A revolution in thought - Page 1524

peacegirl · #**38076** 07-12-2014, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sure this is what scientists would use as PROOF that dogs can not only see, but identify what they see, just like humans do.

You really have no idea what science is, or how scientists do science, do you? This is anecdotal and might pose a good subject to start investigating, but it is certainly not, by itself, scientific evidence.

Anecdotal evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't say it was, but it should give you pause before telling me that my father didn't know what he was talking about BECAUSE DOGS CAN SEE LIKE HUMANS.

thedoc · #**38077** 07-12-2014, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sure this is what scientists would use as PROOF that dogs can not only see, but identify what they see, just like humans do.

You really have no idea what science is, or how scientists do science, do you? This is anecdotal and might pose a good subject to start investigating, but it is certainly not, by itself, scientific evidence.

Anecdotal evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't say it was, but it should give you pause before telling me that my father didn't know what he was talking about BECAUSE DOGS CAN SEE LIKE HUMANS.

The scientific evidence shows that dogs DO NOT see like humans, their vision is a bit different, and there is some question as to whether they see colors. It is quite understandable that the dog would stare at the TV, images of dogs and the sound of human voices would be something unusual that could get his attention. However this is all diversion from the real question of whether dogs can recognize their human master from a photograph, and this has been demonstrated many times but you simply refuse to look at or consider the evidence. You have obviously not looked at any of it because your criticism is totally off the mark on the content or procedures of the experiments in question.

My comments about your father are based on what he wrote in the book and those writings are completely off the mark, he had no idea what he was writing about. His arguments were based on incorrect ideas and his arguments often did not follow from one idea to the next when he claimed that the one proved the next there was usually no connection at all.

peacegirl · #**38078** 07-12-2014, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sure this is what scientists would use as PROOF that dogs can not only see, but identify what they see, just like humans do.

You really have no idea what science is, or how scientists do science, do you? This is anecdotal and might pose a good subject to start investigating, but it is certainly not, by itself, scientific evidence.

Anecdotal evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't say it was, but it should give you pause before telling me that my father didn't know what he was talking about BECAUSE DOGS CAN SEE LIKE HUMANS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

The scientific evidence shows that dogs DO NOT see like humans, their vision is a bit different, and there is some question as to whether they see colors. It is quite understandable that the dog would stare at the TV, images of dogs and the sound of human voices would be something unusual that could get his attention. However this is all diversion from the real question of whether dogs can recognize their human master from a photograph, and this has been demonstrated many times but you simply refuse to look at or consider the evidence. You have obviously not looked at any of it because your criticism is totally off the mark on the content or procedures of the experiments in question.

There is no diversion. There is no conclusive evidence that dogs can recognize their handlers or masters from a picture. I don't care what the tests show. These tests are unreliable. Empirical observation, on the other hand, has shown many times over that dogs do not recognize their masters from photographs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

My comments about your father are based on what he wrote in the book and those writings are completely off the mark, he had no idea what he was writing about. His arguments were based on incorrect ideas and his arguments often did not follow from one idea to the next when he claimed that the one proved the next there was usually no connection at all.

Thedoc, you better watch what you say. I have no problem hearing your refutations but I don't like it when you tell me that his book is completely off the mark based on your own intellect. I don't mind you asking me questions like everybody else, but the minute you cross the line and tell me that his ideas are wild and he didn't know what he was writing, I'm going to ignore you.

thedoc · #**38079** 07-12-2014, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

The scientific evidence shows that dogs DO NOT see like humans, their vision is a bit different, and there is some question as to whether they see colors. It is quite understandable that the dog would stare at the TV, images of dogs and the sound of human voices would be something unusual that could get his attention. However this is all diversion from the real question of whether dogs can recognize their human master from a photograph, and this has been demonstrated many times but you simply refuse to look at or consider the evidence. You have obviously not looked at any of it because your criticism is totally off the mark on the content or procedures of the experiments in question.

There is no diversion. There is no conclusive evidence that dogs can recognize their handlers or masters from a picture. I don't care what the tests show. These tests are unreliable. Empirical observation, on the other hand, has shown many times over that dogs do not recognize their masters from photographs.

This is another of your "straw man" arguments, there is very little that is supported by conclusive evidence and few people claim that there is. Most theories are supported by a great deal of evidence and little or none against. A case in point is the question of dogs recognizing their masters from a photo. There is evidence in well controlled and conducted experiments that show that dogs do recognize their masters from a photo, and due to the variation in dogs it is also recognized that some do not, but that does not prove that dogs cannot. The other case is that of efferent vision. There is much well supported evidence in support of afferent vision and none in support of efferent vision. Lessans made claims about vision but failed to provide any supporting evidence for those claims. On the other hand science has provided a great deal of evidence in support of afferent vision, and almost everyone will accept the theory that is supported by evidence over a theory that has no support.

thedoc · #**38080** 07-12-2014, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

My comments about your father are based on what he wrote in the book and those writings are completely off the mark, he had no idea what he was writing about. His arguments were based on incorrect ideas and his arguments often did not follow from one idea to the next when he claimed that the one proved the next there was usually no connection at all.

Thedoc, you better watch what you say. I have no problem hearing your refutations but I don't like it when you tell me that his book is completely off the mark based on your own intellect. I don't mind you asking me questions like everybody else, but the minute you cross the line and tell me that his ideas are wild and he didn't know what he was writing, I'm going to ignore you.

I would think that after 3 years you would realize how empty that threat really is. Look back at the thread and even when you pretend to ignore me, it does not affect my posting at all. I'm going to post whether you claim to ignore me or not, so you may as well read my posts and respond, you might learn something, after all I am a teacher and you are not. And it appears, from this thread, that I, and several others, understand your fathers book a lot better than you do.

peacegirl · #**38081** 07-12-2014, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

My comments about your father are based on what he wrote in the book and those writings are completely off the mark, he had no idea what he was writing about. His arguments were based on incorrect ideas and his arguments often did not follow from one idea to the next when he claimed that the one proved the next there was usually no connection at all.

Thedoc, you better watch what you say. I have no problem hearing your refutations but I don't like it when you tell me that his book is completely off the mark based on your own intellect. I don't mind you asking me questions like everybody else, but the minute you cross the line and tell me that his ideas are wild and he didn't know what he was writing, I'm going to ignore you.

I would think that after 3 years you would realize how empty that threat really is. Look back at the thread and even when you pretend to ignore me, it does not affect my posting at all. I'm going to post whether you claim to ignore me or not, so you may as well read my posts and respond, you might learn something, after all I am a teacher and you are not. And it appears, from this thread, that I, and several others, understand your fathers book a lot better than you do.

If you wanted me to respond to you, you really know how to put your foot in your mouth. I can't stop you from posting, but I can and will ignore you. :laugh:

thedoc · #**38082** 07-12-2014, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

I would think that after 3 years you would realize how empty that threat really is. Look back at the thread and even when you pretend to ignore me, it does not affect my posting at all. I'm going to post whether you claim to ignore me or not, so you may as well read my posts and respond, you might learn something, after all I am a teacher and you are not. And it appears, from this thread, that I, and several others, understand your fathers book a lot better than you do.

If you wanted me to respond to you, you really know how to put your foot in your mouth. I can't stop you from posting, but I can and will ignore you. :laugh:

No, and you can't stop those hundreds of lurkers from reading my posts and learning the truth about your claims. It's a good thing that there are others, along with myself, that honestly post the truth about the book and your fanciful ideas. Fiction must always be balanced against reality.

thedoc · #**38083** 07-12-2014, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you wanted me to respond to you, you really know how to put your foot in your mouth. I can't stop you from posting, but I can and will ignore you. :laugh:

Putting your foot in your mouth is a matter of perspective, and as long as you are honestly telling the truth, it isn't going to happen. But when you evade, ignore, and post things that are not true, as you constantly do, your foot will constantly be in your mouth. For you I suppose it's a good thing you can still type with the taste of toes in your mouth.

Spacemonkey · #**38084** 07-12-2014, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Let's try this another way, Peacegirl. Let's start by assuming that the photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Assumption #1: The photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Now lets define traveling and teleporting. Traveling is getting from A to B by passing through all intervening points. Teleporting is getting from A to B without passing through all intervening points. Clearly these are jointly exhaustive - if you get from A to B you must do so either by passing through the intervening points or by not passing through them. So...

Conclusion #1: If the photons came from the Sun then they either traveled there or teleported there.

Now you insist that they neither traveled there nor teleported, so we can conclude via modus tollens (If A then B, not B, therefore not A) that these photons cannot have come from the Sun.

Assumption #2: The photons at the film/retina did not travel or teleport there.

Conclusion #2: The photons at the film/retina did not come from the Sun.

So now the million-dollar question: Where the fuck did these photons come from? We can note also that the exact same reasoning as above will still apply for any location other than the Sun - as long as the photons are getting from A to B, they have to either travel there or teleport there - so we can know that...

Conclusion #3: The photons at the film/retina did not get there from anywhere else.

That leaves two remaining possibilities: (i) These photons were always there, i.e. sitting stationary at the film/retina surface; or (ii) They did not previously exist, and instead came into existence at the film/retina. But of course neither of these are plausible either, as photons cannot be stationary, and they do not pop into existence in our eyes or on film. But unless you accept one of these options we are forced to conclude that...

Conclusion #4: Assumption #2 was bollocks.

Basically, what we have proven is that you have only four options for the photons at the film/retina:

(i) Traveling photons.
(ii) Teleporting photons.
(iii) Stationary photons.
(iv) Newly existing photons.

So which is it going to be? (Remember, weaseling and fake-conceding are not honest responses.)

BTW, I'm not just asking you to choose an option. I'm asking you to address the reasoning presented in this post. I shouldn't have to bump it 50 times and wait a month for you to even try.

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**38085** 07-12-2014, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have answered his questions honestly...

Nope...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Will you answer these questions, or just weasel and ignore them?

Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?

Angakuk · #**38086** 07-12-2014, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have answered his questions honestly but I am still having a problem with the "evidence" that the nonabsorbed photons bounce off of an object and travel over space/time until they strike another object. Even if light is absorbed, this does not prove that the nonabsorbed light does what science thinks it does. That is a logical assumption.

Not an assumption, but an empirically and experimentally demonstrated fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I said is that light on our planet originates from the Sun.

First, that was not all you said. Second, what about the light from stars other than the sun?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sure this is what scientists would use as PROOF that dogs can not only see, but identify what they see, just like humans do. :chin:

Yeah, scientists frequently use cute pet videos on the internet for proof.

And of course dogs can see. Do you need proof of that?

Why do you misinterpret what I write?

...but identify what they see

Peacegirl has a point there. Nowhere in that scientific video did the dog even once say, "hey, look it's Marmaduke".

thedoc · #**38087** 07-12-2014, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The object absorbs certain wavelengths which allows the nonabsorbed photons to reveal the object but they don't get reflected, even though full spectrum light travels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong. It takes 8 minutes for full spectrum light to get to Earth, but it does not take any time to be at the film if the lens is focusing the nonabsorbed light as it aims the lens at the object.

There is no non-absorbed light in the Sun ignited at noon scenario. It's all full spectrum, newly emitted sunlight. Does it have to travel to the camera on Earth to take a photograph?

All light comes from the Sun LadyShea. You keep asking me the same question. I have said all along that full spectrum light has to strike any object for us to see it or take a photograph of it. You think I'm changing physical laws by saying the light doesn't have to be here to interact with the camera. If light is at the camera, then an interaction takes place. How this happens without light having to travel to Earth IS explained. This mirror image of the object IS doing the interacting. But this will never be accepted as long as it is believed that the nonabsorbed photons bounce and travel. I know it doesn't make any sense to you, but I am not convinced that science's logic is correct.

Interesting post, and a definitive statement about light. Peacegirl, why do you post on subjects you know nothing about?

I have also pointed out that there are demonstrations of single colored light, (not full spectrum) illuminating an object with varying success.

thedoc · #**38088** 07-12-2014, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Peacegirl has a point there. Nowhere in that scientific video did the dog even once say, "hey, look it's Marmaduke".

Absolutely right, since the dog didn't speak up and tell us what it saw, (The dogs on the TV were speaking clearly enough), this video should be invalidated as scientific evidence.

peacegirl · #**38089** 07-12-2014, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have answered his questions honestly but I am still having a problem with the "evidence" that the nonabsorbed photons bounce off of an object and travel over space/time until they strike another object. Even if light is absorbed, this does not prove that the nonabsorbed light does what science thinks it does. That is a logical assumption.

Not an assumption, but an empirically and experimentally demonstrated fact.

Yes it is an assumption even it though it looks like an airtight conclusion. This is due to the belief that the eyes are a sense organ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I said is that light on our planet originates from the Sun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

First, that was not all you said. Second, what about the light from stars other than the sun?

I was talking about the Sun as the star that powers and heats the Earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sure this is what scientists would use as PROOF that dogs can not only see, but identify what they see, just like humans do. :chin:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Yeah, scientists frequently use cute pet videos on the internet for proof.

And of course dogs can see. Do you need proof of that?

Quote:

Why do you misinterpret what I write?

...but identify what they see

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Peacegirl has a point there. Nowhere in that scientific video did the dog even once say, "hey, look it's Marmaduke".

We know that dogs can see; it's whether they can identify their masters without any other cues. I'm amazed that we have gotten nowhere in all this time. This thread should win a prize!

thedoc · #**38090** 07-12-2014, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We know that dogs can see; it's whether they can identify their masters without any other cues. I'm amazed that we have gotten nowhere in all this time. This thread should win a prize!

It has been demonstrated that this is true and your father was wrong. It is you who refuses to look at the valid evidence that has been presented.

This thread has already won the booby prize, - you.

Spacemonkey · #**38091** 07-13-2014, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was talking about the Sun as the star that powers and heats the Earth.

Why?

peacegirl · #**38092** 07-13-2014, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was talking about the Sun as the star that powers and heats the Earth.

Why?

Why is it so hard for you to apologize? To be able to admit you were out of line is a sign of character. :yup:

Just think of how many apologies I will be deserving of when it turns out he was right?

Spacemonkey · #**38093** 07-13-2014, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was talking about the Sun as the star that powers and heats the Earth.

Why?

Why is it so hard for you to apologize? To be able to admit you were out of line is a sign of character. :yup:

Just think of how many apologies I will be deserving of when it turns out he was right?

Huh? What am I supposed to be apologizing for this time?

Why were you talking about the Sun as the star that powers and heats the Earth?

thedoc · #**38094** 07-13-2014, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just think of how many apologies I will be deserving of IF it turns out he was right?

'0'

peacegirl · #**38095** 07-13-2014, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was talking about the Sun as the star that powers and heats the Earth.

Why?

Why is it so hard for you to apologize? To be able to admit you were out of line is a sign of character. :yup:

Just think of how many apologies I will be deserving of when it turns out he was right?

Huh? What am I supposed to be apologizing for this time?

Why were you talking about the Sun as the star that powers and heats the Earth?

You are so deceitful I can't even answer this post.

Spacemonkey · #**38096** 07-13-2014, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was talking about the Sun as the star that powers and heats the Earth.

Why?

Why is it so hard for you to apologize? To be able to admit you were out of line is a sign of character. :yup:

Just think of how many apologies I will be deserving of when it turns out he was right?

Huh? What am I supposed to be apologizing for this time?

Why were you talking about the Sun as the star that powers and heats the Earth?

You are so deceitful I can't even answer this post.

Lol, what a dingbat. :rofl:

peacegirl · #**38097** 07-13-2014, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was talking about the Sun as the star that powers and heats the Earth.

Why?

Why is it so hard for you to apologize? To be able to admit you were out of line is a sign of character. :yup:

Just think of how many apologies I will be deserving of when it turns out he was right?

Huh? What am I supposed to be apologizing for this time?

Why were you talking about the Sun as the star that powers and heats the Earth?

You are so deceitful I can't even answer this post.

Lol, what a dingbat. :rofl:

Wow, amazing that you would sacrifice anymore discussion to be right. You lost Spacemonkey.

Spacemonkey · #**38098** 07-13-2014, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wow, amazing that you would sacrifice anymore discussion to be right. You lost Spacemonkey.

You already told me I won. So was that the lie, or are you lying now? Why can't you honestly address my posts?

Spacemonkey · #**38099** 07-13-2014, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have answered his questions honestly...

Nope...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Will you answer these questions, or just weasel and ignore them?

Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?

Bump.

peacegirl · #**38100** 07-13-2014, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wow, amazing that you would sacrifice anymore discussion to be right. You lost Spacemonkey.

You already told me I won. So was that the lie, or are you lying now? Why can't you honestly address my posts?

The games are getting too much for me. I will not honestly address your posts until you apologize.