#26976  
Old 06-10-2013, 11:41 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristinaM View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
<snip>... if this is the kind of joking (at Lessans' expense) that is going to rear its ugly head again because of this woman Christina who is here just for laughs, then I'm not going to discuss the book with you.
Sorry, I'm only up to page 800 and I didn't realize that it had ever stopped but of course you'll keep discussing it with him - you've been flouncing for 1,000 pages now and you can't stop.

Damn, you are a masochist! Pity I'm not sadistic or we could have some fun, but seriously there are some here who would consider that kind of behavior as a sign of insanity, and would be ready to put you away. I'm not one of them, I believe sanity is much over-rated.

Actually now I'm begining to think that Peacegirl's 3 pages on Dissident Philosophy must have been a sock and not the real Peacegirl.

Peacegirl, was that really you on DP?
Reply With Quote
  #26977  
Old 06-10-2013, 11:48 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I did put it online. Maybe someone can find it.
No, Peacegirl. You did not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Anyway, as I said before, when you're talking about safety it doesn't matter if the statistics tell us that 100,000, 5,000, or 1,000 children were injured in a particular year, the guidelines are there to help them learn how to be safer in their everyday lives, especially when they're away from their parents.
So your safety guidelines weren't actually based upon your research anyway?
They came from observation.
Astute Observations? Well that certainly identifies the level of validity of this book as well.
Reply With Quote
  #26978  
Old 06-11-2013, 12:42 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Not true. Show me a video where a dog shows any kind of reaction when he sees his master on the screen, and I will consider that Lessans may have been wrong. I know that is music to your ears.
I posted a dozen such videos. I bumped the posts. Why have you ignored them?
Reply With Quote
  #26979  
Old 06-11-2013, 12:55 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Not true. Show me a video where a dog shows any kind of reaction when he sees his master on the screen, and I will consider that Lessans may have been wrong. I know that is music to your ears.
I posted a dozen such videos. I bumped the posts. Why have you ignored them?
This will end in tears.
Reply With Quote
  #26980  
Old 06-11-2013, 01:01 AM
ChristinaM's Avatar
ChristinaM ChristinaM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Gender: Female
Posts: DLXXI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristinaM View Post
Sorry, I'm only up to page 800 and I didn't realize that it had ever stopped but of course you'll keep discussing it with him - you've been flouncing for 1,000 pages now and you can't stop.

Damn, you are a masochist! Pity I'm not sadistic or we could have some fun, but seriously there are some here who would consider that kind of behavior as a sign of insanity, and would be ready to put you away. I'm not one of them, I believe sanity is much over-rated.
Well, it wouldn't be the first time that someone thought that but I didn't really read all of it. I started with 10-page increments, then 20, then 50 and only stopped to read the good links, the first time that things were explained, the hundred page parties and the cartoons and news bulletins that I came across. Pages with lots of smilies were usually good ones for jokes. My brain starts to bleed from reading the endless repetition of the vision stuff so I skip it because anyone who was trying at all would have no trouble learning it from this thread even if they never took a high school science class.

Peacegirl, I wish that when I had a question or weird idea I could get a thread filled with high level scientists, educators, philosophers, e-commerce people, writers and damn near every other area of expertise that it touched on to spend 1,000 pages worth of time on it and teach me everything I refused to or couldn't learn on my own. Instead of being grateful and happy to get the scientific review that you say that you need so badly all you do is pitch hissy fits or say "nuh-uh" to proven facts. That's why I'm laughing at you. I'm laughing at the rest of it because it's ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (06-11-2013)
  #26981  
Old 06-11-2013, 02:13 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Bumping for the third time

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There should be at least one case where a loving dog (such as the one in the link I provided) can recognize his master from a picture or video by showing some kind of recognition; a wag of the tail, whimpering, jumping up and down.
Look at all these Skyping and Facetiming dogs. So, please interpret whether these dogs recognized their masters or not according to your astute observational abilities. Also, before you say "they recognized their voice", I agree. But, I should think if the dog recognized only the voice and not the video image, they would be running around searching elsewhere for the source of the voice (the speakers or behind the computer or something), rather than looking at the screen as they do. In fact, I think the dogs seemed upset and confused that they could see a familiar person on the screen but not interact with the real person

These are links to the YouTube videos. You need to click on them to view them. I would like you to analyze each one

1. Skyping Dog - YouTube
2. Dogs Skyping - YouTube
3. His Master's voice.....Dog on phone (Skype)! - YouTube
4. Talking to my dog through Skype - YouTube
5. My dog Muffin talks to me on Skype - YouTube
6. Skype Pooch - YouTube
7. Dog skyping - YouTube
8. Apple Facetime with Venus :) - YouTube

These are embedded so you can watch them right here

9. This dog follows commands given via Skype and looks at the screen


10. This one brings his master a sock to the screen


These are also embedded

11. When this person flips the phone screen to face herself and turns on the back camera to show the dog, so the dog can't see the screen but we can see the dog, the dog tries to turn the screen back to where she can see. Why would she do that?


12. This guy doesn't even talk, the dog is reacting only to the screen


13. This one paws at the screen


14. This one follows his master's commands


15. This one fetches a toy to bring to the iPad image of her Mama


So there are 15 videos of dogs Skyping and Facetiming and paying close attention to the screen and/or wagging their tails, jumping, barking and whining. There are tons more available, including dogs Skyping and Facetiming with other dogs.
Reply With Quote
  #26982  
Old 06-11-2013, 02:16 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Bumping again

Can your dog recognize you from a picture? | Smart Animal Training Systems...



No levers! The dogs simply chose a picture and walked to it and touched it with a nose

Study proves dogs recognize their owners' faces | MNN - Mother Nature Network

This article talks about the myriad issues surrounding studying animals, and includes the Hans the Clever Horse story
Quote:
Animal Cognition (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The method that Darwin, Romanes and their contemporaries first used to investigate these questions could be described as the anecdotal method. Stories about animal behavior were collected from a variety of people, including military officers, amateur naturalists, and layfolk, and were compiled and used as evidence for a particular cognitive capacity in that species. This approach was widely criticized. The “evidence” gathered was often a story told about an event witnessed by a single person, usually not a trained scientific observer. In addition, these stories were often acquired second- or third- hand, so there were worries that the reports had been embellished or otherwise altered along the way. These problems were recognized early on, and in response Romanes developed three principles for accepting anecdotes in order to avoid some of these problems:

Never accept an incident report as fact without considering the authority or respectability of the observer.
If the observer isn't known, and the incident report is sufficiently important, consider whether the observer may have reason or cause to make an inaccurate report.
Look for corroborations of the observation by examining similar or analogous observations made by other independent observers (Romanes 1970).

The third principle was the one he most relied on, writing “This principle I have found to be a great use in guiding my selection of instances, for where statements of fact which present nothing intrinsically improbable are found to be unconsciously confirmed by different observers, they have as good a right to be deemed trustworthy as statements which stand on the single authority of a known observer, and I have found the former to be at least as abundant as the latter” (Romanes 1970, ix).

Despite Romanes' attempts, the method remained problematic insofar as it didn't provide any statistical information about the frequency of such behaviors; selection bias would lead people to report only the interesting intelligent behaviors and ignore the frequency of behaviors that might serve as counterevidence. Thus, the anecdotal method as practiced by Darwin and Romanes lacks many of the virtues associated with good scientific methods.
Quote:
Today scientists continue to conduct experiments in laboratory settings, but they also attempt to mirror the richness of the animal's natural environment. For example, the research coming out of Kyoto University's Primate Research Institute (PRI) is based on a three-part research program (Matsuzawa et al. 2006). First, the physical, cognitive, and social development of chimpanzees is taken into account in the design of experiments, and subjects are raised by their mothers rather than by human caregivers or unrelated animals. In addition, lab work and fieldwork is synthesized; field observations are used to develop experiments, and experiments are conducted both in the field and in the laboratory. Finally, the method includes analysis of the physiological and biological features of the species that could be related to cognitive abilities.
Research is ongoing all over the world, so Lessans was missing a ton of information when he wrote about dog cognition

Duke University | Evolutionary Anthropology: Duke Canine Cognition Center
Reply With Quote
  #26983  
Old 06-11-2013, 03:50 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Research is ongoing all over the world, so Lessans was missing a ton of information when he wrote about dog cognition

LadyShea, do you really get much satisfaction trying to stuff jello into a cannonball?
Reply With Quote
  #26984  
Old 06-11-2013, 03:55 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

My interests are being served the doc
Reply With Quote
  #26985  
Old 06-11-2013, 04:17 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

How is your level of frustration?
Reply With Quote
  #26986  
Old 06-11-2013, 06:16 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Not bad right now. She can only avoid the videos for so long without admitting she is a blatant lying weasel.
Reply With Quote
  #26987  
Old 06-11-2013, 07:13 AM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Lets have another look at the difference between "Red mountains are not blue" and "conscience works like this and not like this".

The first sentence has all the evidence it needs in the actual sentence. The second one refers to something outside itself: it sets up "conscience" as having a certain trait.

It is like saying "Heffalumps exist" - you need evidence to judge the veracity of that statement, because it refers to a state of reality, and not just to meanings defined in the sentence.

Also, the way you use "observation" is a little confused. You often speak of "observing" conscience. That is simply not possible: we cannot observe emotions, as we have so far not discovered any mind-reading device... or if we have, witht he various devices we have these days for emasuring brain activity, we do not know how to read them yet!

We can observe behavior and then come to the conclusion that this behavior indicates an emotion, but we have to be careful with such conclusions, as it will be pretty much impossible to definitively prove that the two are linked.

Human beings to this kind of thing all the time with their dogs, for example. They shout at their dog, the dog starts to cringe and display submissive behavior, and they conclude the dog is displaying guilt. But that is actually not proven at all: all we can observe is the cringing behavior. We have no way of knowing that this behavior is linked to any awareness of what the dog has done wrong, which would be a requirement for guilt. The dog could be cringing to show submissiveness to what he sees as an alpha re-asserting his dominance.

This is one of the great difficulties of any study of behavior. They have to be extremely careful in their methodology and carefully underpin their conclusions, since it is very easy to let your preconceptions run away with you. This is why your book carries so little weight: it makes sweeping claims based on the study of human behavior... but does not allow us to see the material that was studied, or what methodology was used!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-11-2013), LadyShea (06-11-2013)
  #26988  
Old 06-11-2013, 01:09 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristinaM View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
<snip>... if this is the kind of joking (at Lessans' expense) that is going to rear its ugly head again because of this woman Christina who is here just for laughs, then I'm not going to discuss the book with you.
Sorry, I'm only up to page 800 and I didn't realize that it had ever stopped but of course you'll keep discussing it with him - you've been flouncing for 1,000 pages now and you can't stop.

Damn, you are a masochist! Pity I'm not sadistic or we could have some fun, but seriously there are some here who would consider that kind of behavior as a sign of insanity, and would be ready to put you away. I'm not one of them, I believe sanity is much over-rated.

Actually now I'm begining to think that Peacegirl's 3 pages on Dissident Philosophy must have been a sock and not the real Peacegirl.

Peacegirl, was that really you on DP?
I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not interested in figuring it out either.
Reply With Quote
  #26989  
Old 06-11-2013, 01:12 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Bumping again

Can your dog recognize you from a picture? | Smart Animal Training Systems...



No levers! The dogs simply chose a picture and walked to it and touched it with a nose

Study proves dogs recognize their owners' faces | MNN - Mother Nature Network

This article talks about the myriad issues surrounding studying animals, and includes the Hans the Clever Horse story
Quote:
Animal Cognition (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The method that Darwin, Romanes and their contemporaries first used to investigate these questions could be described as the anecdotal method. Stories about animal behavior were collected from a variety of people, including military officers, amateur naturalists, and layfolk, and were compiled and used as evidence for a particular cognitive capacity in that species. This approach was widely criticized. The “evidence” gathered was often a story told about an event witnessed by a single person, usually not a trained scientific observer. In addition, these stories were often acquired second- or third- hand, so there were worries that the reports had been embellished or otherwise altered along the way. These problems were recognized early on, and in response Romanes developed three principles for accepting anecdotes in order to avoid some of these problems:

Never accept an incident report as fact without considering the authority or respectability of the observer.
If the observer isn't known, and the incident report is sufficiently important, consider whether the observer may have reason or cause to make an inaccurate report.
Look for corroborations of the observation by examining similar or analogous observations made by other independent observers (Romanes 1970).

The third principle was the one he most relied on, writing “This principle I have found to be a great use in guiding my selection of instances, for where statements of fact which present nothing intrinsically improbable are found to be unconsciously confirmed by different observers, they have as good a right to be deemed trustworthy as statements which stand on the single authority of a known observer, and I have found the former to be at least as abundant as the latter” (Romanes 1970, ix).

Despite Romanes' attempts, the method remained problematic insofar as it didn't provide any statistical information about the frequency of such behaviors; selection bias would lead people to report only the interesting intelligent behaviors and ignore the frequency of behaviors that might serve as counterevidence. Thus, the anecdotal method as practiced by Darwin and Romanes lacks many of the virtues associated with good scientific methods.
Quote:
Today scientists continue to conduct experiments in laboratory settings, but they also attempt to mirror the richness of the animal's natural environment. For example, the research coming out of Kyoto University's Primate Research Institute (PRI) is based on a three-part research program (Matsuzawa et al. 2006). First, the physical, cognitive, and social development of chimpanzees is taken into account in the design of experiments, and subjects are raised by their mothers rather than by human caregivers or unrelated animals. In addition, lab work and fieldwork is synthesized; field observations are used to develop experiments, and experiments are conducted both in the field and in the laboratory. Finally, the method includes analysis of the physiological and biological features of the species that could be related to cognitive abilities.
Research is ongoing all over the world, so Lessans was missing a ton of information when he wrote about dog cognition

Duke University | Evolutionary Anthropology: Duke Canine Cognition Center
You don't see the way science is trying to support their own theories? Why don't they do this with the ears, or taste or touch? Because there is no doubt that there is a direct connection between what comes in and what the brain interprets. As far as the eyes, there is some controversy. They are trying to convince themselves that the eyes are a sense organ, which is taken for granted by science so they are trying to confirm this belief. Hellooooooo? Why would they perform so many different tests if they were absolutely sure? Because they are not sure.
Reply With Quote
  #26990  
Old 06-11-2013, 01:13 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not interested in figuring it out either.
That's you in a nutshell. You could have posted the above in place of every post you've made here.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-11-2013), LadyShea (06-11-2013)
  #26991  
Old 06-11-2013, 01:32 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Lets have another look at the difference between "Red mountains are not blue" and "conscience works like this and not like this".

The first sentence has all the evidence it needs in the actual sentence. The second one refers to something outside itself: it sets up "conscience" as having a certain trait.

It is like saying "Heffalumps exist" - you need evidence to judge the veracity of that statement, because it refers to a state of reality, and not just to meanings defined in the sentence.
Yes, that's true. What do you think Lessans was up against? No one can be believed if something he says is from his own warped mind? There has to be a relationship with the external world that can be seen by others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Also, the way you use "observation" is a little confused. You often speak of "observing" conscience. That is simply not possible: we cannot observe emotions, as we have so far not discovered any mind-reading device... or if we have, witht he various devices we have these days for emasuring brain activity, we do not know how to read them yet
No, this is not about observing emotions. This is about observing what happens under specific conditions, which can be observed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We can observe behavior and then come to the conclusion that this behavior indicates an emotion, but we have to be careful with such conclusions, as it will be pretty much impossible to definitively prove that the two are linked.
This has nothing to do with emotions per se.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Human beings to this kind of thing all the time with their dogs, for example. They shout at their dog, the dog starts to cringe and display submissive behavior, and they conclude the dog is displaying guilt. But that is actually not proven at all: all we can observe is the cringing behavior. We have no way of knowing that this behavior is linked to any awareness of what the dog has done wrong, which would be a requirement for guilt. The dog could be cringing to show submissiveness to what he sees as an alpha re-asserting his dominance.
It doesn't have to be guilt in the case of dogs. They want to be loved and when their owners yell at them they will change their behavior. How can you compare a dog to a human where there is no hidden agenda?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
This is one of the great difficulties of any study of behavior. They have to be extremely careful in their methodology and carefully underpin their conclusions, since it is very easy to let your preconceptions run away with you. This is why your book carries so little weight: it makes sweeping claims based on the study of human behavior... but does not allow us to see the material that was studied, or what methodology was used!
I'm sorry to inform you that Lessans used a different method, but still very much valid. I know this upsets your way of thinking about things, but it doesn't change the validity of Lessans' observations. I have no problem seeing footage of animals that they say recognize their owners. I'm not hiding anything.
Reply With Quote
  #26992  
Old 06-11-2013, 01:34 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I have no problem seeing footage of animals that they say recognize their owners.
So how many of LadyShea's videos have you actually watched?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (06-11-2013)
  #26993  
Old 06-11-2013, 01:50 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You don't see the way science is trying to support their own theories? Why don't they do this with the ears, or taste or touch? Because there is no doubt that there is a direct connection between what comes in and what the brain interprets. As far as the eyes, there is some controversy. They are trying to convince themselves that the eyes are a sense organ, which is taken for granted by science so they are trying to confirm this belief. Hellooooooo? Why would they perform so many different tests if they were absolutely sure? Because they are not sure.
They do test animals other senses. All the time.

Your and Lessans claims are about visual recognition so I posted a study of visual recognition. The test apparatus in the pictures was controlled, and didn't use levers, so I thought you would be interested. You said you wanted to see how these tests were conducted. Why are you moving the goalpost and weaseling instead of responding intelligently to the information you asked for?

The second article was about the problems of animal testing in general, not about vision particularly. So, you didn't read it at all and respond to it like an intelligent person, instead you jump to wrong conclusions and weasel yet again.

Last edited by LadyShea; 06-11-2013 at 03:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-11-2013)
  #26994  
Old 06-11-2013, 02:13 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Why don't they do this with the ears, or taste or touch?
The method of training dogs in auditory recognition memory tasks with trial-unique stimuli

Police dog odor recognition test. Note that police dogs must be trained to respond a specific and unambiguous way when they detect certain odors, so the handlers don't have to individually interpret spontaneous dog behavior to know if the dog smells explosives or drugs.

There is a whole association devoted to canine scent work https://www.nacsw.net/ and a specific odor detection test used
Quote:
Trial entry requires that handler/dog teams must have passed the appropriate Odor Recognition Test (ORT) in advance of the trial. The purpose of the ORT is to verify that the dogs know the target odor (scent) used in competition. Successful passage of an ORT requires a dog to identify the location of the target odor and the handler to correctly call an ‘alert’ (or equivalent) within a three-minute time period.

The Odor Recognition Test must be judged by an NACSW sanctioned certifying official, who could be an approved K9 detection handler, a CNWI and/or other qualified person at the discretion of the NACSW. A Certified Nose Work Instructor (CNWI) may judge an ORT as long as it is not for current students.

For information on upcoming ORTs near you, use the calendar below. To enter an ORT, follow the instructions for that event. For more information on ORT rules, see the trial rule book.
How Good Is Your Dog's Sense of Taste? | Psychology Today

Animals with the best sense of touch

Strange but True: Cats Cannot Taste Sweets: Scientific American

Genetic testing into animals sense of taste?! No way!
Why dolphins, cats, and other carnivores can't taste sweets
Quote:
Now, Beauchamp and his colleagues have conducted a followup study that looks at the DNA from 12 species of non-feline carnivores, and discovered that seven of them have mutations in their Tas1r2 genes. Only carnivores that fed exclusively on meat had mutations in the gene coding for their taste receptor; of the five species without a Tas1r2 mutation, three of them were omnivores. This, conclude the researchers in the lastest issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, points to the interrelationship between an animal's diet and the evolutionary persistence of a mutation in the function of its taste receptors.

http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/v...en-sense-touch
Quote:
A new study, published in the Journal of Experimental Biology, has discovered that these spots contain a concentrated collection of touch sensors that make them even more sensitive to pressure and vibration than human fingertips.

“We didn’t expect these spots to be so sensitive because the animals are so heavily armored,” says Duncan Leitch, the graduate student who performed the studies under the supervision of Ken Catania, professor of Biological Sciences at Vanderbilt.

Scientists who have studied crocodiles and alligators have taken note of these spots, which they have labeled “integumentary sensor organs” or ISOs. Over the years they have advanced a variety of different hypotheses about their possible function. These include: source of oily secretions that keep the animals clean; detection of electric fields; detection of magnetic fields; detection of water salinity; and, detection of pressure and vibrations.

Last edited by LadyShea; 06-11-2013 at 03:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26995  
Old 06-11-2013, 02:23 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We can observe behavior and then come to the conclusion that this behavior indicates an emotion, but we have to be careful with such conclusions, as it will be pretty much impossible to definitively prove that the two are linked.
This has nothing to do with emotions per se.
What? Conscience is 100% emotional...it's everything to do with how one feels about their own actions. Guilt is a painful feeling, pride is a happy feeling. How could it possibly have nothing to do with emotions when it has everything to do with them?
Reply With Quote
  #26996  
Old 06-11-2013, 02:30 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I have no problem seeing footage of animals that they say recognize their owners.
Who is "they"? I posted home videos of people using Skype and Facetime with their dogs...exactly what you have been asking to be shown. Why have you not watched them and analyzed the dogs behavior in each and every one? You said you would be able to tell by dogs reactions whether there was recognition, so show us your dog behavior interpretation. Put up or shut up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm not hiding anything.
Then why have you ignored the posts with videos for days?

You have 15 videos and I want 15 analyses or you must admit you are full of shit. Even if you don't admit it I will have proof positive you are a lying weasel.
Reply With Quote
  #26997  
Old 06-11-2013, 02:50 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

16. This dog jumps up to look at the screen, whines, wags his tail etc. All the things you said a dog should do! He seems very upset that he can't interact with "the real thing"

Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ceptimus (06-11-2013), Dragar (06-11-2013), specious_reasons (06-11-2013)
  #26998  
Old 06-11-2013, 03:14 PM
ceptimus's Avatar
ceptimus ceptimus is offline
puzzler
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: XVCCXLVI
Images: 28
Default Re: A revolution in thought

What amazes me about the dog vision thing especially, is that every stage of the observation and reasoning is wrong or at least dubious:

1. We note that dogs can't recognize their masters faces. No! Everyone here but peacegirl thinks that dogs probably can recognize their master's faces.

2. If dogs eyes were sense organs, then they would be able to recognize their masters. No! Not necessarily. For example, my nose is a sense organ but I can't use it to tell one dog from another - even though most dogs can apparently do this trick using their sense organ noses.

3. This proves that a dog's vision must be efferent, as we would expect efferent vision in dogs to mean that they couldn't recognize faces. No! Why would we expect that, when we are told that humans also have efferent vision, and they CAN recognize faces!

4. Ah! - but this is because humans can talk, and it is the language symbols (words) that humans use which allow them to recognize faces despite their efferent vision. Okay, but how do humans know which symbols to use on which faces, unless they can first recognize them without using the symbols? Deafening silence.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (06-11-2013), LadyShea (06-11-2013), Spacemonkey (06-11-2013), Vivisectus (06-11-2013)
  #26999  
Old 06-11-2013, 03:34 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I am most amused by this pointed ignoring of the videos she asked for.

Show me a single video where a dog responds to the image on the screen!
Here's over a dozen
Where's the videos?
Right here.
I am not afraid of the videos!
Then why haven't you watched them?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-11-2013), ceptimus (06-11-2013), Spacemonkey (06-11-2013)
  #27000  
Old 06-11-2013, 03:38 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You don't see the way science is trying to support their own theories? Why don't they do this with the ears, or taste or touch? Because there is no doubt that there is a direct connection between what comes in and what the brain interprets. As far as the eyes, there is some controversy. They are trying to convince themselves that the eyes are a sense organ, which is taken for granted by science so they are trying to confirm this belief. Hellooooooo? Why would they perform so many different tests if they were absolutely sure? Because they are not sure.

Science does test the other senses in humans from babies to older people, science also tests all the senses in animals in pare to determine the acuity of those senses and to determine exactly how they work. Knowing how a sense works is a great aid for the scientists developing aids for people who have impaired senses of have lost them altogether. The bionic eye is a recent development, the hearing aid has been around for a long time, and all because science has been studying all the senses and will continue to study them. The more how the senses work, the better the aids will be for those who need them. Science does not test vision because they are not sure how the eyes work, that is a small psrt of the testing, but refining the understanding of how the eye works will help to improve efforts to restore sight and other lost senses.

That you, Peacegirl, have framed your question this way, indicates that you have no understanding of what science is, or how it is done, or why. Both you and Lessans have abundently displayed your willfull ignorance on this and many other subjects, yet you both have the audacity to claim that you know better than the scientists who have been studying these subjects for years and you both know nothing about them.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-11-2013), ceptimus (06-11-2013), LadyShea (06-11-2013)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (0 members and 5 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.43882 seconds with 14 queries