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

[pood]

Yet again, for the hard of learning.

 

[peacegirl]

Bullshit. We’ve shown numerous scientific studies that dogs can recognize their masters from sight alone in photos and videos.

Absolutely not. You never showed this in any conclusive way. You're just trying to make a square fit into a hole. It won't work because dogs cannot identify their human partners from a picture. They should if their eyes are a sense organ. You said there are videos. I don't remember seeing any that showed this without some kind of manipulation of the variables.

Pure bullshit. You believe what you believe because Daddy said so.

Also, yet again, for the hard of learning.

This is not an answer. Again, show me the proof. Show me where a picture is shown to a dog of his master without any kind of training, and he recognizes his master with a show of excitement (barking, wagging a tail, whimpering, circling, jumping, putting his nose up to the picture, etc.) They can even use a master that has been away, and the dog misses him by previous examples of when he came home from the service after months of being missed. If the light waves from the picture are traveling to his eye, recognition should be immediate. What is it that you don't understand?

I understand perfectly well that you are totally uneducable.

That's no answer Pood and you know it. A dog should be able to easily recognize his master from a picture if his eyes are sensing the image embedded in the light. I have never seen a dog do this without other cues. Maybe someone can come forward with an example that shows this.

We have already given you tons of examples.

Bullshit. You haven't.

This entire conversation is idiotic, particularly since, even if a dog couldn’t recognize its master by sight alone,

You have not proven that this is the case. You keep saying it over and over but you won't accept that the examples you gave involved training a dog to see patterns. Or it used words that the dog could recognize like Chase, the border collie. That's not what I'm talking about. Why are you conflating two different issues?

it does not follow that the eye is not a sense organ. The claim that they eye is not a sense organ is just blithering idiocy.

That's because you think it's blasphemous for anyone to think differently than your geniuses, and also because so much of your worldview hinges on relativity. Some things are relative, and some things are not. Seeing in real time changes a lot of what you have taken for granted is true and you hate it.

Ad hom. I am going to go back and report every ad hom post.

I'll report you too next time you tell me I believe it because Daddy said it.

 

[pood]

Yet more for the hard of learning.

 

[pood]

Bullshit. We’ve shown numerous scientific studies that dogs can recognize their masters from sight alone in photos and videos.

Absolutely not. You never showed this in any conclusive way. You're just trying to make a square fit into a hole. It won't work because dogs cannot identify their human partners from a picture. They should if their eyes are a sense organ. You said there are videos. I don't remember seeing any that showed this without some kind of manipulation of the variables.

Pure bullshit. You believe what you believe because Daddy said so.

Also, yet again, for the hard of learning.

This is not an answer. Again, show me the proof. Show me where a picture is shown to a dog of his master without any kind of training, and he recognizes his master with a show of excitement (barking, wagging a tail, whimpering, circling, jumping, putting his nose up to the picture, etc.) They can even use a master that has been away, and the dog misses him by previous examples of when he came home from the service after months of being missed. If the light waves from the picture are traveling to his eye, recognition should be immediate. What is it that you don't understand?

I understand perfectly well that you are totally uneducable.

That's no answer Pood and you know it. A dog should be able to easily recognize his master from a picture if his eyes are sensing the image embedded in the light. I have never seen a dog do this without other cues. Maybe someone can come forward with an example that shows this.

We have already given you tons of examples.

Bullshit. You haven't.

This entire conversation is idiotic, particularly since, even if a dog couldn’t recognize its master by sight alone,

You have not proven that this is the case. You keep saying it over and over but you won't accept that the examples you gave involved training a dog to see patterns. Or it used words that the dog could recognize like Chase, the border collie. That's not what I'm talking about. Why are you conflating two different issues?

it does not follow that the eye is not a sense organ. The claim that they eye is not a sense organ is just blithering idiocy.

That's because you think it's blasphemous for anyone to think differently than your geniuses, and also because so much of your worldview hinges on relativity. Some things are relative, and some things are not. Seeing in real time changes a lot of what you have taken for granted is true and you hate it.

Ad hom. I am going to go back and report every ad hom post.

I'll report you too next time you tell me I believe it because Daddy said it.

That’s not ad hom, since you have never given any argument other than “Daddy said so.”

 

[peacegirl]

Bullshit. We’ve shown numerous scientific studies that dogs can recognize their masters from sight alone in photos and videos.

Absolutely not. You never showed this in any conclusive way. You're just trying to make a square fit into a hole. It won't work because dogs cannot identify their human partners from a picture. They should if their eyes are a sense organ. You said there are videos. I don't remember seeing any that showed this without some kind of manipulation of the variables.

Pure bullshit. You believe what you believe because Daddy said so.

Also, yet again, for the hard of learning.

This is not an answer. Again, show me the proof. Show me where a picture is shown to a dog of his master without any kind of training, and he recognizes his master with a show of excitement (barking, wagging a tail, whimpering, circling, jumping, putting his nose up to the picture, etc.) They can even use a master that has been away, and the dog misses him by previous examples of when he came home from the service after months of being missed. If the light waves from the picture are traveling to his eye, recognition should be immediate. What is it that you don't understand?

I understand perfectly well that you are totally uneducable.

That's no answer Pood and you know it. A dog should be able to easily recognize his master from a picture if his eyes are sensing the image embedded in the light. I have never seen a dog do this without other cues. Maybe someone can come forward with an example that shows this.

We have already given you tons of examples.

Bullshit. You haven't.

This entire conversation is idiotic, particularly since, even if a dog couldn’t recognize its master by sight alone,

You have not proven that this is the case. You keep saying it over and over but you won't accept that the examples you gave involved training a dog to see patterns. Or it used words that the dog could recognize like Chase, the border collie. That's not what I'm talking about. Why are you conflating two different issues?

it does not follow that the eye is not a sense organ. The claim that they eye is not a sense organ is just blithering idiocy.

That's because you think it's blasphemous for anyone to think differently than your geniuses, and also because so much of your worldview hinges on relativity. Some things are relative, and some things are not. Seeing in real time changes a lot of what you have taken for granted is true and you hate it.

Ad hom. I am going to go back and report every ad hom post.

I'll report you too next time you tell me I believe it because Daddy said it.

That’s not ad hom, since you have never given any argument other than “Daddy said so.”

What does giving another argument have to do with the definition of an ad hominem? Saying that the only reason I don't offer any other argument is because "daddy said so" is a personal attack, hence it's an ad hom. Because you aren't winning the argument, you're out to get me in any way you can.

ad ho·mi·nem
[ˌad ˈhämənəm]
adjective

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining:
   "vicious ad hominem attacks"

 

[DBT]

Dogs recognize a person by sight, sound and smell.

Not by sight alone.

The evidence suggests otherwise;

''According to veterinarians, the answer to both of those questions, is yes — under the right circumstances. Dogs can distinguish between different people based on appearance at that time. In other words, if you’re sporting a drastically different hair style or are wearing a uniform instead of your everyday clothing, your dog may not be able to identify you in a picture.


Research does show that dogs can identify a familiar person in a photograph.

Show me the proof, that’s all I’m asking. It can’t be that hard.

In a study published in the Journal of Vision, 12 beagles and 12 cats were given individual handlers who worked with them two hours a day for six months. Afterwards, they were given a visual test to recognize the face of their handler versus a non-handler. The result? The dogs chose the face of their handlers 88% of the time, while the cats chose their handlers 55% of the time.’

Again, just show me the proof.

Additionally, these dogs were also able to identify the face of an animal that lived with them. In fact, they chose the familiar animal more often than an unfamiliar animal. The study found that dogs chose the face of a dog they knew 85% of the time, while the felines chose the face of a familiar feline 91% of the time.''

Can your dog recognize you in pictures?

Can your dog recognize you in pictures? Science shows that dogs have the ability to differentiate between faces in photographs!

www.morrisanimalinn.com

Photos of people are a different matter. But there are experiments where a dog recognizes pictures of objects. The dog is shown a picture, then collect the pictured object (a toy) from a selection of different toys scattered on the floor in another room.

That could be true. Do you know of any video that shows this? There was a dog named Chase that could identify over a thousand toys by name. But this still does not prove dogs can identify individual features from a still photograph or a computer screen. They should be able to by wagging a tail or some other show of recognition if the image of their master was traveling to their eyes.

Replicate it.

''There's a growing pile of puppy research suggesting that dogs can indeed recognize their fellow furry friends and their humans in photos. It's not just wishful thinking when we see their ears perk up as they gaze at a picture of their pack. And while they might not be ready to join the art critique circuit, dogs do process visual info in their own special way.''

Can Dogs See Pictures?

Ever caught your pup staring longingly at a photo of you two from last summer's beach trip? Or maybe Fido seems to give a tail-wag of approval whenever he spots a picture of his doggy pals. It's enough to make you wonder: "Can dogs see pictures?" The answer is yes! And not just see them, but...

westandwillow.com

Where is the evidence?

DBT, I’m still waiting for and tiny evidence

That a dog can fetch an object according to the picture shown is evidence that the dog recognises the object in the image and relates it to the actual object, ie, a dog is able to recognise objects in pictures according to how their senses acquire information and their brain processes it.

The brain does process information, but show me where a dog can recognize their master in a picture. This is so far from proof, it's a joke.

Better than chance:

"Research does show that dogs can identify a familiar person in a photograph. In a study published in the Journal of Vision, 12 beagles and 12 cats were given individual handlers who worked with them two hours a day for six months. Afterwards, they were given a visual test to recognize the face of their handler versus a non-handler. The result? The dogs chose the face of their handlers 88% of the time, while the cats chose their handlers 55% of the time."

Can your dog recognize you in pictures?

Can your dog recognize you in pictures? Science shows that dogs have the ability to differentiate between faces in photographs!

www.morrisanimalinn.com

 

[DBT]

If it's agreed that the eyes detect light, which has a finite speed, and the brain processes the information conveyed by light and represents it in conscious form, it's inevitable that we see events after they happen.

 

[pood]

If it's agreed that the eyes detect light, which has a finite speed, and the brain processes the information conveyed by light and represents it in conscious form, it's inevitable that we see events after they happen.

peacegirl does not agree with this. Go figure.

 

[DBT]

If it's agreed that the eyes detect light, which has a finite speed, and the brain processes the information conveyed by light and represents it in conscious form, it's inevitable that we see events after they happen.

peacegirl does not agree with this. Go figure.

I don't know why, or what it has to do with transforming human nature or making the world a better place.

 

[pood]

If it's agreed that the eyes detect light, which has a finite speed, and the brain processes the information conveyed by light and represents it in conscious form, it's inevitable that we see events after they happen.

peacegirl does not agree with this. Go figure.

I don't know why, or what it has to do with transforming human nature or making the world a better place.

She doesn’t agree with it because the author wrote otherwise, and obviously it has nothing to do with transforming human nature or making the world a better place.

 

[bilby]

Dogs don't generally get particularly excited by a picture of their absent master, for the same reason that you don't try to strike up a conversation with a picture of an absent friend or family member - they know the difference between a picture and a person.

But none of this matters; The problem here is not that Peacegirl is wrong about sight, or about time, or about free will, or about any of these other details.

The problem is that Peacegirl doesn't know how we determine what is or is not true.

It's a very common condition, and is the root of all pseudoscience - she genuinely believes that science is fundamentally a popularity contest between different books, and that if her book can be sufficiently widely and effectively promoted, it will become The Truth^TM.

You literally cannot argue with someone who doesn't grasp how science works; It's like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling.

 

[pood]

Dogs don't generally get particularly excited by a picture of their absent master, for the same reason that you don't try to strike up a conversation with a picture of an absent friend or family member - they know the difference between a picture and a person.

But none of this matters; The problem here is not that Peacegirl is wrong about sight, or about time, or about free will, or about any of these other details.

The problem is that Peacegirl doesn't know how we determine what is or is not true.

It's a very common condition, and is the root of all pseudoscience - she genuinely believes that science is fundamentally a popularity contest between different books, and that if her book can be sufficiently widely and effectively promoted, it will become The Truth^TM.

You literally cannot argue with someone who doesn't grasp how science works; It's like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling.

Quite right. That is why she thinks that if someone who is a prominent authority gives “the stamp of truth” to her dingbat father’s book, the rest of us will fall in line and worship at his and her feet.

 

[bilby]

Dogs don't generally get particularly excited by a picture of their absent master, for the same reason that you don't try to strike up a conversation with a picture of an absent friend or family member - they know the difference between a picture and a person.

But none of this matters; The problem here is not that Peacegirl is wrong about sight, or about time, or about free will, or about any of these other details.

The problem is that Peacegirl doesn't know how we determine what is or is not true.

It's a very common condition, and is the root of all pseudoscience - she genuinely believes that science is fundamentally a popularity contest between different books, and that if her book can be sufficiently widely and effectively promoted, it will become The Truth^TM.

You literally cannot argue with someone who doesn't grasp how science works; It's like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling.

Quite right. That is why she thinks that if someone who is a prominent authority gives “the stamp of truth” to her dignbat father’s book, the rest of us will fall in line and worship at his and her feet.

Be careful. You could get reported for saying nonsense like that.

It's spelled "dingbat".

 

[bilby]

Although I quite like "dignbat" - a portmanteau of 'dignity' and 'batshit crazy'.

 

[pood]

I can still edit my post but I will leave it as “dignbat.”

 

[pood]

Oh, wait, I DID edit it, earlier, before Bilby’s post.

 

[pood]

But her father is quite amusing. She deleted a whole section of the book detailing “licking out juicy, juicy C’s” and so forth, as well as nice stuff about the ur-penis. I think I would have liked him for that IRL, and for the fact that he was a billiards champ.

 

[bilby]

But her father is quite amusing. She deleted a whole section of the book detailing “licking out juicy, juicy C’s” and so forth, as well as a lot nice stuff about the ur-penis. I think I would have liked him IRL, as well as for the fact that he was a billiards champ.

I am not so sure; I haven't the space for a billiards table. How was he at bar billiards?

 

[pood]

But her father is quite amusing. She deleted a whole section of the book detailing “licking out juicy, juicy C’s” and so forth, as well as a lot nice stuff about the ur-penis. I think I would have liked him IRL, as well as for the fact that he was a billiards champ.

I am not so sure; I haven't the space for a billiards table. How was he at bar billiards?

The Baltimore Sun has an obit for the billiards champ here. Unfortunately, you have to be a subscriber to read it.

 

[bilby]

But her father is quite amusing. She deleted a whole section of the book detailing “licking out juicy, juicy C’s” and so forth, as well as a lot nice stuff about the ur-penis. I think I would have liked him IRL, as well as for the fact that he was a billiards champ.

I am not so sure; I haven't the space for a billiards table. How was he at bar billiards?

The Baltimore Sun has an obit for the billiards champ here. Unfortunately, you have to be a subscriber to read it.

Also, I cannot read the Sun for eight and a half minutes...