. Those videos were contaminated. If you had read the damn chapter you would have known this.

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. This is why he
cannot recognize his master from a picture or statue because nothing
from the external world is striking the optic nerve. The question as to how man
is able to accomplish this continues to confound our scientists.

Oh no, you're not going to put the blame on me for your failure to provide me with the correct videos. Stop making me the bad guy.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are the one who keeps moving the goalposts. You are the one playing games. You are the one with a strong and emotionally charged belief in need of protecting.

There is nothing so far that proves dogs can recognize their master from other still pictures. They may be able to differentiate between different species but this is not the same thing as recognizing their master from other people. I'm surprised there aren't more videos so that we can see this for ourselves, instead of just getting the results.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You never said anything about silent, still Skyping because such a thing wouldn't even exist. Who the hell uses Skype then doesn't talk or move? The whole point of Skype is to communicate face to face over distance, so that's how people use it.

That's why those videos are worthless as far as I'm concerned. I'm sorry you went out of your way thinking you had me over a barrel, but the truth is these videos show nothing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you didn't want to see Skype videos then why did you ask for them? Why do you dismiss the controlled experiments that use still photographs if that's exactly the kind of test you want? Why are you such a flip flopping lying weasel?

I was trying to make it easy by using whatever technology is available. I did say a still video where the variables are isolated otherwise it wouldn't make sense to even try it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Can we have a brief re-cap at this point and establish exactly where the goalposts are at the moment? I am getting confused. Do we now need Bionic eyes to produce sight that is the exact same as that produced by a regular eye, to be judged by Peacegirl, and do dogs need to greet a person on skype who does not talk or move as if their owner just walked in the door?

Let me guess, if there was a dog that could say out loud that they can look at a photograph and verify that they recognized it as a photo of their master, Peacegirl would find some way to discredit it as evidence. We would probably need at least a dozen dogs that could do so. Of course Peaegirl is well practiced at making impossable demands as proof, along with moving the goalposts when evidence is presented.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

dogs know the difference between an inanimate object, and the real thing --- YOU. So I won't see him bringing a leash to a pair of socks anytime soon.

But should they wag their tail and whimper and jump up and down at the sock, like you think they should at a photograph?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was trying to make it easy by using whatever technology is available. I did say a still video where the variables are isolated otherwise it wouldn't make sense to even try it.

No, you said

I wonder if this dog recognized his master on Skype? I'd love to find out because that would give us relevant info.

And when I asked how you would know if he recognized his master on Skype, you said he would react just as he did to the real person. The real person was talking and walking and touching and being smelled, so why on Earth would you expect a dog to react the same way to a still silent image with no odor as to the real thing?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The same way we saw how the dog recognized his master coming home from the war in real life. The dog loved his master very much (which is why he would be a good test subject) and would show recognition on a video or a picture the same way, especially after not seeing his master in many months.

[thedoc]

What I don't undersatand, (and this includes myself) is why anyone still bothers to engage Peacegirl on this thread. Surely any lurker has plenty of evidence of how science and the world really works, and that Peacegirl is totally over the edge on rational thought, and possibly quite insane. I admit there is a certain preverted entertainment value, but Peacegirl offers nothing of substance, and while I appreciate the contributions of real science and evidence, I could probably look it up if I needed to.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You can't possibly be that stupid, so it must be willful ignorance.

Did you sell any of your 'over-priced' books yet? It's all about the money, isn't it?

Actually it does make sense. I'm just following your reasoning. Why wouldn't images that bounce off of objects pass right over us on Earth if light is traveling at such a fast speed and in a straight line?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What I don't undersatand, (and this includes myself) is why anyone still bothers to engage Peacegirl on this thread. Surely any lurker has plenty of evidence of how science and the world really works, and that Peacegirl is totally over the edge on rational thought, and possibly quite insane. I admit there is a certain preverted entertainment value, but Peacegirl offers nothing of substance, and while I appreciate the contributions of real science and evidence, I could probably look it up if I needed to.

So move on thedoc. You're an old timer here. Isn't it time you take your own advice?

[Vivisectus]

That's why those videos are worthless as far as I'm concerned. I'm sorry you went out of your way thinking you had me over a barrel, but the truth is these videos show nothing.

You see, lady shea, the 5 minutes PG spent with the family dog and skype constituted an observation, which is way more reliable than mere properly run experiments or anything anyone else in the world might notice, ever. These observations count as proof for their own correctness, even if they come in the form of claims.

If you need to know what constitutes an observation, you will have to ask Peacegirl, as she seems to decide which is which based on criteria which are totally rational an objective and definitely are not best summarised as "Whatever Peacegirl Wants To Be True".

[Vivisectus]

It's very simple. At any given moment, the goalposts are precisely where they need to be in order to establish that Lessans was absolutely right about everything and that data suggesting Lessans was incorrect about anything at all is inaccurate, inconclusive and/or deceptive. Sure, the goalposts' location varies from post to post, but that's only because of institutional scientific bias, greedy vaccine manufacturers and jealous, Lessans-hating meanies.

If this wasn't the case, why would they be doing all these tests involving animals that have eyes? Can you not see what is going on here? Hellooo!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, you said

And when I asked how you would know if he recognized his master on Skype, you said he would react just as he did to the real person. The real person was talking and walking and touching and being smelled, so why on Earth would you expect a dog to react the same way to a still silent image with no odor as to the real thing?

I have mentioned that in order for us to know whether the dog recognizes his master through sight alone, any other cues would have to be omitted. Sound is a cue. Movement is a cue. If you had thought about it you would have realized that these videos were not set up to test this. If a dog was able to recognize his master from sight alone, it would seem that he would show a reaction to a still frame because the photons are entering his eyes. A dog recognizes his master from sound alone, doesn't he? Why not from sight alone?