A revolution in thought - Page 1791

peacegirl · #**44751** 01-20-2016, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you calling me a doofus? Forget it Vivisectus. We're done!

Doofus? Such language! :faint:

Oh, please. You're not offended at all (and it's laughable you expect us to believe you are). You're just saying that because, as usual, your nonsense about vision has all fallen apart when we actually look at the real world instead of relying on your father's armchair speculation. And you can't stand to admit it, so you'd rather lie and cheat your way out of having to back up any of this bullshit you spout.

Question: You are so positive he was wrong, what would you do if he turned out to be right? Would you apologize? Would you beg forgiveness? Probably not. You're way too proud for that. :sadcheer:

peacegirl · #**44752** 01-20-2016, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Hey check this out:

If you show a dog 2 images of a happy face and an angry face, and then play a sound of an angry voice, the dog looks at the angry picture.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...edium=facebook

This indicates that dogs do not just respond in a learned way to certain behaviors: they are actually able to recognize different sensory cues and know that they go with certain emotional states.

Dogs can actually read facial expressions. Pretty amazing.

It's not surprising to me that a dog would know when another dog is angry by his growl and his snarl where his teeth are showing. If a dog sees a snarl even without the sound of his growl, he would probably back off. As far as dogs being able to match a human emotion in a picture with the sound of a person's voice, I have my doubts that these experiments are accurate. Regardless, this has nothing to do with being able to identify familiar individuals by sight alone and it most certainly does not prove Lessans wrong. For the lurkers in here, watch the vitriol that follows this post and you'll see that this is all they can offer because they have nothing else. This is due to the fact that their position is weak, or they wouldn't have to resort to these kinds of remarks.

No you doofus - human faces and human voices. It would be pretty unsurprising if a dog could spot visual signals in their own species.

The amazing thing is that they match the right sounds up to the right kinda faces, without any prior training or getting used to the test. They are matching angry voices to angry faces happy voices to happy faces.

They are apparently able to read expressions.

So in terms of your theory, does that mean that they have a concept of "happy" that they are projecting on to peoples faces?

Are you calling me a doofus? Forget it Vivisectus. We're done!

Yeah. You were being a goose: of course this was not a test to see if dogs can spot a snarl in a different dog. D'uh!

If we accept that dogs can read faces, what is going on according to your theory? Do the dogs have a word for "happy" that they project? If not, what is going on and how are these dogs able to match angry voices to photographs of angry faces?

You keep talking about these experiments that I have yet to see. I only see the abstract. Show me the actual video that supports their hypothesis.

Vivisectus · #**44753** 01-20-2016, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

You keep talking about these experiments that I have yet to see. I only see the abstract. Show me the actual video that supports their hypothesis.

I will. The moment you show me a video of the world being saved. Fair is fair: you made your claim first, and apparently video is essential.

Vivisectus · #**44754** 01-20-2016, 03:20 PM

In the mean time heres a link to the study. Which was also on the link I provided.

Dogs recognize dog and human emotions | Biology Letters

Dragar · #**44755** 01-20-2016, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Question: You are so positive he was wrong, what would you do if he turned out to be right?

I'd say "Gosh, he was right, despite all the evidence contradicting him at every turn. That's a surprise!" And then I'd wonder how he turned out to be right, given he's already been shown wrong about most of the things he claimed.

peacegirl · #**44756** 01-20-2016, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

You keep talking about these experiments that I have yet to see. I only see the abstract. Show me the actual video that supports their hypothesis.

I will. The moment you show me a video of the world being saved. Fair is fair: you made your claim first, and apparently video is essential.

No Vivisectus. You know that Lessans did not come to his conclusions based on a scientific experiment using controls. This test using sound and emotion is the kind that could easily be recorded on a video We're in the information age where videos are easily uploaded. So where are the videos? Wouldn't this be important to a researcher who is making a name for himself? This is the kind of experiment that can look "scientifically sound", and be anything but. :confused:

peacegirl · #**44757** 01-20-2016, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Question: You are so positive he was wrong, what would you do if he turned out to be right?

I'd say "Gosh, he was right, despite all the evidence contradicting him at every turn. That's a surprise!" And then I'd wonder how he turned out to be right, given he's already been shown wrong about most of the things he claimed.

Then brace yourself that this could happen in spite of all appearances that he couldn't be right.

peacegirl · #**44758** 01-20-2016, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In the mean time heres a link to the study. Which was also on the link I provided.

Dogs recognize dog and human emotions | Biology Letters

They said dogs recognize the sound and facial expression of dogs more than that of humans, which would make sense. Dogs often stare at each other and the sound of growling (sound) and baring teeth (sight) would be a warning to back off. This has nothing to do with dogs being able to identify a familiar face through sight alone, without using other cues.

But · #**44759** 01-20-2016, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And that reminds me, I had the same problem in Germany. They use the word "Geil" as slang, in which case it means "cool". But the everyday meaning of the word is actually "Horny".

This was explained to me, very kindly, by a German girlfriends mother when I was 16 or so. Mortifying experience.

I think the meaning "great", "extremely cool" has almost completely displaced the other one and there is usually no sexual connotation in the word except when used in context. But for some reason it's still not used in polite company.

But · #**44760** 01-20-2016, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Question: You are so positive he was wrong, what would you do if he turned out to be right?

I'd say "Gosh, he was right, despite all the evidence contradicting him at every turn. That's a surprise!" And then I'd wonder how he turned out to be right, given he's already been shown wrong about most of the things he claimed.

Then brace yourself that this could happen in spite of all appearances that he couldn't be right.

Do you think that all the evidence that unambiguously shows that he's laughably wrong is somehow going to magically go away?

Romer's observation of Jupiter's moons, which everyone with a decent amateur telescope can confirm, alone is enough to disprove this nonsense. You still can't figure out how this is compatible with real-time vision.

Spacemonkey · #**44761** 01-20-2016, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Questions Peacegirl is too dishonest to even try to answer:

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.

Here they are again.

And again.

They're not going away.

Those questions again, which you have agreed DO apply to your own account.

Here they are again - those questions you have now lied twice about. They do apply, and you have never answered them.

...and again.

Will Peacegirl be honest today?

Stephen Maturin · #**44762** 01-21-2016, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Doofus? Such language! :faint:

Your mother is a hamster, and your father smells...

Vivisectus · #**44763** 01-21-2016, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In the mean time heres a link to the study. Which was also on the link I provided.

Dogs recognize dog and human emotions | Biology Letters

They said dogs recognize the sound and facial expression of dogs more than that of humans, which would make sense. Dogs often stare at each other and the sound of growling (sound) and baring teeth (sight) would be a warning to back off. This has nothing to do with dogs being able to identify a familiar face through sight alone, without using other cues.

Yup. But if you actually read the study, you will find they can also do it with humans, though they find it slightly more difficult: they know to match happy human sounds with happy human faces, and angry ones with angry ones, etc.

It used to be generally thought that dogs could not do this. It turn out we seem to have been wrong.

So do they have a word for "happy" that they project? What is going on in terms of your theory?

Vivisectus · #**44764** 01-21-2016, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

You keep talking about these experiments that I have yet to see. I only see the abstract. Show me the actual video that supports their hypothesis.

I will. The moment you show me a video of the world being saved. Fair is fair: you made your claim first, and apparently video is essential.

No Vivisectus. You know that Lessans did not come to his conclusions based on a scientific experiment using controls. This test using sound and emotion is the kind that could easily be recorded on a video We're in the information age where videos are easily uploaded. So where are the videos? Wouldn't this be important to a researcher who is making a name for himself? This is the kind of experiment that can look "scientifically sound", and be anything but. :confused:

And who better qualified and less biased than you to check? You, of "I once spent 10 minutes with skype and the family dog" research fame...

We shall write them and demand the video. And also the long form of their birth certificates.

Vivisectus · #**44765** 01-21-2016, 02:28 PM

Anyways, November came and went, so did December, and now we are running out of January. Are we still compiling the growing body of evidence that shows that the more important principles in the book are right? Or are we going to hope your marketing / promotion activities this far are suddenly going to prove effective?

I mean at this stage, just selling one book will mean an infinity % improvement, so it's not like there is a lot to lose.

peacegirl · #**44766** 01-21-2016, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In the mean time heres a link to the study. Which was also on the link I provided.

Dogs recognize dog and human emotions | Biology Letters

They said dogs recognize the sound and facial expression of dogs more than that of humans, which would make sense. Dogs often stare at each other and the sound of growling (sound) and baring teeth (sight) would be a warning to back off. This has nothing to do with dogs being able to identify a familiar face through sight alone, without using other cues.

Yup. But if you actually read the study, you will find they can also do it with humans, though they find it slightly more difficult: they know to match happy human sounds with happy human faces, and angry ones with angry ones, etc.

It used to be generally thought that dogs could not do this. It turn out we seem to have been wrong.

So do they have a word for "happy" that they project? What is going on in terms of your theory?

Show me the proof. Isn't that what everyone wants? :yup:

peacegirl · #**44767** 01-21-2016, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Anyways, November came and went, so did December, and now we are running out of January. Are we still compiling the growing body of evidence that shows that the more important principles in the book are right? Or are we going to hope your marketing / promotion activities this far are suddenly going to prove effective?

I mean at this stage, just selling one book will mean an infinity % improvement, so it's not like there is a lot to lose.

I admit that I said I would work on it, but I haven't yet been able to. I need to take a course so I can do wordpress myself. I have no money to work on this, which is a big problem. Does anyone want to donate? I'm being serious right now. I HAVE NO MONEY! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM HERE? :fuming:

peacegirl · #**44768** 01-21-2016, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

You keep talking about these experiments that I have yet to see. I only see the abstract. Show me the actual video that supports their hypothesis.

I will. The moment you show me a video of the world being saved. Fair is fair: you made your claim first, and apparently video is essential.

No Vivisectus. You know that Lessans did not come to his conclusions based on a scientific experiment using controls. This test using sound and emotion is the kind that could easily be recorded on a video We're in the information age where videos are easily uploaded. So where are the videos? Wouldn't this be important to a researcher who is making a name for himself? This is the kind of experiment that can look "scientifically sound", and be anything but. :confused:

And who better qualified and less biased than you to check? You, of "I once spent 10 minutes with skype and the family dog" research fame...

We shall write them and demand the video. And also the long form of their birth certificates.

Why are you exaggerating? I'm not asking for birth certificates. A video will do. It will either support or refute the claims. Isn't that a fair question? :confused:

ceptimus · #**44769** 01-21-2016, 04:38 PM

You shouldn't need to do a course to use WordPress - writing a blog using WordPress isn't much different to making posts at a forum.

thedoc · #**44770** 01-21-2016, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And who better qualified and less biased than you to check? You, of "I once spent 10 minutes with skype and the family dog" research fame...

We shall write them and demand the video. And also the long form of their birth certificates.

Why are you exaggerating? I'm not asking for birth certificates. A video will do. It will either support or refute the claims. Isn't that a fair question? :confused:

A fair question is one where you would be willing to accept the answer, but if it disproves your fathers claim you will discount it, hand wave it away, or find some fictional fault with the methodology that you simply don't understand. However if the answer even hints at supporting your fathers claim, no matter how flimsy the evidence is, you will embrace it and claim victory. The situation is not fair at all, since you try to impose an extreme double standard on any evidence presented.

thedoc · #**44771** 01-21-2016, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no money to work on this, which is a big problem. Does anyone want to donate? I'm being serious right now. I HAVE NO MONEY! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM HERE? :fuming:

So you have wasted all your money on your fathers joke of a book, and now you want the people who are trying to tell you how wrong the book is, to pay your way so you can continue to promote your fathers joke of a book. Why would anyone throw good money after bad? Why would anyone want to support such a lost cause?

thedoc · #**44772** 01-21-2016, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Show me the proof. Isn't that what everyone wants? :yup:

The proof has been presented on this forum many times, you are the only one who objects to the evidence.

peacegirl · #**44773** 01-21-2016, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Show me the proof. Isn't that what everyone wants? :yup:

The proof has been presented on this forum many times, you are the only one who objects to the evidence.

You're the definition of jerk, and you prove this with every new post. :giggle:

Stephen Maturin · #**44774** 01-21-2016, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

You shouldn't need to do a course to use WordPress - writing a blog using WordPress isn't much different to making posts at a forum.

As always, ceptimus is right. I had WordPress blog of my own for several years before I got tired of blogging. It was very easy to set up and use. If a computer-illiterate schlub such as myself can do it, anyone can.

Didn't cost a penny either.

peacegirl · #**44775** 01-21-2016, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

You shouldn't need to do a course to use WordPress - writing a blog using WordPress isn't much different to making posts at a forum.

As always, ceptimus is right. I had WordPress blog of my own for several years before I got tired of blogging. It was very easy to set up and use. If a computer-illiterate schlub such as myself can do it, anyone can.

Didn't cost a penny either.

I can start a blog, but unless I have a following it will go unread. I may have to connect with other bloggers as a guest, and go from there. Websites using wordpress involve more than a blog.