I still would like to get more empirical evidence to confirm that only when light reaches us do we see an object. I know I'm upsetting everyone, so I'm going to end the discussion on sight.
Holy shit, you are fucking stupid.
How the hell can we see an object until the light reflected from it reaches us?
In the Mongillo, et alia study, not only could dogs recognize their masters' faces, many of them were unable to distinguish between their masters and other people when the people were wearing masks.
Did you mean 'able'? If that's true, I would like to see the study. How on earth could they distinguish their masters' faces from other people when there was a covering over their faces? That's like my being able to identify two people who are covered in blankets.
I gave you the citation. Read the study for yourself.
I don't know how you could possibly be unable to comprehend.
When dogs were presented with several people who were wearing masks, many of the dogs were unable to recognize their masters. When the dogs were presented with the same people un-masked, the dogs easily recognized their masters.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
I still would like to get more empirical evidence to confirm that only when light reaches us do we see an object. I know I'm upsetting everyone, so I'm going to end the discussion on sight.
Holy shit, you are fucking stupid.
How the hell can we see an object until the light reflected from it reaches us?
You are fucking fucking stupid, how's that?
I suppose you are too fucking dumb to notice how you are contradicting yourself.
You said that the author wrote that light is a condition for us to able to see stuff, but not the cause. Never mind that this is meaningless. If the author thinks that light is a condition for us to be able to see stuff, how can we see stuff without light?
What makes this so aggravating is that I live in a country where, if polls are to be believed, half the people think that the earth was created by God 6,000 years ago and fully a quarter of the populace thinks that the sun orbits the earth! There is nothing I find more irritating than plain, flat-out fucking stupidity, and your posts are a perfect example of the brain rot that is destroying the country.
I still would like to get more empirical evidence to confirm that only when light reaches us do we see an object. I know I'm upsetting everyone, so I'm going to end the discussion on sight.
Holy shit, you are fucking stupid.
How the hell can we see an object until the light reflected from it reaches us?
You are fucking fucking stupid, how's that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
I suppose you are too fucking dumb to notice how you are contradicting yourself.
You said that the author wrote that light is a condition for us to able to see stuff, but not the cause. Never mind that this is meaningless. If the author thinks that light is a condition for us to be able to see stuff, how can we see stuff without light?
Who said we see stuff without light? Where have you been this whole time? I think your brain went on hiatus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
What makes this so aggravating is that I live in a country where, if polls are to be believed, half the people think that the earth was created by God 6,000 years ago and fully a quarter of the populace thinks that the sun orbits the earth! There is nothing I find more irritating than plain, flat-out fucking stupidity, and your posts are a perfect example of the brain rot that is destroying the country.
You're out the door. That's all I have to say to you.
This has been very interesting to me, because I think I have more of an understanding about how people who strenuously disagree with my religious beliefs feel toward those beliefs and believers. Food for thought.
In the Mongillo, et alia study, not only could dogs recognize their masters' faces, many of them were unable to distinguish between their masters and other people when the people were wearing masks.
Did you mean 'able'? If that's true, I would like to see the study. How on earth could they distinguish their masters' faces from other people when there was a covering over their faces? That's like my being able to identify two people who are covered in blankets.
I gave you the citation. Read the study for yourself.
I don't know how you could possibly be unable to comprehend.
When dogs were presented with several people who were wearing masks, many of the dogs were unable to recognize their masters. When the dogs were presented with the same people un-masked, the dogs easily recognized their masters.
I'm wondering why they can't recognize their masters from a picture if they can recognize their faces. I'm sure what you are telling me is correct, but it would have more impact on me if I could see the experiment for myself than read about it in a study.
Wildy, the best religious apologists are very familiar with the evidence and arguments against their views, and can address them coherently and completely and offer competing evidence. They may not be convincing to others, but at least they have logical and well thought out arguments that can be debated.
Contrast that to True Believer who has only their personal conviction to argue from...which is what I think peacegirl is. She would do well to study all of these criticisms and citations to refine her own explanations and presentations.
I have no confidence that is going to happen. At least not here at
PS you do not evangelize that I am aware of, the above only really matters for those who do
You do remember that it has been demonstrated that dogs can recognize and identify objects in photographs, don't you? You have even been given citations.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
This has been very interesting to me, because I think I have more of an understanding about how people who strenuously disagree with my religious beliefs feel toward those beliefs and believers. Food for thought.
This thread could definitely be used to study feelings and attitudes that don't jive with one's own worldview.
You do remember that it has been demonstrated that dogs can recognize and identify objects in photographs, don't you? You have even been given citations.
No, I must have missed it. I thought you said they didn't. I am going to get a picture of myself and show it to my dogs. I want to see if there is even the tiniest show of recognition. I just find this rather far-fetched.
Wildy, the best religious apologists are very familiar with the evidence and arguments against their views, and can address them coherently and completely and offer competing evidence. They may not be convincing to others, but at least they have logical and well thought out arguments that can be debated.
Contrast that to True Believer who has only their personal conviction to argue from...which is what I think peacegirl is. She would do well to study all of these criticisms and citations to refine her own explanations and presentations.
I have no confidence that is going to happen. At least not here at
From your posts today it makes me wonder if you actually read Chapter Four. If you did, please reread it because it is very clear. The argument can be debated and I am not going to defend Lessans if he was wrong. But if he wasn't, I don't want to agree (as you don't either without concrete evidence) just so people won't call me fucking stupid.
You do remember that it has been demonstrated that dogs can recognize and identify objects in photographs, don't you? You have even been given citations.
No, I must have missed it. I thought you said they didn't. I am going to get a picture of myself and show it to my dogs. I want to see if there is even the tiniest show of recognition. I just find this rather far-fetched.
Are you even reading what other people write?
As far as I know, there has been no systematic study of whether or not dogs recognize their masters' photographs, but there have been studies documenting that at least some dogs can recognize and respond to objects in photographs, so it wouldn't be surprising. And forgive me for saying so, but I very-much doubt your ability to conduct anything resembling a scientific study.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
You do remember that it has been demonstrated that dogs can recognize and identify objects in photographs, don't you? You have even been given citations.
No, I must have missed it. I thought you said they didn't. I am going to get a picture of myself and show it to my dogs. I want to see if there is even the tiniest show of recognition. I just find this rather far-fetched.
Dogs don't naturally care about photographs, they highly prefer to use smell because it is such a strong sense for them, just as humans prefer to use sight. In order to experiment with photographs you have to train the dogs to pay attention to photographs first.
How do you think Chaser knows which toy is which, if she's not using sight to differentiate?
Wildy, the best religious apologists are very familiar with the evidence and arguments against their views, and can address them coherently and completely and offer competing evidence. They may not be convincing to others, but at least they have logical and well thought out arguments that can be debated.
Contrast that to True Believer who has only their personal conviction to argue from...which is what I think peacegirl is. She would do well to study all of these criticisms and citations to refine her own explanations and presentations.
I have no confidence that is going to happen. At least not here at
From your posts today it makes me wonder if you actually read Chapter Four. If you did, please reread it because it is very clear. The argument can be debated and I am not going to defend Lessans if he was wrong. But if he wasn't, I don't want to agree (as you don't either without concrete evidence) just so people won't call me fucking stupid.
If I had seen even a single indication from you that you have at least considered the possibility that Lessans might have been wrong, I wouldn't label you a True Believer. Fact is you apparently won't entertain the possibility long enough to research the arguments or evidence against it to help you address it.
The argument is clear as to what he believes, it is just completely lacking in evidence to analyze or debate.
Maybe if you and he would stop presenting it as scientific and mathematical and undeniable fact, and instead called it what it is, a philosophical set of beliefs, people would debate it differently.
You know, Peacegirl, I actually don't think you are stupid or dumb. What you are, however, is a True Believer, who has so much invested in this codswallop, no doubt because your father wrote it, that you are constitutionally incapable of assessing what he wrote with the slightest degree of objectivity. It has been shown to you, for example, that his theories of sight must be wrong; but you simply handwave that away. It does make discussion with you futile.
You do remember that it has been demonstrated that dogs can recognize and identify objects in photographs, don't you? You have even been given citations.
No, I must have missed it. I thought you said they didn't. I am going to get a picture of myself and show it to my dogs. I want to see if there is even the tiniest show of recognition. I just find this rather far-fetched.
Oh god.
Do you even think about what you're saying?
If you're showing your dogs the photographs, you will be right there already. And your dog won't care about the photograph, because it'll be paying more attention to you.
If you get someone else to present the photograph, that will ALSO be the case.
I don't know how these studies were designed, but I'm gonna make a wild guess and say that you would have no idea how to design an experiment to eliminate those confounding factors.
You do remember that it has been demonstrated that dogs can recognize and identify objects in photographs, don't you? You have even been given citations.
No, I must have missed it. I thought you said they didn't. I am going to get a picture of myself and show it to my dogs. I want to see if there is even the tiniest show of recognition. I just find this rather far-fetched.
Dogs don't naturally care about photographs, they highly prefer to use smell because it is such a strong sense for them, just as humans prefer to use sight. In order to experiment with photographs you have to train the dogs to pay attention to photographs first.
How do you think Chaser knows which toy is which, if she's not using sight to differentiate?
He is using the association of an object with a word. The only way a dog could recognize his master in the same way Chaser did would be to associate his master's name with his master's features so that a photograph is taken and recorded in his memory.
No, I must have missed it. I thought you said they didn't.
It is becoming clear to me how it is that you read the unsupported and demonstrably incorrect assertions in Lessan's book and yet believe them to be "accurate observations."
You know, Peacegirl, I actually don't think you are stupid or dumb. What you are, however, is a True Believer, who has so much invested in this codswallop, no doubt because your father wrote it, that you are constitutionally incapable of assessing what he wrote with the slightest degree of objectivity. It has been shown to you, for example, that his theories of sight must be wrong; but you simply handwave that away. It does make discussion with you futile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor X
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraph
I am now looking into this trainwreck of a thread for its entertainment value. Lessan's opus and more so Peacegirl's defence of it are so grotesque that I find it as fascinating and difficult to avert my gaze from as it is to not stare at a grossly malproportioned person one might encounter somewhere in a public place.
Indeed, it is sort of Brandon without the Bimbos [Tm.--Ed.] and the racism.
She follows the same pattern of any other crank: rather than learn about the actual subjects she invested too much emotion into the suggestion she has discovered something "new." This "new," for the crank, can be anything from the benign--free energy, world peace, a cult/messiah--to the stupid--various conspiracy theories--to the dangerous--quackery like homeopathy, chelation therapy, Celine Dion--to the vile--Holocaust Denial, racism, Ann Coulter. Having invested emotion into the Stupid, the crank cannot bear to admit he is wrong. He cherry picks evidence to support his "new"--which rarely is "new," actually.
The crank assumes that those who do not agree must be "stupid," "part of the conspiracy," "Jewish," "Damned," "part of Them," and/or did not "study the New Gnosis [Tm.--Ed.]."
If I had a dime for everytime a creatard encouraged me to "just read the Bible" . . . I would have . . . a lot of dimes
In a way, the crank knows if they study reality--like actual physiology in peacegirl's case--they may end up losing their faith.
Now, Critical Thinkers [Time shares available.--Ed.] meet this challenge all of the time. Rather than choose the way of the crank and deny new information, they evaluate it, and alter understanding accordingly.
The "conversation" posters are having with peacegirl is the same you have with a Tw00fer, Holocaust Denier, Brandon when he was primarily trying to justify statutory rape, a Creationist, someone from Luxembourg, et cetera, just change the subjects.
You know, Peacegirl, I actually don't think you are stupid or dumb. What you are, however, is a True Believer, who has so much invested in this codswallop, no doubt because your father wrote it, that you are constitutionally incapable of assessing what he wrote with the slightest degree of objectivity. It has been shown to you, for example, that his theories of sight must be wrong; but you simply handwave that away. It does make discussion with you futile.
As I said before, if he is wrong, then what he found to be true has to be rejected and I'm not convinced that what he has demonstrated is false. I understand the dilemma of the supernovas and the Jupiter moons. If the brain's ability to project words onto a screen of undeniable substance did not conflict with the belief in the eyes being afferent, then I could let go of his claim and still keep his accurate observations as to how we become conditioned.
You do remember that it has been demonstrated that dogs can recognize and identify objects in photographs, don't you? You have even been given citations.
No, I must have missed it. I thought you said they didn't. I am going to get a picture of myself and show it to my dogs. I want to see if there is even the tiniest show of recognition. I just find this rather far-fetched.
Oh god.
Do you even think about what you're saying?
If you're showing your dogs the photographs, you will be right there already. And your dog won't care about the photograph, because it'll be paying more attention to you.
If you get someone else to present the photograph, that will ALSO be the case.
I don't know how these studies were designed, but I'm gonna make a wild guess and say that you would have no idea how to design an experiment to eliminate those confounding factors.
The only words my dog knows are "sit", "where's your toy," and of course her name. I would be in shock if I went out and my friend showed my dog a picture of me, and she started jumping all around in recognition.
Re: A revolution in thought
Linear Mode
