A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

We gave you links years ago to scientific studies demonstrating that dogs can recognize their human partners in photographs and on video.

Oh, and back, peacegirl. All aboard the !

it's just not true David. This joke of an experiment proved nothing of the sort. A dog can learn how to push a lever and get rewarded, but this has nothing to do with true recognition, and you know it. You just want to be right.

[davidm]

Not only do dogs recognize their human partners by sight alone in real life, photos and videos, it looks as if dogs like Bunny who use soundboard buttons understand human language, and are not just reacting to cues.

But what would you care about dogs, peacegirl? You murdered my aunt’s precious Manchester terrier, Adolf.

[davidm]

Just think, peacegirl, only 897 pages to go until we can have a Page 2200 party.

[specious_reasons]

Welcome to peacegirl's mind:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It’s right there in Chapter Three. [...]

then...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never said anything about empirical evidence. He never even used the word in his books.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Welcome to peacegirl's mind:

then...

Through observation and reasoning, he proves man’s will is not free and that, under changed environmental conditions, we could never desire to take chances that could cause harm without justification. But he never used the word “empirical”. Obviously, proving empirically that something works is the ultimate proof. How can you argue with success?

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It’s right there in Chapter Three. Don’t ask me to spoon feed this to you!

Adobe Acrobat

This contains the claim that dogs can't recognize there master by sight alone. It doesn't contain any evidence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Crumb

This contains the claim that dogs can't recognize there master by sight alone. It doesn't contain any evidence.

These are his observations. What kind of evidence were you looking for?

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These are his observations. What kind of evidence were you looking for?

Evidence in this case would be experiments with dogs to see if they could recognize people by sight alone. Observations are just the beginning, testing to see if your ideas correspond to reality is vitally important.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Crumb

Evidence in this case would be experiments with dogs to see if they could recognize people by sight alone. Observations are just the beginning, testing to see if your ideas correspond to reality is vitally important.

Observation can stand alone. Testing can be deceptive due to faulty design especially when there is confirmation bias. Dogs need their sense of smell to confirm what they see. They cannot identify individual differences because they don't have the language to do this. Show me where a dog recognizes his master from a picture, a computer screen, or a life-size cutout cardboard image, and I'll concede, but not until.

[Crumb]

So you have no evidence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Crumb

So you have no evidence.

The evidence is obvious but you don’t want to accept it. Show me a counter example that proves him wrong. You haven’t done that because you can’t. The burden of proof is on him and he described very carefully why dogs cannot recognize through sight and why humans can. You don’t seem interested as to why he used dogs are incapable of sight recognition without other cues such as gait. You didn’t read anything so there’s no point if all you keep saying is he has no evidence. How do astronauts learn about space? Through their powerful telescopes and observation.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Observation can stand alone. Testing can be deceptive due to faulty design especially when there is confirmation bias. Dogs need their sense of smell to confirm what they see. They cannot identify individual differences because they don't have the language to do this. Show me where a dog recognizes his master from a picture, a computer screen, or a life-size cutout cardboard image, and I'll concede, but not until.

Recognizing by sight alone has nothing to do with language, notwithstanding whatever daffy thing your father allegedly wrote in the Corrupted Text that you hawk for filthy lucre. Let’s bear in mind that ChuckF is the True Steward of the Authentic Text.

But, as noted in a linked science article above, dogs do understand human language and use soundboards to form their own sentences and questions.

Dogs do recognize their human partners by sight alone, including in photos and on video. Links to these scientific studies were given to you years ago.

#TrueStewardship
#RIPAdolf

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Recognizing by sight alone has nothing to do with language, notwithstanding whatever daffy thing your father allegedly wrote in the Corrupted Text that you hawk for filthy lucre. Let’s bear in mind that ChuckF is the True Steward of the Authentic Text.

But, as noted in a linked science article above, dogs do understand human language and use soundboards to form their own sentences and questions.

Dogs do recognize their human partners by sight alone, including in photos and on video. Links to these scientific studies were given to you years ago.

#TrueStewardship
#RIPAdolf

What is your problem, David? You seem so threatened by this knowledge when you know you have nothing. Dogs can understand some words, that's true. There was a dog that could pick out many objects when the owner said the word associated with said object. The dog also brought an object that the owner asked for through the process of elimination. But dogs are limited in their ability to form connections through sight alone.

A Film Documenting Chaser's Learning of 1000 words - YouTube

https://www.amazon.com/Chaser-Unlock...rmat=4&depth=1

What scientific studies are you talking about David? The lever failure due to an inherent design flaw? You actually think dogs can form their own sentences and questions? Show me.

403 Forbidden

[peacegirl]

I don't think anyone comes to this forum anymore. Sad. Here again are 5 chapters of The Secret that I am giving away. I hope someone will show me where his description of reality is incorrect. He was not prescribing anything, just observing and using his reasoning ability to figure out the most perplexing debate in philosophy, and more importantly, what lies behind the truth of our nature. He was a very astute observer of life, which no one can deny if they study his incredible work and how it can help our world. The cynicism and incredulity here is a ruination and antithetical to what science is all about. You haven't given him a chance even though you think you have. Your minds were already made up that this knowledge had to be phony, which then allowed you to justify turning this invaluable knowledge into a mockery.

Adobe Acrobat

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think anyone comes to this forum anymore. Sad.

That’s right, peacegirl, because you drove them all away. Just like you murdered my Aunt Flo’s precious Manchester terrier, Adolf. Sad.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

That’s right, peacegirl, because you drove them all away. Just like you murdered my Aunt Flo’s precious Manchester terrier, Adolf. Sad.

I don't think you even know why he made the claim that the eyes are not a sense organ, and why it matters. You just can't believe that science may not have gotten it right. You also believe that when he said, "Everyone will be compelled, of their own free will," it is contradictory. It is not when you understand what he meant by the term "free will" which only means of one's own desire (i.e., that one is not being forced by determinism to do something AGAINST HIS WILL), but in no way does this mean will is free. It is a colloquial expression only. After all these years, you still don't get the first thing. You obviously have a block. Why are you so threatened by this knowledge? Is it that you think he didn't like gays? If that's what you think, it's insane.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You also believe that when he said, "Everyone will be compelled, of their own free will," it is contradictory. It is not when you understand what he meant by the term "free will" which only means of one's own desire (i.e., that one is not being forced by determinism to do something AGAINST HIS WILL), but in no way does this mean will is free.

No, peacegirl, what you don’t get is that the above is known as compatibilist free will, though we explained it to you about a thousand times. The author, assuming this is even part of the Authentic Text and not your corrupted version, simply reinvented the wheel without knowing it.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Crumb

This contains the claim that dogs can't recognize there master by sight alone. It doesn't contain any evidence.

Remember when you requested "empirical evidence" of dogs being unable to recognize their masters from sight alone, peacegirl telling you the empirical evidence was in Chapter 3 of the Corrupted Text, and it turned out there was exactly zero empirical evidence there?

Seems like only yesterday . . . oh, wait.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, peacegirl, what you don’t get is that the above is known as compatibilist free will, though we explained it to you about a thousand times. The author, assuming this is even part of the Authentic Text and not your corrupted version, simply reinvented the wheel without knowing it.

You can call it what you want, but compatibilists are defining "free will" in a way that is arbitrary. You have not understood anything. We either have free will or we don't. Trying to define free will so that some people get off the hook while others get blamed, is not how it works. Determinism and free will are opposites, but the problem is with the word "cause." Do you understand why this is a problem, and why these two opposing thought systems cannot be reconciled by the way determinism is defined, not because there isn't a way? This is not reinventing any wheel without knowing it! I will ask you again, why are you so threatened by this discovery? You seem like a smart guy. Why can't you follow his reasoning instead of trying to discredit him for no valid reason?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think anyone comes to this forum anymore.

Oh, come on. That's not true at all, and you know it! You've been coming here for over thirteen years and there is no reason to believe you'll ever stop.

And you'll always be welcome, peacegirl! Please rest assured that the American taxpayers will continue paying 100% of your living expenses, just as we've been doing for decades. We remain hopeful that after at least twenty-two years of unsuccessful online advocacy, you might one day actually sell a copy of the Corrupted Text. Stranger things have happened!

[-FX-]

This thread is like a Bizarro World thread, except it has almost no sex or even anything interesting in it

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The evidence is obvious but you don’t want to accept it. Show me a counter example that proves him wrong. You haven’t done that because you can’t. The burden of proof is on him and he described very carefully why dogs cannot recognize through sight and why humans can. You don’t seem interested as to why he used dogs are incapable of sight recognition without other cues such as gait. You didn’t read anything so there’s no point if all you keep saying is he has no evidence. How do astronauts learn about space? Through their powerful telescopes and observation.

You just admitted in your post above this one that there was no evidence. You need to present actual evidence or stop saying there is evidence. Otherwise you are lying.

I did read every use of the word dog in what you linked and saw no evidence. You can tell me what page/paragraph it is presented on if you still want to claim it is there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by -FX-

This thread is like a Bizarro World thread, except it has almost no sex or even anything interesting in it

This thread is bizarre because of the attacks and the ad hominems. You will never understand what the actual discovery is trying to sift through this crap. It will drive you crazy. And if someone has an inkling of what it's about, they don't have the wherewithal to follow through because they would have to admit they were wrong. It's like a prosecutor putting someone in jail for 20 years only to find out later that that person was innocent. Of course, they are going to say they still believe in that person's guilt even if the truth is staring them in the face. They wouldn't be able to deal with the fact that they ruined this person's life. Obviously, his premises must be true for the discovery to be true. This has nothing to do with him being my daddy or for lucre. This is what I had to put up with for years. BTW, I am the true steward of this work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Crumb

You just admitted in your post above this one that there was no evidence. You need to present actual evidence or stop saying there is evidence. Otherwise you are lying.

I did read every use of the word dog in what you linked and saw no evidence. You can tell me what page/paragraph it is presented on if you still want to claim it is there.

I don't believe you read the chapter. You expect a certain kind of evidence, which already proves to me that you were not open to his observations. Show me a dog that can recognize his master from a picture. He should be able to if the light is carrying the image to his eye. Show me that a dog can recognize his master from a computer screen. The light should easily reach his eye in order for recognition to occur. Why then can't he? Dogs can identify certain objects because they have formed a relationship between the object/behavior and the sound or command, but when recognition becomes more difficult, such as identifying facial characteristics, they don't have the ability to distinguish between one face and another. This could easily be demonstrated using an experiment. Line up ten people who have a similar shape. Then without the ability to get a whiff of his master (which would be a giveaway and ruin the experiment), see what happens. If the light from his master in a lineup is traveling to his eye, he should immediately give some indication that recognition has taken place whether it's turning toward his master, running up to him without his sense of smell kicking in, or some other indication. But this never happens. Dogs need their sense of smell or sound (to a lesser degree) as confirmation. Even my own dog would slowly come up to me not knowing if it was actually me when I walked in the house until he recognized me by smell. I don't know about you, but observation gives us a clear indication that this is true. Can't you see how convinced people are that the eyes are a sense organ because science says it's been settled? You don't think this influences people to poke jabs at this author? Of course it does. If you are sincerely interested, then read Chapter Two. It's spelled out for you. If you're not interested, please don't keep asking me for evidence. Thanking you in advance.

Adobe Acrobat

403 Forbidden

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe you read the chapter. You expect a certain kind of evidence, which already proves to me that you were not open to his observations. Show me a dog that can recognize his master from a picture. He should be able to if the light is carrying the image to his eye. Show me that a dog can recognize his master from a computer screen. The light should easily reach his eye in order for recognition to occur. Why then can't he? Dogs can identify certain objects because they have formed a relationship between the object/behavior and the sound or command, but when recognition becomes more difficult, such as identifying facial characteristics, they don't have the ability to distinguish between one face and another. This could easily be demonstrated using an experiment. Line up ten people who have a similar shape. Then without the ability to get a whiff of his master (which would be a giveaway and ruin the experiment), see what happens. If the light from his master in a lineup is traveling to his eye, he should immediately give some indication that recognition has taken place whether it's turning toward his master, running up to him without his sense of smell kicking in, or some other indication. But this never happens. Dogs need their sense of smell or sound (to a lesser degree) as confirmation. Even my own dog would slowly come up to me not knowing if it was actually me when I walked in the house until he recognized me by smell. I don't know about you, but observation gives us a clear indication that this is true. Can't you see how convinced people are that the eyes are a sense organ because science says it's been settled? You don't think this influences people to poke jabs at this author? Of course it does. If you are sincerely interested, then read Chapter Two. It's spelled out for you. If you're not interested, please don't keep asking me for evidence. Thanking you in advance.

Adobe Acrobat

403 Forbidden

Blah blah blah.

As noted, we’ve already given you links to science studies showing that dogs can recognize their human partners from photos and videos alone, by sight alone, and more recently, studies showing dogs can converse with us using soundboards and understand what we and they are sayig.