A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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."

Actually, if I missed my father and was shown a photograph I would have some reaction. But let's forget photographs right now. They could do an experiment with a real person, but all other cues would have to be carefully eliminated. They would need to do the experiment in an unfamiliar place where there were no associations that the dog could pick up on. My father said that if a dog was trained to attack and he had no other sensory cues other than sight to help him recognize who this person was --- even if his master's face was lit up like a Christmas tree --- he would attack. I believe he was right and so far no one has disproved it. I don't care what the studies have concluded (very often empirical studies turn out to be wrong) or what part of the brain lights up, there has been no conclusive proof that dogs are capable of identifying individual features through sight alone.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe he was right. I don't care what the studies have concluded or what part of the brain lights up,

there has been no conclusive proof that dogs are capable of identifying individual features through sight alone.

Well these first 2 sentences pretty much sum up your position.

And you are correct there is no "conclusive proof" of dogs being able to recognize a person from a photo, but science usually doesn't establish "conclusive proof, Science has provided overwhelming evidence that dogs can recognize people from a photo, and there has been none against.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, if I missed my father and was shown a photograph I would have some reaction. But let's forget photographs right now. They could do an experiment with a real person, but all other cues would have to be carefully eliminated. They would need to do the experiment in an unfamiliar place where there were no associations that the dog could pick up on. My father said that if a dog was trained to attack and he had no other sensory cues other than sight to help him recognize who this person was --- even if his master's face was lit up like a Christmas tree --- he would attack. I believe he was right and so far no one has disproved it. I don't care what the studies have concluded (very often empirical studies turn out to be wrong) or what part of the brain lights up, there has been no conclusive proof that dogs are capable of identifying individual features through sight alone.

Stop. Just stop lying to yourself like this. It's pathetic.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

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

I will repeat for the hundredth time that the term "sense organ" is not as important as why the eyes function differently. Stop looking at the phrase "sense organ" and instead concern yourself with why the eyes cannot interpret images from light itself.

[LadyShea]

I will repeat for the hundredth time that the term "sense organ" is not as important as why the eyes function differently. Stop looking at the phrase "sense organ" and instead concern yourself with why the eyes cannot interpret images from light itself.

A) they don't function differently and you have not shown any functional distinctions and B) Lessans said the eyes are not sense organs, so it is important. C) sense organs don't interpret anything. Interpretation is cognitive not sensory

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care what the studies have concluded (very often empirical studies turn out to be wrong) or what part of the brain lights up, there has been no conclusive proof that dogs are capable of identifying individual features through sight alone.

Your bias is so extreme it's comical. If you liked the result of a study, you would jump on it in a second.

Why do dogs consistently react differently to pictures of their handlers versus pictures of other people? You can't explain that.

All the available evidence shows that dogs can recognize individual people from pictures.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Your bias is so extreme it's comical. If you liked the result of a study, you would jump on it in a second.

Why do dogs consistently react differently to pictures of their handlers versus pictures of other people? You can't explain that.

All the available evidence shows that dogs can recognize individual people from pictures.

Absolutely not. The design of these studies are flawed. You don't want to face it.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely not. The design of these studies are flawed. You don't want to face it.

In what way? Come on, make more stuff up.

Why do dogs consistently react differently to pictures of their handlers versus pictures of other people? You can't explain that.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care what the studies have concluded

That's the entire point of this conversation. By your own admission, you don't care about the evidence. If somebody happens to say something that you agree with -- never mind that they can't provide a single shred of evidence, and no matter that they might be a known liar and crackpot -- you instantly accept that claim as "absolute proof" that your father was right.

On the other hand, by your own admission, you won't even read any study -- no matter how carefully conducted, and no matter how many times it has been successfully replicated -- that provides evidence that your father was wrong.

Because, by your own admission, you don't care about the evidence. The only thing that matters to you is your fanatical insistence that "Daddy could not possibly have been mistaken -- logic and evidence be damned."


But by all means, tell us how these studies are "flawed." Let's start with the statistics. Did they commit Type 1 errors in their analyses? Explain where and how. Did they commit Type 2 errors in their analyses? Again, explain where and how. Or perhaps they're guilty of pseudoreplication? Again, explain why this is so. If you cannot explain the errors in their methodology and analysis, then you've got no basis in saying that the studies are flawed -- other than that you don't like the results, that is. And that, of course, is the only real reason you're fanatically insistent that every single experiment which contradicts Daddy's claims is wrong, indeed, must be wrong ... somehow.

After all, the scientific community must rely upon careful measurements, repeated analyses, and thousands upon thousands of rigorous experiments. Poor dears, they don't have the benefit of unspecified "astute observations."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's the entire point of this conversation. By your own admission, you don't care about the evidence. If somebody happens to say something that you agree with -- never mind that they can't provide a single shred of evidence, and no matter that they might be a known liar and crackpot -- you instantly accept that claim as "absolute proof" that your father was right.

On the other hand, by your own admission, you won't even read any study -- no matter how carefully conducted, and no matter how many times it has been successfully replicated -- that provides evidence that your father was wrong.

Because, by your own admission, you don't care about the evidence. The only thing that matters to you is your fanatical insistence that "Daddy could not possibly have been mistaken -- logic and evidence be damned."


But by all means, tell us how these studies are "flawed." Let's start with the statistics. Did they commit Type 1 errors in their analyses? Explain where and how. Did they commit Type 2 errors in their analyses? Again, explain where and how. Or perhaps they're guilty of pseudoreplication? Again, explain why this is so. If you cannot explain the errors in their methodology and analysis, then you've got no basis in saying that the studies are flawed -- other than that you don't like the results, that is. And that, of course, is the only real reason you're fanatically insistent that every single experiment which contradicts Daddy's claims is wrong, indeed, must be wrong ... somehow.

After all, the scientific community must rely upon careful measurements, repeated analyses, and thousands upon thousands of rigorous experiments. Poor dears, they don't have the benefit of unspecified "astute observations."

What thousands upon thousands of rigorous experiments are you talking about? I have only seen a few studies. I don't see much replication in any of these studies that prove dogs can identify from sight alone. They can do other things but this they can't do. I believe the design in these studies is inherently flawed. There are better ways to test whether dogs can identify their masters from a picture or any other way. I gave you some ways and you don't seem at all interested.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

In what way? Come on, make more stuff up.

Why do dogs consistently react differently to pictures of their handlers versus pictures of other people? You can't explain that.

Show me. These contrived tests prove nothing of the sort.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A) they don't function differently and you have not shown any functional distinctions and B) Lessans said the eyes are not sense organs, so it is important. C) sense organs don't interpret anything. Interpretation is cognitive not sensory

Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC) is credited with the traditional classification of the five sense organs: sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing. As far back as the 1760's, the famous philosopher Immanuel Kant proposed that our knowledge of the outside world depends on our modes of perception. In order to define what is "extrasensory" we need to define what is "sensory". Each of the 5 senses consists of organs with specialized cellular structures that have receptors for specific stimuli. These cells have links to the nervous system and thus to the brain.

Human Sense Organs - The Five Senses

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Show me. These contrived tests prove nothing of the sort.

They did 600 trials (50 for 12 dogs) and the dogs chose their handler's face 88% of the time. How do you explain that?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

They did 600 trials (50 for 12 dogs) and the dogs chose their handler's face 88% of the time. How do you explain that?

Could you give me the link. I want to read the study with my own eyes. I don't believe the dogs actually identified specific features. They could have been trained to identify certain light and dark patterns and they mistakenly concluded that the dogs recognized their handlers. The inherent flaws in the way these studies were constructed is a serious concern. Confirmation bias is also very high in that the experimenters will immediately conclude that their study proved what they set out to find.

Design Flaws to Avoid - Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper - Research Guides at University of Southern California

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Could you give me the link. I want to read the study with my own eyes. I don't believe the dogs actually identified specific features. They could have been trained to identify certain light and dark patterns and they mistakenly concluded that the dogs recognized their handlers. The inherent flaws in the way these studies were constructed is a serious concern. Confirmation bias is also very high in that the experimenters will immediately conclude that their study proved what they set out to find.

Design Flaws to Avoid - Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper - Research Guides at University of Southern California

I already posted the link. I'm PMing you the full text of the Animal Cognition article.

[But]

If anyone else wants the article (Discrimination of human and dog faces and inversion responses in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris)), just tell me.

[LadyShea]

I posted a link to another pertinent full paper just a few days ago

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC) is credited with the traditional classification of the five sense organs: sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing. As far back as the 1760's, the famous philosopher Immanuel Kant proposed that our knowledge of the outside world depends on our modes of perception. In order to define what is "extrasensory" we need to define what is "sensory". Each of the 5 senses consists of organs with specialized cellular structures that have receptors for specific stimuli. These cells have links to the nervous system and thus to the brain.

Human Sense Organs - The Five Senses

Uh, yes. What's your point with supporting my points for me?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why don't you know how they were instructed if you know the study didn't show diddly squat?

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!

Here is the original full paper in .pdf form

Visual discrimination of species in dogs (Canis familiaris)

You can read it thoroughly and find all of the flaws!

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 you are, one of the studies. Please identify the flaws

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The inherent flaws in the way these studies were constructed is a serious concern.

Wait, what? Are you actually complaining about "[t]he inherent flaws" in a study you admitted knowing nothing about? Cuz, lol.

In addition, please explain in detail exactly what qualifies you to identify and expound upon the purportedly flawed methodology of a scientific study. To all appearances, you're a suburban ex-hausfrau who has nothing to do and all day to do it, and chooses to spend all that time squabbling with strangers on the Internet. You have exactly zero relevant education, training, knowledge or experience. You believe that "scientific" and "undeniable" are synonymous, which is factually inaccurate and breathtakingly dumb.

If you do in fact have qualifications that enable you to identify and expound upon the purportedly flawed methodology of a scientific study, you're doing a fine job keeping those qualifications under wraps.

[LadyShea]

If you think dogs can visually "identify" -ie recognize- "certain light and dark patterns" why would they be simultaneously unable to recognize facial features, which are just patterns?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The inherent flaws in the way these studies were constructed is a serious concern.

What are The inherent flaws in these studies, Please be specific as generalizations are meaningless, unless supported by solid evidence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

If anyone else wants the article (Discrimination of human and dog faces and inversion responses in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris)), just tell me.

This study's methodology is very suspect no matter how formal they try to make it look, number one because they are using a one to four second time difference to come to certain conclusions about whether the dog found a picture more appealing or familiar. The whole study's validity is questionable. We know that dogs can recognize other dogs, and they may be able to recognize human faces. They may also be able to distinguish inanimate objects from animal and human faces and be uninterested in inverted objects because they have no meaning to the dog, but this does not prove that they can differentiate between one face and another. This study did not come close to proving this, and I think you know this deep down inside, so why are you using it at all? There are much better strategies.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you think dogs can visually "identify" -ie recognize- "certain light and dark patterns" why would they be simultaneously unable to recognize facial features, which are just patterns?

Because it deals with a much different set of skills. Seeing light and dark patterns could be differentiated enough to recognize that pattern if the dog was trained to do this. That's not the same thing as identifying individuals, which involves the ability to take one set of features and distinguish those features from others in order to make this identification. This involves language which dogs do not possess. Lessans explains in detail exactly how this takes place.

[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 for Queen Weasel.