A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

It's more akin to saying dogs can't tap dance is evidence that they can't hear music.
They hear music just the same way we do but they don't have the mental capacity to dance.
They can also see just the same way that we do but they may not have the mental capacity to remember faces.

Right, but it really doesn't add up why the brain wouldn't be able to recognize someone whom the dog knows and loves if the image of his master was being decoded in his brain. The brain works just fine with all the other senses. The truth is dogs do not recognize the same way humans do, which is why a vicious dog would attack his own master if he wasn't able to use his other senses to identify him. He cannot do this because he isn't capable of taking a photograph of the individual features and the person to whom these features belong. This leads into his explanation as to how humans are able to do this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Follow up; do you understand how the lens is bending the light to make the bug appear magnified?

I do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Not necessarily.
1. Dogs can't see as well as we can. Dog Vision
2. Facial recognition is a brain function not an eye function.

Exactly. That is the lead in to why human's brains are different than dog brains and why the eyes are not a sense organ.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I was addressing your specific claim that your dog couldn't identify you in a line up. Where and when did this line up take place that you are able to make such a definite statement with regard to the results?

I don't believe my dog would recognize me in a line up if all the controls were in place. That is the problem. It requires very tight controls which I wouldn't be able to set up so easily.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I have seen penguins in the zoo. They could not fly. I also had a neighbor who raised ostriches, they too could not fly. That being the case it is not, as you claim, clearly supported that birds can fly. The verdict is still out and there needs to be more testing done.

You got me there. I wasn't thinking of ostriches and penguins. I was only referring to birds that we know fly. That's also why I said different breeds need to be tested.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why do you keep blatantly lying like this? There really isn't any excuse for it. Below are the questions you are still dishonestly evading and which you are still not even attempting to answer. (They all apply to your account because they concern the light your account claims will be at the retina or film, which must either travel or not travel from the Sun to get there.)

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

I answered this Spacemonkey. The photon that left the Sun could not travel millions of miles to Earth instantly, but that same photon could be at the retina in virtually no time if proportionality (which means we would see the Sun being turned on as quickly as we would see a lighted candle) --- along with the efferent model of sight --- is correct.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What do you mean by saying that Kevin Greene was supposed to help you?

He offered to moderate the thread in order to help me categorize the questions coming in. Then all of a sudden he disappeared. I remember wondering what was going on. I found out the hard way.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered this Spacemonkey. The photon that left the Sun could not travel millions of miles to Earth instantly, but that same photon could be at the retina in virtually no time if proportionality (which means we would see the Sun being turned on as quickly as we would see a lighted candle) --- along with the efferent model of sight --- is correct.

No, that is not what proportionality means, and no, you have not answered my questions. So stop lying to me and answer them:


Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He offered to moderate the thread in order to help me categorize the questions coming in. Then all of a sudden he disappeared. I remember wondering what was going on. I found out the hard way.

I don't recall any of this. I think you are making things up again. He didn't go behind your back at all. He just posted a review you didn't like.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So why does changing the path of light magnify the insect?

Why does a mirror work?

Why does a coloured filter change the colour of objects?

Unless you believe that the wavelength, position and intensity of the light landing on the retina governs what we see, you have no explanation for any of the above. And if you believe it's the properties of light striking the retina that governs what we see, you can't have your precious real-time vision.

Whoever said that these things don't matter Dragar? How many times did I say that optics works the same way in the efferent account? Why do you keep bringing these questions up when I'm not denying that they work just as predicted? Light is a necessary condition of sight, therefore it has to be physically at the eye or film. But this doesn't prove that this same light can travel far beyond the optical range where the object could be seen and still bring the information to the retina or film just from the light alone. This IS the afferent account of vision, and it is far from conclusive.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, but it really doesn't add up why the brain wouldn't be able to recognize someone whom the dog knows and loves if the image of his master was being decoded in his brain. The brain works just fine with all the other senses. The truth is dogs do not recognize the same way humans do, which is why a vicious dog would attack his own master if he wasn't able to use his other senses to identify him. He cannot do this because he isn't capable of taking a photograph of the individual features and the person to whom these features belong. This leads into his explanation as to how humans are able to do this.

You don't know this because you have never tested it or done any experiments to find evidence, you are only saying it because it is what your father taught you, not because you know it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't recall any of this. I think you are making things up again. He didn't go behind your back at all. He just posted a review you didn't like.

I think he PM'd me but I'm not sure. I do recall him saying he was going to help me, and then he disappeared.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly. That is the lead in to why human's brains are different than dog brains and why the eyes are not a sense organ.

Again, you don't know this, your are only repeating what your father has taught you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Yup! Watch her lie about it now.

That was not my father's statement. I realize that this wasn't necessarily right. It all depends on the weather, the direction and altitude of the plane, even the type of plane. A single engine plane is hardly audible if it's at a pretty high altitude, so it all depends.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You got me there. I wasn't thinking of ostriches and penguins. I was only referring to birds that we know fly. That's also why I said different breeds need to be tested.

You said nothing about "Different Breeds" needed to be tested, only that more testing needed to be done, but it doesn't need to be done. It is well known from simple astute observation which birds can fly and which do not. You are lying to cover your mistake, and your fathers lack of knowledge.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You have never offered any reliable evidence that dogs can't recognize their masters' faces. It is simply another of Lessans' unsupported assertions that you keep parroting. That is why it is true to say that the question assumes a fact which is not in evidence.

I would like to see a replication of many different tests on different breeds. Then we'd know. I believe my father was right and there has been nothing to date that has proven dogs can recognize their master from a photograph.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think he PM'd me but I'm not sure. I do recall him saying he was going to help me, and then he disappeared.

Shall we add another lie to your already long list?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think he PM'd me but I'm not sure. I do recall him saying he was going to help me, and then he disappeared.

Are you seriously still trusting YOUR memory? After all the times it has failed you? And why do you keep lying about having answered my questions? Why are you still refusing to answer them?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was not my father's statement. I realize that this wasn't necessarily right. It all depends on the weather, the direction and altitude of the plane, even the type of plane. A single engine plane is hardly audible if it's at a pretty high altitude, so it all depends.

Clueless Dingbat, single engine planes don't fly at high altitudes. Get some education, for your own sake. Big jets are much louder than a single engine plane but they fly much higher, and sometimes can't be heard at all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would like to see a replication of many different tests on different breeds. Then we'd know. I believe my father was right and there has been nothing to date that has proven dogs can recognize their master from a photograph.

you stupid lying dickshit, there has been plenty of examples of tests on dogs that have demonstrated that dogs can recognize their masters from a photograph or a video screen. You have just refused to look at and acknowledge them. You must believe that everyone else is as stupid as you are, and will believe what you say and disregard all the posts that have gone before. You are really incredibly stupid.

[The Lone Ranger]

Incidentally, here's yet another study for peacegirl to misunderstand and/or ignore and/or lie about. Note that the study not only provides convincing evidence that dogs can recognize photographs of their masters, it also provides convincing evidence that they can form mental images of their masters, which they can then match to the correct photographs.

No levers were involved, by the way.

[thedoc]

To everyone else on this forum, I apologize for my outburst against Peacegirl, but sometimes she drives my patience to the limit.

[Spacemonkey]

It's the continued lying that I don't get. She can't be fooling herself, and she certainly isn't fooling anyone else. So why keep lying about things that can so easily be checked?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whoever said that these things don't matter Dragar? How many times did I say that optics works the same way in the efferent account? Why do you keep bringing these questions up when I'm not denying that they work just as predicted? Light is a necessary condition of sight, therefore it has to be physically at the eye or film. But this doesn't prove that this same light can travel far beyond the optical range where the object could be seen and still bring the information to the retina or film just from the light alone. This IS the afferent account of vision, and it is far from conclusive.

You should just say you don't know, rather than weasel and evade like that. It's not fooling anyone.

[BWE]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get that, but please don't put everyone in the same category, or else you'll lose the baby with the bathwater.

Who was asking for a commitment? I was only sharing a book that is online. I never expected the caustic reaction I got.

I for one do not want to lose the baby again. I haven't got past here in this thread yet. is there a free e-book available?