A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If all we needed was light, we wouldn't need a telescope, but, of course, you don't get that.

LOL, fucking amazing.

It has been explained to her probably a hundred times now how telescopes work and why we need them to resolve distant objects, and this is what she comes up with. Unbelievably pathetic.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already answered you. You have to prove that dogs have the cognitive ability to understand not only the training of how to push a lever with their paws, but what this means in terms of what they are seeing in a photograph. Prove this, and I'll concede.

They are presented with a picture of the face of their handler and pictures of strangers. There are placed in random positions every time so there are no patterns to follow.

If they could not, and were just pressing things randomly to get a reward, they should be getting much lower percentages. Each test 12 dogs were each tested 50 times, so there is little change of a statistical fluke. And the amazing thing is that they can do this even if they have never seen that particular picture of their handler before. If this wasn't the case, there is the possibility that perhaps they had simply memorized a meaningless pattern of colours. So empirical testing strongly suggests that dogs can indeed recognise faces on photographs, as long as they get a little practice.

If you prefer anecdotal evidence, I have recently read a rather funny account of a guy who shaved off his beard and moustache and was treated with extreme suspicion by his own dog for MONTHS afterwards, much to his dismay. It was not until his facial hair began to resemble his old look again that the dog relaxed and treated him as before.

I myself have made the error of running around the corner of my house in the dark when my french mastiff Molly is out, and on occasion she challenges me as she would a stranger in her yard. It is not something you forget in a hurry! This has never happened during daylight hours, and I appear around corners suddenly all the time as I do my gardening, and I certainly do not wear the same clothing all the time.

On top of that, if Molly is looking out the closed window and a member of my family appears at the gate (about 30 meters down the garden path), she jumps up and down excitedly and goes into greeting mode. If it is a stranger, she reacts quite differently. I doubt she can smell me through glass, or hear me coming - if she could, then why does she not start before the person appears, the way she does when she can hear our car coming around the corner?

Now these are mere anecdotes of course! But since you value your "empirical observations" so much, here I have several, under different circumstances. I have also shown you that dogs select the pictures, and do not just press the lever they are trained to press.

[Vivisectus]

Actually, a better question is: why does my St Bernard Daisy react differently to family at the gate and strangers, when she looks out through the closed window?

The poor darling has been deaf for more than a year now...

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually, a better question is: why does my St Bernard Daisy react differently to family at the gate and strangers, when she looks out through the closed window?

The poor darling has been deaf for more than a year now...

I've brought these types of examples up as well. I can tell you what her answer will be, because it's in the Book Of Lessans. She will suggest that the dog recognizes your movement.....


...as if that somehow makes it all make any sense.

[Vivisectus]

Movement me arse! The way I move got the living shite scared out of me in the dark on several occasions!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

They are presented with a picture of the face of their handler and pictures of strangers. There are placed in random positions every time so there are no patterns to follow.

If they could not, and were just pressing things randomly to get a reward, they should be getting much lower percentages. Each test 12 dogs were each tested 50 times, so there is little change of a statistical fluke. And the amazing thing is that they can do this even if they have never seen that particular picture of their handler before. If this wasn't the case, there is the possibility that perhaps they had simply memorized a meaningless pattern of colours. So empirical testing strongly suggests that dogs can indeed recognise faces on photographs, as long as they get a little practice.

I don't agree, sorry.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If you prefer anecdotal evidence, I have recently read a rather funny account of a guy who shaved off his beard and moustache and was treated with extreme suspicion by his own dog for MONTHS afterwards, much to his dismay. It was not until his facial hair began to resemble his old look again that the dog relaxed and treated him as before.

I am talking strictly about discriminating between features. As far as I know, dogs do not have this ability because this involves more than just images striking the optic nerve and being interpreted. It is the ability to identify differences, which involves language. I know that dogs often bark at someone in uniform, so it is no surprise that the dog might have gotten confused over the owner shaving off his beard and mustache since this was a large enough difference to cause the dog to be confused.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I myself have made the error of running around the corner of my house in the dark when my french mastiff Molly is out, and on occasion she challenges me as she would a stranger in her yard. It is not something you forget in a hurry! This has never happened during daylight hours, and I appear around corners suddenly all the time as I do my gardening, and I certainly do not wear the same clothing all the time.

Maybe she recognized your gait. I didn't say dogs are blind, and I also didn't say that they can't get cues such as the time of day when you normally come home. That would automatically get her tail wagging. But to recognize someone from a picture is far fetched.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

On top of that, if Molly is looking out the closed window and a member of my family appears at the gate (about 30 meters down the garden path), she jumps up and down excitedly and goes into greeting mode. If it is a stranger, she reacts quite differently. I doubt she can smell me through glass, or hear me coming - if she could, then why does she not start before the person appears, the way she does when she can hear our car coming around the corner?

Now these are mere anecdotes of course! But since you value your "empirical observations" so much, here I have several, under different circumstances. I have also shown you that dogs select the pictures, and do not just press the lever they are trained to press.

Could someone show me where dogs recognize their owners on photographs or monitors without using levers or other props?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't agree, sorry.

LOL, she doesn't agree, sorry Vivisectus! You lose!

The prating little ignoramus who, like her father, knows nothing about science or anything else, doesn't agree. Of course she won't say WHY she disagrees, anymore than she will dare to explain why NASA uses delayed-time seeing based on the speed of light to send spacecraft to other worlds. All that matters is she doesn't agree, and she doesn't agree because the truth contradicts her buffoon of a father! So out goes the truth!

[The Lone Ranger]

Because as we know, recognizing your gait isn't something a dog accomplishes through sight. It's through ... magic, apparently.

[Vivisectus]

I don't agree, sorry.

You have to stop just dropping unsupported claims like that. WHY not? What was wrong with the test?

Maybe she recognized your gait.

Remember Peacegirl - switch on the brain before responding! She did NOT recognize the gait - she did not recognize me at all!

Your gait was probably familiar to her, but to be sure she would still need to confirm that it was you through her sense of smell, not her sight.

There is little chance to recognize anyone's "gait" as I have tall hedges all along the front of my house. You pretty much appear suddenly at the gate, to an observer at the window. Nor does that explain the enthusiastic behaviour long before she can smell me. Both my dogs can tell family from strangers easily, from sight alone. Even if they are standing still at the gate!

[Spacemonkey]

Hello Murdock13!

[Vivisectus]

So -

Neutrinos and Supernovas do not count as evidence. The way they appear close to each other is a coincidence. Apparently they can non-travel instantly too!

Dogs seeing people at the gate and recognizing them from sight does not count. They must be seeing something much more difficult to discern than someone's physical appearance. The fact that they can pick out pictures of their handlers does not count because of levers.

Babies being able to mimic expressions does not count. Must be a coincidence.

The moons of Jupiter? Just a coincidence.

The structure of the eye and the optical nerve? Inconclusive. Even though a charge can only go through it one way.

The fact we can hit planets with probes, which we send to where we THINK the planets are, not where we see them? Another amazing coincidence.

The fact that camera's were designed as passive light-detectors? Through another amazing coincidence we accidentally designed something that works WAY different than we thought when we designed them. They somehow make photons from lightyears away non-travel to film through the magic of focussing!

All this is blown out of the water by conclusive evidence in favour of the idea: namely, that Lessans Said it Was So, And He Was So Smart That He Would Have Noticed If He Was Wrong, So He Wasn't.

I cannot wait for when you are going to present this awesome knowledge to the scientific community. I bet it will be a massive hit. How can they not be convinced? Just please do me one favour and make sure to invite me along. I would not miss it for the world.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But in efferent vision, you cannot just detect light without the object, because it would show up as white light, no image. And no one has answered my question, which is why does an image not show up on film if a person steps out of visual range slightly, but is in a straight line with the lens of a camera, but when he steps within range, his image is resolved on film.

What? It's answered for you in bold red text in the very post you were here replying to.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This proves that it's not only light that is necessary here. It is the substance that must be within the camera's field of view.

Your question (and the correct answer to it) doesn't prove that at all. It just shows that (whether the object still exists or not) a detector receiving the arriving light must be close enough to resolve that light into an image. If it is too far away then the light will be too dispersed and a more powerful detector would be required to resolve an image from the arriving light. All of this is explained perfectly well by the existing afferent model.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Hello Murdock13!

OK, who is Murdock13?

[LadyShea]

You don't have to agree. The evidence speaks for itself. 12 dogs being tested 50 times each and scoring way above chance is pretty solid evidence. Is it conclusive, no, and nobody claims this one study is conclusive....it is compelling though.

Your personal anecdotes and biases regarding what you think dogs should do when they recognize a photograph is just your uninformed opinion based on nothing.

Evidence wins, always.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. I'm saying it seems quite strange that the only time resolution occurs is when an actual piece of matter is in range.

Then you haven't understood the explanation. We just explained exactly why an image of that piece of matter cannot be resolved beyond a certain range. There's nothing strange about it at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does not make sense logically that there would be no image detected when someone steps slightly out of range if the pattern of light is in a direct in line with the sensor.

Again, that is exactly what was just explained to you, and it makes perfect sense. What part do you not understand?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank you for explaining how sensors work and why red shows up, but you still have not answered the simple question as to why objects (substance) must be in view for the reflected light to be detected.

You are conflating two different points. One is the claim that an object can be in direct line of sight and still be too far away to be seen. That is what has just been explained. The other is that an object cannot be seen at all unless that object is still in existence and within a certain range at the time light from it is arriving at the eye/detector. That is not true and therefore does not need explaining.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep explaining how detectors work, which is all well and good, but they don't work at all if there if the object is not present. I've said this all along.

All things being equal, if a person is not within visible range, the strongest sensor would still not pick up or detect an image if that individual is literally a few steps back that put that person out of range.

That is simply not true, and is directly disproven by the Hubble telescope. The object has to be within a certain range at the time light leaves it for an image of it to be resolved, but that object need not still be within that range or even still exist at the time that light arrives at the detector. Our explanation does not have to explain this latter 'fact' because it is not a fact. It is your own unsupported claim. You can't argue that our explanation is inadequate because it can't explain your own made up 'facts'. You might as well claim that afferent vision is an inadequate model because it can't explain real-time vision.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by davidm

OK, who is Murdock13?

Another long-time poster from the IIDB threads.

Edit: Apparently his registration hasn't gone through. Could someone fix that up?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am talking strictly about discriminating between features. As far as I know, dogs do not have this ability because this involves more than just images striking the optic nerve and being interpreted. It is the ability to identify differences, which involves language.

Another gunshot wound to the foot.

If facial discrimination requires vision plus language, then even if dogs could not recognize their masters from vision alone (even though they actually can) this could be because they do see afferently but lack language. You just completely undermined your claim that this (false) lack of ability in dogs is evidence for efferent vision. If the ability requires language and dogs lack language, then this lack of ability is explained without any need to posit a different mechanism for vision.

(Of course, facial recognition does not require language. But it does require complex cognitive processing of visual information, which would explain the lack of ability in the same way without requiring a different mechanism for vision. And of course, this lack of ability doesn't need expaining anyway, because dogs do not in fact lack this ability.)

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Can't address the point, can you? Your response to how we calculate trajectories without missing planets does not work. It is not a simple matter of adding a miscalculation back into the equation. That is not how it works.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has nothing to do with punishment, but I will not tolerate you calling him names like idiot. You'll regret it one day when he turns out to be right.

He won't turn out to be right. He has already turned out to be wrong. Real-time vision is impossible, as amply demonstrated by your inability to posit any coherent and consistent model capable of answering my questions about it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light didn't have to get there.

Unless those photons were always at the film, or came into existence at the film, then they did have to get there.

Did these photons at the film previously exist? If not, then you have them magically coming into existence at the film.

If so, then was their previous location ever different (i.e. other than at the film)? If not, then you have stationary photons again which have always been in the same location.

If so, then you have photons which were once at point A and are now at point B. That means they had to get there somehow.


How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?


So you have photons at the film when the photograph is taken. How did they get there? [Answer goes here]

Did they exist, say, 10 seconds ago? [Yes or No]

[If Yes, then...] Where were those photons then? [State a location]

How did they get from wherever they were 10 seconds ago to the film where they are now? [Answer goes here]


What does happen to the non-absorbed photons hitting the object if they don't bounce off and travel away? ((P)reflection isn't an answer - you need to explain what happens to the (P)reflected photons by specifying their location and behavior after they hit the object.)

[LadyShea]

I am talking strictly about discriminating between features. As far as I know, dogs do not have this ability because this involves more than just images striking the optic nerve and being interpreted.

We have told you all along that recognition is about the brain's cognitive abilities rather than the direction by which we see, hence the "cognition" in the word.

You've never explained why Lessans thought dogs should be able to recognize human facial features if the standard model of vision is accurate. There is no reason to think that, whatsoever. That this was one of his main proofs for efferent vision is doubly astounding, because it's a nonsensical premise to begin with

IOW vision being afferent doesn't imply any "should" as far as dogs recognizing facial features.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your gait was probably familiar to her. To be sure of who you were, she would actually still need to confirm through through her sense of smell, not her sight.

I told you so, Vivisectus. (Although, I didn't say "gait", which is the term Lessans used, IIRC.)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Because as we know, recognizing your gait isn't something a dog accomplishes through sight. It's through ... magic, apparently.

Gait is movement. I don't know whether a dog could recognize his master from this alone, or not. Dogs always follow up with their sense of smell to confirm who they think the person might be. I know that dogs can distinguish between humans and dogs when they're out walking. But this has nothing to do with a dog recognizing his master by sight alone, especially from a picture.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Gait is movement. I don't know whether a dog could recognize his master from this alone, or not. Dogs always follow up with their sense of smell to confirm who they think the person might be. I know that dogs can distinguish between humans and dogs when they're out walking. But this has nothing to do with a dog recognizing his master by sight alone, especially from a picture.

Dogs recognizing their masters from pictures has NOTHING to do with the mechanism of vision, as you inadvertently conceded in your earlier post.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I told you so, Vivisectus. (Although, I didn't say "gait", which is the term Lessans used, IIRC.)

Actually, I added the word "gait", but he implied that movement was not included in the following paragraph:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality p. 122

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight
distance away cannot identify his master. If the eyes were a sense; if
an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic
nerve then he would recognize his master instantly as he can from
sound and smell. In fact, if he was vicious and accustomed to
attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his sense
of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no way of
identifying his master’s face even if every feature was lit up like a
Christmas tree, and would attack.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, I added the word "gait", but he implied that movement was not included in the following paragraph:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality p. 122

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight
distance away cannot identify his master. If the eyes were a sense; if
an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic
nerve then he would recognize his master instantly as he can from
sound and smell. In fact, if he was vicious and accustomed to
attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his sense
of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no way of
identifying his master’s face even if every feature was lit up like a
Christmas tree, and would attack.

Thank you for clarifying my insult?