First of all, if a dog really could recognize his master don't you think he would pick his master out 100% of the time, especially if his features were distinct from all the other pictures?
What a truly ridiculous response!
What on Earth makes you think that a dog should be right 100% of the time?
It's not like humans are 100% accurate when it comes to facial recognition, after all. There have been plenty of times I've seen someone and initially mistaken them for someone else. Similarly, I have been approached by strangers on more than one occasion who mistook me for someone they knew.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
That's just the point, these studies HAVE been replicated, using different methodologies; you've been provided with many examples of these sorts of tests. And the tests consistently show the same thing: dogs can recognize individual humans by facial features alone. The links But provided are just the latest studies which show this to be the case. Not only do they demonstrate that dogs can recognize people by their facial features, the researchers have even located the specific brain regions that allow them to do so.
And note that the studies to see if dogs can recognize humans by their facial features weren't biased against Lessans in some way, because the whole point of the studies was to see if dogs can recognize humans by their facial features alone.
And the results of the tests are unequivocal: Yes. Yes, they can.
But by all means, feel free to ignore this yet again, and to move the goalposts yet again.
I'm sorry but these tests are not reliable by any means. Dogs do, in fact, recognize other dogs and humans versus nonliving objects. But this is a far cry from recognizing individual people. There are so many other tests that are more reliable and not difficult to do, so why aren't they done? Probably because the results won't match up to their desired expectation.
First of all, if a dog really could recognize his master don't you think he would pick his master out 100% of the time, especially if his features were distinct from all the other pictures?
What a truly ridiculous response!
What on Earth makes you think that a dog should be right 100% of the time?
It's not like humans are 100% accurate when it comes to facial recognition, after all. There have been plenty of times I've seen someone and initially mistaken them for someone else. Similarly, I have been approached by strangers on more than one occasion who mistook me for someone they knew.
That may be true, but in a lineup where you were asked to point out your mother, could you do it? I'm sure you could because you would see all of the people who could not be your mother, and you would quickly narrow it down. Even if there were similarities in some of the photos, you would still be able to see differences, unless, of course, she was an identical twin. Even in the case of twins there is often a distinguishing mark or feature that would allow you to make the right identification. Could a dog do that? Nope.
There are so many other tests that are more reliable and not difficult to do, so why aren't they done? Probably because the results won't match up to their desired expectation.
Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor, derived from association football or other games, that means to change the criterion (goal) of a process or competition while still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an intentional advantage or disadvantage.[1]
You asked for tests. We pointed out that the tests have already been done. And replicated. And they were not done with the assumption that dogs can recognize faces -- that was exactly what was being tested.
You don't like the results, so you dismiss them, you refuse to read them, and when all else fails, you go into denial mode. Under no circumstances will you display even a teensy bit of intellectual honesty and admit that you were wrong.
And yes, you most-definitely do move the goalposts. Now you want the dogs to be 100% accurate when it comes to facial recognition.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
I'm not ignoring this. There is simply no proof that dogs can discriminate between individual human faces or animal faces without other sensory information to cue them in.
Bullshit.
Explain why dogs react differently to pictures of their handlers versus pictures of other people.
Quote:
The tests that you think have been done are completely unreliable.
Why? You're just bullshitting again.
Where are the videos? Where are the samples? Where is the replication using different methods? Where is the damn proof? You just pull a couple of studies off the internet (one that doesn't even address the issue) and you think it's a done deal? Well it's not.
Where did your Daddy give evidence for his assertion that dogs can't do it?
The pictures could be rearranged each time the experiment was done. In one of the trials, the photograph of his master could be left out entirely to see what the dog would do. He would get a reward regardless of the picture he went to so he would not be influenced by the reward itself. That would be a more reliable test
That is very similar to the test I posted some time ago, only the dogs were allowed to simply choose between two photographs.
You asked for tests. We pointed out that the tests have already been done. And replicated. And they were not done with the assumption that dogs can recognize faces -- that was exactly what was being tested.
You don't like the results, so you dismiss them, you refuse to read them, and when all else fails, you go into denial mode. Under no circumstances will you display even a teensy bit of intellectual honesty and admit that you were wrong.
Isn't that what you're doing? You want Lessans to be wrong, and you know it. But the results are flimsy at best TLR. If you can't see that, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to agree that the tests prove what they claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
And yes, you most-definitely do move the goalposts. Now you want the dogs to be 100% accurate when it comes to facial recognition.
I never changed the goalposts. The goal is to see if dogs can recognize their masters in a photograph. I have yet to see the proof of this.
The pictures could be rearranged each time the experiment was done. In one of the trials, the photograph of his master could be left out entirely to see what the dog would do. He would get a reward regardless of the picture he went to so he would not be influenced by the reward itself. That would be a more reliable test
That is very similar to the test I posted some time ago, only the dogs were allowed to simply choose between two photographs.
This one test was not proof of anything even with their so-called statistical significance. Why can't you all see that instead of telling me that I'm in denial? BTW, this was not even close to the same test that I was suggesting. The experimenter would not be giving a dog a reward for picking the correct photograph. He would be rewarded regardless of which photograph was picked. He would only have to be trained to learn the word "daddy" in association with his master.
This one test was not enough proof by any means. Why can't you all see that instead of telling me that I'm in denial?
Why can't you see that all these different tests combined demonstrate that dogs can recognize individuals by facial features?
Why can't you see that even if they couldn't, it wouldn't demonstrate anything about the direction we see?
You accept the flimsiest of anecdotes and unsupported assertions when it comes to things you want to accept, but are unreasonable in your expectations of evidence for ideas you disagree with.
This one test was not proof of anything even with their so-called statistical significance. Why can't you all see that instead of telling me that I'm in denial?
BTW, this was not even close to the same test that I was suggesting. The experimenter would not be giving a dog a reward for picking the correct photograph. He would be rewarded regardless of which photograph was picked.
The dogs in the test I am referring to were rewarded for all choices, for the act of choosing, not for choosing correctly. You don't even know how the test was performed yet declare it flawed. Hypocrite.
Why can't you see that all these different tests combined demonstrate that dogs can recognize individuals by facial features?
Because none of these tests have proven conclusively that dogs can identify their masters from sight alone, just like none of the tests have proven there is no association between vaccines and developmental delays in some children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Why can't you see that even if they couldn't, it wouldn't demonstrate anything about the direction we see?
It would definitely make us question what is going on if the dog cannot identify familiar objects from incoming stimuli, which is the very definition of sense organ.
BTW, this was not even close to the same test that I was suggesting. The experimenter would not be giving a dog a reward for picking the correct photograph. He would be rewarded regardless of which photograph was picked.
The dogs in the test I am referring to were rewarded for all choices, not for choosing correctly. You don't even know how the test was performed yet declare it flawed. Hypocrite.
The test was not replicated and the few samples that were used in the study did not prove diddly squat. How were the dogs instructed? Do you still have the link to the study? I wonder why they don't they have videos of the experiment in this day and age.
It would definitely make us question what is going on if the dog cannot identify familiar objects from incoming stimuli, which is the very definition of sense organ.
Identification of the input does not define sense organ. WTF?
We had this discussion just last month. Are your cognitive functi9ons in full working order? Your memory has always been sieve-like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea way back in September
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
When a dog recognizes his master's voice, should that not be considered a cognitive function too?
Yes, of course. Recognition is a cognitive function with all senses. The ears don't recognize specific voices, the brain does. The ears receive the pressure waves and use that information to send signals to the brain, which is interpreted as sound, making them a sense organ. Recognizing that sound as familiar/known is cognition.
If a dog can hear and respond to sound, that means the ears are a sense organ. Recognizing specific sounds is not addressed when discussing hearing.
Nobody except you is singling out the eyes as different.
The test was not replicated and the few samples that were used in the study did not prove diddly squat. How were the dogs instructed?
Why don't you know how they were instructed if you know the study didn't show diddly squat?
Quote:
Do you still have the link to the study?
Have you still not figured out how to search the thread? How do you know what the study proved if you don't even remember the name or description of it? Hint, NO LEVERS WERE USED!
You can read it thoroughly and find all of the flaws!
Quote:
I wonder why they don't they have videos of the experiment in this day and age.
I am sure they do have videos. Actual working scientists don't normally publish their findings on YouTube, home of the shit throwing howler monkeys, they publish in scientific journals. In this case Animal Cognition.
Here are those questions again that you are too dumbfuck stupid and dishonest to even attempt to address.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.
Are they traveling photons?
Did they come from the Sun?
Did they get to the film by traveling?
Did they travel at the speed of light?
Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?
Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.
Bump.
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
It would definitely make us question what is going on if the dog cannot identify familiar objects from incoming stimuli, which is the very definition of sense organ.
No, a sense organ only receives the incoming stimuli, there is no identification involved, and even if the brain cannot identify the signals, a sense organ and the brain still just receive the stimuli and signals. You really don't understand anything about senses and the brain.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Imagine my surprise upon opening this thread after an absence of several days to find peacegirl doing absolutely nothing to advance her father's vision for world peace but instead squabbling with strangers on the Internet about efferent vision.
lol j/k it's not at all surprising.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
Imagine my surprise upon opening this thread after an absence of several days to find peacegirl doing absolutely nothing to advance her father's vision for world peace but instead squabbling with strangers on the Internet about efferent vision.
lol j/k it's not at all surprising.
What did you expect?
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Re: A revolution in thought
Linear Mode
