Dogs know...

[Mock Turtle]

The times are random.

The experiment I saw fairly recently (on UK TV) seemed to imply that the dogs often just visited the door randomly anyway so it couldn't be tied to the expectation, or knowledge of the owner returning. You do realise the impact that this might have if true? And since nothing has really changed over the time since Sheldrake proposed this, what are the chances of it being correct? Minimal.

 

[Mock Turtle]

When you point at something you want a dog to see, they look at your finger.

I have a hard time believing that they have developed telepathy.

Not true. Dogs are one of the few animals that will recognise what one is pointing at.

Elephants understand pointing, scientists show

"Most other animals do not point, nor do they understand pointing when others do it. Even our closest relatives, the great apes, typically fail to understand pointing when it's done for them by human carers; in contrast, the domestic dog, adapted to working with humans over many thousands of years and sometimes selectively bred to follow pointing, is able to follow human pointing – a skill the dogs probably learn from repeated, one-to-one interactions with their owners."

Which is a bit of an anomaly given that many animals are more intelligent but can't do this.

 

[Mindmaster]

I have a thought about pet fish. In the wild they spend all day searching for food,... and occasionally they find some. In the fish tank they spend all day searching for food but never find anything. So sad, poor fishies.

Someone should invent a gadget that releases tiny amounts of food all day long.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Aqua-Culture-Daily-Double-II-Automatic-Fish-Feeder/20976063

These exist, some are fancier and allow multiple feed settings. But, 2x day small feedings and one big one manually seems to do it for me.

 

[Axe Elf]

Not true. Dogs are one of the few animals that will recognise what one is pointing at.

Elephants understand pointing, scientists show

"Most other animals do not point, nor do they understand pointing when others do it. Even our closest relatives, the great apes, typically fail to understand pointing when it's done for them by human carers; in contrast, the domestic dog, adapted to working with humans over many thousands of years and sometimes selectively bred to follow pointing, is able to follow human pointing – a skill the dogs probably learn from repeated, one-to-one interactions with their owners."

Which is a bit of an anomaly given that many animals are more intelligent but can't do this.

Dogs, especially hunting dogs, can LEARN to follow their master's directions to locate their prey, but it is a LEARNED skill, not an instinctual one. The first time you point them to something, they still look at your hand. As it says, this is a skill the dogs probably learn from repeated, one-to-one interactions with their owners.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It seems you guys have not read the peer-reviewed literature on this phenomenon. I don't know why one would believe one has worthwhile comments or beliefs on some issue while being ignorant of the facts.

Here is one of Sheldrake's papers on his studies, this one on the dog Jaytee: https://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/papers/JSE_Vol14.pdf

One can find Sheldrake's other "scientific papers on animal powers" here: Scientific Papers on Animal Powers

I think in order for it to be a scientific paper would need just a little bit more than having the word "Abstract" on it by the header as if it had been prepared for publication at a recognized university open for peer review and henceforth published in an actual scientific journal.

Let's say Scientific American, or Nature just to name a few.

I did like reading about the telepathic parrot though. . Made me smile. ;0)

 

[Twilight Hue]

Because Sheldrake doesn't have that must standing in the scientific community?

It's a real shame.
What a waste of his credentials.

Giving all the marketing on his website, I would gather there's tons more money in pseudoscience than there is in actual science. Suppose it beats begging for grants and funding. Reading his Wiki on his bio, I'm not surprised drugs were involved in some of his "experiments".

Oh why am I not surprised?

 

[Audie]

When you point at something you want a dog to see, they look at your finger.

I have a hard time believing that they have developed telepathy.

Of course! Because you are not a believer. Believers believe things.
Homeopathy dog- telepathy, whatever.
A weaver weaves, a hunter
hunts, a farmer farms. A believer believes.
It is what they do

You cant expect to compete with the pros. *

Cobbler, stick to your last, and all that.



*Think of the White Queen in "Alice" who could believe as many as 7
impossible things before breakfast!

 

[Twilight Hue]

Hopefully my wife doesn't smell so bad that my dogs can smell her in the car 10 miles away.

If it isn't completely smell, I oftentimes wonder how dogs are able to find their owners miles away and years apart.


‘Part Of Our Family Is Back’: Dog That Vanished 10 Years Ago Finds Her Way Home

 

[Axe Elf]

Of course! Because you are not a believer. Believers believe things.

And the gullible believe anything.

I am a thinker, and thinkers believe rational things.

Then I saw her face.

Now I'm a believer.

 

[George-ananda]

A weaver weaves, a hunter
hunts, a farmer farms. A believer believes.

And cynics carp without knowledge

Everyone has their place under the sun.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Dogs, especially hunting dogs, can LEARN to follow their master's directions to locate their prey, but it is a LEARNED skill, not an instinctual one. The first time you point them to something, they still look at your hand. As it says, this is a skill the dogs probably learn from repeated, one-to-one interactions with their owners.

Quite, but the point is (haha) that other animals just as intelligent or more so can't do this. And it is following a pointed finger if you have seen them do so. One dog apparently could also pick out particular toys, from dozens, by name alone. Or being directed to get the 'blue' toy, etc. Many dogs are just so remarkably clever.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It's a real shame.
What a waste of his credentials.

Giving all the marketing on his website, I would gather there's tons more money in pseudoscience than there is in actual science. Suppose it beats begging for grants and funding. Reading his Wiki on his bio, I'm not surprised drugs were involved in some of his "experiments".

Oh why am I not surprised?

Plenty of others who are equally bright and who have endeavoured as hard as he has who have similarly made some rather outlandish claims and then suffered the consequences. It's hard to tell the true innovators from those whose ideas just don't make the grade. One might cite Stan Gooch or Julian Jaynes too, with the latter perhaps being closer to the truth. I'm sure many of us have nothing against such individuals and merely look at the evidence and likelihood of the propositions being true or false. Here, the implications alone - in humans, and where there is a great lack of evidence - should make his claims to be seen for what they are - just claims.

 

[Axe Elf]

Quite, but the point is (haha) that other animals just as intelligent or more so can't do this. And it is following a pointed finger if you have seen them do so. One dog apparently could also pick out particular toys, from dozens, by name alone. Or being directed to get the 'blue' toy, etc. Many dogs are just so remarkably clever.

In some ways they are, but they still look at your hand when you point at something, so I'm skeptical that dogs have developed telepathy with their owners (who, parenthetically, are themselves not telepathic either).

 

[Mock Turtle]

In some ways they are, but they still look at your hand when you point at something, so I'm skeptical that dogs have developed telepathy with their owners (who, parenthetically, are themselves not telepathic either).

No mention of telepathy. The dogs seem to understand that a pointing hand is pointing to an object, which many other animals fail to appreciate. And I let you off lightly with your comment about learning. We all do this, whether child or animal, so what exactly is the difference? Granted that the learning process will be very different probably in either case.

 

[Nous]

I think in order for it to be a scientific paper would need just a little bit more than having the word "Abstract" on it by the header as if it had been prepared for publication at a recognized university open for peer review and henceforth published in an actual scientific journal.

Let's say Scientific American, or Nature just to name a few.

I did like reading about the telepathic parrot though. . Made me smile. ;0)

The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a peer-reviewed journal no less than any other peer-reviewed journal. Apparently you have no critique of the methodology that Sheldrake employed, so, like @Mostly Harmless too, you resort to logical fallacies. I don't know exactly what criticism you are trying to hurl at the paper, but it sounds something like guilt by association. You didn't actually read the paper and examine the methodology, did you? Like @Mostly Harmless too, you prefer to maintain your ignorance and beliefs on this topic rather than assessing the scientific evidence. Right?

 

[Nous]

WARNING: To all those who have the confused emotional or psychological need to maintain their ignorance about the evidence acquired from scientific experiments relating to this topic, you will need to shield your eyes here. The following is the abstract of Sheldrake's paper on the study he performed with the dog Jaytee:

Abstract - Many dog owners claim that their animals know when a member of the household is about to come home, showing their anticipation by waiting at a door or window. We have investigated such a dog, called Jaytee, in more than 100 videotaped experiments. His owner, Pam Smart (P.S.) traveled at least 7 km away from home while the place where the dog usually waited for her was filmed continuously. The time-coded videotapes were scored blind. In experiments in which P.S. returned at randomly selected times, Jaytee was at the window 4% of the time during the main period of her absence and 55% of the time when she was returning (p < .0001). Jaytee showed a similar pattern of behavior in experiments conducted independently by Wiseman, Smith, and Milton (1998). When P.S. returned at nonroutine times of her own choosing, Jaytee also spent very significantly more time at the window when she was on her way home. His anticipatory behavior usually began shortly before she set off. Jaytee also anticipated P.S.'s return when he was left at P.S.'s sister's house or alone in P.S.'s flat. In control experiments, when P.S. was not returning, Jaytee did not wait at the window more and more as time went on. Possible explanations for Jaytee's behavior are discussed. We conclude that the dog's anticipation may have depended on a telepathic influence from his owner.​

 

[Nous]

The Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE) is a "peer-reviewed" pseudojournal

What's "pseudo" about it? Prove it.

 

[Audie]

Ratwik-


JSE has much less to do with science than it does with whatever pet crank theories its editors are out to promote. It's chock-full of all kinds of woo, including (but not limited to) alternative medicine, astrology, remote viewing, AIDS denial, quantum woo, UFOs, and much, much more! The society also puts out a magazine called EdgeScience, possibly trying to ape this organization dedicated to actual science.

The spiritualist crank Stephen E. Braude is the Editor-in-Chief for the journal.

 

[Nous]

Ratwik-
JSE has much less to do with science than it does with whatever pet crank theories its editors are out to promote. It's chock-full of all kinds of woo, including (but not limited to) alternative medicine, astrology, remote viewing, AIDS denial, quantum woo, UFOs, and much, much more! The society also puts out a magazine called EdgeScience, possibly trying to ape this organization dedicated to actual science.

The spiritualist crank Stephen E. Braude is the Editor-in-Chief for the journal.

So the best you can do is use words like "woo" (twice in one sentence)? You can't articulate any rational reason to conclude that it is a peer-reviewed journal no less than any other? Your logical fallacies are woo.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a peer-reviewed journal no less than any other peer-reviewed journal. Apparently you have no critique of the methodology that Sheldrake employed, so, like @Mostly Harmless too, you resort to logical fallacies. I don't know exactly what criticism you are trying to hurl at the paper, but it sounds something like guilt by association. You didn't actually read the paper and examine the methodology, did you? Like @Mostly Harmless too, you prefer to maintain your ignorance and beliefs on this topic rather than assessing the scientific evidence. Right?

Quite right. I am happy in my ignorance when the evidence doesn't stack up. Do you believe in telepathy too?