A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seebs, there are several articles and abstracts throughout this thread. I'll try to suss out a good search term.

IIRC some used gaze/attention time, and at least one had the dogs choose from between two photographs and they chose (preferred) familiar pictures of landscapes far, far more often than novel ones and familiar people to strangers....the brief abstract didn't detail how the choice was demonstrated. It could have been as simple as sitting in front of the chosen picture, or more complex like pushing a lever or button or something, but I don't know.

There is a video of a Border Collie that can distinguish between 1000+ toys by their names, meaning if you tell her "Go get Peaches" she can go behind a barrier (to prevent signaling from the trainer) to a huge pile of toys and choose Peaches from all of them (that was on Nova Science Now if you want to look it up on YouTube).

That actually makes perfect sense. If a particular breed has the brain power to learn words (which is very unusual), then his recognition does not have to be coming from incoming sensory data. The distinguishing features of these objects are made possible through language as they project the word (peach) onto the piece of substance, which distinguishes it from other objects, offering supporting evidence that Lessans' claims are valid. Whether this border collie would be able to distinguish his owner from other humans (when his other senses are disabled) is yet to be seen, but if it's possible then this breed has more ability than most canines who cannot make this connection.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no reason a dog should be able to do so in the standard model of sight. That the eyes detect light and send signals to the brain doesn't say anything about what should follow in the brain as far as interpretation and connections made with that stimuli.

Why are you assigning a should without reason to do so?

Of course I can compare. Dogs and other animals can recognize individuals from the scent of their urine. The nose is a sense organ, you should be able to do that too.

.
And humans have much better visual acuity than dogs, so why should dogs use sight the same way humans do?

You didn't answer why dog's should be able to recognize individual humans from photographs based on available scientific literature. 2D photographs do not reflect light the same way a 3D face does, it's a completely different visual experience.

Now you're moving the goalposts. I never said they should, but the people running these studies claim they can. Even so, the majority of dogs will be unable to recognize a 3D face either.

Would My Dog Recognize Me in a Picture?: Dog Guide: Animal Planet

[peacegirl]

Is this precious, or what?

http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites...t-naptime.aspx

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That actually makes perfect sense. If a particular breed has the brain power to learn words (which is very unusual)....

Whether this border collie would be able to distinguish his owner from other humans (when his other senses are disabled) is yet to be seen, but if it's possible then this breed has more ability than most canines who cannot make this connection.

It's not unusual at all. Dogs learn words all the time, training commands for example. How many words do you understand in dog?

She was also able to choose a brand new toy with a brand new name on the very first try by deducing that the new unfamiliar name would match the new unfamiliar toy. It was really an interesting look at dog cognition.

BTW breed is a manmade category and has no more meaning with relation to intelligence than the human category of race does. Dogs have dog brains and humans have human brains and individuals vary greatly but there is some kind of bell curve of average.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Which part of what I said was false, and why do you think it is false?

No answer, Peacegirl?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've completely missed my entire point. The white sunlight hitting the ball consists of two parts: the blue light and the non-blue light. Nothing else. If the non-blue part of that sunlight is absorbed, then that part doesn't bounce off. If the blue part of it turns up at the distant film, then that part doesn't bounce off either. So if neither part of the sunlight hitting the ball bounces off, then how can white sunlight still be bouncing off the ball?

If the blue part of the spectrum is not bouncing off, then what is bouncing off cannot be the full spectrum. The blue part will be missing.

This doesn't show that what I said was wrong at all. If the blue-wavelength photons are not bouncing off the ball, but are instead at the distant film immediately after hitting it, then they have instantaneously relocated themselves. That means they have teleported.

The blue light existed before it ever got to the ball. It was a part of the sunlight traveling towards that ball. The full spectrum cannot bounce off the ball if the non-blue part of that spectrum has been absorbed by the ball. What has been absorbed cannot still bounce off, and white light minus the non-blue part does not still equal a full spectrum. And the blue-wavelength photons cannot 'disperse' unless they are traveling. Only traveling light can disperse.

No answer to any of this?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean "where are they"? They are there as far as the (P) reflection goes. They don't go farther than that.

I mean: Where are they? They must have some location, and they cannot have more than one location. So where are the blue-wavelength photons (that were within the sunlight hitting the object) at the point in time immediately after they hit the ball? Saying they are "there" (where?) and don't go "any further" (than what?) is not an answer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I fixed that. I said they were newly existing photons coming from the Sun.

That still doesn't answer the question. Of course the photons at the film originally came from the Sun, and of course they were newly existing when they were first emitted from the Sun. But how did they get from the Sun to the film without either traveling there (getting from A to B by taking time and travelling through the intervening points in space), or teleporting (getting from A to B instantly and without travelling through the intervening points in space)? And where were these photons (which are at the camera film when the photograph is taken) just before the photograph was taken?

You still haven't answered either of these two key questions ((1) & (2) above).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are newly existing photons that are constantly being (P) reflected and absorbed or passing through.

That doesn't answer the question at all: Where were these photons just before the photograph was taken?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, you have to think in terms of efferent vision. The blue wavelength light is present but can be used only as a condition of sight. It does not travel; it is there at the film/retina instantly if this model of sight is correct. That does not mean that white light is not constantly in motion. It just means that when we're looking at the object, we don't see white light, we see blue. When the blue wavelength light is too distant for it to appear on the film/retina, we still get white light because that's the light that is continually streaming from the Sun and traveling through space and time.

This doesn't address the point at all. If some of the light is absorbed, then it cannot all be bouncing off. For it to be white full spectrum light that bounces off, all of it has to be bouncing off. White light must contain all of the wavelengths of visible light. If any of them are absorbed then they won't be there in what bounces off.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry, I have not contradicted myself.

Yes, you have. I quoted you doing so. Here are your words again:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing turning up instantly at distant films and retinas Spacemonkey.

The blue photon is (P) reflected and appears instantly at the retina because it meets the requirements of efferent vision.

You said that nothing turns up instantly at the retina, and that the blue photon turns up instantly at the retina. Contradictions don't come much clearer than that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the blue photon does not teleport Spacemonkey. For some reason you're just not getting the concept.

There were 7 photons hitting the ball. If 6 of them are absorbed, and one of them appears instantly at the distant retina, then how many of them are left to bounce off the surface of the ball, Peacegirl? 7 minus 6, minus 1 equals...?

And if the blue photon was hitting the ball at one moment, and is then present at the distant film at the very next moment - such that it has gotten itself from one point to another distant point in no time at all, and without traveling through the intervening points in space - then it has teleported. That is what the word means. You have yet to distinguish any difference whatsoever between teleportation and what you are describing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that as light bounces off of an object, certain photons are being absorbed which displays the non-absorbed light, but as soon as the (P) light gets dispersed, we can no longer see or photograph the object due to the inverse square law, therefore we will no longer get the blue light at the film/retina; we will get all 7 colors of light (the default position).

I'm not asking you about what we see at different times and distances. I'm simply asking you about the physical behavior, motion, and position of these 7 photons. You have yet to give any answers which do not require them to be in multiple places at once.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

YES I DID.

If you got that 'white light' here refers to all 7 photons, then why did you say both that 6 of the seven photons will be absorbed and that the 'white light' (i.e. all 7 of them) will be bouncing off the object? That is contradictory, so you obviously didn't get it at all.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Generalized visual acuity data? It's as specific as you can get? Talk about moving the goalposts! I don't care if it's a photograph or a real person, or even if that person is made larger so that the resolution is perfectly clear. If Lessans is right, the dog's master will not be able to be identified due to the eyes not being a sense organ.

You weren't talking about the specific ability of recognizing photographs in this post where you said

There is no reason why a dog would not be able to identify the particular features of his master whom he loves by sight alone, if the image is traveling toward his eyes, transducing into signals, and going to his brain for interpretation. ?

The features of his master is not the same as a photograph of his master

Dogs actually capture more light in dimly lit areas which would also mean that the features of their owner would stand out if the eyes were a sense organ. They may have 20/75 vision but at that distance, the image would be clear, so once again this should not be an impediment to recognition if the eyes were acting as a sense organ

The ability to capture more light in low light conditions doesn't say anything about why they should react to a photograph.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How would you determine identification or recognition in your experiment? What seebs is pointing out is that dogs may in fact recognize the face in the picture, but ALSO recognize that it is a representation and not the real thing, and therefore not react in any way....or react in a way that we humans wouldn't understand and couldn't interpret as recognition or identification.

Just like you wouldn't introduce yourself to a photograph of a person, because you know it is a photograph and not the person, dogs may feel no need to interact with a photograph.

Bump

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now you're moving the goalposts. I never said they should, but the people running these studies claim they can.

WHAT????

Originally Posted by peacegirl

if the eyes are a sense organ, dogs SHOULD be able to recognize their master just like they recognize their master from their other senses

This whole thing is due to both you and Lessans claim that if afferent vision is true, dogs should be able to recognize their masters from a photograph. I have been asking you to point out any scientific principle, law or tent that indicates that dogs SHOULD have this ability.

It doesn't matter if they actually do or don't, for some reason Lessans thought they SHOULD. I can find nothing in science that says they SHOULD. Where did he come up with arbitrary use of should?

You and Lessans both use many modal verbs oddly I have noticed, and pointed out to you several times. You assign "should" and "cannot" and others based on absolutely nothing.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now you're moving the goalposts. I never said they should, but the people running these studies claim they can. Even so, the majority of dogs will be unable to recognize a 3D face either.

Would My Dog Recognize Me in a Picture?: Dog Guide: Animal Planet

Did you even bother to read the article you linked to?

Research does show that dogs can identify a familiar owner in a photograph. In a study published in the Journal of Vision, 12 pure-bred beagles and 12 domestic cats were given individual handlers who worked with them two hours a day for six months. Then they were given a visual test to recognize the face of their handler versus a non-handler. The result? The dogs chose the face of their handlers 88.2 percent of the time, while the cats chose their handlers 54.5 percent of the time.

These same test pooches were even able to identify the face of an animal that lived with them. In fact, they chose the familiar animal more often than an unfamiliar animal. The study found that dogs chose the face of a familiar dog 85 percent of the time, while the felines chose the face of a familiar feline 91 percent of the time.

That article states quite clearly that "dogs can identify a familiar owner in a photograph". How could you possibly miss that?

[LadyShea]

She often refutes herself with her own links. Also the second paragraph

Why did you post that link peacegirl. What point of yours did you think it supported?

Originally Posted by peacegirl's link

Can a dog tell the difference between the appearance of various people or animals and can they recognize that information in a stationary, two-dimensional image (such as a photo)?

The answer to both of those questions, she concludes, is yes -- under the right circumstances. Dogs can distinguish between different people based on the person's appearance at that time, meaning that sometimes a dog can identify his owner's head in the photo. But if in another photo his owner's head is blocked, the animal might have a problem figuring out who she is.

http://animal.discovery.com/guides/d...a-picture.html

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can understand why chimpanzees would recognize humans because they know more language and probably can distinguish these differences in features. Dolphins can recognize individual humans? How interesting.

Can you recognize individual chimpanzees or dolphins by their facial features? Can you differentiate between two Siamese cats from a photograph of just their faces? Really why the hell do you think animals should be able to do something that humans can't even do consistently?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not unusual at all. Dogs learn words all the time, training commands for example. How many words do you understand in dog?

As to whether dogs can identify specific features depends on whether they can form a photograph or relation in their mind of their owner's features from those of other humans.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She was also able to choose a brand new toy with a brand new name on the very first try by deducing that the new unfamiliar name would match the new unfamiliar toy. It was really an interesting look at dog cognition.

I doubt if the dog was reasoning this through. The dog probably went to the new toy by default since the other toy had a name that the dog recognized.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

BTW breed is a manmade category and has no more meaning with relation to intelligence than the human category of race does. Dogs have dog brains and humans have human brains and individuals vary greatly but there is some kind of bell curve of average.

But there are breeds that do things better than other breeds. That's a fact.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Can you recognize individual chimpanzees or dolphins by their facial features? Can you differentiate between two Siamese cats from a photograph of just their faces? Really why the hell do you think animals should be able to do something that humans can't even do consistently?

I can't recognize individual chimpanzees or dolphins because I don't live among them. If I did, I probably would be able to not only see their similarities, but see their differences, especially if they had separate names that identified the differences in their facial features.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If a particular breed has the brain power to learn words (which is very unusual), then his recognition does not have to be coming from incoming sensory data. The distinguishing features of these objects are made possible through language as they project the word onto the piece of substance, which distinguishes it from other objects, offering supporting evidence that Lessans' claims are valid.

This is one of the most far out claims made by Lessans, from a complete misunderstanding of how conditioning works, combine with a total lack of knowledge about vision and optics, he comes up with this preposterous idea that the brain somehow projects words onto a sereen of substance. Now to suggest that this is how a dog can recognize objects is the work of a certified idiot. That any brain dog's or human projects anything out through the eyes has not been proven, has not been demonstrated, and has only been suggested by Lessans and is totally unsurported, and therefore cannot support Lessans claims in any way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You weren't talking about the specific ability of recognizing photographs in this post where you said

The features of his master is not the same as a photograph of his master

The ability to capture more light in low light conditions doesn't say anything about why they should react to a photograph.

Some researchers believe that dogs can identify their master from a photograph, or a t.v. screen, or a computer. Now you're making a distinction between this ability and the ability to recognize the features of the dog's master in real life, by sight alone. In both cases (whether by picture or in real life), the image of the master would be traveling to the dog's eyes (an afferent experience) and being interpreted in the dog's brain, which is what science believes is occurring.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Did you even bother to read the article you linked to?

That article states quite clearly that "dogs can identify a familiar owner in a photograph". How could you possibly miss that?

I offered this article because it was interesting. I still don't believe that these tests are all reliable. Dogs definitely can see the motion of other dogs, and the shape of other dogs in contrast to cats. I am referring to the identification of individual dogs from those of other dogs from sight alone. I don't think my sheepdog would recognize my other dog in a line up of the same breed. She would have to identify him through smell.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I offered this article because it was interesting. I still don't believe that these tests are all reliable. Dogs definitely can see the motion of other dogs, and the shape of other dogs in contrast to cats. I am referring to the identification of individual dogs from those of other dogs from sight alone. I don't think my sheepdog would recognize my other dog in a line up of the same breed. She would have to identify him through smell.

If you didn't think the tests were reliable, why did you post the link as if you were trying to support your arguments?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No answer, Peacegirl?

No answer to any of this?

I mean: Where are they? They must have some location, and they cannot have more than one location. So where are the blue-wavelength photons (that were within the sunlight hitting the object) at the point in time immediately after they hit the ball? Saying they are "there" (where?) and don't go "any further" (than what?) is not an answer.

That still doesn't answer the question. Of course the photons at the film originally came from the Sun, and of course they were newly existing when they were first emitted from the Sun. But how did they get from the Sun to the film without either traveling there (getting from A to B by taking time and travelling through the intervening points in space), or teleporting (getting from A to B instantly and without travelling through the intervening points in space)? And where were these photons (which are at the camera film when the photograph is taken) just before the photograph was taken?

You still haven't answered either of these two key questions ((1) & (2) above).

That doesn't answer the question at all: Where were these photons just before the photograph was taken?

This doesn't address the point at all. If some of the light is absorbed, then it cannot all be bouncing off. For it to be white full spectrum light that bounces off, all of it has to be bouncing off. White light must contain all of the wavelengths of visible light. If any of them are absorbed then they won't be there in what bounces off.

Yes, you have. I quoted you doing so. Here are your words again:

You said that nothing turns up instantly at the retina, and that the blue photon turns up instantly at the retina. Contradictions don't come much clearer than that.

There were 7 photons hitting the ball. If 6 of them are absorbed, and one of them appears instantly at the distant retina, then how many of them are left to bounce off the surface of the ball, Peacegirl? 7 minus 6, minus 1 equals...?

And if the blue photon was hitting the ball at one moment, and is then present at the distant film at the very next moment - such that it has gotten itself from one point to another distant point in no time at all, and without traveling through the intervening points in space - then it has teleported. That is what the word means. You have yet to distinguish any difference whatsoever between teleportation and what you are describing.

I'm not asking you about what we see at different times and distances. I'm simply asking you about the physical behavior, motion, and position of these 7 photons. You have yet to give any answers which do not require them to be in multiple places at once.

If you got that 'white light' here refers to all 7 photons, then why did you say both that 6 of the seven photons will be absorbed and that the 'white light' (i.e. all 7 of them) will be bouncing off the object? That is contradictory, so you obviously didn't get it at all.

Spacemonkey, you're going to have to condense your questions to one or two. I cannot answer a post that goes on this long. It takes much too much time. Sorry.

[The Lone Ranger]

Your bias and your dishonesty are showing, peacegirl.

You accept without question the results of any test that you think supports Lessans' claims, no matter how unreliable, poorly-conducted, and poorly-supported those tests may be.

But you dismiss out of hand any and all tests which refute Lessans' claims, no matter how well-supported and carefully-conducted they may be.

Amusingly, you often put forth tests as evidence in favor of Lessans, only to reject those very same tests when someone points out that they actually come to the exact opposite conclusions that you thought they did.


This demonstrates beyond any doubt that your one and only criterion for whether or not a test is "reliable" is whether or not you think it supports Lessans' claims.


This is absolutely not the behavior of an honest or ethical (or remotely competent) investigator.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Your bias and your dishonesty are showing, peacegirl.

You accept without question the results of any test that you think supports Lessans' claims, no matter how unreliable, poorly-conducted, and poorly-supported those tests may be.

But you dismiss out of hand any and all tests which refute Lessans' claims, no matter how well-supported and carefully-conducted they may be.

Amusingly, you often put forth tests as evidence in favor of Lessans, only to reject those very same tests when someone points out that they actually come to the exact opposite conclusions that you thought they did.


This demonstrates beyond any doubt that your one and only criterion for whether or not a test is "reliable" is whether or not you think it supports Lessans' claims.


This is absolutely not the behavior of an honest or ethical (or remotely competent) investigator.

What tests do I reject that actually come to the exact opposite conclusions than what I thought. I did not offer that article in support or against Lessans' claims, if that's what you're talking about. Why can't you be more specific TLR?

[The Lone Ranger]

How many more examples are needed? We have two whole threads filled with examples of your bias and hypocrisy.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, you're going to have to condense your questions to one or two. I cannot answer a post that goes on this long. It takes much too much time. Sorry.

Okay.

The white sunlight hitting the ball consists of two parts: the blue light and the non-blue light. Nothing else. If the non-blue part of that sunlight is absorbed, then that part doesn't bounce off. If the blue part of it turns up at the distant film, then that part doesn't bounce off either. So if neither part of the sunlight hitting the ball bounces off, then how can white sunlight still be bouncing off the ball?


The two key questions you have been unable to answer are these:

1) Where are the blue-wavelength photons, contained within the sunlight striking the blue ball, at the point in time immediately after they hit the ball?

2) Where were the blue photons, which are at the film interacting with it to produce a photographic image of the blue ball when the photograph is taken, at the point in time immediately before the photograph is taken.


To refresh your memory on the 7-photon ROYGBIV example:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The sunlight striking the blue ball simply consists of photons of all wavelengths in the visible spectrum. This spectrum is often represented by the acronym ROYGBIV (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet). So let's use a simplified model where there is one photon of each of these colors hitting the blue ball (like little marbles).

These seven differently colored photons are hitting the ball. They comprise the sunlight hitting the ball. I want you to tell me where each one of them is 0.0001sec after this collection of photons hits the ball. Which ones are absorbed (such that they get sucked in and used up, and do not bounce off)? Which ones bounce off and start traveling away from the ball at the speed of light? Which ones instantly appear at distant films or retinas? Which ones, if any, are in more than one place 0.0001sec after hitting the ball?

If you want to speak of blue light, non-blue light, or white sunlight, then the following definitions apply with respect to our seven photons:

Blue light =(def) The blue photon.

Non-blue light =(def) The red, orange, yellow, green, indigo, and violet photons.

White sunlight =(def) All seven photons.

You answered:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The red, orange, green, indigo, and violet photons get absorbed. The blue photon is (P) reflected and appears instantly at the retina because it meets the requirements of efferent vision.

There were 7 photons hitting the ball. If 6 of them are absorbed, and one of them appears instantly at the distant retina, then how many of them are left to bounce off the surface of the ball, Peacegirl? 7 minus 6, minus 1 equals...?

And if the blue photon was hitting the ball at one moment, and is then present at the distant film at the very next moment - such that it has gotten itself from one point to another distant point in no time at all, and without traveling through the intervening points in space - then it has teleported. That is what the word means. You have yet to distinguish any difference whatsoever between teleportation and what you are describing.

I'm not asking you about what we see at different times and distances. I'm simply asking you about the physical behavior, motion, and position of these 7 photons. You have yet to give any answers which do not require them to be in multiple places at once.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

How many more examples are needed? We have two whole threads filled with examples of your bias and hypocrisy.

And what about the bias that exists in here? There is so much of it that I can't make an ounce of headway.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And what about the bias that exists in here? There is so much of it that I can't make an ounce of headway.

Because we're heavily biased towards reality.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Because we're heavily biased towards reality.

And 'Truth and Honesty'.