A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not moving any goalposts.

Wow! from Lessans asserting that no dog can recognize it's master in a photo, to Peacegirl demanding that Dogs recognize their master 100% of the time. That one dog can recognize it's master in a photo is enough to disprove Lessans claim, and Peacegirl's demand is just so much nonsense.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

You don't know that the tests were not replicated, you only say that because that is what you want to be true. Why would they video tape the tests? they just report the experiment in detail so that other scientists can replicate it. Your demand that the test be video taped is just another example of you moving the goalposts.

[thedoc]

The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer

This is Lessans and Peacegirl's M.O. To criticize and reject knowledge that they know nothing about and don't understand at all, but propose all sorts of silly ideas, strictly out of ignorance.

[thedoc]

I'm surprised that Peacegirl has only posted her fathers ideas on philosophy forums, yet she claims that scientists need to validate her fathers claims. Why hasn't she posted on science forums like this, The Original Science Forums, or this, The Science Forum maybe this one? Science Discussion Forum, From The Naked Scientists try this one,
Science Forums - Science for everyone,
Science Forum, Discussion & Latest News | The Verge
Science and Philosophy Forums
Sciforums
http://www.scientistsolutions.com/science-forum.aspx
Spirit Science Forums • Index page
PhysForum Science Discussion Forums (Powered by Invision Power Board)
I wonder if she would last more than a couple of days on any of those forums?

[lyrical]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Hi peacegirl,

Do you know what "reliable" means in the context of science?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by lyrical

Hi peacegirl,

Do you know what "reliable" means in the context of science?

What is Reliability?

The idea behind reliability is that any significant results must be more than a one-off finding and be inherently repeatable.

Other researchers must be able to perform exactly the same experiment, under the same conditions and generate the same results. This will reinforce the findings and ensure that the wider scientific community will accept the hypothesis.

Without this replication of statistically significant results, the experiment and research have not fulfilled all of the requirements of testability.

Validity and Reliability - How to Know if the Research is Correct?

[peacegirl]

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Identification of the input does not define sense organ. WTF?

We had this discussion just last month. Are your cognitive functions in full working order? Your memory has always been sieve-like.

Originally Posted by LadyShea way back in September

Obviously.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

Regardless of what it's called, sensing stimuli from the outside world and interpreting it the brain to determine what to do with that information is the very definition of sense organ. Ears receiving the sound is only half of the process. If something is familiar to the receiver, the brain will be able to identify it and react to it in an appropriate way.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

What would be the point of any sense organ if the receiver could not use the information coming in? In the case of sight, how can a dog use the information from light if his brain can't identify a familiar face? Forget the word sense organ for a moment and think about why dogs would be unable to do this simple task of recognizing their master when every other sense involves some form of cognition? The stimuli has to be interpreted or one would not know how to react. What would be the point of being able to feel something hot if the brain could not do anything with that information? We see that in children who can't feel pain and can get very badly hurt because the pain signals to the brain are not working properly. There has to be a cognitive element involved or the process of reception and transmission would do us no good. I don't care if the whole world disagrees with me, it is so obvious that these studies do not confirm their original hypothesis. The entire design of these studies should be called into question because I don't believe they are reliable. There are some things dogs can do visually, but this should not be conflated with facial recognition.

[Spacemonkey]

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.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Regardless of what it's called, sensing stimuli from the outside world and interpreting it the brain to determine what to do with that information is the very definition of sense organ.

Bullshit. Do you notice that your sentence doesn't even make sense? Are you saying that the sense organ collects stimuli and then goes to the brain and interprets them there?

Sense Organ | Definition of sense organ by Merriam-Webster

a bodily structure that receives a stimulus and is affected in such a manner as to initiate excitation of associated sensory nerve fibers which convey specific impulses to the central nervous system where they are interpreted as corresponding sensations

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Bullshit. Do you notice that your sentence doesn't even make sense? Are you saying that the sense organ collects stimuli and then goes to the brain and interprets them there?

Sense Organ | Definition of sense organ by Merriam-Webster

I don't even care about the definition because that can actually impeded the conversation. I want you to see that there is something different about sight than the other senses.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who is disgagreeing with this definition?

You are. The sense organ doesn't interpret anything, that's not part of its function.

There is no conclusive proof that the eyes are a sense organ, and no one has ever proven it.

You are delusional.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't understand the degree of anger that I am subjected to which says [in so many words] to shut up.

The answer is simple; you're a liar and a hypocrite. People don't find that endearing.

There is no conclusive proof that the eyes are a sense organ, and no one has ever proven it.

You keep using that word ["proof"] again, despite being repeatedly corrected on the matter. That's just another example of your dishonesty.

It's yet another example of your incredible hypocrisy, too. You'll eagerly accept any claim which you think supports your beliefs -- no matter how ludicrous it may be, and even if there's not so much as a single shred of evidence to back it up. Meanwhile, you instantly reject any evidence which does not support your beliefs (typically without bothering to even read it) -- no matter how thoroughly-tested and repeatedly-confirmed it may be, and typically without making any effort whatsoever to actually understand it.

Because, of course, your one unbreakable rule is: "Lessans is right, and no evidence could possibly exist which would throw any doubt upon that belief; if Reality Itself says that Lessans was wrong, then clearly it's necessary to reject Reality Itself."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The answer is simple; you're a liar and a hypocrite. People don't find that endearing.

You keep using that word ["proof"] again, despite being repeatedly corrected on the matter. That's just another example of your dishonesty.

It's yet another example of your incredible hypocrisy, too. You'll eagerly accept any claim which you think supports your beliefs -- no matter how ludicrous it may be, and even if there's not so much as a single shred of evidence to back it up. Meanwhile, you instantly reject any evidence which does not support your beliefs (typically without bothering to even read it) -- no matter how thoroughly-tested and repeatedly-confirmed it may be, and typically without making any effort whatsoever to actually understand it.

Because, of course, your one unbreakable rule is: "Lessans is right, and no evidence could possibly exist which would throw any doubt upon that belief; if Reality Itself says that Lessans was wrong, then clearly it's necessary to reject Reality Itself."

This is so ridiculous, you are sounding less like a scientist and more like thedoc. I am sorry to say but there is no conclusive proof from these studies that dogs recognize their masters from photographs. I have been particularly specific so as not to conflate other attributes that dogs may have with this one, but you won't consider it. You made up your mind a long time ago that this thread was nothing more than lulz and that's something I can't overcome.

[The Lone Ranger]

Like any good scientist, I find willful ignorance, dishonesty and hypocrisy to be offensive. All of which you display in abundance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Like any good scientist, I find willful ignorance, dishonesty and hypocrisy to be offensive. All of which you display in abundance.

You are the one being dishonest. These few tests do not prove that dogs can identify their masters from a picture. I offered other ways this could be tested that would be much more conclusive and not that hard to perform. Observation is very important in the scientific process, which you deny. My son's dog loves him more than anything and cannot recognize him on a computer screen. She cannot connect his face with his voice. She cocks her head in confusion. You would ignore this information in favor of a double blind study that would conclude my son's dog can do what I know she can't. Do you see the problem here? You are counting exclusively on half-baked studies that prove absolutely nothing.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by But

Bullshit. Do you notice that your sentence doesn't even make sense? Are you saying that the sense organ collects stimuli and then goes to the brain and interprets them there?

Sense Organ | Definition of sense organ by Merriam-Webster

Exactly. The sense organs do not do any interpretation at all. I agree with you that receiving the stimuli is only half the entire process, and it's the only part the sense organs actually do. The other half is cognitive, not sensory. What is confusing you about that? It is just as true for the ears, nose, and skin as it is for the eyes.

Your sentence should read:

Regardless of what it's called, sensing stimuli from the outside world and interpreting it the brain to determine what to do with that information is the very definition of sense organ.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want you to see that there is something different about sight than the other senses

The only difference is the type of stimuli they respond to.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is so ridiculous, you are sounding less like a scientist and more like thedoc.

I am sorry to say but there is no conclusive proof from these studies that dogs recognize their masters from photographs. I have been particularly specific so as not to conflate other attributes that dogs may have with this one, but you won't consider it.

You made up your mind a long time ago that this thread was nothing more than lulz and that's something I can't overcome.

Careful others may start to think you're trying to pay TLR a compliment.

There is substantial evidence that Dogs can recognize their master from a photograph, and no evidence that they cannot. And no, the proof is not conclusive but it is overwhelming for sane and rational people.

Actually you are the only one who has made up your mind ahead of time, you refuse to consider the possibility that your father was wrong, when the overwhelming evidence shows just that, Lessans was wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The only difference is the type of stimuli they respond to.

In fact each sense organ responds to a different kind of stimuli, so why didn't Lessans pick on the other sense organs as being different as well. The psychological process of conditioning works with all the senses. If Lessans had understood anything about this he might not have made such a silly mistake.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are the one being dishonest.

These few tests do not prove that dogs can identify their masters from a picture.

I offered other ways this could be tested that would be much more conclusive and not that hard to perform.

Observation is very important in the scientific process, which you deny.

My son's dog loves him more than anything and cannot recognize him on a computer screen. She cannot connect his face with his voice. She cocks her head in confusion. You would ignore this information in favor of a double blind study that would conclude my son's dog can do what I know she can't. Do you see the problem here?

You are counting exclusively on half-baked studies that prove absolutely nothing.

I have found TLR to be quite honest in his postings.

The tests do not prove it, but the evidence is overwhelming.

The tests you have suggested are quite subjective and prone to whatever the dog owner wants to believe.

TLR has never denied the value of observation, in fact that is the basis of most experiments and tests, you are just proving that you have no understanding of science.

Your son's dog may just not have any interest in demonstrating that she can recognize his image in a video, or she may be too stupid. She would fit right into your family.

None of the studies quoted are half-baked, being half-baked is reserved for your criticism.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

if Reality Itself says that Lessans was wrong, then clearly it's necessary to reject Reality Itself."

And this has been Peacegirl's M.O. to reject reality in favor of her father's fantasy.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is Reliability?

The idea behind reliability is that any significant results must be more than a one-off finding and be inherently repeatable.

Other researchers must be able to perform exactly the same experiment, under the same conditions and generate the same results. This will reinforce the findings and ensure that the wider scientific community will accept the hypothesis.

Without this replication of statistically significant results, the experiment and research have not fulfilled all of the requirements of testability.

Validity and Reliability - How to Know if the Research is Correct?

The tests that have been linked to are quite reliable, the "other" tests that you have proposed are very subjective and therefore less reliable, except that you could construe them to prove what you believe is true. You are the epitome of conformational bias.

Did you even read the article? It supports what everyone else has been posting here, and does not support your position at all.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are the one being dishonest. These few tests do not prove that dogs can identify their masters from a picture.

More hypocrisy and dishonesty on your part.

Stop using the words "prove" and "proof"; you clearly don't have any concept of their meaning.

I offered other ways this could be tested that would be much more conclusive and not that hard to perform.

You've "offered" meaningless "tests" that wouldn't demonstrate anything at all. Even so, a lot of people have done those sorts of "tests" and reported their findings to you. And you consistently reject those "tests" because they don't conform to your prejudices.

Observation is very important in the scientific process, which you deny.

Now that's just insultingly stupid and dishonest on your part. You couldn't have come up with a bigger lie if you spent the next 50 years trying.


Still, at least you're consistent. The more clearly someone demonstrates your dishonesty and hypocrisy, the more clearly someone demonstrates that Lessans' claims do not conform with observation, the nastier you get.

[ceptimus]

It might be that dogs are not good at recognising their master's image on a computer screen but might still be able to recognise their master in a photograph.

We should remember that dog's eyes have different color receptors to ours, so that computer screens (and even photographic prints) that seem to us 'true color' may be very false color for a dog.

I suppose there are several grades of test that we could use to test the theory.

1. Glass screens that allow through all wavelengths of light visible to dogs, but block sound and smells - then the master could stand behind the screen, be told to keep still and then some curtains covering the screen could be drawn back so that the dog could see its master (and/or other people).

2. Still photographs of the master, both in colour and monochrome could be shown to the dog.

3. The dog could look at images of people on computer or TV screens - again we could try both 'full color' and monochrome images.

It's also possible that peacegirl's son's dog is unusually poor at this test compared to other dogs - or maybe she's just not interested in looking at computer screens, whatever is on them.

The same argument could be made about sounds (voices) as dogs famously have more sensitive hearing over a wider frequency range than humans and the audio devices we've designed to suit human hearing. However, this is not so compelling an objection as in the visual case as human voices don't have very much sound in the higher frequency registers that dogs can hear, but which our human-suited audio devices don't bother to record or transmit.

[The Lone Ranger]

By the way, it's worth pointing out -- again -- that there's a reason why there have been a number of studies over the past few years regarding whether or not dogs can recognize human faces.

It has been thoroughly demonstrated that several non-human species of primates are capable of recognizing and distinguishing between individual humans by their facial features. As it turns out, recognizing and distinguishing between faces requires a surprising amount of neural processing. And primates, it turns out, have specialized brain regions dedicated to facial recognition.

The general suspicion was that this was something unique to primates. The reason people decided to see if dogs were capable of doing so was because of the long and close coevolutionary relationship between dogs and humans. And the many studies that have been conducted consistently show that dogs can recognize individual humans by their facial features alone. Furthermore, as the study But linked to explains, we've even located the specific brain region that allows dogs to do so.

Since then, it has also been convincingly demonstrated that some bird species can recognize individual humans by their facial features.



But then, all of this has been explained to you before -- repeatedly. And you have repeatedly stated that you have no intention of actually READING those studies.



And besides that: Why on Earth would a dog respond to a photograph as if it were an actual human? Just how stupid do you think dogs are? There's no reason at all to expect a dog to react to a 2-dimensional photograph [which it certainly knows is not a human being] as if it were a human being, no matter how much the dog might love the person in the photograph.

I mean, seriously! Do you react to a photo of your father as if it were the real thing? If not, then you've invalidated you very "research paradigm."

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

It might be that dogs are not good at recognising their master's image on a computer screen but might still be able to recognise their master in a photograph.

We should remember that dog's eyes have different color receptors to ours, so that computer screens (and even photographic prints) that seem to us 'true color' may be very false color for a dog.

Plus, the average dog has much less acute vision than does the average human.

It's also possible that peacegirl's son's dog is unusually poor at this test compared to other dogs - or maybe she's just not interested in looking at computer screens, whatever is on them.

Heck, when I get home in the evening [and when I get home in the evening varies widely from day to day], if my cat should happen to be looking toward the front window when I approach, he jumps down from his "cat tree" and meets me at the door, meowing and purring loudly.

If he isn't looking toward the window as I approach, he only responds when I actually open the door.

By peacegirl's own "logic," this "proves" that my cat can recognize me by my facial features.


[Actual scientific testing suggests that cats can't reliably recognize individual humans by their facial features.]