A revolution in thought - Page 1087

thedoc · #**27151** 06-13-2013, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

dogs know the difference between an inanimate object, and the real thing --- YOU. So I won't see him bringing a leash to a pair of socks anytime soon.

But should they wag their tail and whimper and jump up and down at the sock, like you think they should at a photograph?

I told you that if they smelled a sock, they would probably start searching for their master. They might even want to lay down by the sock if their master isn't there. A smell of steak on a paper plate doesn't mean the dog doesn't recognize that it's just a smell and will eat the plate. He will go look for the source of the smell. A still frame on a computer screen is not the same thing as a sock because it's an exact representation of the person's face. If the eyes are a sense organ shouldn't the dog be able to recognize his master from this, just like a child can? After going up to the screen and not being able to make contact with the owner, the dog may lose interest. But in the beginning, there definitely should be some kind of recognition (whether it's a wag of the tail, a whimper, a bark) just like there is when they hear their master's voice.

You really don't know anything about dogs, the dog will indeed eat the paper plate that smells like a steak.

No way. He will lick the plate but not eat the paper. And if there's a trail, he will find the steak and eat it. Dogs know the difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was trying to make it easy by using whatever technology is available. I did say a still video where the variables are isolated otherwise it wouldn't make sense to even try it.

No, you said

Quote:

I wonder if this dog recognized his master on Skype? I'd love to find out because that would give us relevant info.

And when I asked how you would know if he recognized his master on Skype, you said he would react just as he did to the real person. The real person was talking and walking and touching and being smelled, so why on Earth would you expect a dog to react the same way to a still silent image with no odor as to the real thing?

I have mentioned that in order for us to know whether the dog recognizes his master through sight alone, any other cues would have to be omitted. Sound is a cue. Movement is a cue. If you had thought about it you would have realized that these videos were not set up to test this. If a dog was able to recognize his master from sight alone, it would seem that he would show a reaction to a still frame because the photons are entering his eyes.

I realized the videos weren't set up to test this because you said we didn't need controlled tests, just layperson observation and anecdotal evidence just like your son and his dog on Skype or this soldier and his dog on Skype (relevant info you said!).

It still is relevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

When you say things like that, why are you surprised when we hold you to it? What the hell kind of random person sets up tests, that happen to match your parameters, using Skype then puts them on YouTube? What the hell were you expecting with your Skype talk? Did you think we would do tests for you with our dogs or what exactly?

These did not meet my parameters. I didn't ask you to pull these videos off of Youtube either. Right away you can see that there are other senses involved, so the videos are useless, but that doesn't mean that an experiment couldn't be set up to see how a dog would react to a still frame on a computer screen of his beloved master who has been away for over 8 months.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anyway, Weasel, you still aren't responding to the pertinent part of the questions at all

1. How would you know if he recognizes his master in a photograph? How would you determine if a dog is recognizing someone from a still photograph?

He would show recognition of some kind (I've already given you some of the responses), and it would have to be replicated because he could just be curious and walk up to the screen even though he didn't recognize his master.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

2. Why would the dog react to an inanimate object, a photograph, as if it were the real person?

Because a dog wouldn't know the difference (the photons being emitted would give the dog an exact image in his mind) until he ran up to the computer screen and saw that there was no master. That's what happened in one of the videos when the dachshund's master called for him. Maybe a 50 inch screen would give more weight to the test because it makes the person look like they're in the room.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

3. If the reaction would be different what reaction is expected and why?

I don't think there would be any reaction because of the reasons already given.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

4. Do you expect dogs to react to a sock the same way as you expect them to react to a photograph? Why or why not

I feel that if a dog smelled a sock, he would show some kind of recognition that he is familiar with his smell. He may also go looking for his master. If a dog recognized his master on a screen, he would go to the screen to verify through his sense of smell that this was his master. But if there is no recognition at all, you cannot compare what he sees visually to his sense of smell.

So in one situation a dog will know the difference between the real thing and something not real, and in another situation a dog will not know the difference. You are a real hypocrate.

thedoc · #**27152** 06-13-2013, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why is it that they only publish the results and not allow people to see the actual experiment as it's progressing

What do scientists have to hide if their experiments are interesting to the public? Is there some kind of gag order, or is there some kind of hidden agenda that has to do with funding? So all we ever see are descriptions of the test, and the results, but we never can actually see the experiment for ourselves?

When a scientist publishes a paper it usually includes a very detailed and complete description of the experiments and tests so that other scientists can try to duplicate the results. And, for the record, I have seen numerous programs that show demonstrations of the experiments and tests, if you really want to see them, some are on video, you just have to look, and no I'm not going to waste my time posting links that you will ignore.

thedoc · #**27153** 06-13-2013, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have had dogs eat paper towels, paper plates, plastic wrap, and butcher paper that had food on them

Yes, but did you televise these so-called dogs eating these so-called objects? Why not? Were you under some sort of gag order?

No, the dog was gagging after eating them and had to be rushed to the vet, no time for video, and the dog ate the video after they got back.

peacegirl · #**27154** 06-13-2013, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

dogs know the difference between an inanimate object, and the real thing --- YOU. So I won't see him bringing a leash to a pair of socks anytime soon.

But should they wag their tail and whimper and jump up and down at the sock, like you think they should at a photograph?

I told you that if they smelled a sock, they would probably start searching for their master. They might even want to lay down by the sock if their master isn't there. A smell of steak on a paper plate doesn't mean the dog doesn't recognize that it's just a smell and will eat the plate. He will go look for the source of the smell. A still frame on a computer screen is not the same thing as a sock because it's an exact representation of the person's face. If the eyes are a sense organ shouldn't the dog be able to recognize his master from this, just like a child can? After going up to the screen and not being able to make contact with the owner, the dog may lose interest. But in the beginning, there definitely should be some kind of recognition (whether it's a wag of the tail, a whimper, a bark) just like there is when they hear their master's voice.

You really don't know anything about dogs, the dog will indeed eat the paper plate that smells like a steak.

No way. He will lick the plate but not eat the paper. And if there's a trail, he will find the steak and eat it. Dogs know the difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was trying to make it easy by using whatever technology is available. I did say a still video where the variables are isolated otherwise it wouldn't make sense to even try it.

No, you said

Quote:

I wonder if this dog recognized his master on Skype? I'd love to find out because that would give us relevant info.

And when I asked how you would know if he recognized his master on Skype, you said he would react just as he did to the real person. The real person was talking and walking and touching and being smelled, so why on Earth would you expect a dog to react the same way to a still silent image with no odor as to the real thing?

I have mentioned that in order for us to know whether the dog recognizes his master through sight alone, any other cues would have to be omitted. Sound is a cue. Movement is a cue. If you had thought about it you would have realized that these videos were not set up to test this. If a dog was able to recognize his master from sight alone, it would seem that he would show a reaction to a still frame because the photons are entering his eyes.

I realized the videos weren't set up to test this because you said we didn't need controlled tests, just layperson observation and anecdotal evidence just like your son and his dog on Skype or this soldier and his dog on Skype (relevant info you said!).

It still is relevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

When you say things like that, why are you surprised when we hold you to it? What the hell kind of random person sets up tests, that happen to match your parameters, using Skype then puts them on YouTube? What the hell were you expecting with your Skype talk? Did you think we would do tests for you with our dogs or what exactly?

These did not meet my parameters. I didn't ask you to pull these videos off of Youtube either. Right away you can see that there are other senses involved, so the videos are useless, but that doesn't mean that an experiment couldn't be set up to see how a dog would react to a still frame on a computer screen of his beloved master who has been away for over 8 months.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anyway, Weasel, you still aren't responding to the pertinent part of the questions at all

1. How would you know if he recognizes his master in a photograph? How would you determine if a dog is recognizing someone from a still photograph?

He would show recognition of some kind (I've already given you some of the responses), and it would have to be replicated because he could just be curious and walk up to the screen even though he didn't recognize his master.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

2. Why would the dog react to an inanimate object, a photograph, as if it were the real person?

Because a dog wouldn't know the difference (the photons being emitted would give the dog an exact image in his mind) until he ran up to the computer screen and saw that there was no master. That's what happened in one of the videos when the dachshund's master called for him. Maybe a 50 inch screen would give more weight to the test because it makes the person look like they're in the room.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

3. If the reaction would be different what reaction is expected and why?

I don't think there would be any reaction because of the reasons already given.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

4. Do you expect dogs to react to a sock the same way as you expect them to react to a photograph? Why or why not

I feel that if a dog smelled a sock, he would show some kind of recognition that he is familiar with his smell. He may also go looking for his master. If a dog recognized his master on a screen, he would go to the screen to verify through his sense of smell that this was his master. But if there is no recognition at all, you cannot compare what he sees visually to his sense of smell.

So in one situation a dog will know the difference between the real thing and something not real, and in another situation a dog will not know the difference. You are a real hypocrate.

No, you are because you are making stuff up that I never intended.

peacegirl · #**27155** 06-13-2013, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

peacegirl, you still haven't explained how a person identifies a face, so that the correct name can then be projected onto it for identification purposes.

I can understand how this happens in your system if there are other ways of identifying the person - say if they are talking, or by their gait if they are walking. But how do you do it in the situation where you are just shown a photograph of a face? Let's say you're shown a photo of the face of one of your old school friends. How do you know what name to project onto the face, so that you can then recognize it?

I answered you already. A photograph is taken of the relation between the name and the person (whether it's a representation or the real thing or the actual thing in question), which is then recorded in the brain, so that when this image shows up, this image will be recognizable and a response will be forthcoming. But it takes a connection between the picture and what it represents for this to occur, which does not happen when we expect it to (i.e., photons traveling to the eyes for recognition) because no photograph was taken that would allow this recognition to occur.

peacegirl · #**27156** 06-13-2013, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course not. But you're making an assumption as to what happens with the remaining light.

So what do you think happens with the remaining light? We think it bounces off the object and travels away from it. What do you think happens?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to Lessans, there is a mistaken notion that the non-absorbed light is reflected, which means that the photons are bouncing and traveling over long distances. This appears logical, but for the billionth time, this is exactly what is being contested.

But you haven't contested that. Whenever pressed, you've always AGREED that the unabsorbed light bounces off and travels away from the object, and you've never once offered any alternative account for what happens to it.

Nothing happens to it. It is revealed until the non-absorbed light diminishes. You think it keeps traveling ad infinitum which anybody who is not invested in the conclusions would question. And you say I'm a fundie? :eek:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And you still can't explain how the light instantly at the retina at 12:00 could have come from the Sun given that it could never have been located at the Sun at any point in time.

I didn't say that. The relationship between the object in the efferent account is not a long distance, which you are presupposing. That's why you are confused as to how photons that travel to Earth can be the same photons that are required to see said object. This is understandably confusing but it doesn't change the fact that, given the new conditions of efferent vision, we can very easily use that light to see the real object, which you can't seem to wrap your head around.

peacegirl · #**27157** 06-13-2013, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course not. But you're making an assumption as to what happens with the remaining light.

So what do you think happens with the remaining light? We think it bounces off the object and travels away from it. What do you think happens?

Nothing happens to it. It is revealed, but it doesn't bounce. Why do you care what I think if you think this discovery is worthless?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to Lessans, there is a mistaken notion that the non-absorbed light is reflected, which means that the photons are bouncing and traveling over long distances. This appears logical, but for the billionth time, this is exactly what is being contested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But you haven't contested that. Whenever pressed, you've always AGREED that the unabsorbed light bounces off and travels away from the object, and you've never once offered any alternative account for what happens to it.

I have but I may have been guilty of confusing the situation based on your questions. Lessans stated that images are not reflected. You argued this point, so I argued back. The bottom line is the light that is revealed when certain frequency/wavelenths are absorbed does not bounce and travel, as scientists believe.

p. 115 What they tried to make us believe is
that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us it
would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach
Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a
telescope?
They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an
airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and
since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when
starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other
respects — which is false — although it is true that the farther away
we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as light
becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the sound from
a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in the
sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards
the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image
is not being reflected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And you still can't explain how the light instantly at the retina at 12:00 could have come from the Sun given that it could never have been located at the Sun at any point in time.

I never said that so I don't have to defend it.

Vivisectus · #**27158** 06-13-2013, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

peacegirl, you still haven't explained how a person identifies a face, so that the correct name can then be projected onto it for identification purposes.

I can understand how this happens in your system if there are other ways of identifying the person - say if they are talking, or by their gait if they are walking. But how do you do it in the situation where you are just shown a photograph of a face? Let's say you're shown a photo of the face of one of your old school friends. How do you know what name to project onto the face, so that you can then recognize it?

I answered you already. A photograph is taken of the relation between the name and the person (whether it's a representation or the real thing or the actual thing in question), which is then recorded in the brain, so that when this image shows up, this image will be recognizable and a response will be forthcoming. But it takes a connection between the picture and what it represents for this to occur, which does not happen when we expect it to (i.e., photons traveling to the eyes for recognition) because no photograph was taken that would allow this recognition to occur.

thedoc · #**27159** 06-13-2013, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing happens to it. It is revealed, but it doesn't bounce. Why do you care what I think if you think this discovery is worthless?

there is a mistaken notion that the non-absorbed light is reflected, which means that the photons are bouncing and traveling over long distances. This appears logical, but for the billionth time, this is exactly what is being contested

I have but I may have been guilty of confusing the situation based on your questions. Lessans stated that images are not reflected. You argued this point, so I argued back. The bottom line is the light that is revealed when certain frequency/wavelenths are absorbed does not bounce and travel, as scientists believe.

p. 115 What they tried to make us believe is
that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us it
would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach
Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a
telescope?
They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an
airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and
since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when
starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other
respects — which is false — although it is true that the farther away
we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as light
becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the sound from
a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in the
sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards
the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image
is not being reflected.

Lessans stated that "an image is not being reflected", Lessans did not say that photons were not reflected, somehow Peacegirl was confused about this and assumed that he ment both photons and the image. In fact Lessans had seperated the concepts of the image and photons and tried to emphasizs that the photons did not carry the image. In a round about way he was correct but failed to understans that science did not state that photons "carried an Image" but the combination of photons of different frequencies and of different intensities can be recieved and intrepreted as an image. Peacegirl is just carrying on the family tradition of being confused about science but having the audacity to think they can correct scientists.

Vivisectus · #**27160** 06-13-2013, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Why is it that they only publish the results and not allow people to see the actual experiment as it's progressing

Ah yes. The conspiracy theory. Mainstay for people with highly implausible ideas all over the world. If your world-view and reality conflict, blame it on some sort of conspiracy. I like my scapegoats old-fashioned, so I am going to blame this one on the Elders of Zion.

Vivisectus · #**27161** 06-13-2013, 08:22 PM

Let us recap. The eye, not being a sense organ, only projects images (onto a screen of undeniable essence) outwards, being efferent. And yet somehow the brain is able to take a photograph (light-writing) of a relation (significant association) between a name and a person. It is then also capable of detecting said person, and projecting the right significant association on to it, which results in sight as we know it.

The fact that the eye must first detect the person (somehow) and also then trigger the brain to project the right image (somehow) which for some reason immediately incorporates any changes that may have occurred to that person in the meantime in the photograph (a new haircut, scar or aging can be seen) in no way implies that the only way efferent sight can work is by having the eye work afferently as well. Just because new visual information continually appears in the brain totally does not mean that the eye needs to function like a sense organ in order for the wonderful explanation taht the eye is not a sense organ to be able to work, even if it was 100% correct, which it must be, because Peacegirls father said so, and she clearly stated that her father worked and thought hard about this book, so if there was a mistake in it he would have corrected it so there can't be one in it. If you think this is irrational then you are a meanie, and also scientists are out to disprove this idea desperately, or else why would they be doing tests that involve eyes?

Spacemonkey · #**27162** 06-13-2013, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing happens to it. It is revealed until the non-absorbed light diminishes. You think it keeps traveling ad infinitum which anybody who is not invested in the conclusions would question. And you say I'm a fundie?

As we've had to repeatedly explain to you every time you return to this point, 'nothing happens to it' is not an answer. Unless it ceases to exist after not being absorbed, this non-absorbed light has to have a location and direction of travel at every moment after it hits the object, and that means you need to describe what happens to it. 'Nothing' is not an answer. And disputing how far it travels is not to dispute that it gets reflected by bouncing off and traveling away from the object.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing happens to it. It is revealed, but it doesn't bounce. Why do you care what I think if you think this discovery is worthless?

'Nothing' is not an answer. If it doesn't bounce off, then where is it when it is being 'revealed' after hitting the object? Does this non-absorbed light cease to exist? Or does it just sit there at the surface of the object as it is revealed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have but I may have been guilty of confusing the situation based on your questions. Lessans stated that images are not reflected. You argued this point, so I argued back. The bottom line is the light that is revealed when certain frequency/wavelenths are absorbed does not bounce and travel, as scientists believe.

Yes, you're always guilty of being confused, That' hardly news. The afferent account doesn't claim that images get reflected either - it is only the light that gets reflected by bouncing off objects. Lessans never denied that the light gets reflected - only YOU did. So if you are going to maintain - against all evidence and reason - that the non-absorbed light doesn't bounce off and travel away from the object, then you need to explain what you think happens to it, i.e. where is it and where is it going immediately after hitting the object?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say that. The relationship between the object in the efferent account is not a long distance, which you are presupposing. That's why you are confused as to how photons that travel to Earth can be the same photons that are required to see said object. This is understandably confusing but it doesn't change the fact that, given the new conditions of efferent vision, we can very easily use that light to see the real object, which you can't seem to wrap your head around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that so I don't have to defend it.

But you did. You did say that the light instantly at the retina at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited came from the Sun, and you haven't been able to name any possible time at which that light could have been located at the Sun. This has nothing to do with the long distance (90 million miles) between the Sun and the retina which your account cannot change. And the light instantly at the retina cannot be light which has traveled from the Sun to the retina unless you can tell me when this light was first located at the Sun to begin this journey. It can hardly have been 8 minutes before 12:00 (which is when it would have to have left the Sun to arrive at 12:00 if it traveled at light speed) as the Sun was not ignited before 12:00 to be able to emit any photons. This is a big fat contradiction which you still refuse to even address.

peacegirl · #**27163** 06-13-2013, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

peacegirl, you still haven't explained how a person identifies a face, so that the correct name can then be projected onto it for identification purposes.

I can understand how this happens in your system if there are other ways of identifying the person - say if they are talking, or by their gait if they are walking. But how do you do it in the situation where you are just shown a photograph of a face? Let's say you're shown a photo of the face of one of your old school friends. How do you know what name to project onto the face, so that you can then recognize it?

I answered you already. A photograph is taken of the relation between the name and the person (whether it's a representation or the real thing or the actual thing in question), which is then recorded in the brain, so that when this image shows up, this image will be recognizable and a response will be forthcoming. But it takes a connection between the picture and what it represents for this to occur, which does not happen when we expect it to (i.e., photons traveling to the eyes for recognition) because no photograph was taken that would allow this recognition to occur.

What's that supposed to mean?

ceptimus · #**27164** 06-13-2013, 10:58 PM

If you hover your mouse over the smilies, you get to see their names. That one is the 'Awesome' smiley, so Vivisectus was indicating that he thought your post was awesome!

peacegirl · #**27165** 06-13-2013, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I feel that if a dog smelled a sock, he would show some kind of recognition that he is familiar with his smell. He may also go looking for his master. If a dog recognized his master on a screen, he would go to the screen to verify through his sense of smell that this was his master. But if there is no recognition at all, you cannot compare what he sees visually to his sense of smell.

What exact behavior do dogs display when they recognize something, and how do you know that this behavior indicates recognition?

Once you answer that-which you haven't, you've said "If they recognize something they will show recognition" that's redundant and tautological- then you can move on to the following issues.

That's not what I said. I said a dog would react in a noticeable fashion to the face on the screen if he hadn't seen his master in 8 months.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Recognition of a person via an inanimate object is very comparable between smell and sight if we are talking about how sense organs work, and how recognition works, and trying to determine what are or are not sense organs by comparing abilities and traits between them. You claim the nose is a sense organ so smell is where we could derive criteria.

So what are you saying? That a dog doesn't run up to a sock with his master's smell on it, so a dog shouldn't be expected to run up to the screen when he sees his master's face?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

-If you expect a dog to react to the smell of a sock the same as he would react to the real person, then you are being consistent by expecting the dog to react to seeing a photograph the same as the real person.

A dog would probably look for his master if the smell of the sock was recent, but would eventually give up if his master was nowhere to be found. A dog would run up to the screen and show recognition if the eyes are a sense organ, but would probably give up if he couldn't confirm through smell that his master was there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

-If you don't expect the dog to sniff the sock and start whimpering and wagging his tail in recognition of his master's smell, then you are being inconsistent by expecting the dog to see a photograph and start whimpering and wagging his tail.

I don't think it's being inconsistent because the real person and a representation of that person through a picture or a video is still comprised of the same photons. The dog always has to confirm through his sense of smell, since this is the dominant sense. A sock, although it has the master's smell on it, is not the person (and the dog realizes this), just like liquid from a steak on a paper plate is not the steak, and therefore the dog won't eat the paper plate but will find the steak and eat it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You need to have the same expectation for eyes as you have for the senses you agree allow recognition.

An experiment could be set up where a dog sees his master in a line up where everyone is wearing the same thing so that only the features are being used to identify. I think this has been done before but I don't know how reliable it was. The only problem with this is that his sense of smell could contaminate the test making it look like a slam dunk when his master's smell was leading him in the right direction.

peacegirl · #**27166** 06-13-2013, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, yes you did say something to that effect. Would somebody look for that post?

How about you look for it. See the "Search this thread" function?

I don't know his exact words, so I don't think I can find it.

peacegirl · #**27167** 06-13-2013, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because a dog wouldn't know the difference (the photons being emitted would give the dog an exact image in his mind) until he ran up to the computer screen and saw that there was no master..

You don't think the dog could differentiate between a 2 dimensional, still, and silent image, and a real person?

Not at first. He would see his master and run up to the screen. When he couldn't confirm that this was his master through his sense of smell, he would give up. And even if could tell the difference between a 2 dimensional, still, and silent image, next to the real person, this wouldn't prevent him from showing recognition just like a child does when he sees a picture of his daddy. Dogs always follow up with their sense of smell, unlike children. I wonder why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's completely irrational. Why on Earth would you think that? Do you also think they wouldn't know the difference between a pile of worn clothes and the real person?

If the smell of his master was in the room, he would go searching for his master, just like a dog would run up to the screen. Once the dog finds out that the source of the smell is a dirty old sock, he would stop just like the dog would stop when he couldn't confirm that the person on the screen was his master through his sense of smell.

peacegirl · #**27168** 06-13-2013, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have had dogs eat paper towels, paper plates, plastic wrap, and butcher paper that had food on them

If there was a trail I bet they would have followed it to the source. I guess puppies would especially would eat paper.

ceptimus · #**27169** 06-13-2013, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only problem with this is that his sense of smell could contaminate the test making it look like a slam dunk when his master's smell was leading him in the right direction.

You'd just have to make sure that the dog was upwind of all the people - that way the wind would be carrying the scent of the people away from the dog. Providing the people also kept quiet, then the dog wouldn't be able to smell or hear them - and the people should also keep still, so that the dog gets no clues from their gestures or gait. Then you've pretty much isolated the test down to (static) vision.

Spacemonkey · #**27170** 06-13-2013, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, yes you did say something to that effect. Would somebody look for that post?

How about you look for it. See the "Search this thread" function?

I don't know his exact words, so I don't think I can find it.

You can't find it because I never said it. You just made it up.

peacegirl · #**27171** 06-13-2013, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why is it that they only publish the results and not allow people to see the actual experiment as it's progressing

What? Are you sniffing glue? You think all scientists everywhere should publish their experiments publicly in real time? Like a live camera feed of thousands of labs worldwide, or what exactly?

You are really ignorant sometimes, you know that? No I'm not sniffing glue. How disgusting can you get? What do scientists have to hide if their experiments are interesting to the public? Is there some kind of gag order, or is there some kind of hidden agenda that has to do with funding? So all we ever see are descriptions of the test, and the results, but we never can actually see the experiment for ourselves?

You are a total moron most of the time. This is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.

Scientists work needs to be done without a peanut gallery from the public. The tests are meaningless until the data from the test is gathered and analyzed.

That's not even what I was implying; that scientists should give us a preview before the test is done. I was just saying why can't they show the actual test that helped them reach their conclusions instead of just giving a written report?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why did Lessans wait until he had drawn a bunch of conclusions before writing his book? Why didn't he record his actual observations as he made them and offer them to all his friends and family to read as he went?

Again, I didn't mean that they should share their observations before they're done, but it seems to me that they would have videotaped the experiment and once they come to their conclusions, they could share it just like they share the results in writing. A lot of people do better when seeing something visually then just reading about it, plus seeing something on video gives further proof as to how the experiment was conducted. Actually seeing an experiment with your own eyes is so much better than just reading about it, at least for me.

peacegirl · #**27172** 06-13-2013, 11:55 PM

[quote=LadyShea;1135083]

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

You are deliberately placing impossible demands on the proof required so that there can be no proof. Just like you demanded that the delay in seeing, due to the speed of light, be demonstrated on Earth, when the very speed of light made that all but impossible, and you knew it. This shows that you have no understanding of dogs or dog behavior, or light and the properties of light.

If the speed of light goes that fast (which it does), then how can we get an image of anything? It would pass right us over. :doh:

You can't possibly be that stupid, so it must be willful ignorance.

Did you sell any of your 'over-priced' books yet? It's all about the money, isn't it?

Actually it does make sense. I'm just following your reasoning. Why wouldn't images that bounce off of objects pass right over us on Earth if light is traveling at such a fast speed?

1. Images don't bounce off objects, for the billionth time

Call it what you want, it is believed that the non-absorbed photons are bouncing off of the object.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is known, and can be measured and demonstrated 100% of the time, that light that encounters matter, but is not absorbed, is either reflected or transmitted. This is not a belief, it is a fact. You can prove it yourself with some different types of materials (transparent, reflective, etc) and a small flashlight....such as what comes with a simple optics kit for kids

I never said light does not get transmitted through space/time, but we're talking about non-absorbed photons. These do not get reflected; they reveal said object due to the object's absorptive properties and because the object is within optical range.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

2. Some light comes in contact with matter while it is traveling and some matter it encounters absorbs it (which makes it stop traveling), such as the photoreceptors in our retinas and in green plants.

If a traveling car hits a wall, what happens? Why doesn't it pass right over the wall?

Quote:

Of course not. But you're making an assumption as to what happens with the remaining light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no assumption. There are, however the laws of physics, such as the law of reflection, that can be easily demonstrated in your own bathroom mirror.

The law of reflection does not mean that an image of myself is traveling through space time after I walk away from the mirror. Yes, light is always being reflected, but not the non-absorbed photons which eventually dissipate according to how far the non-absorbed light is from its source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light energy is absorbed and what is revealed is the object.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When light encounters matter it can be absorbed, transmitted through, or reflected (with or without diffusion). These are known to happen and can be measured each and every time, without exception.

That's true, but remove the object and see what you get? You will not get an image of said object. You will get only light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to Lessans, there is a mistaken notion that the non-absorbed light is reflected

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He never said a damn thing about non absorbed light, nor about light not reflecting. That all came from you, not him. He talked about "images" not traveling on the "wings of light", which was due to his very erroneous understanding of the standard model of sight. I still have a copy of the book, quote where he discussed the known properties of light being mistaken.

He knew what he was talking about. All he said was that the image of the object does not get reflected. I am just using different ways to help explain what he meant. He did not actually think that images travel on the wings of light.

If it
was possible to transmit a television picture from the earth to a planet
as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the people living there
would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into America for the
first time because the picture would be in the process of being
transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But objects do
not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge on the
optic nerve. We see objects directly by looking at them and it
takes the same length of time to see an airplane, the moon, the sun, or
distant stars.

To sum this up — just as we have often observed that
a marching band is out of step to the beat when seen from a distance
because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been taken, so
likewise, if we could see someone talking on the moon via a telescope
and hear his voice on radio we would see his lips move instantly but
not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3 seconds later
due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles
a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric image of his lips
impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this distance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

which means that the photons are bouncing and traveling over long distances. This appears logical, but for the billionth time, this is exactly what is being contested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans never contested the Law of Reflection, which was derived from empirical observation and can be demonstrated at will, what the hell are you talking about?

You're missing the entire point. An object can be revealed through non-absorbed photons without those photons being reflected through space/time, even while the full spectrum of light is reflected. His observation does not violate physics.

specious_reasons · #**27173** 06-14-2013, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're missing the entire point. An object can be revealed through non-absorbed photons without those photons being reflected through space/time, even while the full spectrum of light is reflected. His observation does not violate physics.

Lessans' ideas don't just violate the laws of physics, as you describe them, they also violate observable reality.

thedoc · #**27174** 06-14-2013, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

which means that the photons are bouncing and traveling over long distances. This appears logical, but for the billionth time, this is exactly what is being contested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans never contested the Law of Reflection, which was derived from empirical observation and can be demonstrated at will, what the hell are you talking about?

You're missing the entire point. An object can be revealed through non-absorbed photons without those photons being reflected through space/time, even while the full spectrum of light is reflected. His observation does not violate physics.

It is clearly pointless to engage Peacegirl in any kind of dialogue with the intention of enlightening her in the finer points of light and vision. There is value in presenting accurate information about the real world and how it really works, but making Peacegirl understand reality is a lost cause. There is some kind of mental deficiency that prevents her from comprehending science, in particular Physics, optics, biology, psychology, are simply beyond Peacegirls ability to understand. But everyone please continue to post as I appreciate new knowledge and information and Peacegirl does stimulate others to post interesting and accurate data.

Spacemonkey · #**27175** 06-14-2013, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said light does not get transmitted through space/time, but we're talking about non-absorbed photons. These do not get reflected; they reveal said object due to the object's absorptive properties and because the object is within optical range.

Where do the non-absorbed photons go, if they don't get absorbed and they don't bounce off and travel away?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The law of reflection does not mean that an image of myself is traveling through space time after I walk away from the mirror. Yes, light is always being reflected, but not the non-absorbed photons which eventually dissipate according to how far the non-absorbed light is from its source.

No-one has ever claimed that images bounce off things and travel away through space and time. We are talking about light, not images. And how can the non-absorbed light dissipate over time and space, if it hasn't bounced off the object to travel through time and space?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true, but remove the object and see what you get? You will not get an image of said object. You will get only light.

As long as the same light hits the retina, the same things will be seen, whether the object is then present or not. Because all the retina does is detect the light that hits it, and then send this information to the brain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He knew what he was talking about. All he said was that the image of the object does not get reflected. I am just using different ways to help explain what he meant. He did not actually think that images travel on the wings of light.

Mr. Molecules of Light, and Images on the Wings of Light knew what he was talking about? Who are you kidding here? And he never said that non-absorbed light is not reflected. He never said half the ridiculous shit you've made up while trying hopelessly to defend him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're missing the entire point. An object can be revealed through non-absorbed photons without those photons being reflected through space/time, even while the full spectrum of light is reflected. His observation does not violate physics.

How can the FULL spectrum be reflected when PART of that spectrum has been absorbed? You're violating basic semantics and language, never mind physics.