A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

Someone who copied Lessans' book before she took it down might let ThreeLawsSafe take a look at it.

Welcome to a world where if God turns on the sun at noon, people on earth will see it immediately, but not see their neighbors for eight and a half minutes. A world where cameras both do, and don't, take pictures in real time. A world in which an astronomer on Rigel, with a powerful enough telescoope, would be able to see Columbus stepping onto the shores of North America in real time, not hundreds of years after the fact.

A world in which everyone will run around scantily clad and mate with the first person they fancy, for life (though no one will ever again share the same bed -- that's a mathematical certainty!)

A world in which people are "compelled by their own free will" to do what they do!

A world of rumpy-pumpy on the dinner table (but only if little ones aren't present). A world of no war and no poverty. A world of translucent sex robes. A world in which Mom had better make a goddamn special study of cooking, because Seymour likes spahgetti and meatballs on Monday night. A world where anyone can be a doctor just by hanging out a shingle. A world in which there are no vaccinations. A world in which to wake a child is to blame it for sleeping. A world in which there will be far fewer gay people, if any at all.

A world in which the author sued President Jimmy Carter for failing to grant him an audience to demonstrate his "mathematically certain" formula for world peace.

Welcome to Seymour and Peacegirl's world!

[naturalist.atheist]

WOW ThreeLawsSafe! You read both threads?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get your point, and what I'm saying is that nothing is carried in the light, as a basket carries its content. In other words, the light does not change form as it strikes the object. We see the object directly which has nothing to do with the full spectrum light that bounces off of it as it travels at 186,000 miles a second, which is the basket. I hope people get this soon because it's about the 100th time I've repeated it.

You can repeat it 100 more times and it still will not be true, we see due to the information (frequency, intensity, and direction) that are properties of the light which is transmitted to the eye, and then to the brain. Light doesn't carry an image but it carries information which the brain can translate into an image. Each photon only tells us one little bit about the object, like a pixel on a digital image.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

One specimen does not constitute sufficient evidence to understand a category, especially in psychology.

Never said it did. But if you are surrounded by working cars, and you see a car smoking and lurching, you don't need a degree to know that it's broken.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

I've read both threads. I'm a licensed mental-health care professional, and worked 15 years as an LHMC, so I reserve the right to judge where it's appropriate. And it's not appropriate on an internet forum. People have a lot of reasons for posting what they do.

I'm not defending what peacegirl is arguing. I think it's irrational and entirely contrary to the evidence. I see a lot of defensiveness and cognitive bias on her part, as well. But it's always sad to see the psychologizing pile-on.

I will say, however, with certain exceptions, that the folks in this forum are a lot more cautious about that than some other forums I lurk around in. So kudos.

I can't say anymore without risking turning Peacegirl against me again, but I seriously recommend you look a little beyond the iceberg tip of these two threads before determining our judgments to be wholly unwarranted.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Never said it did. But if you are surrounded by working cars, and you see a car smoking and lurching, you don't need a degree to know that it's broken.

That's because cars are much, much simpler than human minds.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I can't say anymore without risking turning Peacegirl against me again, but I seriously recommend you look a little beyond the iceberg tip of these two threads before determining our judgments to be wholly unwarranted.

If peacegirl is mentally ill, then why do you continue to try to convince her of your point of view?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

One specimen does not constitute sufficient evidence to understand a category, especially in psychology.

I don't think anyone is trying to understand an entire category, just this one specimen.

What is your opinion of 'Equus'?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

If peacegirl is mentally ill, then why do you continue to try to convince her of your point of view?

If you've really read through both threads then you should already know the answer to this question.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you've really read through both threads then you should already know the answer to this question.

Most people have stopped trying to convince peacegirl of anything long ago. They are mostly probing her cognitive breakdown. Frankly she is a lab experiment. And it seems to me that many continue posting because they find peacegirl's illness to be similar to a car crash. They know they shouldn't be gawking and kicking the debris around but they just can't help it.

ThreeLawSafe, I'm glad you've joined the fray. Maybe you can figure out a way for peacegirl to get the help she desperately needs.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I don't think anyone is trying to understand an entire category, just this one specimen.

What is your opinion of 'Equus'?

I said that simply because naturalist.atheist 1) said that peacegirl was mentally ill, and 2) said "peacegirl is the only specimen of a mentally ill person I have access to." So I think he is in fact claiming he can understand a category based on a single specimen.

I wouldn't care to comment on Equus. I'm not interested in assessing people's psychological profile here. I'm arguing that, in fact, we should refrain from that as much as we can, that's all.

[davidm]

I think ThreeLawsSafe makes a good point about this "mental illness" stuff, but only up to a point.

I think it's true that no medical health professional would diagnose "mental illness" in a person solely on the basis of Internet posts.

Also, the entire concept of "mental illness" is ill-defined and fraught. It has many times in the past been used as a means of social control and deligitimizing people believed to be suspect. Just never forget that less than half a century ago, gays were officially deemed to be mentally ill.

That said, however, we here who are not mental health professionals are perfectly within our rights to call 'em as we sees 'em, right or wrong. We think, having ineracted with peacegirl for so long, that she does give signs of mental illness -- and for all its ill-defined nature, and for all its being subject to abuse, the term is not entirely empty of meaning. Some brains are objectively dysfunctional. We think peacegirl gives evidence of dysfunction, certainly at the very least dysufunctions of an an obssessive-compulsive nature and of the idee-fixe.

Either that, or the more parsimonious explanation is: she is just as dishonest as a human being can be.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

That's because cars are much, much simpler than human minds.

In most cases I would agree with you on that, but there are exceptions.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

I wouldn't care to comment on Equus.

Do you know what 'Equus' is?

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I don't think anyone is trying to understand an entire category, just this one specimen.

What is your opinion of 'Equus'?

I thought you were referring to someone who posts on the boards here.

If you're asking about the play - I enjoyed it to some degree, but was ultimately disappointed. I saw the Lumet/Burton version on film, and I saw a terrible version in London in the 80's.

The play is too Christian for me. Sorry. The fundamental question of the play has to do with life's meaning from a psychological perspective -- is it security, or passion, or a religious worldview of some kind? I vote for none of the above.

[The Lone Ranger]

I pointed out to peacegirl nearly a year ago that there have been many studies documenting that at least some bird species can recognize individual humans based on visual clues only. I even gave a few links.

Field researchers are painfully aware of this, because when you're doing research that involves catching the birds and taking blood samples (for example), the birds will quickly learn to recognize the researcher(s). They'll ignore random people in the vicinity, but immediately mob the researcher: "Hey! It's that guy who sticks us with sharp things! Get him!"

So field researchers sometimes resort to wearing Halloween masks when doing bird studies. The problem is that the birds quickly learn to recognize a particular mask, and then you have to get another one.

There have been some interesting studies done in Florida recently, demonstrating that Mockingbirds can recognize individual humans by visual clues alone. They will normally ignore people, but if someone molests the birds' nests, they will remember that person and attack him or her the next time (s)he is seen.


Anyway, all of this was explained to her nearly a year ago. Predictably, it went in one ear and right out the other.

[davidm]

Yep, and then she has the incredible temerity, when you pointed all this out again in your recent post, to write:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's so interesting. I am just as intrigued by the animal kingdom as you are. Can you show me examples of this? I know certain birds have amazing visual acuity, but I'm interested to know how they would identify individual features without some other sense to help them. I'll be waiting for any links that can explain this.

Un-fucking-believable.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

I thought you were referring to someone who posts on the boards here.

If you're asking about the play - I enjoyed it to some degree, but was ultimately disappointed. I saw the Lumet/Burton version on film, and I saw a terrible version in London in the 80's.

The play is too Christian for me. Sorry. The fundamental question of the play has to do with life's meaning from a psychological perspective -- is it security, or passion, or a religious worldview of some kind? I vote for none of the above.

I first heard Burton's last speach from the film on PBS radio program 'Reading Aloud'. Later I acquired a copy of the play and read it myself, I would seriously recomend reading the play as opposed to watching the movie version of it. A stage production would definately be better than the movie.

A few years ago I had a dialogue with an individual who played 'Allan Strang' in a production in Malayasia, after the preformance he and several members of the cast were asked to address, and answer questions, for an assembly of mental health professionals. It seemed the professionsls were impressed with the play and wanted to hear the actors impressions of their roles.

My impression was that Dysart was questioning the role of psychiatry in actually acheiving any real degree of mental health for his patients. In many ways the play questions 'God'.

I've read it several times, and I was really disapointed with the film.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I pointed out to peacegirl nearly a year ago that there have been many studies documenting that at least some bird species can recognize individual humans based on visual clues only. I even gave a few links.

Many years ago I read a report about plants recognizing individual people. It involved one person entering a greenhouse and viciously attacking and ripping apart several plarts. Later whenever that person entered the room the other plants would visibly react in a negative way to that persons presence. There may have been only one trial that was not repeated and verified, and I have not seen any refutations, but then I haven't looked either. Anyone else know anything about this?

[davidm]

I should mention this: I have not read the book, only the New York Times review of it. I believe it's called "The Sex Lives of Insects." Anyway, according to the review, the books says that insects can recognize individual people. I wonder of TLR knows anything about this?

[The Lone Ranger]

Honeybees can indeed learn to distinguish between photographs of different people. They're quite good at it, actually.

And unsurprisingly, there have been a number of studies showing that social wasp species can recognize each other by facial features alone.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Honeybees can indeed learn to distinguish between photographs of different people. They're quite good at it, actually.

And unsurprisingly, there have been a number of studies showing that social wasp species can recognize each other by facial features alone.

It would not be surprising that dogs, which may be a bit more sophisticated that insects, can recognize people by visual clues alone, contrary to what Lesans claims. No surprise there.

I wonder if Peacegirl would recognize the results of a vote? L.O.L. that was punny.

I didn't know that Wasps had facial features? They all look alike to me, especially from the stinger end, which i'm usually spraying with 'Raid'.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Many years ago I read a report about plants recognizing individual people. It involved one person entering a greenhouse and viciously attacking and ripping apart several plarts. Later whenever that person entered the room the other plants would visibly react in a negative way to that persons presence. There may have been only one trial that was not repeated and verified, and I have not seen any refutations, but then I haven't looked either. Anyone else know anything about this?

You're probably thinking of Cleve Backster, who claimed to have demonstrated with a lie detector that plants in the genus Dracaena have ESP and will respond to the presence of a person who has "murdered" other plants.


The "experiment" was, to put it extremely mildly, poorly done, and the results extremely suspect. Furthermore, no one, to my knowledge, has been able to reproduce these alleged results.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The "experiment" was, to put it extremely mildly, poorly done, and the results extremely suspect. Furthermore, no one, to my knowledge, has been able to reproduce these alleged results.

I'm not surprised, the whole thing souned a bit far fetched, but I had no other information and certainly had no basis to refute it. However, to quote Shakespeare

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Hamlet, Act I, scene V

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

ANNOUNCEMENT:

I will not tolerate anymore name calling. If someone calls me bird-brain, buffoon, blockhead, asshat, airhead, ignoramous, pig-headed, liar, mentally ill, moron, or stupid, one more time (and that goes for any other name that is meant to belittle), you will be immediately put on ignore. This also includes any hint of sarcasm or jokes that are made at my expense. I don't deserve this kind of treatment regardless of what you think about these claims. You are not entitled to talk down to me. If there is only one person left, that person is who I will talk to. If there is no one left, then that will be the time I leave permanently. Do you get the rules now? Whomever doesn't understand whether they have crossed the line, they will know soon enough!!! Like I've been saying for months now, which no one has taken seriously --- ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!

I suppose that includes me. That is very disappointing, and disrespectful, given the considerable effort I have made to avoid calling her disparaging names or negatively characterizing her behavior. Seriously, if I am to be denied the occasional sarcastic rejoinder I might as well be tied and gagged.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All of your questions are based on photons traveling, and in the efferent model, there are no photons traveling, only a flip side of what exists out there.

Seriously, is that what you meant to write? You have repeatedly stated that efferent vision does not violate the laws of physics and that you agree that light travels at a finite speed. How can the claim that light travels at a finite speed be reconciled with your assertion that "in the efferent model, there are no photons traveling"?