A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Sure, I have a lot of friends. Are you confusing an internet forum with the real world here, thedoc?

I think my original point stands. We can't evaluate a person's mental health or illness on a forum board. We also can't really determine basic personality traits, such as whether a person has friends or not. We might be able to evaluate a certain level or kind of intelligence, or the presence of certain cognitive biases in their writing, but that's about all.

No I don't think i'm confusing it, I also don't seperate it, they are both part of our life experience. I also believe I have made friends on these forums even though I have never met them face to face. You can learn a lot, the only problem is that it is more difficult to determine if what you read is real or just made up fantasy. I could claim to have a Doctorate in any number of subjects and could maintain the fiction if not challenged and pressed too hard. However I admit that 'thedoc' is a nick-name given to me many years ago by some of my friends and it's self-inflicted in Microferroequineology.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Davidm- if you'd like to debate the merits of evolutionary psychology in another thread, I'd be happy to oblige.

I think that would be an interesting thread to follow, and If I could give a small bit of advice, clearly define all the major terms and don't assume that the other is useing the word the same way you are. These 2 threads suffered a lot of confusion since Lessans had addopted some unconvehtional definitions and claimed that he was clearing up confusion because other people were not understanding the terms correctly. As a starter evolution is a term that can be applied to almost anything that changes over time as a result of pressure, internal or external. In psychology a persons internal state changes as they grow and accumulate life experience, in a similar way the external circumstances will change as their life progresses. It has been said that the only constant, is change.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by thedoc

No I don't think i'm confusing it, I also don't seperate it, they are both part of our life experience. I also believe I have made friends on these forums even though I have never met them face to face. You can learn a lot, the only problem is that it is more difficult to determine if what you read is real or just made up fantasy. I could claim to have a Doctorate in any number of subjects and could maintain the fiction if not challenged and pressed too hard. However I admit that 'thedoc' is a nick-name given to me many years ago by some of my friends and it's self-inflicted in Microferroequineology.

I think you have to ask yourself whether the two claims you make in this post are consistent or contradictory. On the one hand, you have made friends here. On the other hand, there's no telling reality from fiction here.

[LadyShea]

peacegirl This link talks about the laws of geometric optics. If you believe optics to be a better model of efferent vision than it is for afferent vision, you need to explain how these support efferent vision

Phy 254 Laws of Geometrical Optics

These pages talk about the Beer-Lambert law regarding light absorption and atmospheric absorption as well (The full specrum from the sun does not reach Earth). Once again, (P) absorption MUST be compatible with these known laws of physics and empirically measurable observations

http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/spec/beerslaw.html
http://www.ess.uci.edu/~cmclinden/link/xx/node14.html

This NASA publication (.pdf) discusses the problem with studying the "full spectrum" from Earth, because the full spectrum does not reach Earth. So, you need to explain precisely what you mean by full spectrum in the way you are using it, because it is not the entire spectrum

Only visible light, some radio waves, and limited amounts of infrared and ultraviolet light survive the passage from space to the ground. That limited amount of radiation has given astronomers enough information to estimate the general shape and size of the universe and categorize its basic components, but there is much left to learn. It is essential to study the entire spectrum rather than just limited regions of it.

Relying on the radiation that reaches Earth's surface is like listening to a piano recital with only a few of the piano's keys working.

Now, I am pretty sure you have not studied enough optics for your claim that "optics supports efferent vision" to be remotely credible. Here's your chance to show that you have an even possible, let alone plausible model.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Every human being demonstrates cognitive bias on a constant basis. Some people are more prone to one type of bias over another. Peacegirl's favorite flavor is Escalation of Commitment. That doesn't make her crazy, just irrational, same as everyone else. Even and especially you, naturalist.atheist.

I wanted to add that you are just as wrong as the rest ThreeLawsSafe. How can you know that this is an irrational escalation when you don't even know what this book is about? I think as a psychologist your thoughts are overrated.

Escalation of commitment was first described by Barry M. Staw in his 1976 paper, "Knee deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action".[1] More recently the term sunk cost fallacy has been used to describe the phenomenon where people justify increased investment in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the cost, starting today, of continuing the decision outweighs the expected benefit. Such investment may include money, time, or — in the case of military strategy — human lives. The phenomenon and the sentiment underlying it are reflected in such proverbial images as Throwing good money after bad and In for a dime, in for a dollar (or In for a penny, in for a pound).

The term is also used to describe poor decision-making in business, government, information systems in general, software project management in particular, politics, and gambling. The term has been used to describe the United States commitment to military conflicts including Vietnam in the 1960s - 1970s and in Iraq in the 2000s, where dollars spent and lives lost justify continued involvement.[2]

Alternatively, irrational escalation (sometimes referred to as irrational escalation of commitment or commitment bias) is a term frequently used in psychology, philosophy, economics, and game theory[citation needed] to refer to a situation in which people can make irrational decisions based upon rational decisions in the past or to justify actions already taken. Examples are frequently seen when parties engage in a bidding war; the bidders can end up paying much more than the object is worth to justify the initial expenses associated with bidding (such as research), as well as part of a competitive instinct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_escalation

[davidm]

P.Z. Myers just hates evolutionary psychology.

[LadyShea]

On the one hand, you have made friends here. On the other hand, there's no telling reality from fiction here.

People can be fooled in real life just as they can be online. Sure it's harder to verify online, but that doesn't mean friendships made online aren't real or that the charming person from the office that you socialize with isn't a serial killer (Ted Bundy, anyone?).

I have never met davidm face to face, but I have been interacting with him for over a decade. I think I know what kind of person he is in general, as well as I know any acquaintances I only interact with in certain contexts (at school functions or teammates/classmates or whatever) I know what he does for a living and where. If I ever went to his city I've no doubt he'd meet me for a drink or a meal and be pleased to meet my family and we'd talk like familiar acquaintances talk.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl This link talks about the laws of geometric optics. If you believe optics to be a better model of efferent vision than it is for afferent vision, you need to explain how these support efferent vision

Phy 254 Laws of Geometrical Optics

These pages talk about the Beer-Lambert law regarding light absorption and atmospheric absorption as well (The full specrum from the sun does not reach Earth). Once again, (P) absorption MUST be compatible with these known laws of physics and empirically measurable observations

http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/spec/beerslaw.html
http://www.ess.uci.edu/~cmclinden/link/xx/node14.html

This NASA publication (.pdf) discusses the problem with studying the "full spectrum" from Earth, because the full spectrum does not reach Earth. So, you need to explain precisely what you mean by full spectrum in the way you are using it, because it is not the entire spectrum

Now, I am pretty sure you have not studied enough optics for your claim that "optics supports efferent vision" to be remotely credible. Here's your chance to show that you have an even possible, let alone plausible model.

You wrote: "Only visible light, some radio waves, and limited amounts of infrared and ultraviolet light survive the passage from space to ground. So isn't that which we see part of visible light? And beyond that, I already told you that, according to EFFERENT vision, light does not have to reach Earth for us to see the Sun and moon in real time.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

I think you have to ask yourself whether the two claims you make in this post are consistent or contradictory. On the one hand, you have made friends here. On the other hand, there's no telling reality from fiction here.

People are often self-contradictory because they are so complex, simple answers are rarely sufficient, and I have been the victim of others who feel the need to pidgon-hole everyone with a simple description, and then not expand on that at all. On the internet you take what you get and work within it, if it proves to be false, you move on having learned something, but I refuse to judge the next person by past experience with others. So you are what you say you are till proven otherwise, if that makes me vulnerable to deceit, what have I lost?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You wrote: "Only visible light, some radio waves, and limited amounts of infrared and ultraviolet light survive the passage from space to ground. So isn't that which we see part of visible light? And beyond that, I already told you that, according to EFFERENT vision, light does not have to reach Earth for us to see the Sun and moon in real time.

Really? That's your whole response to this post?

I specifically said "So, you need to explain precisely what you mean by full spectrum in the way you are using it, because it is not the entire spectrum". You've been talking about the full spectrum for a week or so now.

If you only mean the visible spectrum, then start using "visible spectrum"

And no, I didn't write that, NASA did

Lastly, even if we don't need light to reach Earth to see it, we must have photons touch camera film to be absorbed and create a photographic image.
So, if the Sun was turned on at noon, how could we photograph the Sun at noon when the photons from the Sun are not on Earth to be absorbed by camera film?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Now, now, ThreeLawsSafe, there you go with the insults, you are better than that!

Do you see what you're dealing with ThreeLawsSafe???

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You wrote: "Only visible light, some radio waves, and limited amounts of infrared and ultraviolet light survive the passage from space to ground. So isn't that which we see part of visible light? And beyond that, I already told you that, according to EFFERENT vision, light does not have to reach Earth for us to see the Sun and moon in real time.

Yes, peacegirl, you already TOLD us this a thousand times; but now, here, even after nearly a thousand pages across two threads, you still have not provided a PHYSICAL MECHANISM OR COHERENT EXPLANATION FOR HOW THIS MIRACLE OCCURS; i.e. you have not yet learned the difference between assert and explain; between tell and show. You feebly tried by talking incomprehensible nonsense about mirror images that you yourself do not even understand.

But it's moot. Lessans is wrong. The discussion which I see you are now avoiding of how we send spacecraft to other worlds proves that we do not see in real time. It is about the hundredth different proof you have been given. If you read my last post I gave you good advice, which I'm srue you will not follow.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I think that would be an interesting thread to follow, and If I could give a small bit of advice, clearly define all the major terms and don't assume that the other is useing the word the same way you are. These 2 threads suffered a lot of confusion since Lessans had addopted some unconvehtional definitions and claimed that he was clearing up confusion because other people were not understanding the terms correctly. As a starter evolution is a term that can be applied to almost anything that changes over time as a result of pressure, internal or external. In psychology a persons internal state changes as they grow and accumulate life experience, in a similar way the external circumstances will change as their life progresses. It has been said that the only constant, is change.

I think you should start a thread, then. Of course I'll define terms closely. By Evolutionary Psychology, I mean the body of work produced in academic journals and related books, begun by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby at UC Santa Barbara, which envisions the mind as a set of information-processing machines that were designed by natural selection to solve adaptive problems faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors.

I think the notion that everything is capable of changing within the human mind is an untenable claim, and the evidence in psychology shows that fairly definitively.

[LadyShea]

So put people on ignore for reals, peacegirl. You aren't forced to read what anyone writes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Really? That's your whole response to this post?

I specifically said "So, you need to explain precisely what you mean by full spectrum in the way you are using it, because it is not the entire spectrum". You've been talking about the full spectrum for a week or so now.

If you only mean the visible spectrum, then start using "visible spectrum"

ANd no, I didn't write that, NASA did

I don't care what words are used LadyShea, when we look out at our environment, we see colors and we see white light. What do you think white light is made up of? This whole discussion has gotten way off track into theoretical nonsense for the sole purpose of throwing me off balance when it doesn't even relate. How can you explain anything from this perspective, even what science calls fact?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So put people on ignore for reals, peacegirl. You aren't forced to read what anyone writes.

I have put people on ignore. But at this point I want to know the garbage they are spewing. If their lies make me feel physically sick, I will have to put them on ignore if I want to remain in this thread.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And beyond that, I already told you that, according to EFFERENT vision, light does not have to reach Earth for us to see the Sun and moon in real time.

Even if we don't need light to reach Earth to see it, we must have photons touch camera film to be absorbed and create a photographic image.
So, if the Sun was turned on at noon, how could we photograph the Sun at noon when the photons from the Sun are not on Earth to be absorbed by camera film?

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

People can be fooled in real life just as they can be online. Sure it's harder to verify online, but that doesn't mean friendships made online aren't real or that the charming person from the office that you socialize with isn't a serial killer (Ted Bundy, anyone?).

I have never met davidm face to face, but I have been interacting with him for over a decade. I think I know what kind of person he is in general, as well as I know any acquaintances I only interact with in certain contexts (at school functions or teammates/classmates or whatever) I know what he does for a living and where. If I ever went to his city I've no doubt he'd meet me for a drink or a meal and be pleased to meet my family and we'd talk like familiar acquaintances talk.

Good for you and davidm, LadyShea. I'm glad you became friends. I'm noticing that your evidence for that friendship is partly grounded in your real-life meeting. I wonder why it was so important for you to stress that? I think it evidences exactly the point I'm making.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Really? That's your whole response to this post?

I specifically said "So, you need to explain precisely what you mean by full spectrum in the way you are using it, because it is not the entire spectrum". You've been talking about the full spectrum for a week or so now.

If you only mean the visible spectrum, then start using "visible spectrum"

And no, I didn't write that, NASA did

Lastly, even if we don't need light to reach Earth to see it, we must have photons touch camera film to be absorbed and create a photographic image.
So, if the Sun was turned on at noon, how could we photograph the Sun at noon when the photons from the Sun are not on Earth to be absorbed by camera film?

So tell me what are we seeing when we look out on a clear day? What is the color of the space between objects if not the full spectrum of light?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wanted to add that you are just as wrong as the rest ThreeLawsSafe. How can you know that this is an irrational escalation when you don't even know what this book is about? I think as a psychologist your thoughts are overrated.

WELL ThreeLawSafe, I guess she told you, and since Lessans/Peacegirl are never wrong, you along with the rest of us have gotten the 'short end of the stick'.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care what words are used LadyShea, when we look out at our environment, we see colors and we see white light. What do you think white light is made up of? This whole discussion has gotten way off track into theoretical nonsense for the sole purpose of throwing me off balance when it doesn't even relate. How can you explain anything from this perspective, even what science calls fact?

Imprecise words indicate sloppy thinking and a sloppy model.

You want to be taken seriously, act like a serious person discussing scientifically valid ideas rather than a crackpot blathering meaningless gibberish

The links I gave you are precise, they describe laws and show the mathematics of optics...which is the model for standard vision...which you said supports efferent vision. Show us how.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Even if we don't need light to reach Earth to see it, we must have photons touch camera film to be absorbed and create a photographic image.
So, if the Sun was turned on at noon, how could we photograph the Sun at noon when the photons from the Sun are not on Earth to be absorbed by camera film?

This goes back to the way the brain works and the requirement that the object must be in view (optics). When those two phenomenon come together, we get a mirror image. Mirror images do not require travel from point to point. They are an exact replica but on the other side of the imaginary coin, which I've stated more than once.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Good for you and davidm, LadyShea. I'm glad you became friends. I'm noticing that your evidence for that friendship is partly grounded in your real-life meeting. I wonder why it was so important for you to stress that? I think it evidences exactly the point I'm making.

You misread. We have NOT met in real life. She said "if" we did, a conditional.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by thedoc

People are often self-contradictory because they are so complex, simple answers are rarely sufficient, and I have been the victim of others who feel the need to pidgon-hole everyone with a simple description, and then not expand on that at all. On the internet you take what you get and work within it, if it proves to be false, you move on having learned something, but I refuse to judge the next person by past experience with others. So you are what you say you are till proven otherwise, if that makes me vulnerable to deceit, what have I lost?

I don't think it's a question of what have you lost. I think it's a question of what have you gained? Dialogue, insight, some sense of community? Sure. Real friendship? I think in most cases that's highly arguable. Again, don't confuse the projected affectations of Internet personalities with true-to-life people and behaviors. That's my only point.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So tell me what are we seeing when we look out on a clear day? What is the color of the space between objects if not the full spectrum of light?

Your ignorance is quite sad, actually. You do not even know what "full spectrum" means.