A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never said that the eye didn't contain receptors. He didn't say that nothing entered the eye because he said that light strikes the optic nerve. If it strikes the optic nerve, the nerve must be relating something to the brain. I don't get your last sentence at all. Where did I negate the only difference Lessans thought existed between the eyes and the other senses?

Eh? That wasn't me that was Shea.

Though I would like to point out he did say nothing striked the retina. You just clumsily edited in a few words to make it seem like he didn't. How else do you explain the fact that earlier versions of the text do not contain the words "Except for light"?

What are you talking about Vivisectus? There is no addition to the book that the author didn't know about? And the book is not self-contradictory.

Just read what I actually wrote and it will make sense.

First the sentence read "because nothing from the external world strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell."

You then added in "except light"... but that means that there is now nothing differentiating the eyes from the other senses!

This makes the sentence seem awkward, almost self-contradictory. It is like saying "Nothing other than water made me wet".

It was obviously a later edit, as Shea found earlier versions of the text where it was not yet added in, so it must have been done by you in response to someone pointing out what a blunder it was. This is further supported by the fact that the addition makes the sentence nonsensical.

Oh my god, what additions? I added a few examples that I was very honest about.

See above.

Right, and maybe her hypothesis will be proven to be as biased and factually inaccurate as the very writing she's trying to condemn.

I was, of course, jokingly referring to bible scholarship and comparing it to Lady Shea's discovery of a late addition to the text of the book which is clearly a clumsy attempt by you to not make him look too ill informed.

Although I suggest you have another look at the sentence you just wrote

her hypothesis will be proven to be as biased and factually inaccurate as the very writing she's trying to condemn.

Because you just called your father's writing biased and factually inaccurate.

By the way, what is factually inaccurate about what Shea said exactly?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe they detected patterns (I am skeptical of these tests as you well know), but to make the leap and say that a pigeon would recognize his handler, or any bird for that matter, without other cues, is farfetched.

More detecting of patterns, but now by pigeons!

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you are failing to understand that conscience works in a very predictable way in all human beings, and if that is the case, changes in the environment which this law of our nature produces, will cause a major change in what our conscience will permit.

You do not understand it either. You merely believe it. Without being able to explain adequately why you believe it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So what did you mean when you said because there are inconsistencies that go against this theory

Hello, please clear this up.

[Vivisectus]

What is this? The Holy Book was compiled from many texts different texts by an editor who knew what was good for people to read and what wasn't?

I propose we have a Diet right away to decide which of the writings are canonical and which are not!

How do we know which of the two versions is the one that is the real Word of God (who is just the laws of nature, but still has a plan for us somehow) if apparently even his prophetic messenger could not decide?

That is it. I am nailing my 30 theses to Peacegirls front door and I am schisming away from the mother church.

[But]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I love these studies. They keep going against my expectations: I would not have expected pigeons to be able to do that, not in a hundred years. I would have expected them to react tot he lab-coat. How extraordinary!

Isn't it amazing what one can learn from this stupid thread?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe they detected patterns (I am skeptical of these tests as you well know), but to make the leap and say that a pigeon would recognize his handler, or any bird for that matter, without other cues, is farfetched.

LOL. Why am I not surprised?

[LadyShea]

What is a face other than a pattern? What other cues might they be responding to?

[Dragar]

Obviously they are just recognising the combinations of things like eyes, mouths, hairlines, ears... But they don't see a face!

[Vivisectus]

Personally I would like to see the kind of coo-ing and head bobbing that indicates recognition.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never said that the eye didn't contain receptors. He didn't say that nothing entered the eye because he said that light strikes the optic nerve. If it strikes the optic nerve, the nerve must be relating something to the brain. I don't get your last sentence at all. Where did I negate the only difference Lessans thought existed between the eyes and the other senses?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Explain what Lessans thought was the difference between the sense and the eye, using ONLY LESSANS WORDS and not your additions

There is no MY addition Vivisectus. The difference that he observed was based on afferent signals coming in versus no signals coming in that the brain would be able to decode into an image. I don't have to use Lessans' words to express myself and be correct. If you want Lessans to explain to you in his own words, why not buy the book? This is not a meal ticket for me. This is to share knowledge that will change the world for the better.

I used Lessans' words Vivisectus. The only difference is the senses are receiving and transmitting external stimuli to the brain. He did not believe that light has the same properties as other external stimuli because patterns don't travel through space and time, so how can light work like the other senses? How can we interpret an image if there is no pattern to be interpreted?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Eh? That wasn't me that was Shea.

You all sound alike, so it's very easy to make that mistake.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Though I would like to point out he did say nothing striked the retina. You just clumsily edited in a few words to make it seem like he didn't. How else do you explain the fact that earlier versions of the text do not contain the words "Except for light"?

He did not mention the word "retina"; Earlier version do contain "except for light". Look it up again. I'm not a liar Vivisectus, and I'm not trying to change the text as you believe.

I did, and it still makes no sense.

Yes there is. Light is not the same thing because it's bringing no stimuli from the external world. You still don't get it, do you?

Nothing other than water made me wet is not analogous to nothing but light striked my optic nerve. You are not going to get away with this joke of an analogy.

Show me where it was added in, and I'll give you $100.00. Deal? But if you're wrong, you give me $100.00. That money would come in handy in helping me to get this book printed.

See above.

I saw, and it was nothing but conjecture.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The theory about it's authorship will now of course be named the Shea Hypothesis. It is so strongly supported as to almost guarantee it will dominate the concensus opinion, and your name will go down in history as the first ever Lessans Scholar of Critical Lessans Analysis.

Right, and maybe her hypothesis will be proven to be as biased and factually inaccurate as the very writing she's trying to condemn.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I was, of course, jokingly referring to bible scholarship and comparing it to Lady Shea's discovery of a late addition to the text of the book which is clearly a clumsy attempt by you to not make him look too ill informed.

You weren't joking at all. You think LadyShea's analysis is better than my knowledge of a book I grew up with. Her analysis is lacking. It doesn't even come close to what would be considered a decent review.

Although I suggest you have another look at the sentence you just wrote

I just did, and it was exactly what I intended to write.

her hypothesis will be proven to be as biased and factually inaccurate as the very writing she's trying to condemn.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Because you just called your father's writing biased and factually inaccurate.

I did not call my father's writing biased. I called LadyShea's review biased and inaccurate. How can you compare the two and tell me that I just called my father's writing biased? You're all confused Vivisectus.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

By the way, what is factually inaccurate about what Shea said exactly?

After accusing me of being biased you have the gall to not even know what I was responding to? You're turning out to be a total fake, which is no surprise to me. Do you even know what you're saying Vivisectus? Sometimes I think you're talking in your sleep.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Obviously they are just recognising the combinations of things like eyes, mouths, hairlines, ears... But they don't see a face!

Shape has nothing to do with recognizing familiar people; people that are their handlers. Don't change the goalposts, okay?

[Vivisectus]

There is no MY addition Vivisectus. The difference that he observed was based on afferent signals coming in versus no signals coming in that the brain would be able to decode into an image. I don't have to use Lessans' words to express myself and be correct. If you want Lessans to explain to you in his own words, why not buy the book? This is not a meal ticket for me. This is to share knowledge that will change the world for the better.

Again, that was Shea.

The difference that he observed was based on afferent signals coming in versus no signals coming in that the brain would be able to decode into an image.

What the hell? Are you on something?

You all sound alike, so it's very easy to make that mistake.

It is called a quote system. It is not hard to use.

[quote]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Though I would like to point out he did say nothing striked the retina. You just clumsily edited in a few words to make it seem like he didn't. How else do you explain the fact that earlier versions of the text do not contain the words "Except for light"?

He did not mention the word "retina"; Earlier version do contain "except for light". Look it up again. I'm not a liar Vivisectus, and I'm not trying to change the text as you believe.

Sure looks like you did. So there are different version of the holy texts huh? And between then and now you found one that included the words "exceot for light" even though it makes the sentence all mixed up?

You are correct, he used to word optic nerve in stead. He seems to have unaware of the existence of the retina.

I did, and it still makes no sense.

Well we have all seen your reading comprehension skills in action. I will try to make it simpler for you.

Yes there is. Light is not the same thing because it's bringing no stimuli from the external world. You still don't get it, do you?

But that was not how the original sentence ran. That was at least internally consistent, if factually inaccurate. The addition "except for light" makes the sentence completely nonsensical, as in the normal theory of sight light is the stimulus!

When you include the "except for light" part, the whole sentence becomes awkward and unclear, which suggests it was added on to the sentence later.

Nothing other than water made me wet is not comparable to nothing but light striked my optic nerve. You are not going to get away with this joke of an analogy.

It rather does: as I already pointed out, light is the stimulus in the normal theory of sight, so the addition of those words turns that sentence in a strange re-phrasing of the normal theory.

Show me where it was added in, and I'll give you $100.00. Deal? But if you're wrong, you give me $100.00. That will help me to get this book printed, which is sorely needed.

Ermmm... you do know I could be a jerk and swindle you out of a 100 bucks right now? All I have to do is say "where is says other than light". That is where it was added in, if it was added in. Good grief you are so simple. No wonder you got swindled out of your life-savings already, getting a book printed that you need to charge 40 dollars for just to break even!

If you want to be shown when it was added in, then the latest source of the version without it that I am aware of is 2006, I think. So it must have been after that. Ask Shea, she found it.

I saw, and it was nothing but conjecture.

That should not be a problem for you! You accept that conscience works as the book described on no evidence, why not this?

I just did, and it was exactly what I intended to write.

Really? Well I did just mention your fabled reading comprehension skills. Let ius break it down into it's component parts and see what that brings us.

her hypothesis what shea said

will be proven to be speaks for itself I think?

as biased and factually inaccurate So, equally biased and factually inaccurate

as the very writing she's trying to condemn. which of course is the book.

So you said: what LS said will be proven to be equally biased and factually inaccurate as the book.

Or did you mean that both the book and LS's condemnation of the book are factually accurate and not biased? Surely they cannot both be accurate?

I did not call my father's writing biased. I called LadyShea's review biased and inaccurate. How can you compare the two and tell me that I just called my father's writing biased? You're all confused Vivisectus.

You rather did. You said "Her hypothesis will be proven to be as biased as the writing she is trying to condemn.

English may only be my second language, but I can read it you know.

You don't even know after accusing me of being biased because you thought LadyShea was perfect in her analysis, and now asking me what was factually inaccurate? Do you even know what you're saying Vivisectus? Sometimes I think you're talking in your sleep.

Which facts were inaccurate?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Hello, please clear this up.

All I meant was that there could be another explanation. Using the word "inconsistent" was confusing, I admit. I only meant to say that the explanation given could be inconsistent with another explanation that could be just as valid.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no MY addition.

The words "other than light" were awkwardly inserted into the sentence, changing the entire meaning of the sentence, sometime after 2006. Where did they come from if not YOU, the editor?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The difference that he observed was based on afferent signals coming in versus no signals coming in that the brain would be able to decode into an image.

There are afferent signals sent along the optic nerve from the photoreceptors.

Did he think the photoreceptors were not neurons, or not afferent? Did he think the optic nerve was not afferent? What exactly led him to believe the structure and anatomy of the eye somehow would not allow for signals to be sent to the brain?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to use Lessans' words to express myself and be correct. If you want Lessans to explain to you in his own words, why not buy the book? This is not a meal ticket for me. This is to share knowledge that will change the world for the better.

We have the passage as quoted by you several times over almost a decade, we don't need to buy the book.

We are asking you to explain the glaring mistakes Lessans made in the passage without inserting your own words and ideas that he made no mention of.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Earlier version do contain "except for light". Look it up again. I'm not a liar Vivisectus, and I'm not trying to change the text as you believe.

You quoted the passage in 2003 and in 2006, I linked to the threads and relevant pages so you can look it up yourself.

Those 2 quotes did NOT include the words "other than light" in that sentence.

So, you are a liar because you are lying right now.

Light IS the stimuli from the external world, as has been explained over and over to you. What on Earth are you talking about light "bringing" something??

Nothing else is needed at all. Light is the stimuli that directly contacts afferent neurons in the eyes. You can't admit that Lessans made a glaring error, so you prefer to sound like a total idiot.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing other than water made me wet is not analogous to nothing but light striked my optic nerve. You are not going to get away with this joke of an analogy.

Sure it is analogous...why do you think it's not?

Show me where it was added in, and I'll give you $100.00. Deal? But if you're wrong, you give me $100.00. That money would come in handy in helping me to get this book printed.

Several pages ago I linked to the two passages you quoted that did not contain the words "other than light". One was from 2003 and the other from 2006.

Here is the link to the post you made in 2006
Here is the passage as you pasted it then

Originally Posted by peacegirl in 2006

The dictionary states that the word ‘sense’ is defined as any of certain agencies by or through which an individual receives impressions of the external world; popularly, one of the five senses. Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc.’ But this is a wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because nothing from the external world impinges on the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

Here it is from 2003. You'll see here it is stated that nothing impinges on the optic nerve and the words "other than light" do not appear at all. He also restates that the main difference between the eyes and other senses are that there is nothing external striking the nerve endings in the eye.

Originally Posted by peacegirl in 2003

The dictionary states that the word ‘sense’ is defined as any of certain agencies by or through which an individual receives impressions of the external world; popularly, one of the five senses. Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc.’ But this is a wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because nothing from the external world impinges on the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

When you learn what this single misconception has done to the world of knowledge, you won’t believe it at first. So without further delay, I shall prove something never before understood by man, but before I open this door marked Man Does Not Have Five Senses to show you all the knowledge hidden behind it, it is absolutely necessary to prove exactly why the eyes are not a sense organ. Now tell me, did it ever occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is? In fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a child that no object is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since the nerve endings are being struck by something external.”

So do I get the $100?

[LadyShea]

Looks like you forgot to add the words "other than light" to this other passage. You just posted this a few weeks ago

In fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a child that no
object is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because
nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any
number of sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate
reaction since the nerve endings are being struck by something
external.

It is clear as crystal that Lessans thought light did not make contact with afferent neurons in the eye, he stated it twice. Admit it already!

[LadyShea]

her hypothesis will be proven to be as biased and factually inaccurate as the very writing she's trying to condemn.

My hypothesis with be shown to be as biased and inaccurate AS THE writing I am trying to condemn is.

This sentence reads that both my analysis and the writing I am condemning is biased and inaccurate in your opinion. It was obviously a mistake on your part, but that's exactly what you wrote.

Moron.

[Vivisectus]

In fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a child that no
object is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because
nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any
number of sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate
reaction since the nerve endings are being struck by something
external.

Also, it turns out he is incorrect. Newborn children can mimic expressions, if you hold them at the appropriate distance from your face. I linked you a mention of that famous study, remember?

[Vivisectus]

I only meant to say that the explanation given could be inconsistent with another explanation that could be just as valid.

What? So the explanation given for this pesky way we keep hitting planets when we shoot probes at where we do not see them could be "inconsistent" with another explanation, which is nevertheless equally valid?

Tell me, exactly how much of the terrible, obtuse and self-contradictory prose in the book is actually your doing?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So do I get the $100?

Something tells me we're about to add "welcher" to her ever-burgeoning list of charming attributes.

[LadyShea]

Well what I don't get is she made that bet even though I had already provided the links, which led to this discussion.

Does she not know what links are or how they work?

Anyway, I don't need 100.00, please donate it to the Thanksgiving campaign at No Kid Hungry <---this is a link. You click it, and it takes you to the website mentioned

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Weaseling via evasion.

Can you demonstrate that actual truth is the same thing as a necessary truth or not? Can you make a rational argument for your assertion even?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Does she not know what links are or how they work?

The ignorance and breathtaking stupidity don't prevent her from lying, of course, but they do prevent her from being an effective liar.

[LadyShea]

The "other than light" was added by 2010<---another link. To click.

So, from what I have found so far, it was added between 2006 and 2010. I will keep looking and try to narrow it down more

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Isn't it amazing what one can learn from this stupid thread?

LOL. Why am I not surprised?

What is that supposed to mean But? Do you actually think a pigeon can recognize his handler without any other cues? I seriously doubt it, and recognizing patterns (as in a human face, which has not been proved) is not the same thing as recognizing individual features. My dog recognizes people (by their upright position, I believe) versus dogs when we're out walking, but she would not be able to recognize me versus someone else without her sense of smell or hearing.

[Vivisectus]

Ah yes, but you have to remember that Seymour, who was a genius, wrote the same book more than one time, and apparently there are subtle variations, as small as the "Other than light", which I can already see is going to be the Filioque of Lessanism.