A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What "props"? The animals were choosing their preference from photographs. The only training was how to signal their choice. If a dog has been trained to step on a square or point or flip a lever, that is a more accurate and repeatable test. If it was up to the researcher trying to read body language, then there would be no way to control for bias.

How on Earth would you determine a dog was recognizing something if there was no controlled set up for the experiment?

Stepping, flipping, or pointing at a lever to indicate an answer is not proof that the dog recognizes his master. Even if it turns out that he presses the lever more times when the picture of his master is shown, this doesn't mean that he is pressing it in recognition. I believe a more accurate way a dog could show a sign of recognition (even though not a perfect test) would be by wagging its tail, running up to the picture of his owner, circling the picture, scratching at the picture, sniffing the picture, whining at the picture, sitting at the picture, rolling on the floor by the picture, jumping on the picture, etc. Do you get the gist? Why is this show of recognition any less accurate than hitting a lever which might not mean what they believe it means?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am sharing information; I'm not putting the fear of God into anyone, or using any kind of tactic other than scientific proof.

You haven't used any of that either.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do I agree that our current society largely values appearance more highly than it should? Absolutely, but that is not a problem that can be solved by eliminating words from our vocabulary.

I am going to have to take issue with you on this one, LS. It is undeniable that most of the problems that plague personal relationships are related to the use and misuse of words. It is a mathematical truth that most of the problems that exist between people could be avoided if people would quit using words. This thread is a perfect example of this scientific and mathematical truth.

[Angakuk]

Peacegirl,

I find it interesting that you complain that people, even those who have read his book, are unwilling to give Lessans' the benefit of the doubt. Yet, when ever you are presented with properly conducted scientific evidence that challenges Lessans' claims, you refuse to give those studies the benefit of the doubt. What's good for the goose is, apparently, not good enough for the gander.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was still contrived. Why would that be necessary if a dog recognized his master? Dogs get excited when they identify their master. They don't need a reward to get them to choose.

For one thing, because "subject got excited" is not quantifiable. They needed the dogs to make a specific choice in order to determine whether the dogs could and would distinguish between photos of their handlers and photos of other people.

[peacegirl]

Epistemology is that part of philosophy that asks "what can we know?" "What can we be sure of?" "How do we get beyond mere opinion to real knowledge?"

Maybe this will make you more comfortable.

Traditionally, there are two approaches to epistemology: rationalism, which says we gain knowledge through reasoning, and empiricism, which says we gain knowledge through sensory experience. Although there are a few extremist philosophers, generally most agree that both these approaches to knowledge are needed, and that to some extent they support and correct each other.

If you don't believe his observations (not assertions) were accurate, I have said over and over that they can be tested empirically. It is urgent that they are because these observations will change our world for the better in ways that were never thought possible. If no one checks his observations out they will go by the wayside, but not because they were erroneous.

I'm sorry if that's what you think. I can try to confirm his observations through empirical testing to back his claims up, but that doesn't mean they are mere assertions. It took him years of reading and very careful observations of human nature to come to these conclusions. He did not merely state an assertion. It's ridiculous what you are saying.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They are assertions by definition. Assertions can be supported or unsupported.

I know they are more than assertions because his proof was an accurate description of what is taking place. It's like observing the planets in our galaxy. How can you prove that they exist other than describing what you see? If you need more support, that's fine, but there was nothing inaccurate with his description of what is taking place with conscience and with the eyes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

For example, TLR made the assertion that sight works by X model, then he supported it with evidence. Lessans asserted that sight works by Y model, but provided no supporting evidence.

Science has taken certain observations regarding the accurate anatomy of the eye and used it to theorize how we see. Is their theory actual proof that this is how sight works? No, not necessarily.

The evidence comes from his observations and his reasoning.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

His observations and reasoning are not very good evidence. More is needed.

Fine. He said that the proof is if it works. So if you want proof, there has to be a way to prove his observations work.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The proof of the pudding is in the eating LadyShea. If it doesn't work, obviously it would be wrong. But this knowledge does work in all cases. That's why it is a psychological law. If you don't believe it yet, don't give up, because that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And this would be very unfortunate.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do you know it works in all cases? How can I test it? It shouldn't be a matter of my belief, it should be a matter of you demonstrating its veracity to my satisfaction.

The only way is to have children grow up in a commune like environment (sort of like a mini version of the new world) where there is no blame, critical judgment, or punishment of any kind. It would be very difficult to test this in a typical environment because we can't remove all the blame, critical judgement, and punishment, which are the variables that need to be controlled.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

TLR has demonstrated to my satisfaction that the current model of sight is correct. It would take compelling hard evidence to think otherwise or to consider alternatives. Do you have compelling hard evidence to offer?

I think it's more than that. This theory has been accepted for centuries. Who am I to come online and declare they may be incorrect? The question remains: Where is the compelling hard evidence that data is being interpreted in the brain and forming an image? How do they know this for sure?

That was proof, but if you don't see it, then there needs to be more empirical evidence, which I believe will be in his favor.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then provide it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm doing my best.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What have you been doing for 20 years that you have nothing to show for it? Not even a hand drawn diagram of how Lessans thinks the eyes work? Thats the first thing I would have done when faced with the skeptics at the previous forums you visited.

It's very easy to criticize after the fact. You have no idea how difficult this was for Lessans and how many years he analyzed his observations before putting them on paper. So you can criticize all you want, but the truth is you don't know what you would have done if faced with the same situation.

Some things cannot be proved empirically, but that doesn't mean they are any less valid, such as his discovery on death.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That doesn't mean they're valid either. Without empirical evidence they are just notions.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are so wrong. I'm sorry but pure reason wins the day when it comes to Chapter Ten. Thank goodness because it's a very comforting chapter, and it's undeniable.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well, your declaration of undenialbility and 4.00 will buy me Starbucks. Also, I can't read Chapter 10 because you haven't provided it.

I am not going to provide it at this time. People would not know what to make of this chapter because, once again, it is based purely on astute observation and sound reasoning.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

For one thing, because "subject got excited" is not quantifiable. They needed the dogs to make a specific choice in order to determine whether the dogs could and would distinguish between photos of their handlers and photos of other people.

I'm sorry. A dog pushing a lever to prove that he is recognizing his master is very contrived because it takes very high order skills. To train a dog to push a lever may not be difficult, but to train him to associate facial features with pushing a lever, is suspicious. I know they train mice through a reward system, and I am assuming they were rewarding the dogs when they pushed the lever. But how could the dog associate the pushing of the lever with the face on the picture? I'm sorry I'm not satisfied with this test, just as you are not satisfied with Lessans' observations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

For one thing, because "subject got excited" is not quantifiable. They needed the dogs to make a specific choice in order to determine whether the dogs could and would distinguish between photos of their handlers and photos of other people.

It is only quantifiable when it is repeated over and over with similar results. I don't see how pushing a lever supports the hypothesis that the dogs can recognize their masters by sight alone, as people can recognize each other through sight alone. We need to compare apples to apples. At best, it proves that the dog can be trained to push a lever when a picture is shown. This is not the same thing as true recognition.

[LadyShea]

That was still contrived. Why would that be necessary if a dog recognized his master? Dogs get excited when they identify their master. They don't need a reward to get them to choose.

Of course it was contrived, it was a controlled experiment. The rewards are used to train the dogs to use the indication selected. All tests and experiments of all kinds are necessarily contrived (as in planned rather than spontaneous) otherwise you have no data, just subjective and probably inaccurate observations....like Lessans

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stepping, flipping, or pointing at a lever to indicate an answer is a very high order skill because there is association involved. I am not even sure how they trained their dogs to do this

You can train dogs to do all kinds of such "high order skills", they are even being used to detect illness in people, specifically cancer.

That being said, the whole experiment could be thrown off because of the belief that the dog is hitting the lever when he recognizes his master.

When given two pictures, the dog chooses one (using whatever means they devised and trained the dog to indicate the choice) and is rewarded. In this experiment the dogs chose their handlers picture much more often than is predicted by chance or random indications. That is a valid and compelling bit of data.

I believe a more accurate way a dog could show a sign of recognition (even though not a perfect test) would be by wagging its tail, running up to the picture of his owner, circling the picture, scratching at the picture, sniffing the picture, whining at the picture, sitting at the picture, rolling on the floor by the picture, jumping on the picture, etc. Do you get the gist? Why is this show of recognition any less accurate than hitting a lever which might not mean what they believe it is indicating?

What you are positing is not a controlled experiment at all, it's more "observations" and any results would be highly subjective and suspect and other scientists couldn't hope to try to replicate it. If doing this experiment, say, a dozen times in a day, don't you think the dog would stop being exited by his master's picture?

My astute observations include that my dog is very excited when I get home after being away for several hours, but doesn't even get up from his nap if I come in from getting the mail or watering the lawn.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Science has taken certain observations regarding the accurate anatomy of the eye and used it to theorize how we see. Is their theory actual proof that this is how sight works? No, not necessarily.

That's not a remotely accurate assessment of how and what we know about sight. As you'd be well aware of if you knew anything at all about the physiology of sight.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, you are so stuck on your belief system that if the truth was staring you in the face, you would be in denial. I can't deal you, I'm sorry.

You have no respect for truth. You have no respect for education, knowledge and competence. You have no respect for, or understanding of, science, math, or philosophy. You're just nuts, a cult member. Fortunately it's a cult of one.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea, people here are making him look like a fool. I'm not going to give them the benefit by giving this puzzle away. If they are so smart, they should be able to figure it out.

I solved the puzzle, but I am not going to share my solution with you because you might steal it and present it as Lessans proof.

See, you have no way of proving that you aren't flat out lying. You have no way to know if I am lying. Without presenting the solution it's just more unsupported assertion and narcissistic histrionics.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry. A dog pushing a lever to prove that he is recognizing his master is very contrived because it takes very high order skills. To train a dog to push a lever may not be difficult, but to train him to associate facial features with pushing a lever, is suspicious. I know they train mice through a reward system, but to use this type of reward system with dogs may have serious flaws. If a dog recognizes his master, he would show recognition of some kind without having to learn how to push a lever. As more empirical tests are done, without any bias (such as the one I suggested) would eventually give us some indication that a dog can, or cannot, identify his master through sight alone. I'm sorry I'm not satisfied with this test, just as you are not satisfied with Lessans' observations without further testing.

Sounds like we need to add "animal behavior" to the ever-growing list of Things You Know Nothing About But Are Willing To Dismiss If They Don't Support Lessans' Observations.

TYKNABAWTDITDSLO for short.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I solved the puzzle, but I am not going to share my solution with you because you might steal it and present it as Lessans proof.

See, you have no way of proving that you aren't flat out lying. You have no way to know if I am lying. Without presenting the solution it's just more unsupported assertion and narcissistic histrionics.

Exactly. My proof that it cannot be done is more elegant still, but I will not present it in thread, as people will no doubt use it to ridicule me despite its undeniable certainty.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What kind of 'controller' do I need to play? My grandkids have some PS-2s around?

No controller is necessary, though you may use one if you find it soothing. Anyway, you are already playing and have been for some time.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where does he say that?

It's in the book.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea, people here are making him look like a fool.

The people here are doing nothing of the sort, you are doing that well enough on your own.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was still contrived.

L.O.L.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I solved the puzzle, but I am not going to share my solution with you because you might steal it and present it as Lessans proof.

See, you have no way of proving that you aren't flat out lying. You have no way to know if I am lying. Without presenting the solution it's just more unsupported assertion and narcissistic histrionics.

If you would like you can PM me the solution and I'll check it for you, or perhaps you have some other member here that you would trust to do that. I would not reveal the solution, only it's accuracy, within the original rules, not peacegirls warped and amended ones.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No controller is necessary, though you may use one if you find it soothing. Anyway, you are already playing and have been for some time.

This must be some new and unknown definition of 'playing' with which I was not familiar. Banging my head against the wall would be playing by comparison. In the past I have punched hard objects, but that was for an entirely different purpose.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Kael

Exactly. My proof that it cannot be done is more elegant still, but I will not present it in thread, as people will no doubt use it to ridicule me despite its undeniable certainty.

My offer to LadyShea, to chech her proof is hereby extended to you as well, but I would certainly not use it to ridicule you, there is no need.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This must be some new and unknown definition of 'playing' with which I was not familiar. Banging my head against the wall would be playing by comparison. In the past I have punched hard objects, but that was for an entirely different purpose.

Here . . . have some A1 Sauce. . . .

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In the introduction to Chapter 10

He never said that.

[LadyShea]

Choose a photo peacegirl

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never said that.

I took that quote from the book peacegirl. Have you lost your mind? Go look for yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

But that's just it, we were told that you're not allowed to have double or triple overlapping letters, yet as soon as you've made 7 combinations with the letter A in them you do not have enough letters to make 7 unique combinations with any of the other letters. Not that I can see at any rate. Does your father actually have 35 COMPLETELY UNIQUE three-letter combinations using only the letters A - O, or not?

That's true. His answer has 35 COMPLETELY UNIQUE three-letter combinations using only the letters A - O. I am not trying to trick anyone.

I am never going to post the solution unless I see a shift in the way people perceive Lessans, not the other way around by offering the answer first to get people to reconsider that he might just have something worth carefully investigating, not skimming.

Originally Posted by Kael

Speaking only for myself, if he actually does have a working solution, I'm ready to wade through his horrific prose again. I'm starting to think he actually doesn't, though, that like his "observations" about the eyes and the brain, he has made errors that would have been corrected if he hadn't been completely wrapped up in his own processes but instead open to review and assistance. However, I welcome evidence to the contrary, and since you cannot provide any about the eye or the brain, an actual solution for this puzzle would be a fantastic start.

I'm afraid it would be used against him. I can hear people saying, "I knew how to figure that out; it's not hard at all; he just wasn't clear enough, or, "Just because he could figure this puzzle out doesn't mean his claims are accurate," or, "He is a liar like you are; he probably got this right out of a book." Who knows what people will say, and I'm just not willing to take the chance.