Dogs know...

[Nous]

I am happy in my ignorance when the evidence doesn't stack up.

How self-contradictory can you get? How does one determine that "the evidence" about anything "doesn't stack up" when you remain staunchly ignorant of the evidence, and even proud of your ignorance?

 

[Mock Turtle]

How self-contradictory can you get? How does one determine that "the evidence" about anything "doesn't stack up" when you remain staunchly ignorant of the evidence, and even proud of your ignorance?

You stick with your beliefs and I'll do the same FFS! You are really getting to be annoying!

 

[Nous]

You stick with your beliefs and I'll do the same FFS! You are really getting to be annoying!

I've only expressed conclusions deduced from the evidence on this thread, beginning with the evidence that lots of people commented on the phenomenon noted in the OP while being ignorant of the evidence.

My conclusions are amenable to the evidence, and I am unafraid of information on the topic. That's the difference between my conclusions and your beliefs.

 

[Axe Elf]

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.

Telepathy is mentioned by the OP--the idea that dogs somehow "know" when their master is coming home.

And dogs do NOT understand that a pointing finger is pointing to an object unless they are trained to respond in that way to that stimulus. Otherwise they just look at your hand.

So that's why I am skeptical that an animal of that cranial capacity could develop telepathy.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I've only expressed conclusions deduced from the evidence on this thread, beginning with the evidence that lots of people commented on the phenomenon noted in the OP while being ignorant of the evidence.

My conclusions are amenable to the evidence, and I am unafraid of information on the topic. That's the difference between my conclusions and your beliefs.

I have had seven decades to arrive at an understanding of reality. In that time I will obviously have kept up with scientific information - being that sort - and when something comes along to disrupt the whole fabric of one's understanding then it had better be good and legitimate. Hence, why I tend to dismiss much stuff that might have some truth but then just makes a mockery of all the rest of what we know. Do I believe in telepathy? No, Do I believe in levitation? No. Do I believe in the afterlife? No. Do I believe etc. Why? Because any serious evidence for all these is just lacking and mostly not repeatable. One can have an open mind I'll agree but certain things, like this, will just have to be left on the shelf until they can be proved. And I'll go with the majority of credible scientific opinion on this one until better evidence arrives. When one or two people are presenting stuff it's got to be really good to be accepted.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Telepathy is mentioned by the OP--the idea that dogs somehow "know" when their master is coming home.

And dogs do NOT understand that a pointing finger is pointing to an object unless they are trained to respond in that way to that stimulus. Otherwise they just look at your hand.

So that's why I am skeptical that an animal of that cranial capacity could develop telepathy.

Forget the telepathy. A dog learns to recognise a pointed object just as a child does, so what's the difference? The mechanism might be different as to how they learn but they do so, unlike many other possibly more intelligent animals, and why might this be so?

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

Society for Scientific Exploration - Wikipedia

I suppose if no credentialed scientific Institution at the University academic level recognizes it as a valid and recognized peer reviewed Journal , one might as well make up one on your own and "credential" it yourself. eh? ;0)

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.​

So is there an actual University that attempted to repeat this experiment?

 

[Audie]

You stick with your beliefs and I'll do the same FFS! You are really getting to be annoying!

Seriously

 

[Audie]

So is there an actual University that attempted to repeat this experiment?

That would be the one that sent divers to look for Atlantis and to excavate
Noahs Ark.

Some people are attracted to fringey, x-file and divers sorts of woo woo. Who knows why.

We've had the lone genius scientist as a stock character of fiction
for many years. Faustus, Frankenstein, Captain Nemo, the guy
in "Back to the Future"; even Elvis as a young rebel chemist.

For the terminally credulous, we have live ones-
That guy who went to the middle east and found chariot wheels in the red sea, noahs ark, and even the ark of the covenant, for example.
Or this Sheldrake.

Maybe their followers want to shine in the reflected glory or also being
out in front of them dreary and stodgy ol' conventional scientists.

Certainly the tone of oh so superior intellect shines through
plainly here in the forum.

 

[Audie]

Society for Scientific Exploration - Wikipedia

I suppose if no credentialed scientific Institution at the University academic level recognizes it as a valid and recognized peer reviewed Journal , one might as well make up one on your own and "credential" it yourself. eh? ;0)

Hey why not? That is what those guys did. And look, if they all peer review eachother, it all becomes like totally legit.

 

[Axe Elf]

Forget the telepathy.

The telepathy is the topic of this thread. Forget pointing at an object. I was just saying that a dog was too dumb to have developed telepathy, and used that as an example. If you want to use eating his vomit or chasing his tail as an example instead, feel free--but I have no interest in teaching you about learning theory today in this thread.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The telepathy is the topic of this thread. Forget pointing at an object. I was just saying that a dog was too dumb to have developed telepathy, and used that as an example. If you want to use eating his vomit or chasing his tail as an example instead, feel free--but I have no interest in teaching you about learning theory today in this thread.

Hey, you started this by stating a dog just looked at your finger rather than the pointed object, and rather than admitting your mistake you have gone off on exercise to divert attention elsewhere. Many would have just admitted their mistake.

 

[Axe Elf]

Hey, you started this by stating a dog just looked at your finger rather than the pointed object, and rather than admitting your mistake you have gone off on exercise to divert attention elsewhere. Many would have just admitted their mistake.

I only admit mistakes when I make them. An untrained dog will look at your finger, although some dogs, especially hunting dogs, can be trained to follow their master's directions to their prey. What I started was the idea that a dog is too dumb to have developed the capacity for telepathy. That is the topic of the thread. Any attempt to divert attention elsewhere does not belong to me.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I only admit mistakes when I make them. An untrained dog will look at your finger, although some dogs, especially hunting dogs, can be trained to follow their master's directions to their prey. What I started was the idea that a dog is too dumb to have developed the capacity for telepathy. That is the topic of the thread. Any attempt to divert attention elsewhere does not belong to me.

You really are persistent aren't you! You stated categorically that a dog will only look at your finger. I proved you wrong. Get over it!

 

[Axe Elf]

You really are persistent aren't you! You stated categorically that a dog will only look at your finger.

I only persist in that your capacity for comprehension demands it.

Yeah, when you first point at something for a dog to look at, they will only look at your finger instead.

Once they have been trained to follow pointing to locate objects, then they don't.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I only persist in that your capacity for comprehension demands it.

Yeah, when you first point at something for a dog to look at, they will only look at your finger instead.

Once they have been trained to follow pointing to locate objects, then they don't.

Hardly the same as stating that all dogs will just look at a finger. As stated, they are one of the few animals who can do this - even though they need to be perhaps trained - just as a child needs to do so. Are you as rigid in your thinking too?

 

[Axe Elf]

Hardly the same as stating that all dogs will just look at a finger. As stated, they are one of the few animals who can do this - even though they need to be perhaps trained - just as a child needs to do so. Are you as rigid in your thinking too?

The first time, yes, all dogs will look at your finger. They are one of the few animals that can be trained to overcome that nature and learn to follow pointing to an object.

I can't believe you've strained at this gnat for so long, when you could just agree that yeah, a dog is probably too dumb to have developed telepathy.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The first time, yes, all dogs will look at your finger. They are one of the few animals that can be trained to overcome that nature and learn to follow pointing to an object.

I can't believe you've strained at this gnat for so long, when you could just agree that yeah, a dog is probably too dumb to have developed telepathy.

I can't believe you are trying to defend an indefensible statement - ergo, dogs will just look at your finger - when it is demonstrably not true.

 

[Axe Elf]

I can't believe you are trying to defend an indefensible statement - ergo, dogs will just look at your finger - when it is demonstrably not true.

Then demonstrate it.