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

[peacegirl]

each person will be mathematically prevented from desiring

Show your math. Or stop using the word “mathematically” in a dishonest way.

(Note: this is not you getting shut down or shut out. This is you being invited to show your math and join the club of people who know what “mathematically” means.)

It was not math per se with the use of numbers. In the very beginning of the book, he said that he would be using "mathematical" as synonymous with "undeniable." And he used it correctly in that context. He was not being dishonest.

 

[DBT]

More;

How Do Dogs Recognize People?​

Another part of memory is being able to recognize people. Dogs mostly use two senses to recognize people—sight and scent. They remember each person’s unique smell, and that, combined with the way that they look, helps them recognize people. If it’s been weeks, months, or years, your dog might struggle to recognize you because your appearance and scent have changed. It’s the same thing when you’re coming back from a long vacation—your dog might take a minute to recognize you because you have strange scents that are getting in the way.

How Long Will It Take a Dog to Forget You? Vet-Verified Facts & FAQ – Dogster

Dog memory is pretty complex. But if your dog is close to you, it won’t forget you. That said, they tend not to live in the past and can love a new owner just as much...

www.dogster.com

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

each person will be mathematically prevented from desiring

Show your math. Or stop using the word “mathematically” in a dishonest way.

(Note: this is not you getting shut down or shut out. This is you being invited to show your math and join the club of people who know what “mathematically” means.)

It was not math per se with the use of numbers. In the very beginning of the book, he said that he would be using "mathematical" as synonymous with "undeniable." And he used it correctly in that context. He was not being dishonest.

So he also misuses the word equation? Either way, it is up to you to show your conclusion is undeniable. Be careful, because it's already been denied.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

This is the kind of vague-posting that doesn’t advance your ideas at all. You dismiss wihtout a clear reason. Just vague “change”.

What kind of change? What mechanism are you proposing?

We’ve been doing all the work here.
For example, do you mean a clock’s spring getting weak? Do you mean a battery aging? Obviously science has excellent ways to control for that, such as using molecular oscillations to set the clock incredibly precisely. We also have MSAs and Gauge R&Rs to make sure our clocks are providing precision.

Or did you mean some other kind of change that you couldn’t be bothered to articulate because you didn’t think precision was important?

You advance nothing, and it leaves the rest of us concluding, “she does not know how to achieve repeatability at all.”

I am reacting to arguments that Lessans has to be wrong regarding real-time vision. It wasn't necessary for him to get into all these subjects to prove whether he was right because, once again, his claim did not come from astronomy. It came closer to Earth. When I said that a clock's time can slow down or speed up due to change, we know that the atomic clocks run slower or faster depending on special relativity. But this does not prove that time itself bends or is not absolute WHEN TIME IS JUST AN INDICATION OF CHANGE FROM MOMENT TO MOMENT. How can time bend when time is not a thing? I don't want to get into Einstein's theories because that is not my expertise. The fact that gravity influences clocks is not part of Lessans' claim, and I don't think that the two have to be mutually exclusive. The train example that Pood brings up shows that different observers' frames of reference affect the timing of what these observers see regarding when they see the lightning strike, but this does not indicate that we actually see in delayed time since time itself is not a dimension.

Light Clock Thought Experiment in Relativity and Time​

The light clock thought experiment is the simplest and most intuitive way to understand how relativity and time interact at high speeds. Imagine a clock made of two parallel mirrors with a single photon bouncing straight up and down between them. Each round trip of the photon represents one "tick" of time. For an observer at rest relative to the clock, the photon travels a short vertical distance, producing a consistent and predictable ticking rate.

When that same light clock moves horizontally at a high speed, the situation changes dramatically for an outside observer. Instead of traveling straight up and down, the photon traces a diagonal path because the clock itself is moving forward while the light travels. This diagonal motion increases the total distance the photon must travel between ticks. Since the speed of light is constant for all observers, the only way to account for the longer path is for more time to pass between ticks.

That block of text comes from this webpage:

Why Time Behaves Differently at High Speeds: Time Dilation Explained Simply Through Relativity

Time dilation explained simply through relativity and time, showing why fast motion slows clocks, affects GPS accuracy, and changes how aging works in space.

www.sciencetimes.com

 

[peacegirl]

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.

This has nothing to do with anything because it's not part of the claim. It's obvious blind people can't be conditioned because the very vehicle that causes this conditioning is not there. How can you measure something that isn't there?

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.

This is ridiculous, which is why I didn't want to respond to your convoluted explanation. I'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt, but it's not looking good.

3) The fact that vision is a process or is the result of a process means that vision is a matter of afference.

Why are you putting the conclusion in the premise?

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.

You are just parroting the afferent model, the very thing being disputed.

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.

I guess it's a matter of definition. It means nothing in terms of what is going on.

5) Given that all processes occur over time,

But they don't.

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.

Light is transformed, but the way it is transformed is the claim. Why are you repeating the very claim being disputed and calling it a done deal? Huh????

6) Since light is afferent as per your own admission

What admission, MIchael. What is your reasoning? There is a major disconnect.

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.

OMG, thank you for breaking this down because my head is still spinning but at least I can respond to each of your refutations one at a time, and they do nothing to prove him wrong. I do like that you are engaged because I know you give a lot of thought to many things. Please don't take this as an affront to your intelligence. It is not. You are just misguided.

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.

I didn't recognize the things you said I recognized. You concluded this. I'm actually confused where you have gotten this idea. But I thank you for your input, even though it is wrong.

 

[Rhea]

But this does not prove that time itself bends or is not absolute WHEN TIME IS JUST AN INDICATION OF CHANGE FROM MOMENT TO MOMENT. How can time bend when time is not a thing? I don't want to get into Einstein's theories because that is not my expertise.

Never mind. I was wondering why you said “time can change” but you answered that maybe you don’t believe that Einstein knew what he was talking about. Filed under “whether peacegirl’s understanding of science can be applied to her argument.”

 

[Rhea]

It was not math per se with the use of numbers. In the very beginning of the book, he said that he would be using "mathematical" as synonymous with "undeniable." And he used it correctly in that context. He was not being dishonest

Nope. That is not the definition of math, and so it is dishonest to try to gain the legitimacy of “undeniable” by using the word “mathematically” when you have not math to demonstrate the undeniability.

He tries to gain legitimacy by using the word, and his idea has not earned it.
Same with “scientific.”

Those words imbue legitimacy because they imply that the rigor of those systems is applied.
You can’t skip the systems and try to attach legitimacy.

Stolen valor, as it were.

 

[Rhea]

But I thank you for your input, even though it is wrong.

Bring me a different rock.



He walked through your contradiction. It was well written and easy to follow.
You said vision is efferent only
You also said a necessary part of vision is light entering the eye (afferent)
Therefore, you just admitted, by holding both claims, that vision is both afferent and efferent in your model.

 

[peacegirl]

Although this example doesn't have a direct relationship to what is going on here, but there are parallels.

 

[peacegirl]

It was not math per se with the use of numbers. In the very beginning of the book, he said that he would be using "mathematical" as synonymous with "undeniable." And he used it correctly in that context. He was not being dishonest

Nope. That is not the definition of math, and so it is dishonest to try to gain the legitimacy of “undeniable” by using the word “mathematically” when you have not math to demonstrate the undeniability.

He tries to gain legitimacy by using the word, and his idea has not earned it.
Same with “scientific.”I

Those words imbue legitimacy because they imply that the rigor of those systems is applied.
You can’t skip the systems and try to attach legitimacy.

Stolen valor, as it were.

I don't care what you say because you didn't know him, and he was not out to gain legitimacy in some kind of sneaky way. He proved his case, and you're not listening because you have already determined IN ADVANCE he was wrong, even though are are not being objective in your approach. The very thing you give yourself credit for --- examining every detail (before you understand or consider the context in which something was written) --- has caused you to see what isn't there. That's not a good thing.

 

[peacegirl]

each person will be mathematically prevented from desiring

Show your math. Or stop using the word “mathematically” in a dishonest way.

(Note: this is not you getting shut down or shut out. This is you being invited to show your math and join the club of people who know what “mathematically” means.)

Her writer also claimed that in the new world, it would be mathematically impossible for married couples to desire to share the same bed.

People have been waiting for years for her to provide the relevant equation for this claim.

That's not what he said. He said that to force couples as part of some unspoken rule that marriage means the couple should sleep together in one bed to show their love, even if they are uncomfortable. This is not a good thing and can only cause harm. He stated that having an extra bed available would be an option if it was so desired, without any criticism from the other partner. This keeps couples together; it doesn't pull them apart. You never did understand this. You just wanted to use it against him.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Written to peacegirl:

...

I was curious, and put your book into ChatGPT and asked for a summary, the main thesis and the evidence used to support the thesis. This is what I got:

...

That was interesting to read. So, I decided to also ask some things of ChatGPT about the link. It can only read the first 74 pages, but it is informative.

Here is the text of my prompt:

There is a philosophical work by Seymour Lessans here:

https://philarchive.org/archive/LESDAF

There are an extensive number of pages but I'd like to ask some questions.

Can you give 0-3 major contradictions in the book? If there are no major contradictions, it is okay to answer simply that there are none.

Can you give 0-3 major things that are incoherent in the book? If there are no major incoherencies, it is okay to answer simply that there are none.

Can you give 0-3 major things that are inconsistent with science from the book? If there are no major inconsistencies with science, it is okay to answer simply that there are none.

Results:

I reviewed substantial portions of Decline and Fall of All Evil by [Seymour Lessans' book on PhilArchive] (https://philarchive.org/archive/LESDAF?utm_source=chatgpt.com), especially the introduction and the opening chapters where the central argument is laid out. The book is only 74 pages long, but a fully rigorous contradiction hunt would require line-by-line analysis. Based on the text, here is my assessment.

1. Major contradictions (0–3)

I did not find a clear, formal contradiction in the sense of the author explicitly asserting both P and not-P.

However, one possible tension is:

1. "Not a theory" vs. highly speculative future predictions

• Lessans repeatedly insists that his conclusions are not a theory but an "undeniable equation," "scientific discovery," and "mathematical fact."
  
• Yet he also makes sweeping predictions such as the elimination of war, crime, adultery, divorce, and essentially all evil once his discovery is understood.
  
• This is not a logical contradiction, but it creates tension because the predictive claims go far beyond anything demonstrated in the text itself.

I would therefore say:

Major contradictions found: 0.


2. Major incoherencies (0–3)

Here I think there are stronger concerns.

1. The meaning of "mathematical" is unclear

Lessans repeatedly describes his reasoning as "mathematical," "scientific," and "undeniable," but he also explicitly says that by these terms he simply means undeniable truth rather than mathematics in the conventional sense.

As a result, the reader is often told that a proof exists without being given a formal proof in the mathematical or scientific sense. The argument shifts between:

• mathematics,
• logic,
• common sense,
• psychology,
• philosophy,
• and social prediction.

The standards of evidence become difficult to identify.

2. The causal mechanism is underdeveloped

The central thesis appears to be:

• free will is an illusion,
• blame and punishment rest on a false assumption,
• understanding this fact will transform human relations,
• therefore evil will disappear.

The jump from the first point to the last point is enormous. Even if determinism were true, it is not obvious why that alone would eliminate conflict, jealousy, violence, or competition. The book often treats this transition as self-evident when it is precisely the point requiring the most explanation.

3. "Everyone will agree once they understand"

Lessans frequently suggests that any disagreement ultimately results from misunderstanding and that proper understanding will compel agreement.

This creates a methodological problem:

• agreement is treated as evidence of understanding,
• disagreement is treated as evidence of misunderstanding.

That makes the theory difficult to evaluate critically because genuine informed disagreement is largely ruled out in advance.


3. Major inconsistencies with science (0–3)

1. The claim that all evil can be eliminated through acceptance of determinism

This is not supported by contemporary psychology, neuroscience, sociology, criminology, or political science.

Many researchers accept some form of strong causal influence on behavior, and some accept determinism, yet none of the relevant sciences conclude that recognizing determinism would eliminate war, crime, or interpersonal conflict. The prediction is therefore inconsistent with current scientific understanding.

2. Claiming scientific certainty without empirical testing

Lessans repeatedly presents his conclusions as established scientific fact.

Modern science generally requires:

• testable hypotheses,
• empirical evidence,
• replication,
• predictive validation.

The book largely proceeds through conceptual reasoning rather than empirical demonstration. That does not make it false, but it does make the claim of scientific certainty inconsistent with normal scientific standards.

3. The treatment of complex social phenomena as having a single root cause

The book tends to explain war, crime, punishment, moral systems, and social conflict through one fundamental error: belief in free will.

Current scientific models of human behavior generally view these phenomena as multi-causal, involving biology, cognition, culture, economics, institutions, and historical contingencies. The reduction to a single explanatory factor is difficult to reconcile with mainstream scientific understanding.


Bottom line

If I had to summarize:

<Table not included by Don2>

So my overall judgment is that the book's weakest points are not internal contradiction, but rather coherence of the explanatory mechanism and the extraordinarily strong scientific claims made without corresponding empirical evidence.

Note that the claims about visual development in an infant, vision, and properties of light are not included in these pages. Also, I do not mind that ChatGPT's assessment is that it is underdeveloped inasmuch as it refers to the full hypothesis since this is just the first 74 pages (scans). However, there is still a lot left out as far as proof for the claims that remain and inconsistent with scientific understanding. 2.3 regarding understanding and misunderstanding claims seems very appropriate to how discussion is conducted in this thread, too!

It seems like based on this information that the hypothetical I proposed of a small island nation is appropriate and my responses to peacegirl are correct about the progress (or lack thereof) of the new world society.

 

[peacegirl]

We are not talking about visual cues. We are talking about true recognition.

Here you are implying that “true recognition” occurs without “visual cues.”

It seems to be aligned with your assertion, that you have not proven, that the brain can process the world around it without vision.

Which, not only have you not proven, you haven’t even tested because you claim you can’t, and honestly, you haven’t even described so that those around you who do have this skill could test.

I am absolutely incapable of recognizing people without visual cues. (In the absence of smell and sound and touch, as you demand for the dog experiments). I cannot just look at a person and know who they are. I can’t do it.

Now you have completely misconstrued his words, Rhea. He never said the brain can process the world without vision. This is just another one of your misinterpretations.

 

[peacegirl]

Some people don't want to know the truth. I'll give it one more try. And, why wouldn't a person believe something that has lots of scientific evidence as opposed to something that seems to be based on wishful thinking?

https://www.discovermagazine.com/yo...your-face-in-a-photo-here-s-how-we-know-48548

Testing Dogs’ Ability to Recognize Their Owners​

A 2020 study in Animal Cognition wanted to see if dogs could recognize images of their owners from optimal and not-so-optimal images. In the study, researchers set up a challenge in which, to reunite with their owners, the dogs had to choose the correct location based on a photograph of their owner's face versus a photograph of a stranger.

The results indicated that the dogs were more likely to approach an image of their owner than a stranger. And that the image quality did not matter.

How Do We Know Dogs Recognize Our Faces?​

While certain studies suggest that dogs can recognize their owner’s faces, one 2015 study published in PeerJ helped clarify how dogs process faces more generally.

For the study, six dogs were trained to lie still in an fMRI machine without sedation or restraint. While in the machine, researchers presented the dog with images of everyday objects, other dog faces, and human faces.

During the study, the research team identified a region in the dog’s brain, known as the canine temporal lobe, that responded more strongly to images of human faces than to everyday objects. The team also noted that this area of the brain shared a similar response with the dog and human images.

Overall, the results showed that no particular face seemed to appear in the dog’s primary visual cortex, meaning this wasn’t just a typical visual response. And according to the study authors, the research revealed that face processing is not unique to primates.

To this day, researchers continue to study the unique ways dogs and humans interact. Who knows what we will discover next?

Dogs may be able to tell the difference between objects and images of human faces. This is not being debated, so what relevance does it have is it in terms of this claim?

 

[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.

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.

That's not true. Although a two-dimensional photograph is different than 3-d, it shouldn't cause a problem if the light is reflected off the image and is at the dog's eye. It's just another way to weasel out of examining further, and a poor excuse to say that adding more variables will confound the finding.

 

[Rhea]

We are not talking about visual cues. We are talking about true recognition.

Here you are implying that “true recognition” occurs without “visual cues.”

It seems to be aligned with your assertion, that you have not proven, that the brain can process the world around it without vision.

Which, not only have you not proven, you haven’t even tested because you claim you can’t, and honestly, you haven’t even described so that those around you who do have this skill could test.

I am absolutely incapable of recognizing people without visual cues. (In the absence of smell and sound and touch, as you demand for the dog experiments). I cannot just look at a person and know who they are. I can’t do it.

Now you have completely misconstrued his words, Rhea. He never said the brain can process the world without vision. This is just another one of your misinterpretations.

Bring me another rock.


You could endeavor to describe things yourself and offer the correct points in a clear and concise way, but so far you have relied on underdeveloped causal mechanisms that remain so ambiguous or even vacuous that they prevent discussion, followed by a retreat to claims of bias.


I am doing the work of bringing the rocks.
Is this what you mean?
Is this what you mean?
Is this what you mean?

And you are unable to articulate the thesis that Lessans was also unable to articulate.

 

[peacegirl]

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?

They are getting a treat when they see a pattern of their human's face. I'm sorry but that is not true recognition. You say a pattern is recognition. I differ from that view.

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.

It does not weaken the claim. I don't need a treat to recognize people I know. It's as simple as that. I'm not talking about your personal issue with prosopagnosia.

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.

He gave his explanation, and I posted it early on. People may scoff at it, but that's a different ballgame because it is not about 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 you 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.”

I never said I don't need evidence for his claim, but the evidence didn't come from a hypothesis. This is what you're failing to understand, and you're using it against him.

You can see why this weakens your credibility?

It would if there were no reasons behind his observations. But there ARE reasons.

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.

I have never just provided links. I continue to respond and debate, but it's difficult when no one has read the text. My thoughts are the result of the author's thoughts, which is why I'm sharing his thoughts.

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.

That's where I made a mistake coming here, because I am sharing A BOOK that contains a discovery.

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.

This is not about debating ME, and this isn't about not meeting as equals because we are all equal, but not equal in what we may know. That doesn't make one person less than another. I'm learning a lot in here. I hope you're learning from me as well.

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

What am I propagandizing? This word has no place here.

results

1. prop·a·gan·dize
   [ˌpräpəˈɡanˌdīz]
   derogatory
   1. promote or publicize a particular cause, organization, or view, especially in a biased or misleading way:

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.

No it isn't. His chapter is entitled: WORDS, NOT REALITY. Words are related to language.

 

[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.

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.

That is not true DBT. I am still waiting to see the proof. The studies can be extremely biased, especially when a desired outcome is on the line.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

Dogs have different ways of communicating through their vocals. I agree, but what does this have to do with what we are discussing?

 

[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.

Why the angry response? As a species, they've been given certain attributes that humans don't have, and vice versa. You don't have to defend them as if it's a personal affront.