A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yeah I'm gonna need a little more detail on that, okay? That'd be great.

I'm searching for it now. In the meantime, here's Peacegirl making the same idiotic claim about airplanes back in 2007:

FRDB Archives - View Single Post - New Discovery

Originally Posted by Peacegirl at IIDB in 2007

...Why do you think there is a discrepancy between the sound of an airplane which comes first (as a result of sound waves hitting our ear drum), and our ability to see the airplane which comes a few seconds later?...

[Vivisectus]

In the meantime, we still don't know about these mysterious reasons that he had for thinking the eye works like that in the first place. All he mentions in the book is dog sight and infant sight - not nearly enough to jump to such a conclusion.

Why did he assume it?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm searching for it now. In the meantime, here's Peacegirl making the same idiotic claim about airplanes back in 2007:

FRDB Archives - View Single Post - New Discovery

Wow - at least her sentences have become slightly more coherent over the years. If you saw that post in writing, you would expect it to be scrawled in crayon!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm searching for it now. In the meantime, here's Peacegirl making the same idiotic claim about airplanes back in 2007:

FRDB Archives - View Single Post - New Discovery

There is nothing idiotic about it. A plane should be seen if the light bouncing off of it is traveling toward the eye like sound. It's true that the plane can't be seen simply because it's too small or too far away to be resolved.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing idiotic about it. A plane should be seen if the light bouncing off of it is traveling toward the eye like sound. It's true that the plane can't be seen simply because it's too small or too far away to be resolved.

That's a completely different idiotic claim to the one we are discussing.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yeah I'm gonna need a little more detail on that, okay? That'd be great.

Here we go. As you can see from the post numbers, it wasn't a mere one-off brain fart.

FRDB Archives - View Single Post - New Discovery II

Originally Posted by Peacegirl at IIDB thread II post #481

How can a camera take a picture of an eclipse at night then? Where are the photons which then gets put on film? The answer is NO!!!!! I WIN. :devil1: muuahahahahahaahaaaaaaaaa

FRDB Archives - View Single Post - New Discovery II

Originally Posted by Peacegirl at IIDB thread II post #550

That's what we are trying to figure out. How can a camera take a picture of an eclipse at night, yet the picture turns out perfect. How do the photons surrounding the eclipse (unless it's a complete eclipse) get reflected back onto the film if there is no surrounding light and no flash?

FRDB Archives - View Single Post - New Discovery II

Originally Posted by Peacegirl at IIDB thread II post #710

I'm trying to understand how any picture taken at night can work without a flash? Supposing a house is all lit up for Christmas and a picture is taken from a regular camera at a distance. How does the picture get onto the film if there is no surrounding light? I am just asking a simple question, so please don't give me a hard time.

[Vivisectus]

yeah only... you can see them before you hear them. And apparently people have been explaining this to you for years.

Also:

A plane should be seen if the light bouncing off of it is traveling toward the eye like sound.

...and it is!

It's true that the plane can't be seen simply because it's too small or too far away to be resolved.

Get away - a plane cannot be seen when it is too small to be seen? That is amazing news!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing idiotic about it. A plane should be seen if the light bouncing off of it is traveling toward the eye like sound. It's true that the plane can't be seen simply because it's too small or too far away to be resolved.

Did you not watch any of the numerous videos posted showing planes that you can see before you can hear them?

[Vivisectus]

Wow - so now we have classic peacegirl, which is even more confused that this later stuff.

But hey - she hasn't repeated the "how can I take a picture of an eclipse" idiocy it in this thread! That is cause for optimism, isn't it? Who knows! In another 5 years, we may even get her to stop saying images travel through space!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is not what the test was about. It was to recognize family members based on familiar features.

No, we really wouldn't. That kind of thinking is appropriate for episodes of Lassie, Flipper, or Skippy the bush kangaroo. It has nothing to do with reality.

Lassie or Flipper, being smart animals, would definitely be able to recognize a family member in a picture and respond in some way.

No, we would not know just from bleating, but we would know from a combination of other movements and noises to get a clue that he was responding to the picture.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, that is some nonsense that you just made up.

No, I really didn't.

Think what you want Vivisectus. You are an extremely hard headed person, and you would probably be the last person to understand these principles, so your opinion really doesn't matter to me.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What a pity! Your opinions are an ongoing source of entertainment to me. Too bad you do not appreciate mine.

No I don't.

You will one day eat crow when you learn that he was right all along, and you had the audacity to call him names. This is not reducing life to simplicity. Mankind had to go through many years of development to reach this turning point in our history. There's nothing simple about it. You have no idea what kind of studying it took that allowed him to perceive these undeniable relations. He was so opposite of your portrayal of him, your words are lies. There is no fallacy or sophistry in his entire book. This knowledge is divine, but it has nothing to do with me having a special position as High Priestess. This is all in your head.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, I really won't be eating any crow. I will be right here, enjoying your feeble antics. And I am glad you admit this is a religious work - divine knowledge huh?

It is divine knowledge. You can call it religious if you want, but the truth is religion has nothing to do with these principles. Religion is on its way out because we won't need to pray for God to deliver us from all evil once we're delivered.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Tell me this: if this is such a scientific work, where is the evidence? If he was so smart, why did he forget to include any? If he was so right, then how come every time we do any kind of empirical testing the results indicate the exact opposite of what he predicted?

Where does empirical testing indicate the exact opposite of what he predicted? There is nothing that has shown this. He didn't forget to include any. Empirical testing was not how he came to his conclusions. You don't seem to get it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Don't you think that it would be kind of important to include why we should believe something? If I were to declare that firemen are what allows fires to happen, would you not expect me to provide you with a compelling case the believe this was the case? If so, then why is this book exempt somehow?

I am repeating that after today if I see anything disrespected directed toward me or Lessans, I'm ignoring all your posts.

Either show me the evidence, or admit that this book is nothing but a collection of a vain man's unsupported opinions. Or better still: continue these feeble attempts at moving the goalposts, setting up strawmen, and generally cheating and lying in any way you can, as long as you can hold on to what you have now openly admitted is a religious belief. It may be an example of all that is ignorant and despicable in dogmatic belief, but I do find it very entertaining.

When I say it was divinely inspiried, it doesn't mean it's religious.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Then why is your approach to science to dismiss anything it teaches you that you disagree with? You told me that earlier, remember?

My approach to science does not dismiss anything it teaches if there is good reason to accept what it teaches. But if the empirical evidence is unreliable, I'm not going to accept it just because somebody, who calls himself a scientist, says it is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are being purposefully obtuse. I explained to you the need for training, it is only to teach the animal to do something specific to indicate it's choice of photograph. Any human interpreting animal behavior, or trying to ascertain a state of mind, would not be scientifically valid methodology.

A human would need to do something specific to indicate a choice as well (you do it all the time. Ever taken a fill in the bubble test?) but researchers can simply explain it to them "Bush this button or that button" or "Point" or whatever. Animals need training because they can't understand verbal or written explanations.

I'm sorry LadyShea, but this training should not be necessary to elicit a response in a smart breed who loves his owner and misses him. There should be some response, even a wag of a tail when that photograph is put right in front of him. Being trained to push a lever when his owner's photograph comes up is so unreliable, I can't believe you don't see the problem.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So? Does being nasty or demeaning or even cowardly make my arguments less accurate? No.

Like millions of woo peddlers and evangelists before you, you are using ad homs and tone arguments and such as a way to evade responding to valid criticisms because you are a weasel.

Being nasty or demeaning does not make your arguments less accurate. So what's the purpose?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Have you spoken to your son, the radiologist, about Lessans theory of sight yet? He is a scientist with relevant expertise in optics, and you love and trust each other presumably. Your excuse that he's just too busy doesn't fly, because surely he isn't too busy to have a discussion with his mom, especially about the most important discovery in human history and the answer to world peace?

I have talked to him about it, but he isn't an eye doctor. Eye doctors wouldn't know any better than the general population either. I wouldn't pressure my son right now when he just finished his fellowship in emergency care and he's just starting his new job. Are you crazy?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

More weaseling and evasion. You're MO.

I've not lied at all. My conclusions are mine and are based on facts and evidence, and therefore valid unless shown to be incorrect with superior facts and evidence.

I do the same thing. You just come to different conclusions. You have absolutely no understanding of any of his discoveries. I'm not saying it to be mean, but you don't. So continue to come to your own conclusions, and I'll come to mine.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Students have to be trained how to use the "fill-in-the-bubble" tests in order to indicate their choices. Granted, humans are pretty smart, and the training is pretty quick. Still, it is training.

I don't call it training. I calling it giving directions about where to indicate one's choice. But to be able to know that a dog understands what he's suppose to do, even with a reward, cannot be used as an accurate indicator of recognition. If it were true, then it should not be that hard to find a dog that sees a picture of his owner and starts to react in some way, whether it's jumping up and down, wagging his tail, licking the picture, barking, anything that would indicate some kind of recognitions. If you have seen this, let me know.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So does that invalidate all the exams I've been giving my students?

As far as access to Nature goes, alas, they make only their abstracts and figures available online unless you pay for the full articles. Of course, I have access to the print version through the library, and could make copies.

No it doesn't invalidate the exams because they have the intellectual capacity to understand what is being asked of them.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do the same thing.

The hell you do. LadyShea's conclusions are based on facts and evidence utilizing her own reasoning abilities. Your conclusions are based on unshakeable religious faith in whatever idiocy your father happened to write down in his book. What would Lessans think of your lies and evasion if he were still here to witness it today?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it were true, then it should not be that hard to find a dog that sees a picture of his owner and starts to react in some way, whether it's jumping up and down, wagging his tail, licking the picture, barking, anything that would indicate some kind of recognitions.

Do you do these things when you see a photograph of someone you know?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Being trained to push a lever when his owner's photograph comes up is so unreliable, I can't believe you don't see the problem.

For the billionth time, the dogs are not trained to push the lever when they see their owner. They are trained to push the lever to indicate their preferred photograph. Pushing the lever is trained. Recognizing their owners is not. There is nothing unreliable about this procedure.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, I said they could mimic faces. You move goalposts like it is a game of Three Cup Shuffle! Please do not interpret that as me trying to make you stop now.

I cannot find the abstract proper at this moment, but I do have a mention of this famous study here Andrew N. Meltzoff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which showed that infant as young as 72 hours can in fact mimic facial expressions, such as sticking out their tongue. If they needed

Astonishingly and fascinatingly enough, apparently even neonatal macaques can do it!

Mirror neuron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which is kind of wicked - there is some reason to suspect we have specialised neurons that not only allow us to display behaviours but observe them, recognize them and reproduce them. This would allow for a limited amount of hard-wiring of behaviour, and then relying on the surroundings to trigger them at a hopefully appropriate time.

How do you explain that in terms of lessanese sight? Should the newborn not be triggered by some sense other than sight to "focus" on the tongue, and then "project a word-association" on it?

You are so confused. This is not about a word association. A word association helps to identify an individual by giving him a name, which distinguishes him from other people when the name is used. A baby even a month old is already beginning to focus his eyes due to the stimulation he has received from his other senses. Once his eyes focus, they stay focused. I would like to see a newborn imitate his parent's gestures when his eyes are clearly not focused.

1 month old baby copies dad, making face, mimic...

[Vivisectus]

Lassie or Flipper, being smart animals, would definitely be able to recognize a family member in a picture and respond in some way.

Ohh that's a keeper.

No, we would not know just from bleating, but we would know from a combination of other movements and noises to get a clue that he was responding to the picture.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, that is some nonsense that you just made up.

It is nonsense: you are expecting human reactions, and reactions that are inappropriate for an image. If you were testing people, you would say they did not recognise pictures because they do not kiss images.

It is divine knowledge. You can call it religious if you want, but the truth is religion has nothing to do with these principles. Religion is on its way out because we won't need to pray for God to deliver us from all evil once we're delivered.

Well, it is something I am supposed to believe because someone had an alleged revelation. I do not get to see his data or methods to see if I agree with it: I just have to take his word for it.

I do not get to see why I should assume conscience works this way. I am not told why I should assume sight works the way he claims it does. In order to believe this book is true, I need to take all that on faith.

Sure sounds like a religion to me.

Where does empirical testing indicate the exact opposite of what he predicted? There is nothing that has shown this. He didn't forget to include any. Empirical testing was not how he came to his conclusions. You don't seem to get it.

Cameras, Moons of Jupiter, tests regarding the speed of light, a simple examination of the optical nerve. Just to name a few. The rest is un-testable, except by a global social engineering project.

And he did not include any reason to believe conscience works the way he said it does - he did not just not supply any evidence, he forgot to even make a case for it. All he did was claim that it was so. Without it the whole system falls down... a system he expected us to implement, in order to see if it works!

If he did not forget to include, then he must have felt his say-so should be good enough for the entire world?

I am repeating that after today if I see anything disrespected directed toward me or Lessans, I'm ignoring all your posts.

You can do as you please. The facts remain the same: where is the evidence for this vital, all important part? Where is there even a case for it? He either forgot to include it, or he expected people to just accept that it is so, based solely on his say-so... how much more arrogant can a man get?

He expected the entire world to change, based on his say-so. He either did not notice he never even made it plausible that conscience works that way, in which case he was a fool. Or he felt it was not necessary to explain this, in which case he was an arrogant buffoon. Either way I see nothing that warrants my respect.

When I say it was divinely inspiried, it doesn't mean it's religious.

So no evidence then?

It is your personal religion - unassailable by reason or reality.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so confused. This is not about a word association. A word association helps to identify an individual by giving him a name, which distinguishes him from other people when the name is used. A baby even a month old is already beginning to focus his eyes due to the stimulation he has received from his other senses. Once his eyes focus, they stay focused. I would like to see a newborn imitate his parent's gestures when his eyes are clearly not focused.

Did you not read the information again? 72 hour old babies can mimic gestures and faces. Also you are using the word "focus" wrong... again. Do try to keep up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In the meantime, we still don't know about these mysterious reasons that he had for thinking the eye works like that in the first place. All he mentions in the book is dog sight and infant sight - not nearly enough to jump to such a conclusion.

Why did he assume it?

Those examples were just that. He did not look at dog sight and infant sight and come to a conclusion. He made his observations based on seeing how we become conditioned by words that have made people inferior productions of the human race due to their physiognomies. He saw how this conditioning occurs. Descriptors are projected onto people with certain facial structures. A child keeps hearing positive or negative inflections when that person is identified. This process begins at a very early age and it occurs over and over again, so by the time a child is 4 or 5 (or maybe even younger), he can see, with his very eyes, the difference between an "ugly" individual or a "pretty" individual. The truth is people ae not ugly or beautiful, just different, and these words which have hurt so many are going to become obsolete out of necessity. Why would anyone want to use words that not only are inaccurate symbols, but hurt so many of our youth because they don't feel they measure up? In the new world these words will never be used.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are talking about the woman who thought she had everyone at IIDB stumped by pointing out that we can take a photograph of the moon at night without using a flash on the camera.
.

Are you serious, did she actually post that, or are you making this shit up. No-one could possibly be that stupid.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Here we go. As you can see from the post numbers, it wasn't a mere one-off brain fart.

FRDB Archives - View Single Post - New Discovery II

FRDB Archives - View Single Post - New Discovery II

FRDB Archives - View Single Post - New Discovery II

Good God. It's amazing she can feed herself.