A revolution in thought

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's no magic number.

Really? So "one, or even two, pieces of evidence" might be sufficient after all?

[ceptimus]

I’ll never forget the time my mother invited a design consultant to the house - it turned out she was doing it to teach me a lesson.

She told the consultant that she was unhappy with the house décor and would be grateful for his advice. The consultant looked around the house and advised on the drapes, seat covers, carpets, door handles and other fittings that would best suit our dwelling giving it a more modern look. My mother ordered these items right away.

When the items came she said, “Now watch son.” She took the drapes, covers and other fabrics out into the yard and burned them. The metal items such as the door handles she dissolved in buckets of acid. “Why did you do that, Mom, you wasted them?” She replied, “The consultant and furnishing store have to earn a living and I helped them in this respect but I certainly don’t have to follow their advice. I was quite happy with the existing house décor, but the consultant recommended new items anyway. The difference between him and I is that he preferred the new items he recommended and I prefer the existing ones.”

My neighbour's mother, who felt the same, took matters even further and burned down her own house after it was repainted on the recommendation of an invited consultant.

Why does the public persist in handing over so much power to these consultants?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

By the way, the word you're looking for is "stimulus."

Sorry, that's my fault, but I make no claim to being good at spelling, and sometimes I'm just too lazy to look it up. And don't even mention 'spell-check', treat me as a 'computer illeterate', or whatever.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Oh, come on, now you're funning us.

Nobody's that stupid! Right?

Hey, I'm right here, ya know.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's no magic number. The evidence has to be beyond a reasonable doubt, and although people are judged guilty accordingly, it is not always the right verdict. There are mistakes that are made in the justice system due to circumstantial evidence that turned out to be misleading.

Wow, I am glad that Peacegirl is not my lawyer, I'd be doing time for sure.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not Lessans' definition. That is in every dictionary that's out there. How quickly you want to condemn Lessans, which makes anything you say suspect.
.

Find any dictionary that uses the word recognize in the definition of sense organs

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you fucking kidding me? Did your brain reset again? LadyShea, I have shown you why this is not a modal fallacy, but for some reason you still hold that position. It is not. It also is not a tautology. You are not going to win this argument because you're wrong.

Please link to this demonstration. It really never happened, you've simply asserted that it's not a modal fallacy.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're wrong Spacemonkey.

No, I'm not.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not really. Obviously, the brain has to interpret what it is seeing, and if something is wrong in the brain, there will be a deficit. It would be the same if we were talking about the sense of smell, taste, touch, or hearing. That part of the brain must be working for any type of recognition to occur.

Prosopagnosia shows that there is a part of the human brain responsible for facial recognition which when damaged can prevent a subject from recognizing faces even when the subject can see perfectly well. So if the canine brain had never evolved or developed this part of the brain, then dogs would be unable to recognize faces even if their eyes were afferent sense organs.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's your opinion.

The difference is that my opinion is supported by facts and evidence, while yours is supported only by your own fundamentalist faith.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course he did. Whether you agree is another story, but he did explain his position.

He stated his position, but he did not explain it by giving reasons for thinking it to be true. He never explained why he thought that if the eyes are a sense organ, a dog should be able to recognize his master from a picture. If you think otherwise, then quote his explanation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If they can, please show me the proof. You so quickly skip over this claim, that I could barely catch it in your post. This is not something that can be skipped over like it means nothing. Why did you do that?

Don't blame me for your poor reading comprehension. You've already been shown the experiments. You reject them all as inconclusive because they do not support your father's completely unevidenced claim. Conclusive or not, ALL the experimental evidence supports the notion that dogs CAN recognize their masters from a photograph. There is no evidence at all showing that they can't. The preponderance of evidence is quite clear.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So why did you backpedal, which I'm accused of. Where the pointer goes, it will follow.

I'm not backpedalling. I'm showing you that you are wrong on both counts - both factually and as a matter of logic. You are factually wrong to claim that dogs cannot recognize their masters from a photograph, and you are further wrong as a matter of logic in thinking that if they couldn't do so that this would be evidence supporting efferent vision. It is not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We do not because patterns of light are striking the retina, but because of language. You still don't get it, or don't want to get it.

So then it could be the lack of a capacity for language, rather than the efferent/afferent nature of vision which could potentially be responsible for dogs' (alleged) inability to recognize their masters from a photograph. If language is what enables us humans to recognize faces despite (allegedly) having efferent vision, then dogs' lack of language rather than efferent vision could explain your (alleged but unsupported) 'fact' that dogs cannot recognize their masters from a photograph.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am gullible because I trust people and what they say.

Especially when it comes to your father. It is astounding that you cannot recognize this as a problem.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just going back to the afferent model, which is the very thing that is under debate. The brain in a mammal would still have to interpret what it is seeing, even if the eyes were efferent, but this involves language. That is why a dog cannot identify his master from a picture. The light from the picture is not striking his retina and being interpreted in his brain, for if this were the case he would immediately recognize his master.

You still aren't explaining how efferent vision in dogs is meant to explain their alleged inability to recognize faces. If the photograph is there in the dog's visual range, then why can't the dog just look out through his eyes as a window to see and recognize it? Where does language come into it? My memory of my mother's face is not stored linguistically via any kind of representation using language. If I were to describe her face I would have to stop and think about it, by recalling a mental image and trying to describe that. So facial recognition obviously does not rely upon words.

[LadyShea]

Nope, you never demonstrated or showed that you even understand the difference between actual truths and necessary truths, so you certainly never showed that Lessans did not commit the modal fallacy

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Does Lessans argument state that decisions are made necessarily (which is implied by the word compelled), meaning there is only one option that can possibly be chosen? If so, then he committed the modal fallacy because as you've since stated and even argued for, other choices could have possibly been made.

If there are multiple possible outcomes, then the final outcome is only actual, not necessary

I could have chosen to wear a red shirt, a blue shirt, or a green shirt
I chose to wear a red shirt
That I wore the red shirt does not mean I couldn't possibly have worn the blue or the green shirt.
That I wore a red shirt is an actual truth. There is no element of necessity, however, so it is not a necessary truth.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here are some excellent posts made by Kael on this topic, peacegirl

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is an assertion. You cannot back that up with science or logic, you don't even know what Lessans actually observed to come up with that conclusion, so what is it based on? Without a basis, it is baseless.

If there are one or more possible choices that could be made, then the choice that is ultimately made can only be actual, it cannot be said to have been necessary.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But why is the question? Yes, it's true that we had to do it once it was done, but that doesn't mean we had to do it before it was done. Do you see the difference?

What do you mean by "my hand is heavily responsible?" Responsible for what? It's not sloppy language; it's just a difficult concept to grasp but you finally get it, it become easy.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's fine with me.

Great! I'm glad you agree there's no reason at all to believe Lessans! Why are you trying to get a book published full of lots of things there is no reason to believe? We have enough books like that.

All Lessans said was that we see in real time. That does not mean that when we look at something, and aim at it, they are going to be one and the same.

It means that where we see something is where it is right now. We completely ignore that advise from Lessans when we land spaceships on other planets. We actually believe Mars is not where it appears, because of a time delay in what we see. According to Lessans, it shouldn't work! But it does. Lessans is wrong.

So, in summary:

You agree that there is no reason to believe Lessans.

There are many good reasons to believe Lessans is wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Really? So "one, or even two, pieces of evidence" might be sufficient after all?

I didn't say that. I said there is no magic number. One piece of evidence could be strong enough to indict, or it could be a number of pieces of circumstantial evidence that leads to a guilty verdict.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Especially when it comes to your father. It is astounding that you cannot recognize this as a problem.

I knew someone was going to take what I said and refer it back to my father. Not surprised that it was you Spacemonkey. Having a trusting attitude toward people in general is not the same thing as studying knowledge that has been given to me and coming to my own independent conclusions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You betcha. First thing I'm gonna' do is convert everyones vision to Efferent, I'll label everything with non judgemental adjectives, no more good-bad, pretty-ugly, un all that. Just finished converting the Queen size bed into twins, need to get the chain saw resharpened, and I missed the middle support so her side slants a bit but she'll get used to it and I know she won't blame me for the mess. Just glad it wasn't the old waterbed. And now when I play piano there will be no more "That was Beautiful." or "You hit a lot of wrong notes" just "That was . . . . . . ?" I'll have to work on that.

I think you need a refresher course: You can call people ugly or beautiful if you want to. There are going to be no word police looking over your shoulder.

p. 127 Remember, however, when these
negatives of external value are removed, this doesn’t stop us from
seeing differences that appeal to us more but instead of saying — “She
is the most beautiful girl I have ever seen” which places other girls in
a stratified layer of lesser value, we are compelled to say — “She
appeals to me more than any girl I have ever seen” which makes it
obvious that the value we see exists only for us. The first expression
requires that ugly girls exist because certain type features are
considered superior while the second expression only observes that
other girls appeal to us less which makes everybody equal in value
except to particular individuals. By removing all the synonyms that
describe people as good looking, nobody is hurt, but by removing all
the antonyms that have been judging half the human race as bad
looking this entire group is brought up to a level of complete equality
and respect.

However, it is mathematically impossible to expect you
to give up that which is also a source of satisfaction although the
change does not depend on those who are happy in their pride and
self-importance, which includes everyone to a degree, but on those
who are seriously hurt and who are shown how they, too, can become
happy. Remember, I am not taking anything away from the former
group but will raise the latter group to a level of absolute equality.
And are we given a choice when to continue using these words after we
have learned the truth only reveals our ignorance, for which we will
never be blamed? How is it possible to criticize people for believing
the earth is flat, man’s will is free, and his eyes a sense organ when we
know for an absolute fact that they have never learned the truth?

I guess you missed this part as well:

There is nothing wrong
with desiring to sleep together but it cannot be satisfied unless both
parties want the same thing. If they do not desire to move to another
bed after making love, then it is obvious that both are content with
the sleeping arrangement.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

You're not correct Vivisectus. You don't understand why the desire that does not involve the other gets the right-of-way. There is nothing arbitrary about it, and it will prevent the one who has the right-of-way from being made to feel guilty over what he has the right to do or not to do.

I always found this an especially silly part of the book.

Both desires involve the other: one involved the other sleeping in the same bed, the other involves the other sleeping in a different one. There is no real difference between these desires, and yet it is arbitrarily decided that one gets the right of way. I can only speculate that it was either Lessans own preference, or that he was trying to ignore the fact that his system provides no solution for conflicting desires.

He seems to think he has presented a simple way of deciding which desire should get right of way when desires conflict, but he has done no such thing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No. Not even close.

But you just said: "No matter how you slice it, you can't just say that the visual part of the brain receives external stimuli but can't interpret what that stimuli is... "

So how is it that you cannot correctly interpret the picture?

Our brain is the interpreter. If the stimulus is new to us, then we won't be able to identify it, which may lead to caution until we know what that stimulus is. I wouldn't eat something without being able to identify what that food is, would you? Therefore, not being able to recognize something is a form of information, even if it's due to unfamiliarity.

But this does not negate the fact that in mammals the brain is involved when it comes to recognizing and responding to an external stimulus. I don't think anyone would argue with that.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Again, you're not just wrong, you're spectacularly wrong. We respond to lots of sensory data with no brain involvement whatsoever.

This is something you should have learned in grade school. Surely, by the seventh grade ...

Hmm, I thought that the end point in the path of a stimulus is the brain, where it interprets what the subject is experiencing whether it be pain or pleasure, or something in between.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I always found this an especially silly part of the book.

Both desires involve the other: one involved the other sleeping in the same bed, the other involves the other sleeping in a different one. There is no real difference between these desires, and yet it is arbitrarily decided that one gets the right of way. I can only speculate that it was either Lessans own preference, or that he was trying to ignore the fact that his system provides no solution for conflicting desires.

He seems to think he has presented a simple way of deciding which desire should get right of way when desires conflict, but he has done no such thing.

You're very confused here Vivisectus. I don't know why you don't get this, or don't want to get it. It's one of the simpler concepts in the book. Of course there are two desires in any interaction, but the one that has to yield is the one who needs the other to satisfy his desire. Therefore if I desire to go to a movie, but you want to me to stay home to help you cook, my desire takes precedence because you need me to fulfill your desire, whereas I don't need you to fulfill my desire. That does not mean you can't ask me to stay with you, but if I choose not to, you must yield or you are not considering my desire at all, and that is selfish. This has caused countless arguments, because no one knew who had the right-of-way when desires conflict.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

I’ll never forget the time my mother invited a design consultant to the house - it turned out she was doing it to teach me a lesson.

She told the consultant that she was unhappy with the house décor and would be grateful for his advice. The consultant looked around the house and advised on the drapes, seat covers, carpets, door handles and other fittings that would best suit our dwelling giving it a more modern look. My mother ordered these items right away.

When the items came she said, “Now watch son.” She took the drapes, covers and other fabrics out into the yard and burned them. The metal items such as the door handles she dissolved in buckets of acid. “Why did you do that, Mom, you wasted them?” She replied, “The consultant and furnishing store have to earn a living and I helped them in this respect but I certainly don’t have to follow their advice. I was quite happy with the existing house décor, but the consultant recommended new items anyway. The difference between him and I is that he preferred the new items he recommended and I prefer the existing ones.”

My neighbour's mother, who felt the same, took matters even further and burned down her own house after it was repainted on the recommendation of an invited consultant.

Why does the public persist in handing over so much power to these consultants?

Ceptimus, this is ridiculous, really. Lessans' point was well taken in the example with his mother. If you did not read the entire chapter, you won't understand why this example fit in. Doctors will prescribe things that someone may not need, but because the doctor was consulted, he will most likely prescribe something even if he isn't sure what is wrong, simply because he has to earn a living and he is expected to pull out his prescription pad. The patient expects this, but times are changing. People can put his mother down all they want, but there was a reason for why she did what she did. She was ahead of her time (in my opinion) because she believed the body will heal itself in most cases given good nutritional support, while most people at that time ran to the doctor's office and got medicine (which reduced symptoms but was incapable of curing). I know some drugs are lifesavers (like penicillin), so please don't misinterpret what I'm saying, and go off onto another whole tangent about the benefits of medicine.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Wow, I am glad that Peacegirl is not my lawyer, I'd be doing time for sure.

Nope, you're wrong as usual. Once you take the examination to prove that you understand the principles (which are simple), you will be given immunity. In other words, all records of past wrongdoing will be wiped out. If you want to repeat those offenses, you can. No one is going to stop you. The only thing that will be stopping you is your very own conscience.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Find any dictionary that uses the word recognize in the definition of sense organs

I am aware of what the definitions are in the dictionary. That being said, I want accuracy, that's all. Maybe there is no word that states "recognize" in the definition. That in itself does not make Lessans wrong. You're grasping at straws LadyShea, and you can't stand that Lessans may actually be right after all.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're very confused here Vivisectus. I don't know why you don't get this, or don't want to get it. It's one of the simpler concepts in the book. Of course there are two desires in any interaction, but the one that has to yield is the one who needs the other to satisfy his desire. Therefore if I desire to go to a movie, but you want to me to stay home to help you cook, my desire takes precedence because you need me to fulfill your desire, whereas I don't need you to fulfill my desire. That does not mean you can't ask me to stay with you, but if I choose not to, you must yield or you are not considering my desire at all, and that is selfish. This has caused countless arguments, because no one knew who had the right-of-way when desires conflict.

But if you applied those rules you would get to a situation where my desire to go play mini-golf takes precedence over my wife's desire to have me there to support her as she gives birth to our child.

Or perhaps my desire to spend all my money on crack get right of way over my children's desire for food.

You cannot simply say that when desires conflict, the one that requires someone else as well must yield automatically. That is a very stupid and poorly thought out rule of thumb.

[davidm]

TheDoc needs a refresher course, and Vivisectus is just very confused here. And seriously, ceptimus, this is just ridiculous. The fuck is wrong with you?

Perhaps peacegirl will give us a "refresher" course explaining why delayed-time seeing must be taken into account to send spacecraft to other worlds, in direct and irrefutable contradiction of Lessans' claim that we see in real time.



Perhaps peacegirl will also give us a "refresher" course as to how contingent truths miraculously morph into necessary truths after the fact of an event is realized. That should entertaining, considering her blissful obliviousness to the principle of the fixity of modal status: the modal status of a proposition cannot change on pain of logical contradiction. If a truth is contingent, it is necessarily contingent; and if it is necessary, then it it is necessarily necessary. More: if some truth is possibly necessary, then it is necessary and therefore necessarily necessary.

That should keep her addled and indignant for a good while. Amusing, fulminating, foot-stamping posts lie ahead! One would almost think, contrary to what she explicitly stated, that she is interested in continuing this conversation! Could her claim that she was no longer interested in conversing, be another one of her many lies?