We don't need a controlled test to prove this. Why do we need a controlled test to prove that dogs can recognize their masters from a picture? We should be able to observe this just like we do the other senses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The difficult part about testing in the flesh is that it's hard to eliminate the variables that could cue the dog other than sight that this was his master.
Do you see any possible link between these two comments of yours, Peacegirl?
You think that observation would have too many variables, but not really. It all depends on what is being tested Spacemonkey.
Am I the one who said above that it is hard to eliminate the variables?
I'm not asking you to tell me what I think. I'm asking if you can see any connection between your above two statements.
It is obvious that in order to know whether dogs can recognize their master from sight alone, the other senses that could cue the dog and ruin the test have to be eliminated. But that doesn't require teaching a dog to push a lever. This has more chance of being wrong [even if they claim it's statistically significant] than direct observation. Again, in order for the test to be reliable we have to make sure that there are no cues that could contaminate the results.
Do you see any connection now between the two bold parts above?
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Look at this dog who looks for the toy thrown on the TV. He had to have visually recognized that something was being thrown to react like that.
LadyShea, I never said dogs don't recognize other animals. My dog would see animals making noises or she'd see movement [such as a herd running] and she'd run up to the television as if to greet them. My girlfriend's rottweiler barks and barks when he sees animals on television especially if they're running. My dog notices other dogs walking, and she will react, whereas she won't react if it's a person walking. So she can obviously tell the difference between her kind and humankind. I'm talking strictly about recognizing a trusted face which a dog should be able to do if photons are traveling to the eyes and being interpreted by the brain. Why should the brain not work in the same way as all the other senses if the eyes are a sense organ? Again, it doesn't add up.
LOL, recognition via seeing is recognition via seeing peacegirl. If the eyes aren't a sense organ, as you claim, then why would dogs be able to visually recognize anything at all? Why does recognition of another animal not count as visual recognition in your strange weasel world?
In this video, the dogs reacts specifically to a toy being thrown as if a real toy were thrown...h/she looks for the toy behind the screen. Explain that, please, if h/she isn't recognizing that a toy was thrown?
Anyway, a few pages back there are a dozen or so videos of dogs viewing humans via Skype and Facetime. Get to analyzing those without changing your criteria, weasel.
We don't need a controlled test to prove this. Why do we need a controlled test to prove that dogs can recognize their masters from a picture? We should be able to observe this just like we do the other senses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The difficult part about testing in the flesh is that it's hard to eliminate the variables that could cue the dog other than sight that this was his master.
Do you see any possible link between these two comments of yours, Peacegirl?
You think that observation would have too many variables, but not really. It all depends on what is being tested Spacemonkey.
Am I the one who said above that it is hard to eliminate the variables?
I'm not asking you to tell me what I think. I'm asking if you can see any connection between your above two statements.
It is obvious that in order to know whether dogs can recognize their master from sight alone, the other senses that could cue the dog and ruin the test have to be eliminated. But that doesn't require teaching a dog to push a lever. This has more chance of being wrong [even if they claim it's statistically significant] than direct observation. Again, in order for the test to be reliable we have to make sure that there are no cues that could contaminate the results.
Do you see any connection now between the two bold parts above?
Well, I can see a connection, in that Peacegirls thinking, reasoning and writing, is just like her fathers, confused and disconnected. She asserts one thing one time, and another the next, as the mood and situation dictates, in her mind. And apparently her mind is segmented, and the different parts are seperated, so that she can think one way in one situation, and another when conditions can be rationalized to appear to be different.
We don't need a controlled test to prove this. Why do we need a controlled test to prove that dogs can recognize their masters from a picture? We should be able to observe this just like we do the other senses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The difficult part about testing in the flesh is that it's hard to eliminate the variables that could cue the dog other than sight that this was his master.
Do you see any possible link between these two comments of yours, Peacegirl?
You think that observation would have too many variables, but not really. It all depends on what is being tested Spacemonkey.
Am I the one who said above that it is hard to eliminate the variables?
I'm not asking you to tell me what I think. I'm asking if you can see any connection between your above two statements.
It is obvious that in order to know whether dogs can recognize their master from sight alone, the other senses that could cue the dog and ruin the test have to be eliminated. But that doesn't require teaching a dog to push a lever. This has more chance of being wrong [even if they claim it's statistically significant] than direct observation. Again, in order for the test to be reliable we have to make sure that there are no cues that could contaminate the results.
Do you see any connection now between the two bold parts above?
All I meant by the first statement is that we don't need the kind of controlled experiment that requires a dog to be artificially trained (i.e., to push a lever) as it can be misleading. I trust observation because it's direct, as long as the variables are controlled so that we know that what we're testing is reliable.
LadyShea, I never said dogs don't recognize other animals. My dog would see animals making noises or she'd see movement [such as a herd running] and she'd run up to the television as if to greet them. My girlfriend's rottweiler barks and barks when he sees animals on television especially if they're running. My dog notices other dogs walking, and she will react, whereas she won't react if it's a person walking. So she can obviously tell the difference between her kind and humankind. I'm talking strictly about recognizing a trusted face which a dog should be able to do if photons are traveling to the eyes and being interpreted by the brain. Why should the brain not work in the same way as all the other senses if the eyes are a sense organ? Again, it doesn't add up.
LOL, recognition via seeing is recognition via seeing peacegirl. If the eyes aren't a sense organ, as you claim, then why would dogs be able to visually recognize anything at all? Why does recognition of another animal not count as visual recognition in your strange weasel world?
In this video, the dogs reacts specifically to a toy being thrown as if a real toy were thrown...h/she looks for the toy behind the screen. Explain that, please, if h/she isn't recognizing that a toy was thrown?
Anyway, a few pages back there are a dozen or so videos of dogs viewing humans via Skype and Facetime. Get to analyzing those without changing your criteria, weasel.
There is no reason to believe that a dog can recognize objects and other animals, but not human faces. The argument about recognizing prey and ignoring people and other things does not apply. Dogs are not wild animals, dogs have been domesticated for many generations and recognizing a human individual would be just as important as recognizing another animal or object. Humans are now probably one of the most important factors in a dogs survival, faces are just one means of differentiating one individual human from another, and it has been observed that dogs do this quite easily, even when the face is the only clue.
There have been some really good exchanges lately. We have used the same standards that you need to apply to the book (and are asked to, by Janis) to show how we really should not rule out the possibility that the earth is flat, that the description of Bigfoot equals evidence of its existence, and that we should just wait for empirical evidence for the existence of fairies to come in, and believe they exist in the meantime!
We have also seen how anecdotal evidence cannot be deceptive, but controlled tests can... at least as long as the anecdotal evidence supports her book.
Also, we know that if the nose was a sense organ, my dog would greet my smelly socks with joy, barking and wagging her tail and carrying her leash to them, execting a walk... so smelling must work efferently, the brain projecting scratch-and-sniff cards of words unto a screen of undeniable essence.
First of all your smelly socks have nothing to do with your unique odor. It's just bacteria that makes the socks smell bad. Even if you're completely clean, you have an individual smell that the dog can identify. He may get some of your odor from a pair of socks (or any item that you've touched), but dogs know the difference between an inanimate object that could lead him to you, and the real thing --- YOU. So I won't see him bringing a leash to a pair of socks anytime soon.
I wondered for a while if it was just a really elaborate troll to drive smart people out of their minds but it seems unlikely that someone would write tomes of that nonsense and then spend years of their life shopping it around the internet looking for someone to agree with it or be enlightened or whatever just for laughs. The effort/entertainment ratio seems all off for a good troll.
How do you know it's nonsense ChristinaM? Have you studied the book? Do you remember any of the discussion? Can you relate what you know? I have a feeling you're just copying what other people have said. Of course I drove them crazy because they couldn't convince me that this discovery was invalid. I don't believe my presentation was adequate back then. It probably still isn't.
There have been some really good exchanges lately. ...snip...
I didn't realize that this wasn't the current active thread until you said that so I'm sorry for resurrecting this one from the portal. I just randomly jumped in and started reading the current one at page 350 and was immediately sucked in and giggling again. I love this stuff.
Tell me why you're giggling? Because it sounds similar to what I went through at the other forum? You have made so many assumptions, and it seems like you're bored and are looking for a good laugh. Well this is not a laughing matter, seriously. Go watch old Lucy shows if you want a good laugh. And why would you come to this thread and talk about me while I'm still here? Why couldn't you come here and talk to me directly? I guess that would be too difficult because it's the more courageous thing to do.
We don't need a controlled test to prove this. Why do we need a controlled test to prove that dogs can recognize their masters from a picture? We should be able to observe this just like we do the other senses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The difficult part about testing in the flesh is that it's hard to eliminate the variables that could cue the dog other than sight that this was his master.
Do you see any possible link between these two comments of yours, Peacegirl?
You think that observation would have too many variables, but not really. It all depends on what is being tested Spacemonkey.
Am I the one who said above that it is hard to eliminate the variables?
I'm not asking you to tell me what I think. I'm asking if you can see any connection between your above two statements.
It is obvious that in order to know whether dogs can recognize their master from sight alone, the other senses that could cue the dog and ruin the test have to be eliminated. But that doesn't require teaching a dog to push a lever. This has more chance of being wrong [even if they claim it's statistically significant] than direct observation. Again, in order for the test to be reliable we have to make sure that there are no cues that could contaminate the results.
Do you see any connection now between the two bold parts above?
All I meant by the first statement is that we don't need the kind of controlled experiment that requires a dog to be artificially trained (i.e., to push a lever) as it can be misleading.
Is that what you actually said?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I trust observation because it's direct, as long as the variables are controlled so that we know that what we're testing is reliable.
Can you perhaps make up your mind as to whether you prefer controlled experiments or uncontrolled observation?
And you didn't actually answer my question. Do you see any connection between the above two comments in bold? If so, what connection do you see?
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
I know you don't. Because you've payed no attention at all to the problem. On your account the photons at the retina could not have been located at the Sun because there is no time at which they could have been located there. The photons cannot be located at the Sun at the very same time that these very same photons are also at the retina, and they cannot have been at the Sun before this time because the Sun was not ignited before then. Your claim that there will be photons instantaneously at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited is inconsistent with your claim that they came from the Sun.
That's because the image (or pattern) does not get reflected and travel Spacemonkey. You are ignoring his claim.
You are again ignoring the problem, which has nothing at all to do with reflected or traveling images. I didn't mention images at all. The problem has only to do with your impossible claims about where light can be at different points in time. If the light is instantly at the retina as soon as the newly ignited Sun ignites, then this light cannot possibly have come from the Sun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You will not allow yourself to accept that he was right [even temporarily] so that you can move forward. That's why you'll never understand this work. You have cotton in your ears.
You are again asking me to share your faith. That isn't how this works. If you have no evidence for his claims then you lose. You don't get to ask us to pretend he had support for things he never bothered to support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
This isn't what I'm asking you to support. I was asking about the alleged innate potential perfection of conscience, and you've answered instead with the reasoning which relies upon it. I know you don't know what else to say. That's because you don't have any supporting evidence for Lessans' assumption, and lack the objectivity to recognize this assumption for what it is.
I'm tired of you saying this. There were no presuppositions. You can't accept that he observed how conscience works and it's correct. But in order for these principles to work the environment has to change in order to remove the hurt done to others so that they won't have the justification to hurt in return.
Any premise in his argument, for which neither you or he has supporting evidence, is a presupposition. It is a presupposition that conscience has some innate potential perfection that it would achieve in the absence of blame. It is a presupposition because his arguments require this to be true, and yet he did not argue for or support this claim in any way. Unlike you, I will not just accept that his claims or 'observations' are correct because he said so. You need to be able to support them if you expect anyone to believe them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
He described many things accurately. One of them is that we can only see this world through our very own consciousness. This can be observed and it doesn't need any other support.
That's just another faith claim to say that he observed many things accurately. Rational people use evidence to determine which observations are accurate and which are not. But you have no evidence. You have only faith. And I see you are once again attempting to base an argument upon a tautology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You got that right. And that's why there's no point in sending you the book. You even said it will not be accepted by the universities because it doesn't meet the epistemic standards to even consider it plausible. I'll find my own readers, but thanks for offering to help even if it was insincere.
You've now flip-flopped on sending me the book even more times than you flip-flopped on whether the light at the film traveled to get there. Where did I say anything about universities rejecting the book? Did you just make that up? If you really can't afford to send me a copy then just say so. Stop making up all these bogus excuses for backing out of your agreement.
Bump.
Bump.
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Ionno - I just look at the last PG response in either thread to see if there is anything good.
Mind you, I enjoyed the "observations can be evidence" attempts. The one about conscience was rather good: I felt we could have gotten far better mileage out of it.
What do you mean by more mileage Vivisectus? More jokes at my expense?
I learned a lot from those threads too because the wrongness touches on so many disciplines. I've seen the show in a few places now and they all went on for thousands of posts without changing her position in the slightest. At least one of them was so abusive that it was hard to read and it still went on for a very long time before the mods shut it down. Maybe one of these years she'll shock everyone and say "OOOOOH, now I get it!" and I don't want to miss it.
Okay, what wrongness which touches on so many disciplines? No, I won't one of these years say "OOOOH, now I get it!" It will be you saying this, and if we're all dead by then, it will be the next generation that says, "OOOOH, now I get it!" I don't need another naysayer coming here and trying to stir things up without one good question. You can just go back where you came.
<deletes a bunch of internet psychiatrist musings since I don't know what I'm talking about...>
There's something almost childishly charming about her dedication to the guy and her mission to bring his writings to the world but I hope that it doesn't really disturb her that she's alone in her admiration. I suppose it's better than watching soap operas all day.
The only reason I'm dedicated is because I believe he was right, and I will do my best to get the knowledge investigated. Childish charm has nothing to do with it. And there are plenty other choices than doing this or watching soap operas.
Wow - I haven't looked at or posted on a secular forum in years and this was the first thing that I saw. Janice, you have more stamina than any woman that I've ever met. Has anyone figured out what you're talking about yet? Thanks for making me feel like I never left
</derail from whatever part you're up to>
Well nothing much has changed, just MS, - Peacegirl posts drivel, Others try to correct her, - Peacegirl posts drivel, Others try to correct her, etc. I believe most of us had figured out what she was trying to say from the begining, but realized how wrong it was, and haven't been able to get anything into her head since.
Christina, this is coming from a guy who has no clue what the discovery is. Now you can be just as ignorant as him by listening to his words and commenting on them.
Doubtful. And I do not think that Janis truly desires the opposite effect either: whatever would she do with her time if people would start actually agreeing? Like I said recently: if you are still a beginner after 10 years of launching a project, you are not likely to live long enough to even become moderately good at it.
Attention, however, never gets old for some people. I see it as a fair exchange: I get some entertainment when she inevitably lapses into contradiction because of the impossible position she has chosen, and she gets the attention she so obviously craves. It is a win-win situation.
I'm not a beginner Vivisectus, and I have not lapsed into any contradiction. The only thing I'm guilty of is going to other forums not realizing that the venue was not right in introducing a discovery of this magnitude. First of all, no one can grasp an entire book the way it's been presented (cutting and pasting small parts). Also, when a philosophy forum is meant to be a free exchange of ideas, people resent it when they can't add their two cents. That was my first mistake because this was meant to be a demonstration. I guess I was so happy about this new way of communicating online that I didn't see the downside. Secondly, how often is a true discovery revealed on an internet forum? People are taken aback, especially when the claims are announced. I would have reacted the same way. The odds were not in my favor from the very beginning.
We don't need a controlled test to prove this. Why do we need a controlled test to prove that dogs can recognize their masters from a picture? We should be able to observe this just like we do the other senses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The difficult part about testing in the flesh is that it's hard to eliminate the variables that could cue the dog other than sight that this was his master.
Do you see any possible link between these two comments of yours, Peacegirl?
You think that observation would have too many variables, but not really. It all depends on what is being tested Spacemonkey.
Am I the one who said above that it is hard to eliminate the variables?
I'm not asking you to tell me what I think. I'm asking if you can see any connection between your above two statements.
It is obvious that in order to know whether dogs can recognize their master from sight alone, the other senses that could cue the dog and ruin the test have to be eliminated. But that doesn't require teaching a dog to push a lever. This has more chance of being wrong [even if they claim it's statistically significant] than direct observation. Again, in order for the test to be reliable we have to make sure that there are no cues that could contaminate the results.
Do you see any connection now between the two bold parts above?
All I meant by the first statement is that we don't need the kind of controlled experiment that requires a dog to be artificially trained (i.e., to push a lever) as it can be misleading. I trust observation because it's direct, as long as the variables are controlled so that we know that what we're testing is reliable.
You are being contradictory again. What kinds of controls do you think can be added to observation that wouldn't be prone to ambiguous interpretation?
I posted this picture a few pages back. This is from a controlled experiment in France. No levers at all. The dog simply chose a picture and walked to it and put its nose on it. The beauty of this simple set up is that you can test the dogs preference for all kinds of things, because any two images can be put on the screens.
Dogs can pick out faces of other dogs on a computer screen, say researchers, irrespective of breed, showing they can recognize and categorize their own species by sight alone.403 Forbidden
Ionno - I just look at the last PG response in either thread to see if there is anything good.
Mind you, I enjoyed the "observations can be evidence" attempts. The one about conscience was rather good: I felt we could have gotten far better mileage out of it.
What do you mean by more mileage Vivisectus? More jokes at my expense?
You and your confusion are and always have been a source of entertainment for everyone still engaging you in this thread. Are you really only just discovering this now?
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
First of all your smelly socks have nothing to do with your unique odor.
That is complete and total bullshit. Ones unique odor is unique no matter where it is deposited or if other smells are also present.
Bacteria feed off sweat and dead skin cells in the socks...the sweat and dead skin still carry the person's unique odor. How do you think bloodhounds can track individual scents over many miles and even after several days?
I learned a lot from those threads too because the wrongness touches on so many disciplines. I've seen the show in a few places now and they all went on for thousands of posts without changing her position in the slightest. At least one of them was so abusive that it was hard to read and it still went on for a very long time before the mods shut it down. Maybe one of these years she'll shock everyone and say "OOOOOH, now I get it!" and I don't want to miss it.
Okay, what wrongness which touches on so many disciplines? No, I won't one of these years say "OOOOH, now I get it!" It will be you saying this, and if we're all dead by then, it will be the next generation that says, "OOOOH, now I get it!" I don't need another naysayer coming here and trying to stir things up without one good question. You can just go back where you came.
Temper, temper dear...
Geez, I just joined and most of the time I make it to at least 50 posts before I get told to go away again. As lovely as it is to see you I think that I'll pass on getting annoyed since there are a whole, whole lot of posts ahead of mine that you still haven't gotten to yet and I don't want to give you an excuse to ignore them take your busy time away from that. The derail was just intermission.
Last edited by ChristinaM; 06-09-2013 at 02:16 PM.
There have been some really good exchanges lately. We have used the same standards that you need to apply to the book (and are asked to, by Janis) to show how we really should not rule out the possibility that the earth is flat, that the description of Bigfoot equals evidence of its existence, and that we should just wait for empirical evidence for the existence of fairies to come in, and believe they exist in the meantime!
We have also seen how anecdotal evidence cannot be deceptive, but controlled tests can... at least as long as the anecdotal evidence supports her book.
Also, we know that if the nose was a sense organ, my dog would greet my smelly socks with joy, barking and wagging her tail and carrying her leash to them, execting a walk... so smelling must work efferently, the brain projecting scratch-and-sniff cards of words unto a screen of undeniable essence.
First of all your smelly socks have nothing to do with your unique odor. It's just bacteria that makes the socks smell bad. Even if you're completely clean, you have an individual smell that the dog can identify. He may get some of your odor from a pair of socks (or any item that you've touched), but dogs know the difference between an inanimate object that could lead him to you, and the real thing --- YOU. So I won't see him bringing a leash to a pair of socks anytime soon.
Then why do you expect the dog to react to a photograph in the same manner that he reacts to the real person, if you don't expect him to react to a sock the same way he does a real person? Thy know the difference between an inanimate object, the photograph, and the real thing....right?
I was asking how you, as a human, would definitively ascertain whether recognition is happening. There is no conclusive way to do that, because we can't read dog's minds.
Quote:
We don't have to read their minds. We see it in their reaction.
That's the whole problem. Why do you think dogs should or would react a specific way to a representation? How do you know what dog behaviors indicate facial recognition? You don't know. Neither do I. That's why we need testing conditions without having humans interpret behavior and reactions they don't understand and might read into.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Humans don't treat photographs and Skype images the same way they treat people in person, why would dogs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm talking about recognition LadyShea. We can recognize people from pictures so why shouldn't dogs if the eyes work like the other senses.
I am asking about how you would ascertain or determine that a dog recognizes something. They may completely recognize their master in a picture, and simply not behave in the way you seem to think they should or would. There is no reason to think you know how a dog should or would behave when recognizing a photograph.
Quote:
Why would they not be able to identify a person they are very familiar with through their "sense of sight" just like they can interpret what they are experiencing through their other senses?
Nothing is interpreted in the sense organs.
What makes you think they can't identify people from photographs? I think they absolutely can. You have nothing on which to base your disbelief that dogs have this ability except Lessans said so and you have faith in him
The method that Darwin, Romanes and their contemporaries first used to investigate these questions could be described as the anecdotal method. Stories about animal behavior were collected from a variety of people, including military officers, amateur naturalists, and layfolk, and were compiled and used as evidence for a particular cognitive capacity in that species. This approach was widely criticized. The “evidence” gathered was often a story told about an event witnessed by a single person, usually not a trained scientific observer. In addition, these stories were often acquired second- or third- hand, so there were worries that the reports had been embellished or otherwise altered along the way. These problems were recognized early on, and in response Romanes developed three principles for accepting anecdotes in order to avoid some of these problems:
Never accept an incident report as fact without considering the authority or respectability of the observer.
If the observer isn't known, and the incident report is sufficiently important, consider whether the observer may have reason or cause to make an inaccurate report.
Look for corroborations of the observation by examining similar or analogous observations made by other independent observers (Romanes 1970).
The third principle was the one he most relied on, writing “This principle I have found to be a great use in guiding my selection of instances, for where statements of fact which present nothing intrinsically improbable are found to be unconsciously confirmed by different observers, they have as good a right to be deemed trustworthy as statements which stand on the single authority of a known observer, and I have found the former to be at least as abundant as the latter” (Romanes 1970, ix).
Despite Romanes' attempts, the method remained problematic insofar as it didn't provide any statistical information about the frequency of such behaviors; selection bias would lead people to report only the interesting intelligent behaviors and ignore the frequency of behaviors that might serve as counterevidence. Thus, the anecdotal method as practiced by Darwin and Romanes lacks many of the virtues associated with good scientific methods.
Quote:
Today scientists continue to conduct experiments in laboratory settings, but they also attempt to mirror the richness of the animal's natural environment. For example, the research coming out of Kyoto University's Primate Research Institute (PRI) is based on a three-part research program (Matsuzawa et al. 2006). First, the physical, cognitive, and social development of chimpanzees is taken into account in the design of experiments, and subjects are raised by their mothers rather than by human caregivers or unrelated animals. In addition, lab work and fieldwork is synthesized; field observations are used to develop experiments, and experiments are conducted both in the field and in the laboratory. Finally, the method includes analysis of the physiological and biological features of the species that could be related to cognitive abilities.
Research is ongoing all over the world, so Lessans was missing a ton of information when he wrote about dog cognition
Some are links to the YouTube videos, you have to click on them, others are embedded
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There should be at least one case where a loving dog (such as the one in the link I provided) can recognize his master from a picture or video by showing some kind of recognition; a wag of the tail, whimpering, jumping up and down.
Look at all these Skyping and Facetiming dogs. So, please interpret whether these dogs recognized their masters or not according to your astute observational abilities. Also, before you say "they recognized their voice", I agree. But, I should think if the dog recognized only the voice and not the video image, they would be running around searching elsewhere for the source of the voice (the speakers or behind the computer or something), rather than looking at the screen as they do. In fact, I think the dogs seemed upset and confused that they could see a familiar person on the screen but not interact with the real person
Bump. These are all embedded. If you need to go to YouTube then do so
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
When this person flips the phone screen to face herself and turns on the back camera to show the dog, so the dog can't see the screen but we can see the dog, the dog tries to turn the screen back to where she can see. Why would she do that?
This guy doesn't even talk, the dog is reacting only to the screen
This one paws at the screen
This one follows his master's commands
This one fetches a toy to bring to the iPad image of her Mama
Re: A revolution in thought
I don't need another naysayer coming here and trying to stir things up without one good question. You can just go back where you came.
Linear Mode
