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

[peacegirl]

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.

''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

DBT, I’m still waiting for and tiny evidence

 

[peacegirl]

I want to demonstrate how responsibility is increased when we understand the truth of our nature and how, as we extend this knowledge, we can prevent many of the ills that exist in society. Is anyone interested in learning why this chasm between determinists and libertarians has existed for so long, and how reconciling these differences can create a fantastic change for the better?

Perhaps the chasms between concepts, beliefs or points of view have reasons that are not easily resolved. They may even be unresolvable.

They are not insolvable but they cannot be reconciled in the way determinism is presently defined. This is the elephant in the room, so to speak.

Redefine determinism? How should it be defined?

I gave the author's definition of determinism many times which does not contradict your definition. It just means that we are compelled, during every moment of our existence, to move away from a dissatisfying position to a greater satisfying position (or we would stay in the position we are in), which renders only one choice possible. We cannot move from a dissatisfying position to a greater dissatisfying position. That's not how life works.

 

[peacegirl]

''When it occurs'' just means when it is observed to occur by us, which is 8.5 minutes after it happened on the sun. Where the solar wind, which varies from about 200 kilometers per second to 900 kilometers per second takes far longer to arrive than light.

That doesn’t add up from the previous example. In fact, there was a clear distinction between particles arriving 81/2 minutes later and seeing the flare when it was happening which were not the same time as particles arriving. Anyway, there will continue to be dissension on this topic and nothing will be resolved. It will just be more of the same banter back and forth which will get us nowhere. So, for now, I’m not going to discuss this topic anymore. Obviously the present thinking will win out especially when no one cares to read the author’s demonstration as to why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ. It doesn’t pay until it is picked up by scientists who can test this and confirm one way or another which position is correct.

It's only when the light from a flare reaches earth and is acquired by our eyes or cameras that we see the event. Someone in a spaceship near Venus would see it before us. Someone in a spaceship near Mercury would see the event before the person near Venus. The event itself radiated the light/information before any of these observers saw or detected the flare.

That's the theory that is being disputed.

Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for granted that five senses were equally scientific, made the statement (which my friend referred to and still exists in our encyclopedias) that if we could sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the earth, we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is not a scientific fact?”

Again, my reply was, “Are you positive because you were told this, or positive because you, yourself, saw the relations revealing this truth? And if you are still positive, will you put your right hand on the chopping block to show me how positive you really are?”

“I am not that positive, but this is what I was taught.”

Once again, certain facts have been confused, and all the reasoning except for light traveling at a high rate of speed is completely fallacious.

 

[pood]

As a. matter of fact, no, the observer from Rigel would not be seeing Columbus’s ships reaching America. That occurred in 1492. Since Rigel is 864 light years distasnt, the observer would be seeing the earth as it was in the year 1160. That is not an assumption or a guess, it’s a stone-cold fact.

 

[peacegirl]

Dogs can see shapes (many dogs bark when they see a dog or any four-legged animal), especially when it's moving but they cannot recognize individual dog faces even of the same breed. I wish they showed a video so we could see it for ourselves. Training a dog to recognize a pattern or shape is not difficult to do, but this is not true recognition. I did find this:



I also found this, which is interesting but doesn't prove that dogs can actually identify human faces in a lineup or even a doggie friend in a lineup without confirming with their sense of smell.

 

[peacegirl]

As a. matter of fact, no, the observer from Rigel would not be seeing Columbus’s ships reaching America. That occurred in 1492. Since Rigel is 864 light years distasnt, the observer would be seeing the earth as it was in the year 1160. That is not an assumption or a guess, it’s a stone-cold fact.

It was in an encyclopedia, so complain to the writers. Regardless, you get the point. If we see the past, we would see old events arriving from years ago, which we never do. We see only what is happening NOW.

 

[pood]

As a. matter of fact, no, the observer from Rigel would not be seeing Columbus’s ships reaching America. That occurred in 1492. Since Rigel is 864 light years distasnt, the observer would be seeing the earth as it was in the year 1160. That is not an assumption or a guess, it’s a stone-cold fact.

It was in an encyclopedia, so complain to the writers. Regardless, you get the point. If we see the past, we would see old events arriving from years ago, which we never do. We see only what is happening NOW.

Wrong. Right now we see Rigel as it was 864 years ago.

 

[pood]

Once more, for the hard of learning.

 

[peacegirl]

To summarize, what you seem to be saying is that we need a new definition of determinism, not the definition that is traditionally used, which is that a combination of past events combined with the laws of physics cause events to happen without deviation, including human actions.

We don't need a new definition, just clarification. All of our internal thoughts and mechanics are included in the definition which compatibilist free will does not include. The laws of physics imply that something other than us are making us do what we do. This was clearly dispelled by both DBT and me. Lessans was clear when he said, "nothing causes us to anything against or will."

Nothing causes man to build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man, who is always developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he is always learning from previous experience. The fact that will is not free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate, and during every moment of his progress, was doing what he had to do because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two; it is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two opposing principles have never been reconciled until now. The amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, and the millions that criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system; but these systems are not caused by, they are these laws.

This is the hard determinist position that DBT espouses, that human will is not free because what we do now, is determined by the past. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that we lack free not because of that kind of determinism, but because of a different kind, which is our inner nature which compels us to move in the direction of what we believe to be greater satisfaction, whether it is or not. Is that correct?

We always move in this direction even if it is the lesser of two evils. Is that what you mean by "whether it is or not?" We use our past experiences or anything we can gather that may help us make a decision or our next move. What do you mean by "inner nature" that you seem to distinguish from DBTs definition? Our inner nature is what compels us to move in one direction, not two. It is called no free will and there are no exceptions to this law. What you are also failing to understand is that every single movement is away from dissatisfaction of some kind to a position of greater satisfaction, or we would remain where we are. This dissatisfaction could be anything from getting up to go to the bathroom or scratching an itch. This does not require making a decision, but we are still moving away from dissatisfaction of some kind toward a position of greater satisfaction.

Suppose a father is desperately in need of work to feed his family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United States and, for various reasons, doesn’t come under the consideration of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc. What is he supposed to do? If he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, the law can easily punish him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have chosen an option which was good. In this case, almost any other alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of the three that were available to him, so does this make his will free? It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do what they did under the circumstances.

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always, like an inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the present moment of time or life here for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on this present moment of time and space called here, and you are given two alternatives: either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.

“I prefer...”

Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life, which is any motion from here to there, is a movement away from that which dissatisfies; otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is determined by a law over which we have no control, because even if we should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction; otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at any particular moment, the motion of man is not free, for all life obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices, decisions, and to prefer of whatever options are available during his lifetime that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it for his motion, just being alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction. Consequently, during every moment of man’s progress, he always did what he had to do because he had no choice. Although this demonstration proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.

 

[peacegirl]

As a. matter of fact, no, the observer from Rigel would not be seeing Columbus’s ships reaching America. That occurred in 1492. Since Rigel is 864 light years distasnt, the observer would be seeing the earth as it was in the year 1160. That is not an assumption or a guess, it’s a stone-cold fact.

It was in an encyclopedia, so complain to the writers. Regardless, you get the point. If we see the past, we would see old events arriving from years ago, which we never do. We see only what is happening NOW.

Wrong. Right now we see Rigel as it was 864 years ago.

THAT IS WHAT IS BEING CONTESTED!

 

[pood]

As a. matter of fact, no, the observer from Rigel would not be seeing Columbus’s ships reaching America. That occurred in 1492. Since Rigel is 864 light years distasnt, the observer would be seeing the earth as it was in the year 1160. That is not an assumption or a guess, it’s a stone-cold fact.

It was in an encyclopedia, so complain to the writers. Regardless, you get the point. If we see the past, we would see old events arriving from years ago, which we never do. We see only what is happening NOW.

Wrong. Right now we see Rigel as it was 864 years ago.

THAT IS WHAT IS BEING CONTESTED!

It is not being contested. Your crackpot author just CLAIMS it is incorrect. to CONTEST something, you have offer a clear alternative. He does not show the standard science is incorrect. He does not offer an alternative explanation, a mechanism, or a model for his nutty notions about litght and the eye. He just PROCLAIMS that what he says is true. It’s not, sorry.

 

[peacegirl]

As a. matter of fact, no, the observer from Rigel would not be seeing Columbus’s ships reaching America. That occurred in 1492. Since Rigel is 864 light years distasnt, the observer would be seeing the earth as it was in the year 1160. That is not an assumption or a guess, it’s a stone-cold fact.

It was in an encyclopedia, so complain to the writers. Regardless, you get the point. If we see the past, we would see old events arriving from years ago, which we never do. We see only what is happening NOW.

Wrong. Right now we see Rigel as it was 864 years ago.

What would a person on Rigel see on Earth? He would be seeing the past according to the theory of delayed sight. Nope, we would be seeing exactly what is going on now, not yesterday. Saying it another thousand times doesn't make it true just like saying another thousand times that we could have chosen otherwise because soft determinism says so, doesn't make it true. There is no such thing as soft determinism or hard determinism. There's just DETERMINISM.

 

[peacegirl]

As a. matter of fact, no, the observer from Rigel would not be seeing Columbus’s ships reaching America. That occurred in 1492. Since Rigel is 864 light years distasnt, the observer would be seeing the earth as it was in the year 1160. That is not an assumption or a guess, it’s a stone-cold fact.

It was in an encyclopedia, so complain to the writers. Regardless, you get the point. If we see the past, we would see old events arriving from years ago, which we never do. We see only what is happening NOW.

Wrong. Right now we see Rigel as it was 864 years ago.

THAT IS WHAT IS BEING CONTESTED!

It is not being contested. Your crackpot author just CLAIMS it is incorrect. to CONTEST something, you have offer a clear alternative. He does not show the standard science is incorrect. He does not offer an alternative explanation, a mechanism, or a model for his nutty notions about litght and the eye. He just PROCLAIMS that what he says is true. It’s not, sorry.

Stop calling him names or I will not talk to you Pood. You're not going to get away with this behavior like you did in FF. He showed how we learn words. Did you read it? Can you explain it? Do you know anything that he wrote at all after all these years?

 

[pood]

As a. matter of fact, no, the observer from Rigel would not be seeing Columbus’s ships reaching America. That occurred in 1492. Since Rigel is 864 light years distasnt, the observer would be seeing the earth as it was in the year 1160. That is not an assumption or a guess, it’s a stone-cold fact.

It was in an encyclopedia, so complain to the writers. Regardless, you get the point. If we see the past, we would see old events arriving from years ago, which we never do. We see only what is happening NOW.

Wrong. Right now we see Rigel as it was 864 years ago.

THAT IS WHAT IS BEING CONTESTED!

It is not being contested. Your crackpot author just CLAIMS it is incorrect. to CONTEST something, you have offer a clear alternative. He does not show the standard science is incorrect. He does not offer an alternative explanation, a mechanism, or a model for his nutty notions about litght and the eye. He just PROCLAIMS that what he says is true. It’s not, sorry.

Stop calling him names or I will not talk to you Pood. You're not going to get away with this behavior like you did in FF. He showed how we learn words. Did you read it? Can you explain it? Do you know anything that he wrote at all after all these years?

Sure, it’s all garbage! The brain photographs stuff! It makes slides of stuff! It projects words onto an undeniable screen of substance, yada yada, none of it is even coherent.

 

[peacegirl]

As a. matter of fact, no, the observer from Rigel would not be seeing Columbus’s ships reaching America. That occurred in 1492. Since Rigel is 864 light years distasnt, the observer would be seeing the earth as it was in the year 1160. That is not an assumption or a guess, it’s a stone-cold fact.

It was in an encyclopedia, so complain to the writers. Regardless, you get the point. If we see the past, we would see old events arriving from years ago, which we never do. We see only what is happening NOW.

Wrong. Right now we see Rigel as it was 864 years ago.

THAT IS WHAT IS BEING CONTESTED!

It is not being contested. Your crackpot author just CLAIMS it is incorrect. to CONTEST something, you have offer a clear alternative. He does not show the standard science is incorrect. He does not offer an alternative explanation, a mechanism, or a model for his nutty notions about litght and the eye. He just PROCLAIMS that what he says is true. It’s not, sorry.

Stop calling him names or I will not talk to you Pood. You're not going to get away with this behavior like you did in FF. He showed how we learn words. Did you read it? Can you explain it? Do you know anything that he wrote at all after all these years?

Sure, it’s all garbage! The brain photographs stuff!

Like what Pood? What a joke of an answer.

It makes slides of stuff! It projects words onto an undeniable screen of substance, yada yada, none of it is even coherent.

Your thinking is incoherent. Is that your answer? You don't even know why he titled his chapter: Words, Not Reality and how words that are not symbolic of reality have caused great suffering for much of the population. And you call this garbage? This is really sick Pood. You will never come close to understanding why his observations were not only verifiable, but falsifiable! This comes after years and years of being part of a group of people who decided to make him a target of laughter. You were one of the ringleaders. No wonder it's hard to entertain the possibility that he was right. It would be devastating for you to know how wrong you were and the harm you and your trolls caused.

 

[peacegirl]

''When it occurs'' just means when it is observed to occur by us, which is 8.5 minutes after it happened on the sun. Where the solar wind, which varies from about 200 kilometers per second to 900 kilometers per second takes far longer to arrive than light.

That doesn’t add up from the previous example. In fact, there was a clear distinction between particles arriving 81/2 minutes later and seeing the flare when it was happening which were not the same time as particles arriving. Anyway, there will continue to be dissension on this topic and nothing will be resolved. It will just be more of the same banter back and forth which will get us nowhere. So, for now, I’m not going to discuss this topic anymore. Obviously the present thinking will win out especially when no one cares to read the author’s demonstration as to why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ. It doesn’t pay until it is picked up by scientists who can test this and confirm one way or another which position is correct.

It's only when the light from a flare reaches earth and is acquired by our eyes or cameras that we see the event. Someone in a spaceship near Venus would see it before us. Someone in a spaceship near Mercury would see the event before the person near Venus.

That’s the present theory.

The event itself radiated the light/information before any of these observers saw or detected the flare.

If the flare had grown to where it was in the field of view of Venus or Mercury, it would be seen the same time exact time, not Mercury before Venus and us last. That is called seeing in real time which the author tried to show in a different way.

 

[bilby]

The problem, as I see it, is the way that science is taught in schools, particularly at the primary school level, which for many (likely most) people in any given community is the only science education they ever get.

See, people have this impression, based on that educational experience, that science is much the same as all the other subjects we study. But it is not. Science is fundamentally different, and most people are never exposed to that fact.

Worse, we use the word "science" in two distinct ways, and this only adds to the confusion. "Science" can mean "The methodology by which we find out about reality"; But it can also mean "The body of information generated by the scientific method"

Education (in the west, at least) started off as a religious activity, and in primary education, this history has an enduring footprint. When teaching children about Christianity, there is a primary reference, the Bible, which is supposedly unquestionable, and which contains the right answers. Even in non-Christian religions, there are fundamentals that are to be accepted without question; And behind it all is the pre-literacy understanding that writing is magic.

If something is written, then it is true. The answer is in the book.

If a teacher and his student are in dispute, they resolve the dispute by refering to the textbook. The book has the right answer. If the book agrees with you, you win the argument.

Science (the methodology) fundamentally rejects this. In science (the methodology), books are just the words of people who are not even present; No dispute can be resolved by direct reference to mere writings. The writings themselves must be tested against reality.

Science (the body of information) is just an attempt to save time and effort. When the methodology has been applied repeatedly to a given question, and has so far always given the same answer, we write the answer in a book and get kids to memorise it, not because it is The Truth^TM, but because it would be impossible to get things done if every time we wanted to examine anything, we had to start by demonstrating (yet again) that matter comprises particles of such-and-such a mass, with such-and-such an electric charge, etc., etc.

When I want to know the speed of light in a vacuum, I look it up in a book. Not because the books are never wrong, but because I have decided to provisionally trust the existing science (the body of information), as a time saving shortcut. If I had any inkling of a doubt, I could, should, and would reject what is written, and go test for myself using science (the methodology) to find the speed of light in a vacuum.

Disputes in science (the methodology), regarding what is a part of science (the body of information) are resolved by reference to reality - we devise and conduct experiments to test hypotheses, and these experiments belong, not to a priestly class, nor to a teacher who has control of the textbook, nor to a Board of Education who decide which books are textbooks and which are not, but to anyone who wants to conduct them.

Science (the methodology), unlike any other educational discipline, is ruthlessly egalitarian. Anyone can overturn science (the body of work) by coming up with a test that anyone else can repeat, and which reliably demonstrates (a part of) that body of work to be false.

But (at primary school) we teach science (the body of work) the way we teach religion; And we don't teach the methodology part at all, or if we do, we treat it as though it were just another rule to be memorised and regurgitated without question.

Kids are left with the impression that science (the body of information) is just another set of beliefs. And as we see from the massive diversity of sects just within one major branch of one religion, this implies that anyone can just make up any old rubbish they like, and then set about collecting disciples, adherents, and evangelists to believe it and spread the word. The criteria for success are having as many adherents as possible; Having evangelical zeal, to accrue still more adherents to your position; And most importantly of all, having a book.

Science (the body of information) is taught this way in schools. So it's hardly surprising that so much pseudoscience arises amongst those with limited exposure to science as a methodology, rather than as a body of information.

This fundamental failure to grasp what science (the methodology) is, or how science (the body of information) came to be, and how it can be (and constantly is) changed as new observations are made and new experiments carried out, is at the root of the problem here.

We can talk about free will, eyes as sense organs, how light works, etc., etc., until the cows freeze over, and it won't change a thing - because peacegirl is not on the same page as the rest of us. Peacegirl doesn't understand that science differs in any important way from theology, and so is determined to win her argument on the basis of theological rhetoric. She has a new book, and wants it to replace, or supplement, the old book. Because she thinks that's how knowledge works.

She does not, and perhaps cannot, grasp that the science books we use are not books of power, but are mere aide-mémoires that tally the current state of the game.

Replacing Newton's Optiks, or Einstein's General Relativity, or Maxwell's Electromagnetic Equations, with a new book of wondrous claims is not only difficult; It is futile. No part of science (the methodology) is beholden to books of science (the body of information); Unlike in literally every other educational discipline*, in science the relationship is reversed.

The body of work derives from, and is entirely subservient to, the methodology. You can subvert a church by replacing its Bible with a new work (a Koran, or a Book of Mormon, or the scribblings of L. Ron Hubbard, or of Lessans, or of anyone). But you can only subvert science (the body of information) by following the scientific method - and if a change is shown by that method to be required, the science books are all rendered obsolete at a stroke. There are no sects or splinter groups - only people who have abandoned the scientific methodology, and thereby rendered themselves irrelevant.

The methodology is simple. Hypotheses, rigorously tested against repeatable and universally testable observations, and those shown to be false, discarded.

If you want to change science (the body of information) it is simple (but not easy): Just detail an observation that anyone else can make for themselves, which demonstrates that a part of that body of information is false.

Be aware that trust is not a part of science (the methodology). No scientist trusts anyone, particularly not himself.

The question is not "should we trust Newton, or should we trust Lessans?". The question is "Which of these two has given us the details needed to repeat his work, and surprise ourselves into agreeing with his answers, starting from a provisional assumption that his answers are bullshit?"

Newton has done that. You don't need to take his word for anything, and he doesn't ask you to; He has provided a detailed set of procedures for proving him wrong, and invites you to give it your best shot, either using his procedure, or coming up with your own. That, right there, is science.







* The very word 'discipline', meaning 'a field of study', carries the historical baggage of the idea that one learns by rote, from infallible books, whereby error arises only from incorrect reading or interpretation of the sacred text. Science ain't like that, but primary education usually acts as though it were.

 

[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.

''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

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.

 

[DBT]

''When it occurs'' just means when it is observed to occur by us, which is 8.5 minutes after it happened on the sun. Where the solar wind, which varies from about 200 kilometers per second to 900 kilometers per second takes far longer to arrive than light.

That doesn’t add up from the previous example. In fact, there was a clear distinction between particles arriving 81/2 minutes later and seeing the flare when it was happening which were not the same time as particles arriving. Anyway, there will continue to be dissension on this topic and nothing will be resolved. It will just be more of the same banter back and forth which will get us nowhere. So, for now, I’m not going to discuss this topic anymore. Obviously the present thinking will win out especially when no one cares to read the author’s demonstration as to why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ. It doesn’t pay until it is picked up by scientists who can test this and confirm one way or another which position is correct.

It's only when the light from a flare reaches earth and is acquired by our eyes or cameras that we see the event. Someone in a spaceship near Venus would see it before us. Someone in a spaceship near Mercury would see the event before the person near Venus.

That’s the present theory.

The event itself radiated the light/information before any of these observers saw or detected the flare.

If the flare had grown to where it was in the field of view of Venus or Mercury, it would be seen the same time exact time, not Mercury before Venus and us last. That is called seeing in real time which the author tried to show in a different way.

We see in real time, but the information takes time to acquire and process. Which is why there is a disconnect between the sight and sound of distant objects, the lightening hits, followed by the sound, the further it is, the greater the lag, where the duration can be used to calculate the distance to the event.

 

[pood]

Of course, we see everything, and do everything, NOW, for NOW is all we ever have. Just as where ever we find ourselves is by definition HERE, whenever we find ourselves is by definition NOW. So, in that sense, we see in “real time,” but this is not the sense peacegirl means. Just as we see the sun NOW, as it looked 8.5 minutes in the past, so too do we see the image of Abraham Lincoln in a book NOW, as he was some 160 years in the past.