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

[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

This experiment is underwhelming. Dogs rely on vision for many things, but they are incapable of language, which is what separates our ability to identify individuals visually from that of dogs, who cannot do so without the help of smell, sound, gait, or association. For example, a dog, knowing that his owner comes home at a certain time, will anticipate the sound of the car coming down the street and will be waiting eagerly for the front door to open.

Your refutation is underwhelming. Dogs recognize their owners by sight alone. Of course it isn't always perfectly done, but start with a null hypothesis that they cannot. The null hypothesis is rejected by data from the experiments. That's science.

So why is your refutation underwhelming? First, it goes against the reasoned rejection of the null hypothesis with just words. Anyone can write words. Second, those words state a dog can use a, b, and c together to do d, but by logic that is not mutually exclusive to only doing a, b, or c to do d. Therefore, your refutation does not override the science.

Science has not proven their hypotheses that dogs can recognize their owners without other cues; therefore, the science is not settled as you seem to think. Show me any dog that can recognize their owner in a picture, and I will eat my words. I mean a recognition that can be replicated over and over again, so it is statistically significant.

 

[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

This experiment is underwhelming. Dogs rely on vision for many things, but they are incapable of language, which is what separates our ability to identify individuals visually from that of dogs, who cannot do so without the help of smell, sound, gait, or association. For example, a dog, knowing that his owner comes home at a certain time, will anticipate the sound of the car coming down the street and will be waiting eagerly for the front door to open.

Your refutation is underwhelming. Dogs recognize their owners by sight alone. Of course it isn't always perfectly done, but start with a null hypothesis that they cannot. The null hypothesis is rejected by data from the experiments. That's science.

So why is your refutation underwhelming? First, it goes against the reasoned rejection of the null hypothesis with just words. Anyone can write words. Second, those words state a dog can use a, b, and c together to do d, but by logic that is not mutually exclusive to only doing a, b, or c to do d. Therefore, your refutation does not override the science.

The science prove thas not proven their hypotheses, therefore, the science is not settled. I continue to ask for any dog that can recognize their owner in a picture, and I will eat my words. I mean a recognition that can be replicated over and over again, so it is statistically significant.

Having an idea that 2-dimensional photographs represent 3-d reality is not the same thing as sight. So that test is unnecessary. Visual recognition is already proved by this study. Additionally other studies using photographs support the idea but are unnecessary and only add more variables that can confound the finding. This makes your claim wrong twice.

 

[Rhea]

I'm talking about facial recognition without a treat. Facial recognition is more difficult for a dog because they can't distinguish their human from your human.

You seem to be saying that the treat makes the facial recognition possible, because they “can’t” do it without?
That’s weird.

All human learning is based on “treats.” Whether it is survival, pain avoidance, recognition, praise, food, advancement, whatever. Humans learn through incentives. Just like dogs. We have different incentives, but we all strive for treats in the end.

So your claim here mixes up “can’t” with “need an incentive to do the work” which is a mix up that weakens your claim.

If you don't believe his explanation and instead believe that the ciliary muscle of an infant's eye is underdeveloped --- accounting for the lack of focus --- then you are entitled to believe the present scientific explanation

His explanation has no evidence. “Show me a video,” right?
You demand evidence (which we strive to provide, by the way), but then claim you don’t owe any. (And refuse to provide)
It’s weird.

His explanation has no evidence. So we seek to see if we can acquire some. Because we are debating in good faith. You retreat from this effort, as if you want to avoid evidence. While we are hungry for it. We’ll give it a chance; what would evidence look like, how could we acquire it, what fundamentals can we exploit to demonstrate it, what mechanism can we propose to explain it? We’re out here trying to help your prove your claims.

We’re doing all the work here on evidence, and you’re all, “I don’t need evidence for my claim, but you need evidence for your contrary claims.”

You can see why this weakens your credibility?

The two-sided equation (the core of the discovery) is in Chapter Two. Do I have to spoon-feed it to everyone?

Yes. That is the nature of this debate board. It’s right in the Terms of Use, rule #9, clarification:

“Posts which consist of little else besides a link to another document or video are not 'discussion', and are considered disruptive. Links provided in support of one's position are fine, but one is obliged to summarize or paraphrase the relevant point in their own words and in-thread. The posts should contain an argument or refutation, or at least a description with personal commentary, and not be mere links with some cut-n-paste quotation(s). In other words, post your thoughts and not just other people's thoughts.“​

Get out your spoon. This is a debate board, not a church.

You need to remember the YOU are here to debate. We are not a place where people come to broadcast books they are selling, we are not a lecture hall where you speak, then we listen and then you assign homework. We are not debating a book. We are debating YOU. It’s a meeting of equals. YOU debate YOUR topic with each individual here. And each of us debates with the others.

Again, if you’re just here to broadcast and propagandize, you are not understanding what a debate board is.

Dogs rely on vision for many things, but they are incapable of language, which is what separates our ability to identify individuals visually from that of dogs, who cannot do so without the help of smell, sound, gait, or association.

Wait, what? Language? That’s out of the blue.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://feelgoodhhs.com/do-dogs-have-their-own-language-understanding-canine-communication/

While it's very different from human language, dogs actually do have their own language as anyone who has loved a dog or has read as many books about dogs as I have, knows. Each dog has some ways of communicating that are unique. For example, my dog, Sugapea gives me a little howl when we come home from eating lunch. It's a way of telling me that she wants a taste of our food or if I didn't bring her anything, then she will be happy with a treat. My dog Sunny sometimes sits next to me and makes short gasping sounds as she cuddles up to me. I think it's her way of telling me she loves me. Dogs don't love us in the same way that we love, but they do show us affection via body language and sometimes sounds, aka language. Woof! Woof!

Understanding Canine Communication: Do Dogs Have Their Own Language?​

Dogs have long been considered man’s best friend, and part of this special bond comes from the unique way dogs communicate with us and with each other. While they may not have a language in the same way humans do, dogs use a combination of vocalizations, body language, and scent to communicate their thoughts, feelings, and intentions.

Vocalizations: Dogs have a wide range of vocalizations that they use to communicate. From barks to growls to whines, each sound has a different meaning and purpose. For example, a low growl can indicate aggression or a warning, while a high-pitched bark may signal excitement or a desire to play.

Vocalizations: How Do Dogs Communicate Through Sounds?​

Dogs communicate not only through body language but also through a variety of vocalizations. Understanding their sounds can give us insight into what they might be feeling or trying to communicate.

Here are some common vocalizations that dogs use:

• Barking: Barking is one of the most well-known vocalizations of dogs. It can serve various purposes, including alerting to potential danger, expressing excitement, or seeking attention. Dogs may have different barks for different situations.
• Growling: Growling is usually a sign of aggression or discomfort. It can be a warning to stay away or a way for dogs to establish dominance or protect their resources. Understanding the context is important in interpreting growling.
• Howling: Howling is a vocalization commonly associated with wolves but is also observed in dogs. Dogs may howl to communicate their location, signal to other dogs, or express loneliness or separation anxiety.
• Whining: Whining is often a sign of frustration, anxiety, or seeking attention. Dogs may whine when they want something, such as food, water, or to go outside. It can also be an expression of discomfort or pain.
• Yelping: Yelping is a high-pitched, sharp sound that dogs make when they are startled, in pain, or frightened. It is a way for them to express distress and seek help or protection.

 

[Rhea]

While it's very different from human language, dogs actually do have their own language as anyone who has loved a dog or has read as many books about dogs as I have, knows.

Reminds me of the old saw of someone saying “dogs aren’t as smart as people, they don’t have language” and the dog-lover replying,

“Bullshit. My dog knows probably a hundred human words and how to react to each. How many dog words do you know? Who’s the dumb one, here?”

 

[peacegirl]

I'm not going to get back to the stupid claims made by Lessons, but since I think dogs are much better than people and they are much smarter than people realize, I do have a little bit to say about dogs.

If dogs were in charge of the world, we might accomplish world peace as they are the most loving, forgiving beings ever to have evolved to be our companions. If there was a god, it would be a dog.

https://knowanimals.com/how-do-dogs-see-human-faces/

When you look into your dog’s eyes, you might wonder what they see. Dogs can actually recognize human faces, even if they don’t see them the same way you do. Unlike us, dogs see fewer colors and rely more on different shades and shapes. This unique way of seeing helps them identify you and other familiar faces.

Researchers have found that dogs have a special part of their brains dedicated to recognizing faces. This means your furry friend can pick you out in a crowd, even when surrounded by strangers. Understanding how dogs perceive our faces adds to our appreciation of their intelligence and the bond you share.

The Science of Sight in Dogs​

Dogs don’t see the world the same way humans do. Their eyes have a special layer called the tapetum lucidum. This layer reflects light, making it easier for dogs to see in low light.

While dogs have fewer color receptors than humans, they can detect some colors like blue and yellow. Their eyesight is geared toward motion detection, which is helpful in noticing small changes in their environment.

Using advanced tools like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), researchers have shown that dogs process images in a way that helps them recognize human faces effectively. This ability is crucial for their social interactions with you.

Facial Recognition and Emotional Expressions​

Dogs are excellent at recognizing not just faces but also the emotions attached to those faces. Studies reveal that dogs have a dedicated area in their brains for processing human faces.

When you smile or frown, your dog can likely sense your feelings through your expressions. They can pick up on subtle cues, such as how your eyebrows move or the position of your mouth. This awareness helps them decide how to respond, whether it’s coming to comfort you or playing when you’re happy.

Understanding these facial expressions is a big part of why dogs form close bonds with humans, as they learn to read you over time.

They read a lot of your mannerisms, your endearing words, and your commands, etc. None of this has anything to do with facial recognition. And believe you me, I love dogs just as much as you do. I've had dogs all my life.

 

[DBT]

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.

It is a case of both facial recognition and reading emotional cues. It has been shown that dogs are able to recognize their owners and read their mood by sight alone.

The relevant studies have been posted numerous times, only to be casually dismissed.

You casually dismiss the studies, not because they are wrong or questionable, but because they contradict your authors claim.....and that is an example of faith, not reason.

 

[peacegirl]

While it's very different from human language, dogs actually do have their own language as anyone who has loved a dog or has read as many books about dogs as I have, knows.

Reminds me of the old saw of someone saying “dogs aren’t as smart as people, they don’t have language” and the dog-lover replying,

“Bullshit. My dog knows probably a hundred human words and how to react to each. How many dog words do you know? Who’s the dumb one, here?”

That's wonderful Rhea, but this is nothing to do with being dumb or smart. It has to do with what dogs can and cannot do. Some dogs know a lot of words, but they can't reason as humans do. I'm asking for proof, that's all. The dog that was considered the smartest in the world could find a toy that he was not familiar with due to the process of elimination, but that still does not mean the dog could recognize faces if that face could not be identified without the name to distinguish it from other faces. If a dog could, that doesn't disprove his claim; it supports it.

 

[bilby]

Training a dog to recognize visual patterns is not the same thing as true recognition.

Er... Yes it is. By definition.

 

[bilby]

I'm not on trial,

Your ideas are.

and I'm not your student.

You are not a student at all, and apparently have never been a good one.

 

[pood]

They read a lot of your mannerisms, your endearing words, and your commands, etc. None of this has anything to do with facial recognition. And believe you me, I love dogs just as much as you do. I've had dogs all my life.

Weird you don’t know anything about them, then.

 

[peacegirl]

Pood, it's right there at the bottom of my page, free of charge.

Which page do you mean?

My page on this thread. The link is at the bottom.

I don't know what you're talking about.

What do you mean you don't know what I'm talking about? Here is the link.

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

 

[pood]

This is how it is with @peacegirl. We present her with numerous scientific studies showing that dogs recognize their humans from sight alone, including in photos and videos, but she dismisses them all. Why? Did she analyze each study to identify a flaw? Of course not. She dismisses them solely because they contradict what her father wrote.

 

[steve_bank]

A few days ago when I wain line at a drug store I was watchinga woman;/s dog.

Its ears had extreme flexibility. Ears independently rotting and bending.

Every time there was a sound or talk out of sight the ears went to work. Ears rotating al;most 360 degrees and bending wyhi9le rotating. I assumed it was deducing which directions were echos and redactions,.

In school in the 50s 60s it was humans are superior due to opposing thumb and forefinger(manual dexterity), articulate speech and language, and tool making.

That narrow view has long gone by the wayside. At least in science. There is the Christian creation myth in which god created everything, but humans are special.

If you use dogs to run an experiment to address free will vs determinism or anything visual one must account for for dogs' visual capacity relative to the image real or pictures.

That to optical theory and image formation.

AI Overview
A dog's visual acuity is significantly lower than a human's. While humans typically have 20/20 vision, a standard dog has 20/75 vision. This means a dog must be 20 feet away to see an object as clearly as a human can see it from 75 feet away.

View all Dogs are not strictly colorblind, but they see a much narrower spectrum than humans. Canine vision is dichromatic, meaning they only have two types of color-receptive cones in their eyes (blue and yellow) compared to the three (red, green, blue) humans have.

Canine visual spatial resolution—commonly known as visual acuity—is typically measured in cycles per degree (cpd) rather than physical millimeters. On average, a dog's resolution is about 12 cpd. This means objects appear about 3 times blurrier to dogs than they do to humans.

When I was living in North Idaho in a small town in the 90s a neighbor had a coy-dog. Half coyote. I took care of i9t when they were away.

We lived at the end of a dead end road. When the dog put its paws op on the porch rail looking down the street I knew they were coming. Their car would shortly make a turn onto the street. The dog could hear and identify the unique sound of rthe car well before I did, whn it was out of sight.

So, that dogs at a di9stance may not be able to identify owners by sight alone is not exactly pr found.

AI
Under ideal conditions with a steady breeze, dogs can detect certain strong scents from up to 12 miles away. However, the exact distance relies heavily on several environmental and biological factors, and pet dogs typically identify their owners at much closer ranges.


For a domestic pet, recognizing their owner indoors usually happens within a few meters, while outdoors or in open spaces they can usually pick up an owner's scent from a few hundred yards to a mile away, depending on the breeze.

 

[bilby]

I love examining studies, and if I don’t believe them, I like to definitely pinpoint why they failed to be a good study. It’s like the NYT crossword for me, like finishing a 5000 piece jigsaw, like solving before Columbo can.

You know they always showed who did it in the opening scene, right?

 

[peacegirl]

Written to steve_bank:

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

Let's imagine the following hypothetical.

There is a small island nation of 20 people. Two people are psychopaths and 1 is a sociopath. Another person is a profound liar and very greedy. Yet another person is a pedophile. Among the rest of the population are 3 pre-pubescent children and regular folks of varying adult ages, IQ, and wealth. All persons, even the children, are literate.

You convince the government of this nation to let you go there to preach your father's words. The population is there and you read the book on a mount while everyone listens. Then, you hand each person a copy of the book on their way out.

Little did you realize that Trump and North Korea had a nuclear war while you did this and everyone is dead on the planet except for you and the islanders.

What are the next three major events that will happen due to the new world's population receiving the words of your father?

Show this mathematically.

It doesn't work like that because people who are sociopaths, liars, and greedy are not going to suddenly become honest people. Those who have done others wrong will still need to be held accountable to prevent them from repeating their misdeeds, but, in time, the desire to cause harm to others will be superseded by the desire not to, which can be proven. People can't even imagine a world of peace and brotherhood, considering the world we live in, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Just keep that in mind before you jeer at me.

 

[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!)

That's not what I'm doing, though. It's very difficult when no one has read the book. It was really crazy to think that I could get across these principles in a forum that discusses philosophers they have carefully read and then debated.

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

But you don’t. You just walk away.

I am not just walking away but people seem to be waiting for me to concede, and I'm not going to. I believe he was right, and until he is proven wrong, I will stand by him. NO ONE HAS PROVEN HIM WRONG.

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?

I haven't seen that. Could you post it again?

When an experimenter’s expectations, behavior, or subtle cues unintentionally affect the outcome of an experiment, it is most commonly called experimenter bias (also known as observer-expectancy effect, observer bias, or experimenter effect) Wikipedia+1.

What It Means​

Experimenter bias occurs when a researcher’s beliefs or assumptions about a study’s results influence how they interact with participants, interpret data, or record observations. This can happen without the researcher realizing it, and it’s distinct from intentional fraud scienceinsights.org+1.

How It Happens​

• Subtle cues: Changes in tone of voice, facial expressions, body language, or even the way questions are phrased can signal to participants whether they are “on the right track” scienceinsights.org+1.
• Confirmation bias: Researchers may unconsciously look for evidence that supports their hypothesis and ignore or downplay contradictory data Wikipedia.
• Interactional effects: The experimenter’s personal characteristics (e.g., age, gender, attitude) can influence how participants behave iResearchNet.
• Noninteractional effects: Even without direct contact, researchers may misrecord or misinterpret observations iResearchNet.

Famous Example​

The Clever Hans case: A horse appeared to solve math problems by tapping his hoof, but it could only do so when the questioner’s face was visible and they knew the answer. The horse was reading unconscious facial cues, not doing math Wikipedia+1.

Why It Matters​

Experimenter bias can reduce internal validity, meaning the results may not truly reflect the effect being studied. To minimize it, researchers use controls like double-blind designs, where neither the participants nor the experimenters know who is in which group Wikipedia.

In short: If an experimenter’s expectations or behavior subtly shape the results, it’s called experimenter bias — a well-known threat to scientific objectivity.

 

[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.

Reacting to happiness or sadness is not what the claim is about. My friend had a cat that, when she heard you cry, she would come to the person from wherever she was and knead her paws to try to comfort. It was really something to see. Her other two cats did not do that, just that one.

Cat kneading is a rhythmic motion where a cat pushes its paws alternately into a soft surface, often called "making biscuits," reflecting comfort, affection, and instinctual behavior.​

Definition and Description​

Kneading is a behavior in which cats push their paws in and out against a soft surface, alternating between left and right paws, similar to how a baker kneads dough PetMD+2. Cats may use their claws or keep them retracted, and some may knead with all four paws or just the front two Blue Cross+1. This behavior is often accompanied by purring, dribbling, or a trance-like relaxed state Purina.

Origins and Instincts​

Kneading begins in kittenhood, when kittens knead their mother’s abdomen to stimulate milk flow during nursing PetMD+2. This action creates a sense of comfort and security, which many cats carry into adulthood. In the wild, felines may knead grasses or bedding to prepare a resting spot, a behavior that domestic cats replicate on blankets, beds, or laps PetMD+1.

Reasons Cats Knead​

Cats knead for several reasons:

• Comfort and relaxation: It helps them feel calm and content, similar to the feeling they had with their mother PetMD+1.
• Affection and bonding: Kneading on humans can indicate trust and love, showing that the cat feels safe and secure Blue Cross+1.
• Scent marking: Cats have scent glands in their paws, and kneading deposits their scent on objects or people, marking territory PetMD.
• Preparation for rest: Some cats knead to create a soft, comfortable area before lying down Blue Cross+1.

Managing Kneading​

Kneading is a natural behavior and should not be punished. To protect furniture or skin, provide soft designated surfaces like blankets or cushions, and keep the cat’s nails trimmed PetMD. Kneading may also increase if a cat is stressed or anxious, in which case calming products or veterinary advice may help PetMD.
In summary, kneading is a normal, instinctual, and affectionate behavior in cats, rooted in early life experiences and serving multiple purposes, from comfort to marking territory. It is a sign that your cat feels safe, happy, and connected to its environment and humans.

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?

Experiments have to rule out anything that could interfere with the test results, which could create a result that is not accurate. But Lessans did not come by his discoveries through a hypothesis that needed testing. I explained this already.

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?

I want to see the experiment for myself. That's what bilby keeps insisting on, to see something with one's own eyes. So why is this wrong?

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?

I would need to see what they see, and then take my own notes to see if we were in agreement. Why do you ignore the videos where dogs did not recognize their humans until they smelled them? I found quite a few. I'm sure I could find more. No one even acknowledged them, let alone responded to what they saw. Ignoring my argument and then claiming I lost is playing dirty.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Pood, it's right there at the bottom of my page, free of charge.

Which page do you mean?

My page on this thread. The link is at the bottom.

I don't know what you're talking about.

What do you mean you don't know what I'm talking about? Here is the link.

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

But you kept saying it was at the bottom of the page. I was asking what page you were talking about.

 

[peacegirl]

Pood, it's right there at the bottom of my page, free of charge.

Which page do you mean?

My page on this thread. The link is at the bottom.

I don't know what you're talking about.

What do you mean you don't know what I'm talking about? Here is the link.

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

But you kept saying it was at the bottom of the page. I was asking what page you were talking about.

Every page where I am responding.