A revolution in thought - Page 1600

peacegirl · #**39976** 08-08-2014, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He would not be able to recognize his owner if he was seeing efferently because there would be nothing in the light to allow this recognition to take place. Dogs need other cues such as their sense of hearing and smell.

Why can humans recognize faces by sight if we see efferently but other species cannot? In the past you've said it was due to language, but as has been shown dogs are capable of associating names with things.

Dogs can associate names with things to a limited degree. If I said to my dog, "Go get your toy" she would know what toy means. But that's about it. She could not identify me in a line up.

What is the limit? I showed you the video of one dog who knows over 1000 names and is still learning. Did you work hours every day teaching your dog words? I know I don't do that, but they certainly seem capable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemis

Whether a dog can recognize it's owner, or anything else, from sight would have more to do with how the dog's brain stores memories than how it's eyes function.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, this is much more likely, however this point has been simply dismissed by peacegirl with a definitive "nuh uh!"

Dogs cannot store memories like we do because they don't have the ability to take a photograph of these subtle differences.

How do you know?

That's very cool, but it doesn't explain language. Dogs cannot understand the relationship between subtle differences which would distinguish their owner from someone else. They just can't photogragh it. I'm not saying they can't hear a word and know what the owner is referring to. This has been proven over and over again (e.g. tell the dog to find a ball and he can do it), but you cannot extend this into dogs understanding language when it comes to differences that would allow him to recognize his owner over someone else. Show me where scientists can do this, and I will concede.

peacegirl · #**39977** 08-08-2014, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

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. :sadcheer:

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.

I will help you as long as it isn't too hard. I too want to bring peace and harmony to the world.

I don't need any help in that regard. I do need people who understand the principles and want to help pass this knowledge along. I hope you read Chapter One first. If you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer them.

LadyShea · #**39978** 08-08-2014, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

You can't be serious Lone Ranger. Do you actually think this test of the length of time a dog looks at the incongruecy between the owner's voice and the photograph actually trumps careful observation? Why not observe a dog who shows absolute excitement when his master comes home from the service yet cannot recognize him on a computer screen. Why do you ignore this? The basic assumption in this test is that the longer a dog looks at a picture proves what is going on in his mind. This is an example of exactly what I was talking about; confirmation bias. Why not do a test on dogs that we know have a loving relationship with their owner to see if a picture of that owner will cause any kind of reaction. That would be a better indicator than all of these flawed tests put together.

Dogs Welcoming Soldiers Home Compilation 2012 [HD] - YouTube

One is a controlled experiment with measurable data and with methodology that others can replicate and your idea is not science at all. This has been explained to you. You want to use subjective human interpretation of variable and individual dog behaviors (tail wagging and body language), when you have a clearly biased expectation of how dogs should behave.

You don't trust science, so you think their methods are flawed. You trust anecdotes which are worthless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dogs cannot understand the relationship between subtle differences which would distinguish their owner from someone else.

How do you know?

LadyShea · #**39979** 08-08-2014, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference is that in the efferent account light doesn't travel away from the object through space/time and bring the information to the eye. In the example you just gave, the bug is present. The lens is just magnifying the bug, which would occur in the efferent account as well.

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.

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

Where am I weaseling? I can't get anymore clear than what I just said; OPTICS WORKS THE SAME WAY IN THE EFFERENT ACCOUNT SO ALL OF YOUR REFUTATIONS AGAINST EFFERENT VISION FOR THIS VERY REASON IS MOOT.

But you called optics a made up story.

LadyShea · #**39980** 08-08-2014, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true LadyShea. We hear planes before we ever see them, even if we know where to look. You are wrong.

Oh dear. Oh my. Oh dearie dearie me oh my, what a breathtakingly stupid statement!

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.

You were supporting his "observation" :lol:

You also stated "That's why it takes time for the sound of a plane to reach us before we actually see the plane since it hasn't entered our field of view."
And asked "if that's true then why can't we see an airplane before we hear the sound? Explain this to me LadyShea without weaseling"

Here is his statement about it that you were obviously using as the basis for your arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lessans

If the sound from a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope.

Granted this is a terribly written passage, but it very clearly reads that we can hear planes and know they are there, but cannot see them because they are always too far away to be visible.

I don't have a dog in this fight but this is simply bad logic. No that passage doesn't say always. It says that when we can hear a plane but not see it, it might be too small to see. Maybe the guy who wrote it had bad eyesight. It starts with the word "if" though. I mean, go ahead and shred this book's premises and destroy its arguments and all that suitably militaristic sounding terminology, but for goodness sakes at least get you carpetbombs to explode.

Fair enough it doesn't say always. However it doesn't say "when" nor does it say "might", either. Lessans didn't seem to really use qualifiers.

I read the opening "if" as referring to hearing the sound as the only ambiguous state of affairs. So my interpretation is: "If we hear it, why can't we see it", rather than: "If we can hear it, and if we cannot see it, why might that be the case?"

Peacegirl apparently read it as I did at some point, which led her to make the statements she did.

fair enough. I haven't read it. I can also tell this is a long running discussion with more going on than I need to get into. In my own experience, it's much harder to remain objective with someone who you've argued with over a long time.

Well yeah, of course. How does one "remain objective" about a given subject or person after years of gaining experience and information and forming opinions about it?

Spacemonkey · #**39981** 08-08-2014, 02:58 PM

HEY PEACEGIRL! :attn:

Care to explain why you are still completely ignoring my questions?

thedoc · #**39982** 08-08-2014, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

well, peacegirl, your fame has finally escaped this little corner of the internet and now people from TR, (well, at least one person from TR) is interested in what you have to say. But for really real, this thread is way too long and I would appreciate it if you started over at TR. Agree with DavidM that TR is not for everyone but it is home to some surprisingly smart people and I for one would like to read what you have to say there.

Hell, you don't need to wait for peacegirl to start a thread. Do it yourself! The Website and book in question is here.

Clearly, you folks need some new shit for your toilet. You've been gnawing on Socrates (!) Gary Gaulin (sp?) Dave Hawkins (lol!) and Atheistoclast for years, right? You need new Crazy Blood! You can start the thread yourself: "Hey gang, look at this Internets Book I found."

Bartholomew Roberts: STFU BWE or I will track you to your home and switch your balls with your eyes.

Socrates: But this is not worth arguing about.

etc.

LOL.

If peacegirl doesn't do it, do it for her! She'll thank you afterward!

What the fuck is wrong with you?

That's DavidM, what do you expect?

thedoc · #**39983** 08-08-2014, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

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. :sadcheer:

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.

I will help you as long as it isn't too hard. I too want to bring peace and harmony to the world.

To me it sounds like you are being sarcastic. I don't know you; I have no clue where you are coming from, and as far as I'm concerned you are no better than the people who have hurt me based on NOTHING! I know I agreed to get your response in regard to going to TR, but I'm still not sure if you are truly giving me space to express myself, or you have a different motive entirely. Yes, I am paranoid for good reason. :chin:

Well that didn't take long, you're being hostile to a new person who has expressed a positive interest in the book. Dale Carnegie wrote a book that you should read and your father should have read.

How to Win Friends and Influence People - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Artemis Entreri · #**39984** 08-08-2014, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

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.

Care to share more? Please tell me in your own words how this happens and how it fits with efferent vision?

Bump.

We see the bug magnified because the light traveling from the bug through the lens is slowed and bent as it passes through the lens. This means that we are seeing light that is traveling from the bug through the lens to our eyes, which is afferent vision.
How does this fit with efferent vision? How does this change in the speed of the light traveling through the lens fit into your model where we see objects instantly without regard to time, distance, or the speed of light?

LadyShea · #**39985** 08-08-2014, 03:10 PM

Quote:

you cannot extend this into dogs understanding language when it comes to differences that would allow him to recognize his owner over someone else. Show me where scientists can do this, and I will concede

No you won't concede, no matter what. You will dismiss any experiment as flawed even when you can't identify any flaws, and demand researchers use scenarios that are not at all scientific, and would not yield usable data, instead.

The abstract TLR just posted got dismissed as flawed. Every experiment or paper or data set we've ever posted you've dismissed as flawed.

We showed you the information, and the all important YouTube videos, about Dr. Pilley's research with Chaser, who has received worldwide attention with her knowing the names for over 1000 different objects. She also knows locations and some verbs as well as categories.

She can obviously recognize the differences between all sorts of things. Why wouldn't that extend to faces?

The Lone Ranger · #**39986** 08-08-2014, 03:38 PM

Note that peacegirl claims that a dog cannot recognize a photograph of its master. What this (and several other) study shows is that dogs pay much more attention to photos of their masters than to photos of strangers.

So, peacegirl, do you think that's just a coincidence?

davidm · #**39987** 08-08-2014, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

well, peacegirl, your fame has finally escaped this little corner of the internet and now people from TR, (well, at least one person from TR) is interested in what you have to say. But for really real, this thread is way too long and I would appreciate it if you started over at TR. Agree with DavidM that TR is not for everyone but it is home to some surprisingly smart people and I for one would like to read what you have to say there.

Hell, you don't need to wait for peacegirl to start a thread. Do it yourself! The Website and book in question is here.

Clearly, you folks need some new shit for your toilet. You've been gnawing on Socrates (!) Gary Gaulin (sp?) Dave Hawkins (lol!) and Atheistoclast for years, right? You need new Crazy Blood! You can start the thread yourself: "Hey gang, look at this Internets Book I found."

Bartholomew Roberts: STFU BWE or I will track you to your home and switch your balls with your eyes.

Socrates: But this is not worth arguing about.

etc.

LOL.

If peacegirl doesn't do it, do it for her! She'll thank you afterward!

What the fuck is wrong with you?

You're pretending you're here to offer peacegirl some kind of platform where her idiocy will be considered in a reasoned, sober, "objective" way. Nothing could be further from the truth. TR is a dump where even the moderators are trolls, and you just want a new chew toy because your usual suspects, like Socrates and Dave Hawkins, have become big bores.

Now go away. Peacegirl is the official :ff:

chew toy.

peacegirl · #**39988** 08-08-2014, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

You can't be serious Lone Ranger. Do you actually think this test of the length of time a dog looks at the incongruecy between the owner's voice and the photograph actually trumps careful observation? Why not observe a dog who shows absolute excitement when his master comes home from the service yet cannot recognize him on a computer screen. Why do you ignore this? The basic assumption in this test is that the longer a dog looks at a picture proves what is going on in his mind. This is an example of exactly what I was talking about; confirmation bias. Why not do a test on dogs that we know have a loving relationship with their owner to see if a picture of that owner will cause any kind of reaction. That would be a better indicator than all of these flawed tests put together.

Dogs Welcoming Soldiers Home Compilation 2012 [HD] - YouTube

One is a controlled experiment with measurable data and with methodology that others can replicate and your idea is not science at all. This has been explained to you. You want to use subjective human interpretation of variable and individual dog behaviors (tail wagging and body language), when you have a clearly biased expectation of how dogs should behave.

You don't trust science, so you think their methods are flawed. You trust anecdotes which are worthless.

This is not about anecdotes. This is such a crock of you know what! :laugh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dogs cannot understand the relationship between subtle differences which would distinguish their owner from someone else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do you know?

Because it's never been seen other than science's artificial tests that prove nothing.

peacegirl · #**39989** 08-08-2014, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Note that peacegirl claims that a dog cannot recognize a photograph of its master. What this (and several other) study shows is that dogs pay much more attention to photos of their masters than to photos of strangers.

So, peacegirl, do you think that's just a coincidence?

It doesn't prove anything. The test itself is flawed. Why can't you see that?

That is why I am asking science to use empirical observation to gather data. The sample should be dogs that are very attached to their masters who are coming home from the service after a long leave of absence. First see if they recognize their master from a recent photograph. We know how they will react when they see them in person, so why wouldn't they react to a photograph if the image is being decoded in their brain? It seems to me there should be some show of recognition.

peacegirl · #**39990** 08-08-2014, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

well, peacegirl, your fame has finally escaped this little corner of the internet and now people from TR, (well, at least one person from TR) is interested in what you have to say. But for really real, this thread is way too long and I would appreciate it if you started over at TR. Agree with DavidM that TR is not for everyone but it is home to some surprisingly smart people and I for one would like to read what you have to say there.

Hell, you don't need to wait for peacegirl to start a thread. Do it yourself! The Website and book in question is here.

Clearly, you folks need some new shit for your toilet. You've been gnawing on Socrates (!) Gary Gaulin (sp?) Dave Hawkins (lol!) and Atheistoclast for years, right? You need new Crazy Blood! You can start the thread yourself: "Hey gang, look at this Internets Book I found."

Bartholomew Roberts: STFU BWE or I will track you to your home and switch your balls with your eyes.

Socrates: But this is not worth arguing about.

etc.

LOL.

If peacegirl doesn't do it, do it for her! She'll thank you afterward!

What the fuck is wrong with you?

You're pretending you're here to offer peacegirl some kind of platform where her idiocy will be considered in a reasoned, sober, "objective" way. Nothing could be further from the truth. TR is a dump where even the moderators are trolls, and you just want a new chew toy because your usual suspects, like Socrates and Dave Hawkins, have become big bores.

Now go away. Peacegirl is the official :ff:

chew toy.

BWE, I don't know you but I have no reason not to believe that you are sincerely interested. David was the one that suggested I leave here and go to TR and now he is telling you to go away because he wants me to stay here. He is coo coo. Really truly. :laugh:

peacegirl · #**39991** 08-08-2014, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

you cannot extend this into dogs understanding language when it comes to differences that would allow him to recognize his owner over someone else. Show me where scientists can do this, and I will concede

No you won't concede, no matter what. You will dismiss any experiment as flawed even when you can't identify any flaws, and demand researchers use scenarios that are not at all scientific, and would not yield usable data, instead.

That's true because these experiments have flaws. It is a known fact that empirical testing renders false results at least 50% of the time. You can't be serious LadyShea, or you are the one with your head in the sand, not me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The abstract TLR just posted got dismissed as flawed. Every experiment or paper or data set we've ever posted you've dismissed as flawed.

Because IT IS flawed! Look at it carefully and see what is wrong with this test. Anyone who is not biased would see the flaw. The length of time a dog looks at something is supposed to mean exactly what they think it means? Really? And how long is too long, and how short is too short? They have no controls whatsoever. And this is suppose to be considered fact?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We showed you the information, and the all important YouTube videos, about Dr. Pilley's research with Chaser, who has received worldwide attention with her knowing the names for over 1000 different objects. She also knows locations and some verbs as well as categories.

She can obviously recognize the differences between all sorts of things. Why wouldn't that extend to faces?
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/OlzXPHX9Gwg?list=UU2NjUImk-ITC_LhgsNvvADg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I already agreed that dogs can recognize objects if they learn the connection between the object and the word, but I have never seen a dog recognize and identify their master from sight alone without other cues. They should easily be able to do this if the eyes were a sense organ.

peacegirl · #**39992** 08-08-2014, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Note that peacegirl claims that a dog cannot recognize a photograph of its master. What this (and several other) study shows is that dogs pay much more attention to photos of their masters than to photos of strangers.

So, peacegirl, do you think that's just a coincidence?

I do, this is not proof. In my opinion it's just confirmation bias because they expect a certain result therefore that's what they confirm is happening.

The Lone Ranger · #**39993** 08-08-2014, 04:44 PM

Wow. You didn't even read the study, did you?

Here's a clue for you: What was the null hypothesis that they were testing?

Here's another clue: It was not that dogs can recognize photos of their masters.

By the way, given that you are the anthropomorphic personification of confirmation bias, it's profoundly dishonest and hypocritical of you to reject carefully-constructed and controlled scientific experiments in favor of anecdotes which you think support your view.

But then, if there's anything we've come to expect from you, it's hypocrisy and dishonesty.

LadyShea · #**39994** 08-08-2014, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

You can't be serious Lone Ranger. Do you actually think this test of the length of time a dog looks at the incongruecy between the owner's voice and the photograph actually trumps careful observation? Why not observe a dog who shows absolute excitement when his master comes home from the service yet cannot recognize him on a computer screen. Why do you ignore this? The basic assumption in this test is that the longer a dog looks at a picture proves what is going on in his mind. This is an example of exactly what I was talking about; confirmation bias. Why not do a test on dogs that we know have a loving relationship with their owner to see if a picture of that owner will cause any kind of reaction. That would be a better indicator than all of these flawed tests put together.

Dogs Welcoming Soldiers Home Compilation 2012 [HD] - YouTube

One is a controlled experiment with measurable data and with methodology that others can replicate and your idea is not science at all. This has been explained to you. You want to use subjective human interpretation of variable and individual dog behaviors (tail wagging and body language), when you have a clearly biased expectation of how dogs should behave.

You don't trust science, so you think their methods are flawed. You trust anecdotes which are worthless.

This is not about anecdotes. This is such a crock of you know what! :laugh:

Weasel. You want to use subjective human interpretation of variable and individual dog behaviors (tail wagging and body language), when you have a clearly biased expectation of how dogs should behave.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dogs cannot understand the relationship between subtle differences which would distinguish their owner from someone else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do you know?

Because it's never been seen other than science's artificial tests that prove nothing.

How do you know it's never been seen? You know exactly dick about most things, yet you think you know everything that has been seen on one topic, a topic on which you have a strong bias because your father commented on it? LOL.

Stephen Maturin · #**39995** 08-08-2014, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Wow. You didn't even read the study, did you?

She only reads the diarrheal drivel of Daddy Dumbkins and little snippets from the websites of birthers, holocaust deniers and other assorted internet crazies that she thinks support Dumbster's views.

But hey, credit where credit's due and all. We're dealing with someone who believes that you can always hear a plane in flight before you see it. Getting to be that stupid is an accomplishment of sorts, I suppose (for large enough values of "accomplishment").

Stephen Maturin · #**39996** 08-08-2014, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Clearly, you folks need some new shit for your toilet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

What the fuck is wrong with you?

LadyShea · #**39997** 08-08-2014, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Note that peacegirl claims that a dog cannot recognize a photograph of its master. What this (and several other) study shows is that dogs pay much more attention to photos of their masters than to photos of strangers.

So, peacegirl, do you think that's just a coincidence?

Wow, how off topic can anyone get. I am asking you to test dogs that love their owners who are soldiers and see if they recognize a picture of them right before they come home. We know how they react when they see them, so why wouldn't they react to a photograph? Stop deflecting and address the issue or admit you're not sure.

Why would they react to a photograph? Do you "react" to a photograph of your grandkids, whom you probably love very much, with the same excitement as you "react" to seeing them in person?

Do you think dogs are unable to tell the difference between an inanimate object and the real thing? A photograph can't talk to them, feed them, pet them, throw a ball for them or interact in any way...why should a dog react to a photograph as if it is the person? A photograph is useless to meeting any of a dog's needs or desires.

peacegirl · #**39998** 08-08-2014, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference is that in the efferent account light doesn't travel away from the object through space/time and bring the information to the eye. In the example you just gave, the bug is present. The lens is just magnifying the bug, which would occur in the efferent account as well.

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.

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

Where am I weaseling? I can't get anymore clear than what I just said; OPTICS WORKS THE SAME WAY IN THE EFFERENT ACCOUNT SO ALL OF YOUR REFUTATIONS AGAINST EFFERENT VISION FOR THIS VERY REASON IS MOOT.

But you called optics a made up story.

I never said that. I said that as convincing as this theory is, it is not conclusive, therefore the conclusions drawn are just made up stories to make it look like it fits. I never referred to optics specifically. In fact, I said that optics works exactly as described.

LadyShea · #**39999** 08-08-2014, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Wow. You didn't even read the study, did you?

She only reads the diarrheal drivel of Daddy Dumbkins and little snippets from the websites of birthers, holocaust deniers and other assorted internet crazies that she thinks support Dumbster's views.

But hey, credit where credit's due and all. We're dealing with someone who believes that you can always hear a plane in flight before you see it. Getting to be that stupid is an accomplishment of sorts, I suppose (for large enough values of "accomplishment").

While washing dishes, I had an epiphany as to why I think so many of us find peacegirl so very irksome...she is stunningly lacking in curiosity. She is incurious, yet has strong opinions about things she doesn't even have enough interest in to learn the basics about. That is a fundie in a nutshell.

LadyShea · #**40000** 08-08-2014, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference is that in the efferent account light doesn't travel away from the object through space/time and bring the information to the eye. In the example you just gave, the bug is present. The lens is just magnifying the bug, which would occur in the efferent account as well.

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.

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

Where am I weaseling? I can't get anymore clear than what I just said; OPTICS WORKS THE SAME WAY IN THE EFFERENT ACCOUNT SO ALL OF YOUR REFUTATIONS AGAINST EFFERENT VISION FOR THIS VERY REASON IS MOOT.

But you called optics a made up story.

I never said that. I was basing this comment on the conclusions drawn from the afferent account. As convincing as this theory is, it is not conclusive, therefore the conclusions drawn are just made up stories. I never referred to optics specifically. In fact, I said that optics works exactly as described.

Optics is the "afferent account"...what are you not understanding here? The standard model of light and sight is described and explained by optics. So if optics works exactly as described, then vision works exactly as described.

You are contradicting yourself.