A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that dogs cannot identify familiar faces through sight alone was an actual observation.

That is why I said we need to do more tests on dogs, for starters, because people believe that they have proved through their experiments that dogs can identify like humans can, but none of these tests were focused on this one aspect of sight. There was also no replication to speak of. Bottom line: they saw in the results what they expected to see but which were far from conclusive. This is confirmation bias in a nutshell.

Peacegirl is not completely useless, she can be used as a bad example, such as extreme conformation bias. She constantly projects her own faults onto others. For example, she is a victim of confirmation bias, so she believes that researchers are guilty of the same thing. In a way it must give her some comfort to believe that others are just like her, just as other people with mental illness want to claim that everyone else just like they are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

peacegirl, if I take a photograph of a clock, lets say at noon, and then send you that photograph in the mail, do you think that when you receive the photograph the clock in the photo will show a time later than noon because of the time the photograph took to transit through the mail system?

Of course not. Why would you even think that?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Thus far, I know of only a few things mentioned:

1: There seems to have been a claim that we never see an airplane unless we hear it first. This is actually not true, as we often see airplanes too far away to hear at all such as commercial airplanes cruising at high altitude.

Is that correct, or am i misremembering

YOU ARE MISREADING

2: The position that if the currently accepted view of how sight works, that this means that dogs should be able to recognize faces. This is simply not valid reasoning: more options are possible. For instance, sight COULD work according to the currently accepted view, but there could be some OTHER reason dogs cannot recognize faces... if dogs are unable to recognize faces at all, which to say the least, is far from uncontroversial.

SO YOU AGREE THAT IT'S NOT CONTROVERSIAL THAT DOGS DON'T HAVE THIS ABILITY?

YOU'RE RIGHT, THERE IS SOME OTHER REASON WHY DOGS CANNOT RECOGNIZE FACES, WHICH IS WHAT LESSANS HAS BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU ALL ALONG.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

On the whole, this is far from convincing. I recommend setting out in clear simple language, in a paragraph or two, the basic outlines of the case your father wanted to make for the way he thought sight works. We can then get into the details based on that.

I've done that, can you repeat it back?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then, if it turns out we have a compelling case to make for a new theory of sight, we can move on. And if not, then we can simply admit that perhaps the parts about sight are not tenable, and still move on: I do not see how it impacts much of the rest. We can project images onto what we actually detect with the senses f sight does work as we thought it did all along.

Either way, the two arguments mentioned above both fail: one is simply not true, the other one is a fallacy.

The arguments don't fail, you just misunderstood them. He said that we often hear the presence of an airplane before we see it, but this may not always be the case. The sound of an engine could be very low and therefore we would see the plane before we hear it. I'll leave it at that for now.

[Vivisectus]

2: The position that if the currently accepted view of how sight works, that this means that dogs should be able to recognize faces. This is simply not valid reasoning: more options are possible. For instance, sight COULD work according to the currently accepted view, but there could be some OTHER reason dogs cannot recognize faces... if dogs are unable to recognize faces at all, which to say the least, is far from uncontroversial.

SO YOU AGREE THAT IT'S NOT CONTROVERSIAL THAT DOGS DON'T HAVE THIS ABILITY?

YOU'RE RIGHT, THERE IS SOME OTHER REASON WHY DOGS CANNOT RECOGNIZE FACES, WHICH IS WHAT LESSANS HAS BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU ALL ALONG.

No, I said that at least it is not uncontroversial to assume they cannot. In fact, experts on dog cognition say that they in fact can. So at the very least we cannot simply assume they do not have this ability.

I've done that, can you repeat it back?

No, because as I told you already I do not think you ever spelled it out clearly and concisely.

The arguments don't fail, you just misunderstood them. He said that we often hear the presence of an airplane before we see it, but this may not always be the case. The sound of an engine could be very low and therefore we would see the plane before we hear it. I'll leave it at that for now.

Then it simply never was an argument in favour of sight as your father understood it.

So what IS the argument in favour?

[The Lone Ranger]

It's also worth pointing out -- again -- that "Dogs can recognize faces" was not the starting assumption for these experiments.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, facial recognition involves highly specialized brain functions that not even all humans can perform. That's precisely why there have been so many studies regarding whether or not non-human animals can recognize faces -- to find out which species have the ability and which don't. For quite some time, it was widely believed that only humans can learn to recognize individuals by their unique facial features.


So, to say that the studies are "flawed" because the researchers are assuming that dogs (or cats, or non-human primates, or birds) can recognize faces and thus are biased in their interpretation is, quite simply, a bald-faced lie.

In most of these studies, the working hypothesis was that the non-human animal in question would not be able to recognize and distinguish between humans (or members of its species) based upon facial features.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

SO YOU AGREE THAT IT'S NOT CONTROVERSIAL THAT DOGS DON'T HAVE THIS ABILITY?

You are stupid, and your reading comprehension is atrocious.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You are stupid, and your reading comprehension is atrocious.

Peacegirl's MO.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

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?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

Bump.

[Vivisectus]

November has been and gone, and I have thrown in December for good measure. How is the gathering of evidence going, as we discussed 3 months ago? Have you made any progress? Do we have material for a blog post yet?

[Stephen Maturin]

One would almost think that peacegirl, her claims to the contrary notwithstanding, isn't really interested in doing any work to further her dad's vision of and plan for world peace. One would almost think, based on her unbroken 14-year history of identical behavior, that peacegirl is only interested in squabbling with strangers on internet message boards.

[Vivisectus]

Interesting: is it possible to know will is not free, and to know you would never be blamed in a situation, which should allow your conscience to work perfectly, and still refrain from doing something that will stop all wars and save thousands upon thousands of lives?

In the new environment, could someone invent a new kind of wonderful natural health supplement that prevents all the diseases we currently vaccinate against, and then just not bother to tell anyone about it?

Or on a smaller scale, if I had some food and knew someone else went hungry, could I just not bother to give them any without any qualms? Could I simply not bother to alert the man on the railway track that a train is coming? Or to help the child with a broken leg?

A lack of an action can surely be a hurt as much as an action. If our consciences worked perfectly, should we not feel compelled (of our own free will) to do the very best that we can do, since it would be impossible to prefer anything less, as there is no possible blame to help us justify our inaction to ourselves?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It's also worth pointing out -- again -- that "Dogs can recognize faces" was not the starting assumption for these experiments.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, facial recognition involves highly specialized brain functions that not even all humans can perform. That's precisely why there have been so many studies regarding whether or not non-human animals can recognize faces -- to find out which species have the ability and which don't. For quite some time, it was widely believed that only humans can learn to recognize individuals by their unique facial features.


So, to say that the studies are "flawed" because the researchers are assuming that dogs (or cats, or non-human primates, or birds) can recognize faces and thus are biased in their interpretation is, quite simply, a bald-faced lie.

In most of these studies, the working hypothesis was that the non-human animal in question would not be able to recognize and distinguish between humans (or members of its species) based upon facial features.

Even if their working hypothesis was that non-humans would not be able to recognize and distinguish between humans (or members of its species) based upon facial features, none of these studies that I've seen have actually confirmed that dogs can do this. I'm sticking with dogs because other animals, like certain species of monkeys, may be able to.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

November has been and gone, and I have thrown in December for good measure. How is the gathering of evidence going, as we discussed 3 months ago? Have you made any progress? Do we have material for a blog post yet?

That is one idea among many that I'm going to be working on. I appreciate your trying to help figure out how best to promote this work. Right now I'm on my way to Florida. I have to babysit my grandchildren while the nanny is on vacation until the 12th, so everything is on hold until I get back.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Interesting: is it possible to know will is not free, and to know you would never be blamed in a situation, which should allow your conscience to work perfectly, and still refrain from doing something that will stop all wars and save thousands upon thousands of lives?

In the new environment, could someone invent a new kind of wonderful natural health supplement that prevents all the diseases we currently vaccinate against, and then just not bother to tell anyone about it?

Or on a smaller scale, if I had some food and knew someone else went hungry, could I just not bother to give them any without any qualms? Could I simply not bother to alert the man on the railway track that a train is coming? Or to help the child with a broken leg?

A lack of an action can surely be a hurt as much as an action. If our consciences worked perfectly, should we not feel compelled (of our own free will) to do the very best that we can do, since it would be impossible to prefer anything less, as there is no possible blame to help us justify our inaction to ourselves?

Of course people would want to help if a child broke his leg, or if someone was ready to get hit by a train, especially if no one blamed them if they didn't. Why would someone invent something to help mankind and not bother to tell anyone about it? That doesn't even seem realistic because human nature is such that we want to share what we know. Anyhow, what would blaming him do if that was his intent? Also, have you forgotten that there will be no more hunger in the new world since poverty will be wiped out? Vivisectus, with all due respect you have not read this book carefully.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course not. Why would you even think that?

It seems you are not clear about the consequences...

'New horizons' radio signals (that have the speed of light) take about 4h to get from Pluto to here. Now these pictures have an exact date and time attached to it.

Say, according to 'New horizons' it takes a picture at 12:00h noon. Then it takes 4 hours to get here, so it arrives at 4:00 pm. Is the picture dated in your past or not?

Now imagine that at the same time a laser beam was sent exactly to the point to where you are standing. Do the picture and the light of the laser reach you at the same time?

PS How did you all dare to start again without notifying me? ;-)

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In the new environment, could someone invent a new kind of wonderful natural health supplement that prevents all the diseases we currently vaccinate against, and then just not bother to tell anyone about it?

Ah, but there's the rub! We're not in the new environment, you see. Accordingly, all sorts of selfish flummery -- for instance, fully indulging one's penchant for squabbling with strangers on the internet about efferent vision -- is entirely justified.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right now I'm on my way to Florida. I have to babysit my grandchildren while the nanny is on vacation until the 12th, so everything is on hold until I get back.

Here's hoping your son's liquor cabinet is lockable.

[Florence Jellem]

Hello, dear, it's Flo.

Just out of curiosity, when you babysit your grand rugrats, will you be shoving toxic chemicals up their bungholes to promote their good health?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is one idea among many that I'm going to be working on. I appreciate your trying to help figure out how best to promote this work. Right now I'm on my way to Florida. I have to babysit my grandchildren while the nanny is on vacation until the 12th, so everything is on hold until I get back.

Not only are you stupid, mentally unhinged, and willfully ignorant, but you are arrogant as well, as if this whole thread depends on your input to function. Admittedly most of the replies refute your idiotic statements, but this is a good opportunity for others to review your silly statements and offer a more realistic interpretation of the observations that preceded them. And for once be honest, you're not working on anything except some new nonsense to confuse the issue or impossible demands that prove nothing. The best way to promote this book would be to change the heading from philosophy to humorous absurdity.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

It seems you are not clear about the consequences...

'New horizons' radio signals (that have the speed of light) take about 4h to get from Pluto to here. Now these pictures have an exact date and time attached to it.

Say, according to 'New horizons' it takes a picture at 12:00h noon. Then it takes 4 hours to get here, so it arrives at 4:00 pm. Is the picture dated in your past or not?

Now imagine that at the same time a laser beam was sent exactly to the point to where you are standing. Do the picture and the light of the laser reach you at the same time?

PS How did you all dare to start again without notifying me? ;-)

You were the one that left this thread. Why did you suddenly take off when we just started making progress? To answer your question, Light travels at a finite speed so they would arrive in delayed time. This has nothing to do with vision.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You were the one that left this thread. Why did you suddenly take off when we just started making progress? To answer your question, Light travels at a finite speed so they would arrive in delayed time. This has nothing to do with vision.

Well, in the real world it has everything to do with vision, but whatever.

Have you found an explanation for the observations of Jupiter's moons or why spacecraft hit their targets instead of missing them by tens of thousands of kilometers?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Vivisectus]

Of course people would want to help if a child broke his leg, or if someone was ready to get hit by a train, especially if no one blamed them if they didn't.

Right - so then a failure to do something can be a hurt as well, something which would be prevented by your conscience, if only it could operate properly. To operate properly, one needs to know that 1) will is not free, and 2) you will never be blamed. This is of course a rather simplified version, but it will do for a shorthand version.

Why would someone invent something to help mankind and not bother to tell anyone about it? That doesn't even seem realistic because human nature is such that we want to share what we know. Anyhow, what would blaming him do if that was his intent? Also, have you forgotten that there will be no more hunger in the new world since poverty will be wiped out? Vivisectus, with all due respect you have not read this book carefully.

Oh I know all that. I am merely trying to find little natural experiments where we can see the psychological element of the book in action, so to speak. A situation where someone who already knows will is not free is simultaneously in a position where no-one would ever blame them whether they did or did not do something in a situation where a moral decision is involved.

We would expect perfectly moral decisions in those cases, you see, and if we can show these to be happening, then we have one more piece of evidence for the list.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is one idea among many that I'm going to be working on. I appreciate your trying to help figure out how best to promote this work. Right now I'm on my way to Florida. I have to babysit my grandchildren while the nanny is on vacation until the 12th, so everything is on hold until I get back.

Many ideas even! I await with baited breath the fruits of your industry.

Perhaps other followers of this wonderful new wisdom did the same, something which would explain their absence.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To answer your question, Light travels at a finite speed so they would arrive in delayed time. This has nothing to do with vision.

Oh, that is interesting. So if I could have a laser on the sun's surface, and the laser is pointed to my eyes, and the sun and the laser are turned on at the same time, I immediately see the sun, but the laser only 8 minutes later? How come?