A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, she is confused because she can see the person and hear them, but the person isn't really there at all. She is confused by technology because she is a fricking dog

Even kids have been confused by video, because they don't intuitively understand why they can see something that isn't really there

And what do you mean you can't see "the video"? I have 15 videos there, numbered even.

If you can't see the embeds, copy the link part such as YouTube and paste it into an address bar

This one is no different from all the other ones. The dog is responding to his master's commands. Dogs also see something on the screen where the sound is coming from and will approach it as often occurs, but that doesn't mean that without the voice, the dog will recognize his master. I'll go through the other ones.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No problem, but you'll have to link me to each one again. they aren't showing up on my screen.

Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that you just don't want to look at the video, and are lying about them not showing up on your screen? Oh! I know, it's because you have repeatedly lied before about evidence that proved you to be wrong. Your basic dishonesty is not going to help when you ask people to believe what you and Lessans are saying. This is just another way for you to avoid recognizing evidence that disproves your fathers claims.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It is not obvious that dogs can do this, and it is being tested to see if they do and how well. That you are not aware of the experiments being done, does not mean that they are not being done. However for your comfort, you are exibiting a very common form of willful ignorance, in that if you are not aware of something it doesn't exist. I have encountered many people who believe that they know everything there is to know, when in fact they know very little and usually much less that I know, and I admit that I know very little compaired to all there is to know. Even on subjects on which I feel that I am well versed, I am constantly discovering new and interesting information, I'm still learning, and hope to never stop. But I can see that you refuse to learn anything new, beyond your fathers book.

That's not true at all thedoc. I can easily admit what I don't know, and I'm sure there are more things I don't know than the things I do know, but we're talking about the specifics of this book and what's in it and that is something I do know about. Just because I refuse to agree with what I don't agree with, you say I'm willfully ignorant. Sorry but that's not an accurate definition.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This one is no different from all the other ones. The dog is responding to his master's commands. Dogs also see something on the screen where the sound is coming from and will approach it as often occurs, but that doesn't mean that without the voice, the dog will recognize his master. I'll go through the other ones.

You claim that you cannot see the other videos, yet you claim that this one is no different than the others, How do you know it's no different if you can't see them, and 4 minutes is certainly not enough time to review all the 15 videos. You were just flat out lying when you said you couldn't see them, you just wanted to deny the evidence that proves that you are wrong. Your signature should be "Dishonest Weasel", and I am fast loosing patience with you, and I have long ago lost any sympathy for you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that you just don't want to look at the video, and are lying about them not showing up on your screen? Oh! I know, it's because you have repeatedly lied before about evidence that proved you to be wrong. Your basic dishonesty is not going to help when you ask people to believe what you and Lessans are saying. This is just another way for you to avoid recognizing evidence that disproves your fathers claims.

I saw every single video, and not one indicates that the dog can recognize his master from sight alone. Even the one where the guy makes faces and barks softly, the dog starts barking back and gets excited but this is no proof that the dog recognizes who is on the screen. To a dog a computer is a strange contraption so you would expect some reaction when the dog hears a voice coming from it. It's not surprising then that a dog would try to get the iphone back from the girl. He was obviously having a good time hearing the voices, and she suddenly took away his toy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You claim that you cannot see the other videos, yet you claim that this one is no different than the others, How do you know it's no different if you can't see them, and 4 minutes is certainly not enough time to review all the 15 videos. You were just flat out lying when you said you couldn't see them, you just wanted to deny the evidence that proves that you are wrong. Your signature should be "Dishonest Weasel", and I am fast loosing patience with you, and I have long ago lost any sympathy for you.

I watched all the embedded videos and I will watch them all over again later on. They are interesting and cute but they do not prove that Lessans is wrong. I know you can't stand that. Too bad.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

this is no proof that the dog recognizes who is on the screen.

I didn't say it was proof of anything. I prefer the controlled scientific studies for evidence.

I said it showed exactly what you told me you would consider to be proof. You are the one who has been yelling for Skype videos, you are the one claiming dogs should behave a certain way, and I gave you the evidence where they behaved exactly as you thought they should in every example.

You want to backpeddle and change your criteria and be a weasel and a liar, that's on you. No skin off my nose. Probably doesn't look so good when you start marketing the book.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true at all thedoc. I can easily admit what I don't know, and I'm sure I don't know more than I know, but we're talking about the specifics of this book and what's in it. Just because I refuse to agree with what I don't agree with, you say I'm willfully ignorant. Sorry but that's not an accurate definition.

The book is the only thing you know and that is completely wrong on so many points that everything you think you know is incorrect. You don't realize it but you are basicly at the point of 0 knowledge and it would be to your benefit to start to learn something, so that you are not totally ignorant of everything.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here's what you said

The dog recognizes the smell of the sock as being his owner's even though he doesn't treat the sock like it's his owner. But a dog does not recognize the representation on the screen as his owner without other cues present.

You are contradicting yourself every time you post.

Once again we are back to "How would you know and determine if they recognize a person in a photograph"? So let's add, "how would you know and determine if they recognize their master's smell from a sock"? How do you know? How do you make the determination?

If you don't expect a dog to treat a sock as a real person you cannot expect them to treat a photograph as a real person, so, your previously mentioned criteria of "The same way we saw how the dog recognized his master coming home from the war in real life" can't possibly be right.

So, try again

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not surprising then that a dog would try to get the iphone back from the girl. He was obviously having a good time hearing the voices, and she suddenly took away his toy.

The phone was still there and voices still audible (iPhone speakers can be heard just as easily from the back of the phone), the picture was simply turned away from the dog. He tried to turn it back around so he could see the screen rather than the back of the phone

He wanted to see the faces. Why would he do that?

[The Lone Ranger]

Not only are the goalposts flying now, but they apparently have rocket boosters attached.

[Adam]

The revolution in thought involves whether or not a dog can recognize images now? Sigh. Free will sure is complicated.

[Stephen Maturin]

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're still quite deliberately ignoring the problem. I didn't say anything about reflecting a pattern, and time becomes a factor as soon as you say the photons at one place came from some other place - because that means they had to be located at that other place at some previous time.

The problem again: On your account the photons at the retina could not have been located at the Sun because there is no time at which they could have been located there. The photons cannot be located at the Sun at the very same time that these very same photons are also at the retina, and they cannot have been at the Sun before this time because the Sun was not ignited before then. Your claim that there will be photons instantaneously at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited is inconsistent with your claim that they came from the Sun. The problem has nothing at all to do with reflected or traveling images. It only concerns your impossible claims about where light can be at different points in time. If the light is instantly at the retina as soon as the newly ignited Sun ignites, then this light cannot possibly have come from the Sun.

Yes you are, no you can't, and yes it does. You have nothing but faith, and you are constantly asking us to share it by believing things you cannot support. All you are doing is begging us to share your irrational faith in your father's ability. If you want people to believe his 'observations' were correct then you will need to find someway to support them with either evidence or arguments. If you can't, then you lose.

You never asked me that question before. But I did explain to you that only tautologies can be known to be true just by considering them, and that your father's claims about conscience are not tautologies - so if you want them accepted you will need to support them. His claim that conscience has some innate potential perfection that it would achieve in the absence of blame is a presupposition because his arguments require this to be true, and yet he did not argue for or support this claim in any way. Unlike you, I will not just accept that his claims or 'observations' are correct because he said so. You need to be able to support them if you expect anyone to believe them.

Say it all you like, it still isn't true. Tautologies such as those you listed can indeed be self-evident and seen to be true just by considering them carefully. But nothing of interest can be proved from them. His presuppositions concerning conscience however, are not of this sort. They are not tautologies, and so they are not self-evident. If you expect people to accept them then you'll need to start supporting them. Lessans never bothered to, and that is why no-one finds his claims convincing.

I didn't threaten you. What are you talking about?

Your reason for sending it never had anything to do with me reading it, so why do you keep using this bogus excuse?

Again I'll ask you to show me where you think I said this. Why do you keep making shit up?

Yes, I think the book is worthless. I've never hidden that or claimed anything different. Yet this has no bearing at all on the reason you had for sending me the book, which was not being sent for my benefit but to help you get it read by those in a position to validate it. If you have any integrity at all, you'll either send the book as per our agreement, or if you really can't financially afford to keep your word, just stop making up bogus excuses and say so.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The videos are just home videos, peacegirl, not scientific tests. Exactly what you've been asking for all along. Where's your analyses of the dog's behavior?

You are displaying your pathological dishonesty so blatantly that anyone who ever reads this thread will know you for a purposefully ignorant weasel

I know they are home videos, but there was the sound of their master's voice. I gave my analysis. Not one of them proves that the eyes are a sense organ.

[peacegirl]

They're confused because they hear the voice but cannot recognize the face. They can tell the voice is not coming from somewhere else in the house, which is why they aren't running around looking for the source of the voice.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why are they staring at the screen?

Because they hear their master speaking. One dog went up and tried to smell the screen. Another dog went around the computer looking for his master. Why would he do that if he could recognize his master on the screen?

They are wagging their tails, jumping, barking, whining, and even taking commands, but there are none that show the dog recognizing a face without other cues such as sound.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You never said that they must be silent videos, but the Golden retriever barking at the person on the screen, the person doesn't talk at all.

How many times have I said that any cues that can help a dog identify his master other than sight have to be removed? I said a still video frame would be good because it would be similar to a photograph with no smell, movement or sound to distract them.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why are the dogs looking at the screens at all if its only the voice they are reacting to?

Because they hear their master's voice. They know it's coming the computer but when they go up to the screen there's nothing there, so they get confused.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I see that reading comprehension is not your strong suit. I do not say so, and science does not say so, but so far all the tests point to the conclusion that dogs do recognize their masters faces in a photo, and that is why the tests continue to confirm the results that have been done with more and better precision. In science an experiment or test is not once and done, there is a continuing effort to refine the results and obtain more accurate data. A theory is never finished, there is always constant testing, and experimentation to refine the results and learn more.

The tests do not point to the conclusion that dogs can recognize their master's faces in a photo. You're wrong here.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know they are home videos, but there was the sound of their master's voice. I gave my analysis. Not one of them proves that the eyes are a sense organ.

You are right these videos do not prove that a dog can recognize it's master from a video or a photo, for that we turn to the scientists who are doing controlled experiments and tests that do prove that dogs can recognize their master in a photo. Your ignorance of these experiments and tests does not mean that they do not exist or have not been done, it only proves that you are unwilling to see the evidence that exists, willful ignorance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, she is confused because she can see the person and hear them, but the person isn't really there at all. She is confused by technology because she is a fricking dog

Exactly, and she doesn't have the same capabilities that humans have. Her strong point is her olfactory system and auditory systems, whereas ours is our eyesight.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Even kids have been confused by video, because they don't intuitively understand why they can see something that isn't really there

Children can recognize people in photographs and videos. Now you're stretching it. A child would quickly point to a still frame and show recognition by saying "mommy".

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And what do you mean you can't see "the video"? I have 15 videos there, numbered even.

If you can't see the embeds, copy the link part such as YouTube and paste it into an address bar

That's what I've been doing. They are funny videos I must say. It made me giggle seeing how dogs react.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The tests do not point to the conclusion that dogs can recognize their master's faces in a photo. You're wrong here.

And you continue to refuse to see the evidence that is right in front of you. Willful Ignorance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't say it was proof of anything. I prefer the controlled scientific studies for evidence.

I said it showed exactly what you told me you would consider to be proof. You are the one who has been yelling for Skype videos, you are the one claiming dogs should behave a certain way, and I gave you the evidence where they behaved exactly as you thought they should in every example.

I would consider it proof that dogs can recognize their master if they sat in front of a screen and showed signs such as excitement, wagging of the tail, whimpering. But that isn't what's happening in these videos. The dogs have so many cues that there is no way to tease out the variables. There still has to be the removal of all cues other than photons that bouncing off of the screen and traveling to the eye.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You want to backpeddle and change your criteria and be a weasel and a liar, that's on you. No skin off my nose. Probably doesn't look so good when you start marketing the book.

I'm not lying or backpeddling at all. You must have misunderstood me. I never said there should be sound. That disqualifies all 15 videos.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are contradicting yourself every time you post.

Once again we are back to "How would you know and determine if they recognize a person in a photograph"? So let's add, "how would you know and determine if they recognize their master's smell from a sock"? How do you know? How do you make the determination?

If you don't expect a dog to treat a sock as a real person you cannot expect them to treat a photograph as a real person, so, your previously mentioned criteria of "The same way we saw how the dog recognized his master coming home from the war in real life" can't possibly be right.

So, try again

You can't compare a sock to a video. The analogy isn't right. A dog will smell a sock and go looking for his master because he recognizes the scent. A dog will not look at a screen with his master's face right in front of him and go looking for his master. He won't even recognize the image at all. Although a photograph is a representation, a dog should be able to recognize his master because the photons would be traveling to the eye and interpreted in the dog's brain. Now you're grasping at straws LadyShea.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are funny videos I must say. It made me giggle seeing how dogs react.

It makes me giggle to see how you react, rejecting controlled experiments by insisting upon the superiority of uncontrolled observation, and then rejecting that too when it doesn't support your faith-based preconceptions.

[LadyShea]

Keep on weaseling. You have trapped yourself into a corner with your contradictions and are crazily flailing there. Controlled experiments! Skype! The same way they react to the real person except not that at all!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't compare a sock to a video. The analogy isn't right. A dog will smell a sock and go looking for his master because he recognizes the scent. A dog will not look at a screen with his master's face right in front of him and go looking for his master. He won't even recognize the image at all. Although a photograph is a representation, a dog should be able to recognize his master because the photons would be traveling to the eye and interpreted in the dog's brain.

You are the one flip flopping every post, not me. I am not the one making claims that need support, YOU ARE. I am not the one avoiding answering any basic questions related to my claims, that would be you again.

What are you answers to the questions

1. How would you know and determine if they recognize a person in a photograph?

2. How would you know and determine if they recognize their master's smell from a sock?

3. How would you know and determine if they recognize their master's voice from other voices?

Do you retract your previous answer which was "The same way we saw how the dog recognized his master coming home from the war in real life"?

What is your support for these claims?

1. He won't even recognize the image at all.
2. A dog does not recognize the representation on the screen

I would consider it proof that dogs can recognize their master if they sat in front of a screen and showed signs such as excitement, wagging of the tail, whimpering.

Why would a dog react to an inanimate object in that way? Do you expect them to be excited and wag their tail when given a T-shirt to smell while their master is away? No you don't because you already said they can tell the difference between an inanimate object and a real person and don't react to socks like they are people.