A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am asking you to compare the capabilities between the ears and eyes to find meaningful differences between what you deem a sense organ and what you deem not a sense organ.

You keep saying dogs can recognize some things visually...like gait and movement and species, but for some reason only high level facial recognition makes the eyes a sense organ. Why is visual recognition of X different than visual recognition of Y in your model?

Is auditory recognition subject to the same differentiation? Is recognizing a simple sound like a car horn the same or different from recognizing human speech patterns? Is recognizing an individual's voice the same or different from recognizing the more general "human voice"? Why or why are they not different?

If the ears are not subject to the criteria "recognition of X is different than recognition of Y", then you need to explain why that is.

[thedoc]

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 bouncing off of the screen and traveling to the eye.

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

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?

[But]

Talk about ignorance, GRUMPA! Come on!

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by Noah Smith

How much does the evidence change your belief? That depends on three things. It depends on A) how different the evidence is from your prior, B) how strong the evidence is, and C) how strong your prior is.

...

English has no word for "the constant, repetitive reiteration of strong priors". Yet it is a well-known phenomenon in the world of punditry, debate, and public affairs. On Twitter, we call it "derp".

It seemed to fit.

[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?

So which is it? Do you want controlled tests by scientists or do you want anecdotes that will never ever happen because regular people going about their day don't do things like that? If the only evidence you'll accept is the kind that will never exist, then that's unreasonable.

Can your dog recognize you from a picture? | Smart Animal Training Systems...



No levers! The dogs simply chose a picture and walked to it and touched it with a nose

Your interpretation of the videos is completely different than mine. To me it's obvious the dogs were reacting to the video images, and the confusion and frustration was over the fact that the people on the screen were small, flat, and couldn't be smelled or touched. You see it differently because you have a preconceived notion, based on the teachings of your childhood, that dogs can't recognize faces.

I was never taught anything at all about dog facial recognition...I was not told that they can or cannot do this. I had heard the longtime old wives tale that dogs can't see 2 dimensional images at all but that is obviously false. So, the one with the bias going in to these is you, not me.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Talk about ignorance, GRUMPA! Come on!

Yes, that's right, this whole thread has been talking about Lessans, Peacegril and the book, and those would definately qualify as ignorance.

I'm curious, do you have something constructive to add to the thread, or are you just here to pick a fight, If the latter, I have a wet paper bag you can borrow.

[The Lone Ranger]

So, have you had a chance to read up on how bionic eyes work yet?

Have you read about how they restore vision to people who are completely blind due to degeneration of their retinae?

Have you read about how they work by completely bypassing retinal photoreceptors? Instead, the device itself contains photoreceptors (not as many as a real eye, to be sure -- at least, not yet). The signals it receives are used to stimulate the ganglion cells whose axons make up the optic nerve. Those signals are relayed to the brain via the optic nerve for interpretation.

That is how they restore sight. These first-generation devices are comparatively crude, of course, but they do restore sight to blind people, and do so by bypassing the retina's photoreceptors and directly stimulating the cells that make up the optic nerve.


Note that these devices satisfy all the criteria you claimed would firmly establish that they eyes are indeed sense organs.





Denial in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...

[LadyShea]

Links please TLR, for my own personal edification

[ceptimus]

Technology: Monash Vision Bionic Eye

[The Lone Ranger]

The Argus II works by direct implant of photoreceptors into the eye, in effect replacing the nonfunctional portion of the retina. (Indeed, the device is sometimes referred to as an "artificial retina.") And the signals generated by the device are then used to directly stimulate the optic nerve, which relays the signals to the brain for processing, producing vision. Sure, it's low-resolution vision for now, but what would you expect in a first-generation device? Future bionic implants will surely be higher-resolution, and the plan is to produce devices that will directly stimulate the optic cortex of the brain, allowing vision even in patients whose optic nerves are irreparably damaged.


Again, for the record, the Argus II satisfies every criterion that peacegirl said would firmly establish that the eyes are sense organs, since it allows blind people to see by bypassing the retinal photoreceptors and directly stimulating the optic nerve.


The Alpha IMS makes the Argus II look primitive by comparison, as it allows the patient to see much greater detail. As the article speculates, at the rate we're going, it won't be long before we have bionic eyes that produce higher-resolution images than our natural eyes do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, have you had a chance to read up on how bionic eyes work yet?

Have you read about how they restore vision to people who are completely blind due to degeneration of their retinae?

Have you read about how they work by completely bypassing retinal photoreceptors? Instead, the device itself contains photoreceptors (not as many as a real eye, to be sure -- at least, not yet). The signals it receives are used to stimulate the ganglion cells whose axons make up the optic nerve. Those signals are relayed to the brain via the optic nerve for interpretation.

That is how they restore sight. These first-generation devices are comparatively crude, of course, but they do restore sight to blind people, and do so by bypassing the retina's photoreceptors and directly stimulating the cells that make up the optic nerve.


Note that these devices satisfy all the criteria you claimed would firmly establish that they eyes are indeed sense organs.

Absolutely not Lone Ranger. Restoring the retina could go either way. You cannot conclude that the brain is receiving impulses that are interpreted as normal sight just because the retina is restored. That would be analagous to someone repairing a crack in a window. This has nothing to do with how the brain works. I know I'm upsetting you and I'm really sorry, but that will not stop me from expressing the truth as I see it. If this knowledge was that easy to come by, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

[The Lone Ranger]

Did you note how the devices work by bypassing (not "restoring") the retina and directly stimulating the optic nerve?


You know -- the very thing which you earlier claimed would definitively establish that the eyes are sense organs, if it could be done?



Even better, different devices work in different ways. Some use photoreceptors outside the eye to generate impulses that are relayed to the brain; others work by, in effect, implantation of an artificial retina.

[Adam]

I haven't been following this thread closely since it drifted away from the Revolution in Thought and turned into a repository of hilariously eccentric hypotheses about light and dogs and fucking on the dinner table, so forgive me if I've missed this. The eyes aren't sense organs?

:dogsonskype:

[The Lone Ranger]

And, exactly as predicted, even after peacegirl laid out exactly what would be necessary in order to convince her that the eyes are sense organs, and after researchers and technicians went and did exactly what she claimed would definitively establish that the eyes are indeed sense organs -- she adamantly refuses to accept that Lessans' claims about how we see are falsified.

[peacegirl]

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

So which is it? Do you want controlled tests by scientists or do you want anecdotes that will never ever happen because regular people going about their day don't do things like that? If the only evidence you'll accept is the kind that will never exist, then that's unreasonable.

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

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Can your dog recognize you from a picture? | Smart Animal Training Systems...



No levers! The dogs simply chose a picture and walked to it and touched it with a nose

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

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your interpretation of the videos is completely different than mine. To me it's obvious the dogs were reacting to the video images, and the confusion and frustration was over the fact that the people on the screen were small, flat, and couldn't be smelled or touched. You see it differently because you have a preconceived notion, based on the teachings of your childhood, that dogs can't recognize faces.

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

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I was never taught anything at all about dog facial recognition...I was not told that they can or cannot do this. I had heard the longtime old wives tale that dogs can't see 2 dimensional images at all but that is obviously false. So, the one with the bias going in to these is you, not me.

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And, exactly as predicted, even after peacegirl laid out exactly what would be necessary in order to convince her that the eyes are sense organs, and after researchers and technicians went and did exactly what she claimed would definitively establish that the eyes are indeed sense organs -- she adamantly refuses to accept that Lessans' claims about how we see are falsified.

Lone Ranger, the conditions have not been met, so stop pretending that I'm just being obstinate. It's unfair to conclude that Lessans was wrong when the tests were completely inadequate since they did not remove the cues that could have allowed the dog to recognize his master. Don't you see a problem with this?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

I haven't been following this thread closely since it drifted away from the Revolution in Thought and turned into a repository of hilariously eccentric hypotheses about light and dogs and fucking on the dinner table, so forgive me if I've missed this. The eyes aren't sense organs?

:dogsonskype:

No they aren't. I suggest you don't comment but listen in. I can't deal with people who haven't been here but think they know what this conversation is about.

[The Lone Ranger]

You are the one who said that a bionic eye which produces vision by bypassing the retina and directly stimulating the optic nerve would definitively establish to your satisfaction that the eyes are indeed sense organs.

We now have devices that do exactly that. The best ones give vision that allows users to recognize facial expressions and to read.

So, either admit that you and Lessans are/were wrong about how we see or be condemned as a religious zealot and liar.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Did you note how the devices work by bypassing (not "restoring") the retina and directly stimulating the optic nerve?


You know -- the very thing which you earlier claimed would definitively establish that the eyes are sense organs, if it could be done?



Even better, different devices work in different ways. Some use photoreceptors outside the eye to generate impulses that are relayed to the brain; others work by, in effect, implantation of an artificial retina.

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You are the one who said that a bionic eye which produces vision by bypassing the retina and directly stimulating the optic nerve would definitively establish to your satisfaction that the eyes are indeed sense organs.

We now have devices that do exactly that. The best ones give vision that allows users to recognize facial expressions and to read.

So, either admit that you and Lessans are/were wrong about how we see or be condemned as a zealot and liar.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!

[The Lone Ranger]

Read the links. Watch the videos on the site, showing the man talking about seeing his wife's face for the first time, thanks to the device.

Here's a link to the original research article for you to ignore.



And for the record, those goalposts have now entered interplanetary space and are still accelerating!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No they aren't. I suggest you don't comment but listen in. I can't deal with people who haven't been here but think they know what this conversation is about.

Sorry, poking fun at your crazytime thread moves me in the direction of greater satisfaction.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lone Ranger, the conditions have not been met, so stop pretending that I'm just being obstinate. It's unfair to conclude that Lessans was wrong when the tests were completely inadequate since they did not remove the cues that could have allowed the dog to recognize his master. Don't you see a problem with this?

Yeah, TLR, because dogs can maybe not recognize faces (which people who actually do research into this say they can) the bionic eye does not definitively establish that the eye is a sense organ despite Peacegirl claiming that it would.

I do not see HOW that was not immediately clear to you. And anyway, propbably the only reason bionic eyes work so well that they actually allow people to read is because of bias and people not giving the idea that they could not possibly work a chance.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!

....And this is where we get told that bionic eyes don't give someone REAL sight: it is probably just his wife's gait he recognizes.

Or maybe, "Something Else Is Going On" (TM) and we have accidentally designed YET ANOTHER device to work exactly the other way as intended!

Or, maybe the bionic eye focuses outward on the object which has to be within the field of view for an image (which is the other side of the coin of the object) to be seen, in real time.

[Adam]

I bet if you could somehow remove all of the person with the bionic eye's other senses, then and only then* would it count as evidence.

* - But, lol, not really even then.