A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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".

That is so not true Vivisectus and you know it.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is so not true Vivisectu,s and you know it.

By golly! I am foiled by your fiendish application of the cunning "Is no-hot" argument!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

My wife has "Normal Sight" take off her glasses and she can't make anything out beyond a few feet, without her glasses she is 'legally blind'. But all glasses do is to refocus light, they don't interact with the brain at all, so how can glasses effect vision if it is efferent? Doesn't the brain look through the eyes to see the world, what does focusing an image on the retina have anything to do with vision in efferent vision? So if the bionic eye produce a blurry image, that would constitute "Normal Sight"?

[ceptimus]

You need to get one of these if you want your evidence to be of any worth to peacegirl.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

1. Images don't bounce off objects, for the billionth time

2. Some light comes in contact with matter while it is traveling and some matter it encounters absorbs it (which makes it stop traveling), such as the photoreceptors in our retinas and in green plants.

If a traveling car hits a wall, what happens? Why doesn't it pass right over the wall?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

My wife has "Normal Sight" take off her glasses and she can't make anything out beyond a few feet, without her glasses she is 'legally blind'. But all glasses do is to refocus light, they don't interact with the brain at all, so how can glasses effect vision if it is efferent? Doesn't the brain look through the eyes to see the world, what does focusing an image on the retina have anything to do with vision in efferent vision? So if the bionic eye produce a blurry image, that would constitute "Normal Sight"?

Sheesh get with it - that is because lenses focus out towards the object which has to be in the field of view to be seen in real time if the efferent account is true. Just like TV sets create images with light on the screen of a tv, in stead of just being very sophisticated lamps.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why wouldn't images that bounce off of objects pass right over us on Earth if light is traveling at such a fast speed?

Because, for the 37,683rd time, it isn't images that are traveling or bouncing off things.

Why on Earth do you feel qualified to "criticize" the "scientific model of sight" when you have no idea at all what it actually is?

And why do you continue to dishonestly pretend that Lessans' "model" of sight hasn't been disproved, when it has -- by people doing exactly what you said would be needed in order to disprove Lessans?




You needn't bother to reply; we all know the answer. I'm just recording it for the record.

[Vivisectus]

Why wouldn't images that bounce off of objects pass right over us on Earth if light is traveling at such a fast speed?

Weyhey! The good times are back! Images are bouncing off objects! Good god I have missed this stuff.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If a traveling car hits a wall, what happens? Why doesn't it pass right over the wall?

Because it's not traveling fast enough, obviously.

[LadyShea]

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?

Because it was a scientific test done in France and the results were presented to other scientists in a scientific journal then at a scientific conference. The videos are available to researchers and students, just as most scientific research is.

You didn't even bother to read the simple article about it. Why must everything be handed to you like you're a small child, why can't you read anything or research anything?

At the last MFEC conference, in France, Dr. Autier-Derian, veterinarian/ethologist, exposed how when asked to choose between two pictures, dogs are capable of consistently heading towards the pictures of the people they know versus those of strangers.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;1134979]

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?[/QUOTE]


Because the light is not passing over us, but the light that the eye and brain use to form an image is passing directly into the eye and being focused on the retina. The speed of light is constant and the eye doens't need to 'catch up' with the light just needs to be shining directly into the eye, the eye has evolved to deal with light traveling at light speed, the idea that light is too fast for the eye to catch, is a strawman of your invention, Educate your self about optics and vision, willful ignorance is very unbecoming to anyone.

[LadyShea]

Visual discrimination of species in dogs (Canis familiaris) - Online First - Springer

As a consequence of intensive artificial selection, domestic dogs, Canis familiaris, present the largest phenotypic diversity among domestic mammals. The goal of our study was to determine whether dogs can discriminate any type of dog from other species and can group all dogs whatever their phenotypes within the same category. Nine pet dogs were successfully trained through instrumental conditioning using a clicker and food rewards to choose a rewarded image, S+, out of two images displayed on computer screens. The generalization step consisted in the presentation of a large sample of paired images of heads of dogs from different breeds and cross-breeds with those of other mammal species, included humans. A reversal phase followed the generalization step. Each of the nine subjects was able to group all the images of dogs within the same category. Thus, the dogs have the capacity of species discrimination despite their great phenotypic variability, based only on visual images of heads.

I thought children can only differentiate between a dog and a fox due to language, but it seems dogs can differentiate between dogs and other mammals even though dogs look remarkably different from each other. All types of foxes are more similar looking to each other than a Chihuahua and a Great Dane are similar looking to each other....yet the dogs can pick out the dogs 100%?

[Dragar]

And once again, it turns out that if we listened to Lessans we would be worse off. We would have failed in our endeavors to land things on other planets, and we'd have failed to make a bionic eye.

Lessans ideas about the world are worse than useless.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why is it that they only publish the results and not allow people to see the actual experiment as it's progressing

What? Are you sniffing glue? You think all scientists everywhere should publish their experiments publicly in real time? Like a live camera feed of thousands of labs worldwide, or what exactly?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I realized the videos weren't set up to test this because you said we didn't need controlled tests, just layperson observation and anecdotal evidence just like your son and his dog on Skype or this soldier and his dog on Skype (relevant info you said!). When you say things like that, why are you surprised when we hold you to it? What the hell kind of random person sets up tests, that happen to match your parameters, using Skype then puts them on YouTube? What the hell were you expecting with your Skype talk? Did you think we would do tests for you with our dogs or what exactly?

Anyway, Weasel, you still aren't responding to the pertinent part of the questions at all

1. How would you know if he recognizes his master in a photograph? How would you determine if a dog is recognizing someone from a still photograph?
2. Why would the dog react to an inanimate object, a photograph, as if it were the real person?
3. If the reaction would be different what reaction is expected and why?
4. Do you expect dogs to react to a sock the same way as you expect them to react to a photograph? Why or why not

[Adam]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What? Are you sniffing glue? You think all scientists everywhere should publish their experiments publicly in real time? Like a live camera feed of thousands of labs worldwide, or what exactly?

Exactly that. And then we could watch the scientists' dogs watching them do their experiments and make observations about them.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Lessans

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight distance away cannot identify his master.

Clearly, Lessans conducted that exact experiment multiple times. Clearly. Were it otherwise, Lessans would have been talking out his ass when he wrote the above-quoted sentence, and we know he never, ever did that.

Furthermore, the experiment protocols must be readily available to everyone. Otherwise, Lessans would have been "only publish[ing] the results and not allow people to see the actual experiment," which all proper dog behavior scientists agree is bad bad bad.

Trouble is, I can't find anything in the Sacred Text about how many times Lessans conducted the experiment much less a thorough description of his test protocols. Can someone point me in the right direction? I mean, it looks as though Lessans was yammering out his tuchis on this issue, even though we know he never, ever did that.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why is it that they only publish the results and not allow people to see the actual experiment as it's progressing

Peacegirl wants to see the experiments in progress, yet has failed to provide any of the "Observations" by Lessans that led to his conclusions. Is it just me, or does that seem like an extreme double standard?

BTW, I'm eating a salad with lots of onion, so can anyone tell by smelling the screen?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

It seemed to fit.

I liked that article. Ya know, this sounds like you guys.

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.

What does it mean for a prior to be "strong"? It means you really, really believe something to be true. If your start off with a very strong prior, even solid evidence to the contrary won't change your mind. In other words, your posterior will come directly from your prior. (And where do priors come from? On this, Bayesian theory is silent. Let's assume they come directly from your...um...posterior.)

There are many people who have very strong priors about things. For example, there are people who believe, very strongly, that solar power will never be cost-efficient. If you confront them with evidence of solar's rapid price declines, they will continue to insist that, despite this evidence, solar will simply never be cost-competitive with fossil fuels. That they continue to insist this does not necessarily make them irrational in the Bayesian sense; they simply have very strong priors. Someday they may be convinced - for example, if and when unsubsidized solar power starts being adopted on a mass scale. It'll just take a LOT to convince them.

Noahpinion: What is "derp"? The answer is technical.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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?

Hey, you pretty much got this thing down to a science.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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!

Second Sight - Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

I told you that if they smelled a sock, they would probably start searching for their master. They might even want to lay down by the sock if their master isn't there. A smell of steak on a paper plate doesn't mean the dog doesn't recognize that it's just a smell and will eat the plate. He will go look for the source of the smell. A still frame on a computer screen is not the same thing as a sock because it's an exact representation of the person's face. If the eyes are a sense organ shouldn't the dog be able to recognize his master from this, just like a child can? After going up to the screen and not being able to make contact with the owner, the dog may lose interest. But in the beginning, there definitely should be some kind of recognition (whether it's a wag of the tail, a whimper, a bark) just like there is when they hear their master's voice.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

My wife has "Normal Sight" take off her glasses and she can't make anything out beyond a few feet, without her glasses she is 'legally blind'. But all glasses do is to refocus light, they don't interact with the brain at all, so how can glasses effect vision if it is efferent? Doesn't the brain look through the eyes to see the world, what does focusing an image on the retina have anything to do with vision in efferent vision? So if the bionic eye produce a blurry image, that would constitute "Normal Sight"?

Focusing light has to do with refraction. We're still using light to see the world in the efferent account, so if that light is not focused we will have blurred vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

1. Images don't bounce off objects, for the billionth time

Call it what you want, it is believed that the non-absorbed photons are bouncing off of the object.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

2. Some light comes in contact with matter while it is traveling and some matter it encounters absorbs it (which makes it stop traveling), such as the photoreceptors in our retinas and in green plants.

If a traveling car hits a wall, what happens? Why doesn't it pass right over the wall?

Of course not. But you're making an assumption as to what happens with the remaining light. Light energy is absorbed and what is revealed is the object. According to Lessans, there is a mistaken notion that the non-absorbed light is reflected, which means that the photons are bouncing and traveling over long distances. This appears logical, but for the billionth time, this is exactly what is being contested.