“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[Rhea]

Your posts are way too long and convoluted. If you have something to say, get to the point without an entire chapter to explain it.

!!!

I need to just repeat that again for emphasis…

Your posts are way too long and convoluted. If you have something to say, get to the point without an entire chapter to explain it.

Peacegirl. Peacegirl.


You’re the one who posts literal chapters at us without geting to the point.
You have me laughing so hard rn. Are you making a joke here?
You’re funnin’ us, right?

 

[Rhea]

Rhea, I am not going through this garbage again. The tests that you are depending on have flaws. Aceept it, or move on. Show me a dog that can recognize his human in a real-life observation. These studies mean shit if they can't back it up.

See for me, because testing things to determine if they are real is what I am paid to do, in order to develop equipment and processes that can reliably repeat the effect and make money for someone…. (I am not merely an evangelist preaching an idea and telling people they need to accept it if they want to be saved—it has to actually work!)

If I see something that doesn’t work, I can say WHY it doesn’t work.

But you don’t. You just walk away.

Which… I gotta say is not very convincing of you. I’d be bad at my job of understanding mechanisms if I did that. I’d fire someone who did that, actually. It’s not productive or illuminating.

What about those studies is flawed?
The fact that they used pictures to see if dogs could identify their humans without smell or sound? Just as you claimed could not be done?

 

[peacegirl]

Rhea, I am not going through this garbage again. The tests that you are depending on have flaws. Aceept it, or move on. Show me a dog that can recognize his human in a real-life observation. These studies mean shit if they can't back it up.

See for me, because testing things to determine if they are real is what I am paid to do, in order to develop equipment and processes that can reliably repeat the effect and make money for someone…. (I am not merely an evangelist preaching an idea and telling people they need to accept it if they want to be saved—it has to actually work!)

If I see something that doesn’t work, I can say WHY it doesn’t work.

But you don’t. You just walk away.

Which… I gotta say is not very convincing of you. I’d be bad at my job of understanding mechanisms if I did that. I’d fire someone who did that, actually. It’s not productive or illuminating.

What about those studies is flawed?
The fact that they used pictures to see if dogs could identify their humans without smell or sound? Just as you claimed could not be done?

No Rhea, that's not good enough. Proof is lacking. The studies don't lend themselves to the truth because the design is flawed. I'm asking you to give me videos of dogs that recognize their humans without any other cues.

 

[Rhea]

Rhea, I am not going through this garbage again. The tests that you are depending on have flaws. Aceept it, or move on. Show me a dog that can recognize his human in a real-life observation. These studies mean shit if they can't back it up.

Did you… actually click on any of the links? Do you know what the studies said? Do you have an opinion on what the “flaws” in the studies actually were?

Have you read them?

Because in various different ways, they show exactly what you think needs to be shown; that does can recognize their humans without scent, that dogs even with scent or sound care less about the person if the face is not present, that dogs can indeed detect facial expressions and react to happiness or sadness.

What step in the study is flawed?

You’ve been pretty sparse on your understanding of what is necessary for a good experiment so far. Can you show us that you understand experimentation by discussing the plans and their parameters and what you think would be a better experiement?

No Rhea, that's not good enough. Proof is lacking. The studies don't lend themselves to the truth because the design is flawed. I'm asking you to give me videos of dogs that recognize their humans without any other cues.

Yeah, see you are doing this.
What is flawed about the design? What proof is lacking?
Are you saying the only test is a video? Won’t you then just say the video is flawed?
People watched the dogs and made notes. That’s the study. That’s the proof—the record of their observations.
You’re saying you need them to video for you?

 

[peacegirl]

Written to Rhea:

Rhea, I am not going through this garbage again. The tests that you are depending on have flaws. Aceept it, or move on. Show me a dog that can recognize his human in a real-life observation. These studies mean shit if they can't back it up.

Your request isn't very smart. Dogs rely on smell, hearing, sight--and all of the senses as do humans. In order to show how much a dog relies on sight in recognition of its owner, you have to isolate sight from those other potentially confounding variables. That means a NON-real-life observation, it means apply the scientific method to isolate the variable. This is the third time I am posting this link:

The look of love – dogs recognise their owner’s faces - Hanne Grice Pet Training & Behaviour

A new study led by the University of Padua in Italy has shown how much dogs rely on seeing their owners’ faces in order to recognise them. The study also measured how much dogs prefer to gaze at and follow their owners, rather than a stranger. This latest research reported in the latest Animal...

www.hannegrice.com

Why are you changing the goalposts? This is not about facial expressions. Please stick to the topic. This discussion is hard enough as it is.

 

[peacegirl]

Rhea, I am not going through this garbage again. The tests that you are depending on have flaws. Aceept it, or move on. Show me a dog that can recognize his human in a real-life observation. These studies mean shit if they can't back it up.

Did you… actually click on any of the links? Do you know what the studies said? Do you have an opinion on what the “flaws” in the studies actually were?

Have you read them?

Because in various different ways, they show exactly what you think needs to be shown; that does can recognize their humans without scent, that dogs even with scent or sound care less about the person if the face is not present, that dogs can indeed detect facial expressions and react to happiness or sadness.

What step in the study is flawed?

You’ve been pretty sparse on your understanding of what is necessary for a good experiment so far. Can you show us that you understand experimentation by discussing the plans and their parameters and what you think would be a better experiement?

Nothing has been proven to show that dogs can recognize their humans from sight alone. You need more proof than those studies. Being trained to see patterns does not cut it. A child doesn't need to be trained to recognize his mother using rewards.

 

[Rhea]

The fact that nothing has been shown to prove what they claim in real true life observations. Being trained to see patterns does not cut it. I'm sorry.

Why not?

I am trained to recognize individuals.
Does this mean I’m not human?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Rhea, I am not going through this garbage again. The tests that you are depending on have flaws. Aceept it, or move on. Show me a dog that can recognize his human in a real-life observation. These studies mean shit if they can't back it up.

See for me, because testing things to determine if they are real is what I am paid to do, in order to develop equipment and processes that can reliably repeat the effect and make money for someone…. (I am not merely an evangelist preaching an idea and telling people they need to accept it if they want to be saved—it has to actually work!)

If I see something that doesn’t work, I can say WHY it doesn’t work.

But you don’t. You just walk away.

Which… I gotta say is not very convincing of you. I’d be bad at my job of understanding mechanisms if I did that. I’d fire someone who did that, actually. It’s not productive or illuminating.

What about those studies is flawed?
The fact that they used pictures to see if dogs could identify their humans without smell or sound? Just as you claimed could not be done?

No Rhea, that's not good enough. Proof is lacking. The studies don't lend themselves to the truth because the design is flawed. I'm asking you to give me videos of dogs that recognize their humans without any other cues.

He lost a lot of weight ==> his face looked very different. That is not a refutation. It agrees with one of the first posts in this thread about dogs' visual processing of faces.

Post#4001 (YIKES!!!) by DBT:

Their visual system is particularly attuned to certain facial features, such as:

• Eyes and eye movement
• Overall face shape and structure
• Changes in facial expressions
• Movement of key facial features

When you lose a lot of weight, your overall face shape changes significantly. Your cheeks become narrower, under your chin is lost fat.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Written to Rhea:

Rhea, I am not going through this garbage again. The tests that you are depending on have flaws. Aceept it, or move on. Show me a dog that can recognize his human in a real-life observation. These studies mean shit if they can't back it up.

Your request isn't very smart. Dogs rely on smell, hearing, sight--and all of the senses as do humans. In order to show how much a dog relies on sight in recognition of its owner, you have to isolate sight from those other potentially confounding variables. That means a NON-real-life observation, it means apply the scientific method to isolate the variable. This is the third time I am posting this link:

The look of love – dogs recognise their owner’s faces - Hanne Grice Pet Training & Behaviour

A new study led by the University of Padua in Italy has shown how much dogs rely on seeing their owners’ faces in order to recognise them. The study also measured how much dogs prefer to gaze at and follow their owners, rather than a stranger. This latest research reported in the latest Animal...

www.hannegrice.com

Why are you changing the goalposts? This is not about facial expressions. Please stick to the topic. This discussion is hard enough as it is.

Why are you changing the subject to "facial expressions?"

In the first part of the experiment, Dr Mongillo’s team had a dog in an empty room and instructed the owner and another person who was unfamiliar to the dog, to walk across the room several times. The people crossed the room in opposite directions, so that they passed the dog repeatedly. The researchers measured how long the dog looked at one person versus another. The team then instructed the two people to leave the room through two doors and allowed the dog to approach one of the doors. Dr Mongillo said: “Most of the dogs gazed at their owners for most of the time and then chose to wait by the owner’s door.”

In the second part of this study, the researchers asked the people to cover their faces, and then the volunteers walked across the room with bags over their heads. During this part of the experiment, the dogs’ gaze was less attracted to their owners, revealing just how much dogs rely on human faces for recognition.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

His ideas about an infant's vision development are also full of holes. An infant doesn't need other senses to develop vision. Moving around and moving its head will enable it to improve depth perception.

Oh, I forgot about that additional observation. I’ll update my list to include it so we can discuss it accurately.

The hypothetical proposed by Lessans would be highly unethical to test on humans, so we won't ever have an exact real-world match. However, the Held and Hein kitten experiments, along with other human research on motor coordination, show exactly how active movement is tied to visual development. Based on this science (and the experience you recalled earlier about your son), we know there is a strict connection there that is independent of the other senses.

Let's consider Lessans' hypothetical of an infant deprived of hearing, smell, taste, and skin sensation (touch). The infant would still retain internal senses completely distinct from those four: a sense of motion and balance (the vestibular system), a sense of body position (proprioception), and internal states like hunger or emotion.

Because of this, vital visual-motor interactions still occur. Even in silence, a crying infant might be rocked by a caregiver and see them smile. More importantly, when the infant moves a limb, their eyes will track that movement. The brain maps the internal feeling of the limb moving (proprioception) directly to the visual feedback of the limb moving through space. The infant learns, "When I move my arm, my visual field changes." Tools like a mirror would further accelerate this. This specific sensorimotor feedback loop provides all the necessary stimuli to develop focus, object tracking, and depth perception.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Your posts are way too long and convoluted. If you have something to say, get to the point without an entire chapter to explain it. There are too many posts for me to respond to than just yours. I'm sorry that I've lost patience. Just shorten your responses, and I'll do my best to respond.

Yes. Thinking is difficult and takes time. Especially thinking in terms of multiple facets, multiple variables, multiple perspectives. All that I request is that you finally exhibit both semantics and logic capabilities when you address any of the following points.

1) It was demonstrably established that afference is certainly necessary for the sort of conditioning at issue to occur. This was accomplished with the discussion of the conditioned blind person.

2) You admit that both light and vision are afferent when you admit that light "is 100% necessary for the biological vision process to occur". See below at 4) for further explanation of how light is necessary.

3) The fact that vision is a process or is the result of a process means that vision is a matter of afference. The fact that light is transformed during the vision process means that light is afferent. See below at 5) and 7) for further explanation regarding how the fact that vision is process-related means that vision is necessarily a matter of afference.

4) You admit that vision is a matter of light afference when you admit that light participates in the vision process (as you say: "Light DOES participate"). That participation is necessary to justify regarding light as necessary for vision to occur.

5) Given that all processes occur over time, then light is afferent (light energy at the eye travels inwardly) as it is transformed during its inclusion in, its contribution to, its participation in the process which results in vision.

6) Since light is afferent as per your own admission of there being an over time vision-resulting process for which light is necessary, and since you admit that light as afferent (and, therefore, vision as afferent) is incompatible with the notion of vision as efferent, you necessarily deny that vision is efferent because you admit that vision is afferent.

7) You admit that light exhibits afference in that it contributes to the process which produces vision - a process which necessarily takes time.

8) Since you recognize that the vision process takes time, you cannot escape concluding that it is not even possible for vision to occur instantaneously (or what you describe as occurring in "real time").

9) Afference is necessary for conditioning to occur. You admit that light is afferent. Light resulting in vision can be included in a conditioning process because light and vision are afferent. The Lessans efferent vision notion has no logical or empirical or otherwise observational basis and is not needed in order to understand vision and conditioning.

 

[Rhea]

Dog reacts to his Dad on TV. You can see the dog react before the man starts speaking (when the reporter is still speaking)

TikTok - Make Your Day

 

[peacegirl]

The last couple ones are definitely AI, but this is not what I'm referring to and I think you know it Don2. My friend had a Rottweiler that jumped up and down when he saw a herd of animals on TV. Where does this relate?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

[media removed from nested quotes for brevity]

The last couple ones are definitely AI,

Evidence?

but this is not what I'm referring to and I think you know it Don2.

Accusation.

My friend had a Rottweiler that jumped up and down when he saw a herd of animals on TV. Where does this relate?

Your friend's experience is related to some of the video but not others.

 

[peacegirl]

Dog reacts to his Dad on TV. You can see the dog react before the man starts speaking (when the reporter is still speaking)

TikTok - Make Your Day

His dad was speaking the whole time. There isn't a way to tell why the dog was cocking his head, or if it was due to true recognition. They should be able to repeat it to see if this dog could recognize a still shot of his dad in different settings. Replication is key, remember?

 

[peacegirl]

The fact that nothing has been shown to prove what they claim in real true life observations. Being trained to see patterns does not cut it. I'm sorry.

Why not?

I am trained to recognize individuals.
Does this mean I’m not human?

You are not trained by a trainer who rewards you. You learn to see differences in facial features that distinguish one person from another, which you store in memory for later retrieval.

 

[Rhea]

Dog reacts to his Dad on TV. You can see the dog react before the man starts speaking (when the reporter is still speaking)

TikTok - Make Your Day

His dad was speaking the whole time. There isn't a way to tell why the dog was cocking his head, and if it was due to true recognition. They should be able to repeat it to see if this dog could recognize a still shot of his dad in different settings. Replication is key, remember?

Indeed, “they should” and “replication”, but when we offered you studies that actually did that you said, “I want a video instead.”


I confess I am unused to talking about research matters with someone who does not follow research methods. Or rather, is uninterested in discussing that way. So, while I am demonstrably able to create, design and execute experiments that demonstrate a particular mechanism, and have been doing so for decades, and have international publications that are peer reviewed as well as patents, and have recognitions for the money-making reality of the results of my investigations, including those on human behavior, I find that your replies are not quite able to operate in that same sphere of certainty.

So when you eschew a scientific study and ask for a video, it does not surprise me in the least that you dismiss the video in order to maintain your position on a mechanism that you cannot prove but nevertheless expect people to embrace.

I like talking about mechanisms for how things or people behave, and what exactly we’d have to do to demonstrate it repeatably, and how we can decide conclusions are valid or invalid. If I were in your position, I would have put forth several proposals for how to test my theory, and I would have enjoyed discussing how they could be improved. I would have ended up with one or more experimental plans that I would delight in heading out to execute.

One of my favorite questions of all time is, “What could happen that would create data that looks like this?”

I can see that you do not operate this way.

 

[Rhea]

The fact that nothing has been shown to prove what they claim in real true life observations. Being trained to see patterns does not cut it. I'm sorry.

Why not?

I am trained to recognize individuals.
Does this mean I’m not human?

You are not trained by a trainer who rewards you. You learn to see differences in facial features that distinguish one person from another, which you store in memory for later retrieval.

On the contrary, I am absolutely rewarded when I successfully remember a face. And no I do not see facial features as identifying traits, I am frustratingly blind to them. I cannot store them successfully. That’s the problem. I memorize clothing color, earrings, hairstyles. Then people go and change those and I can’t identify who they are any more. I can see emotions, and I can separate expressions, I just can’t identify people reliably.

If I’m lucky I get a mole or some freckles, a tattoo or a scar.

I train myself to recognize patterns as a way of identifying individual humans.

(P.S. I am charmed by you reading me describe myself and you telling me I’m wrong. It’s cute.)

Prosopagnosia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don’t have a severe version of this, but it is definitely present.

 

[peacegirl]

You're asking me questions as if I can explain a 600-page book in one sentence. These claims are not easy to explain.

Max Born's 1961 book Einstein's Theory of Relahich sets out the eponymous theory in layman's terms, is 400 pages long.

However, the central idea can be summarised in one sentence:

Neither time nor space can be mapped in such a way that all observers will agree that the sequence of places and/or events are correct; Rather, each observer has an understanding of time and space that shares only one commonality - that they all observe the speed of light to be the same.

Ideas that are true are amenable to summary. There's a lot of detail missing, but the central idea is there.

And nobody is limiting you to one sentence.

A clock's time can slow down or speed up due to a change

Dogs have eyes. They are not only able to recognise people, but understand body language and read moods.

Abstract
Emotions are critical for humans, not only feeling and expressing them, but also reading the emotional expressions of others. For a long time, this ability was thought to be exclusive to people; however, there is now evidence that other animals also rely on emotion perception to guide their behaviour and to adjust their actions in such way as to guarantee success in their social groups. This is the case for domestic dogs, who have tremendously complex abilities to perceive the emotional expressions not only of their conspecifics but also of human beings. In this paper we discuss dogs’ capacities to read human emotions. More than perception, though, are dogs able to use this emotional information in a functional way? Does reading emotional expressions allow them to live functional social lives? Dogs can respond functionally to emotional expressions and can use the emotional information they obtain from others during problem-solving, that is, acquiring information from faces and body postures allows them to make decisions. Here, we tackle questions related to the abilities of responding to and using emotional information from human expressions in a functional way and discuss how far dogs can go when reading our emotions.

Dogs functionally respond to and use emotional information from human expressions - PMC

Keywords: Canis familiaris, dog–human relationship, emotion perception, emotion regulation, social cognition

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Show me a dog that has no other cues (such as smell, sound, or gait) and sees his human from a picture, a computer, a cardboard replica, a statue, or anything similar, indicating true recognition, and I'll rethink his words. A dog could see another dog at a distance and recognize it as another four-legged animal, but this is unrelated to his claim. You have to make sure the controls are in place to weed out false positives.

A false positive is an error in which a test or study incorrectly indicates the presence of a condition, effect, or relationship when it does not exist. This is often referred to as a Type I error in statistical hypothesis testing. False positives can occur in various fields, including medicine, psychology, and software testing.

There is no false positive. You are wrong. It has been established that dogs are able to see the world around them, that they have the ability to recognise people and objects, act on visual cues, etc.

We are not talking about visual cues. We are talking about true recognition. If it's been established that dogs can recognize their owners without any other cues, why can't you provide me with the definitive proof? Just show pictures of a dog whose owner has been away for a while, and he shows excitement when you put the owner's picture in front of him. Put a picture of someone else in front of him to see if there is a different reaction. This could be done easily, and it is reproducible.

 

[peacegirl]

Pg by her postings and arguments along with our responses demonstrate why Lessan's philosophy will not bring about the predicted utopia.

It doesn't prove anything. The Golden Age of man doesn't mean there will be no differences of opinion, but opinions will never escalate into all-out fights.

Conflict and differences are unavoidable. Even if people have what they need to live.

Differences don't necessarily lead to conflicts.

Social and political factions arise. Power struggles. People who do not like the status quo.

How can there be power struggles when there will be no more social and political factions and no more status quo?

Russian and Chinese communism tried to eliminate hierarchical power and level the socioeconomic structure. It failed.

There seems to be Marxism in there somewhere. The end of excising economics and politics. Distributed power.

Power to the people.

CHAPTER SIX: THE NEW ECONOMIC WORLD

p. 278 Communism and the dream of socialism came into existence out of mathematical necessity as a reaction to injustice, but once the injustice is removed, communism and the dream of socialism have no further value. It was assumed that Marx had all the answers, but in this new world, nobody will tell anybody what to do, although each person will be mathematically prevented from desiring to hurt others.