A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yet you can't do so. Show us the proof in real life.

His reasoning was poor and full of fallacies. You can't even refute the very valid and repeatedly demonstrated charge of modal fallacy in the very first premise, which is the foundation of the first discovery.

If you can't support it, the whole thing falls apart. Belief that it will lead to desirable outcome isn't evidence that it is true or valid.

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

There is no reason to believe that animal vision is the same as Human vision, it is, but not necessarily so. Some animals (Mollusks that have blue blood) have copper based blood as opposed to Iron based blood (which is red) in most other animals including humans. Most animals, if not all, do not have free will, they are running on instinct.

That is not the definition most philosophers are referring to when they discuss free will. Just because humans can choose and don't always run on instinct does not mean our will is free.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Humans are the only animals that are claimed, by some, to have free will, and even though that is being debated, animal behavior does not determine human behavior. Seeing animal behavior as free will is simply the owner anthropomorphizing human behavior onto the animal, where it has no basis in reality.

And seeing human behavior as free is simply seeing through a pinhole, where it has no basis in reality.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Do you realise you are essentially conceding your position here? This whole 'time will tell' line is tacit acknowledgement that right now there is no reason at all to believe Lessans.

That's fine with me. I'm not begging anyone to believe he is right unless it is proven to their satisfaction. But what they want from me I cannot give. I think his explanation is more than satisfactory, but I was not indoctrinated with the same knowledge as you. And you have more on your side because this knowledge has graduated into fact and has been accepted by science. That's why you all can't leave this topic alone until there's some kind of resolution (no pun intended).

Originally Posted by Dragar

'Time will tell' is your mantra now. It is not 'the evidence is overwhelmingly in his favour!' nor even 'Lots of data hints Lessans is right!'. Instead it's, "Well sure, things don't look great now...but they will later!".

Originally Posted by Dragar

You have no evidence. You have hope and faith there will be some, without good reason. But that's not evidence, that's hope of evidence. So nobody right now should believe Lessans. It's a mystery as to why you do, given that you think 'only time will tell'.

His explanation makes sense. He did not just say the eyes are not a sense organ, and leave it at that. That would be absurd.

Originally Posted by Dragar

(By the way, wouldn't a great test be to try to land a rover on Mars using ideas about vision Lessans said were wrong? If we manage to land something successfully, it would completely rule him out!)

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. As far as the time/light correction, there has to be more proof than that even though it looks airtight. Even in a court of law they won't accept one, or even two, pieces of evidence because they know it could still end up leading to a wrong conclusion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yet you have all along claimed to be an unbiased editor regardless of being his daughter...you got really testy with me about it even.

I'm not referring to the actual concepts involved. I'm only referring to his way of expressing himself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Amazon.com: On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not: Robert Burton: Books

This is why the best evidence always wins with the type of people you've been talking to. Without that evidence peacegirl, anyone who is seriously interested in this book will not be scientists or the scientifically minded, or critical thinkers, but the gullible and easily impressed.

Added to original post:

You cannot put Lessans in this category. I know you're trying very hard to discredit him in any way you can. Yes, some people think certain things are right by the way they feel, and, yes, I'm sure Burton can explore the inconsistent and sometimes paradoxical relationship between our thoughts and what we actually know, BUT THIS DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY APPLY TO LESSANS, JUST BECAUSE HE MAKES THE CLAIMS HE DOES.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do I know they are not gullible or easily impressed? How do I know they exist at all?

Oh wow, well known in many circles? What circles? Academia? Science? How about woo?

Unless they are scientists, scientifically minded, or critical thinkers then my point stands.

Also the support of unnamed people in unnamed circles isn't evidence supporting Lessans ideas, you know that right?

They are scientifically minded LadyShea. This knowledge is not woo just because you don't grasp it. You're putting yourself on too high a pedestal, I'm sorry to say.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The question remains, how far do you know? All of the evidence so far suggests that you don't know very far, or very high, or very deep or very wide. That is alright though, for you. This way you are only responsible for making accurate claims about the things that you do know, now. You have no responsibility regarding the things that you could know, if you would only take the time and effort to learn about them. Inviolable ignorance makes for a very effective defense.

As I said, I believe his claims are well supported. They didn't come out of nowhere. By the way, your question as to why he didn't mention that the statement "nothing can make us do anything against our will," did not exclude what happens to him, was mentioned.

Man either doesn’t have a choice because none is involved, as when something happens to him; or he has a choice, and then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his nature, to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction, whether it is the lesser of two evils (both considered bad for himself), the greater of two goods, or a good over an evil.

[davidm]

Good thing peacegirl isn't interested in having this conversation any longer. Imagine what it would be like if she were interested in continuing to converse!

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I don't why, of all the silly things she says, this strikes me as so funny, but it does.


I guess we can add "glacier" to the long list of words that peacegirl uses but doesn't understand.

So you haven't heard about the cruise ship that accidentally sailed a couple of hundred miles inland and hit the Oberaletsch Glacier in the Alps a couple of weeks ago?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

So you haven't heard about the cruise ship that accidentally sailed a couple of hundred miles inland and hit the Oberaletsch Glacier in the Alps a couple of weeks ago?

I went on an Alaskan cruise this summer, we could have hit the glacier, but we would have had to hit a lot of icebergs first.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

So you haven't heard about the cruise ship that accidentally sailed a couple of hundred miles inland and hit the Oberaletsch Glacier in the Alps a couple of weeks ago?

That's just terrible, did it sink? and were they able to get everyone off in time?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah you have made your first convert then?

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

That may be Lessans definition, but as usual it is not based on real science. A sense organ is some structure in the body that receives external stimuli, converts it into impulses that are transfered to the brain. Once in the brain those impulses are intrepreted as information, and this is a seperate issue from sense. It is part of the whole process, but the brain intreprets all the input from all the senses and recognition is not part of the definition of a sense. Many animals and humans see things (sense them) without recognizing what they are. Recognition only comes to play after the sense organ has received the stimuli and sent the signals to the brain.

Obviously, the external stimuli being received has to be interpreted by the brain, otherwise nothing will register. If a dog smells steak, he will act different towards it than if he smells a potato because his brain is interpreting what those smells mean. If you hit a dog, it will hurt because his brain is recognizing pain. If you yell at a dog in anger the dog will take that as a threat and react in fear in order to protect itself. That involves interpretation of that stimuli by the brain, which is a major part of how sense experience works. 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, especially if it is a picture of someone the dog knows and loves.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

So you haven't heard about the cruise ship that accidentally sailed a couple of hundred miles inland and hit the Oberaletsch Glacier in the Alps a couple of weeks ago?

No, can you find the link to the news report? Did you know 3 weeks before the Titanic sunk there was another ship in Australia that sunk due to a cyclone? The ships were built very much alike, and both were thought to be unsinkable.

Fateful voyage of Australian 'Titanic' remains a riddle
You might find this website interesting.

http://lostliners.com/content/

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, the external stimuli being received has to be interpreted by the brain, otherwise nothing will register.

A considerable amount of the data collected by your senses doesn't go to the brain at all -- even sensory impulses to which we respond.

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 naturally, you can tell me what this is:

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

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, can you find the link to the news report? Did you know 3 weeks before the Titanic sunk there was another ship in Australia that sunk due to a cyclone? The ships were built very much alike, and both were thought to be unsinkable.

Fateful voyage of Australian 'Titanic' remains a riddle
You might find this website interesting.

http://lostliners.com/content/

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

Nobody's that stupid! Right?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I don't why, of all the silly things she says, this strikes me as so funny, but it does.


I guess we can add "glacier" to the long list of words that peacegirl uses but doesn't understand.

gla·cier/ˈglāSHər/

Noun

A slowly moving mass or river of ice formed by the accumulation and compaction of snow on mountains or near the poles.

Glaciers are huge flows of ice carving their way through valleys, almost like rivers of ice, but they move extremely slowly. Icebergs are chunks of ice just floatin' around in the ocean, like what the Titanic crashed into.

This looks like an interesting article about the differences in these ice formations:

All About Sea Ice, Introduction :: National Snow and Ice Data Center

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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

Nobody's that stupid! Right?

I am gullible because I trust people and what they say. Okay, so maybe I should have said iceberg.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

A considerable amount of the data collected by your senses doesn't go to the brain at all -- even sensory impulses to which we respond.

So naturally, you can tell me what this is:

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

Thanks for correcting me, but you at least got the gist of what I was saying. Is that a jelly fish? Yes, there are some creatures that have no brains so they are just reacting to certain stimuli (plural) as a reflex action. 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.

A specialized organ or structure, such as the eye, ear, tongue, nose, or skin, where sensory neurons are concentrated and which functions as a receptor.

sense organ - definition of sense organ by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is that a jelly fish?

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?

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.

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 ...

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even in a court of law they won't accept one, or even two, pieces of evidence because they know it could still end up leading to a wrong conclusion.

Do tell! Exactly how many "pieces of evidence" are legally required in a "court of law" in order for "accept[ance]"?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

.

<snip>

So this is exactly what I lampooned earlier - the strange "rules of the road" like approach to all relationships that Lessans applied. Let us consider the example of the invitation to sex.

According to Lessans, simply stating that one is horny is bad: should the other person not be in the mood, then this would mean that you are tacitly blaming them for not satisfying your desire. But his proposal: translucent robes and sexy jackets (what a gem!) to indicate that you are in the mood, and which are designed to put the other person in the mood as well.

This is one of those sections where his wording was old fashioned. Remember, he lived in the 20th century and those were words that were used back then. That is not what was meant by that sentence. Asking someone for sex is like asking them for a favor. If he is not in the mood, she needs to try to get him in the mood without expectation or obligation, otherwise, she is considering her desire more important than his. That's all he meant by this.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But that would not work: just because your request is not verbal, does not make it any less of a request. Wearing those clothes is no different from saying "I am feeling frisky and I hope you do too!", so in that case a lack of response is still the same as saying "Not tonight, josephine".

That's true, and there's nothing wrong with using words. Words can be very enticing. The whole point here is that both desires are respected, not just one.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I made fun of this by portraying a couple that is trying to live by these rules and as a result is almost incapable of doing anything, from initiating sex to changing the channel on the TV, because anything might be construed as tacitly blaming someone. In the end they have to pretend to make decisions by accident just to get anything done.

You're reading into this way too much, although it's good that you are analyzing it. There is no tacit blame in any of these situations, so I'm not sure why you would think pretending to make decisions has anything to do with it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Once again, once you take the recommendations from the book and put them in a practical context, you quickly find out that they only work in a fantasy world of Lessans own devising. The magic ingredient is "in an environment where there is no blame and where we realize our will is not free conscience is perfect" - for which we have no proof.

But there is proof, and conscience is brought to a much higher level once all blame is removed from the environment. But you have to remember that this is gradual. It's a transition and people have to understand the principles before they become citizens, otherwise they have to be controlled by the laws of their country or there would be chaos.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Even if we leave that aside and examine Lessans imaged world where perfect consciences keep us from ever making malicious decisions, what we see is not a eutopia but a place where everyone is paralysed by the constant worry of offending anyone, even by implication. You cannot even ask someone the time, even if all that takes if for them to glance at their watch. You cannot ask them to stop off at the shops, even if you a temporarily without transportation yourself. Even speaking for the sake of a chat, when you do not have anything important to say, is a potential burden on another, and could be construed as blaming another for not wanting to chat right now.

I can see where you would think that, but in actuality it won't work that way. It is not going to be some kind of standard that we have to adhere to. All this will do is show people who has the right-of-way when desires conflict. You have the right to ask a favor, but the other person has the right-of-way to reject what you request. The interesting part here is that knowing your spouse would not hestitate to honor your request, prevents you from desiring to take advantage by asking him to do things that you can do for yourself. All this does is make you more aware of the things that you can do for yourself before obligating others to pick up the slack.

p. 182 Doing chores will become
a second nature when the habit is developed. And
when they are old enough to understand that they
are helping reduce our physical effort for which we
would never blame them if they stopped what has
become their responsibility, even if this meant we
would have to work harder ourselves, they would
soon prefer to continue helping us because not to
would give them less satisfaction. However,
asking favors is an altogether different thing and
cannot be placed in the same category as chores,
otherwise we could take advantage by making
them feel guilty by not blaming them for refusing
to do what we have requested.

“Honey, would you mind running downstairs
and getting daddy the evening paper?”

“Not now, Daddy, I’m busy.”

“That’s all right, Sweetheart, you don’t have to
do it if you don’t want to. I”ll get it myself even
though I’m so tired.”

His daughter, suddenly feeling responsible for
the possibility of hurting her father, then answers
reluctantly – “Never mind, Daddy, I’ll get it for
you.”But when we know that they have the right-ofway
to refuse what we have the right to ask, we
can no longer justify making them feel guilty over
not doing it, which forces us not to be careless
about forgetting to do certain things that will make
us work harder simply because we can no longer
desire to hurt them, or make them feel guilty, for
not doing what we should have done for ourselves,
or for doing what they have the right-of-way to do.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

These are just the issues the book brings up, and they are all dealt with in a way that looks suspiciously as Lessans own personal preferences.

Take the case where two people have different desires: one wants to sleep together, the other apart. One of these two people is going to have to sleep in a way that they do not like: but somehow the "sleeping apart" side gets right of way, because it involves a person doing something. That you can also see sleeping alone as doing something is disregarded, because Lessans system is not equipped for situations where there is no simple right or wrong answer. His entire philosophy is based on there being a very simple RIGHT and a very simple WRONG, and that these are readily identifiable once we all use his system.

But as we have seen - even if you ignore the problem of the lack of evidence, the right-of-way-system he proposes does not work, and relies on arbitrary decisions of what behaviour gets right of way and what does not.

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Do tell! Exactly how many "pieces of evidence" are legally required in a "court of law" in order for "accept[ance]"?

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

sense organ
n. A specialized organ or structure, such as the eye, ear, tongue, nose, or skin, where sensory neurons are concentrated and that functions as a receptor. Also called sensor.

The brain does form an image from the signals from the eye but the recognition as a particular object or person is not part of that requirement. The image may be of something that the person or dog is not familiar with and therefore will not be identified as a particular thing or person, but the image will still be present in the brain. The eye as the 'Sense Organ' only receives the stimuli and transmit the signal to the brain.

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does not make sense that a dog can identify his owner when he hears his voice; and can identify his owner through the sense of smell, so WHY can't he identify his owner through his sense of sight? This is a very legitimate question and to tell me that his brain doesn't register this is not a satisfactory explanation.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Point one: there is plenty of evidence that dogs can recognize photographs and videos of their masters.

I haven't seen any conclusive evidence.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Point two: So what if they can't? A dog's fusiform gyrus (you know, the part of the brain that allows us to recognize faces?) is much less sophisticated than is a human's. Given that facial recognition is a computationally-demanding, highly sophisticated brain function, there's no particular reason to expect a dog to be able to recognize a human face.

I'm not sure why the brain function in vision would be particularly more difficult than hearing or smelling, if it were a sense organ. The fact that dogs can't recognize faces from a picture is due to the fact that dogs cannot learn language (some can learn quite a few words; but for the most part their word/object capacity is limited), which is required in order to identify differences in substance. Dogs use smell as their main sense while humans use their eyesight. That's probably why our sense of smell is not as acute as a dog's. It makes perfect sense.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Point three: You do remember, don't you, that there are plenty of people who have perfectly normal vision, but cannot recognize faces, due to improperly-functioning fusiform gyri?

Why does this conflict with anything I've said. If something is wrong with that part of the temporal lobe, there will be a problem seeing faces. I never said there was no association between what we see and the brain. I am only differing with the direction in which we see.