A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

The study seemed to focus on neglect as the cause, but neglect can involve many factors. For neglect to be the only, or main cause of these differences, all other factors must have been the same, but neglect usually includes lack of proper neutrition, and a lack of intellictual stimulation, such as age appropriate toys that will stimulate growth. these details are sadly lacking in this report and without these factors being properly controlled and accounted for, it can only be said that neglect may have contributed to the lack of development in the two children. Also genetics must be accounted for, if the parents of the two children exibited different cranial capacity this could have effected the size of the brain of the children, parents with large skulls will have children with large skulls and likewise parents with smaller skulls will have children with smaller skulls. These researchers don't understand everything they think they know about this, more emperical data is required, only time will tell. When you plant corn, you usually get corn.

[peacegirl]

Newborns cannot mimic faces at birth. You are the one regurgitating what you've been taught. Dogs cannot recognize images of their master. If this is true, why would a dog not recognize his beloved master in a picture, but seconds later when his master walks in the door and calls the dog, his dog is overwhelmed with joy and shows it by jumping all over him and licking him? Stop weaseling!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I have no need to weasel: I have evidence and a rational point to make.

I don't either. I have rational points to make also. Your evidence is lacking.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I showed you the study that showed newborns can and do mimic faces in the first 78 hours. Even new-born monkeys can do it! I showed this to you too. As usual, you ignored the evidence, and then pretended there was none in the first place.

Show me the studies? There have to be more than one or two under very controlled circumstances. Monkeys might be able to mimic faces because they are growing at a more rapid rate than a human baby. Infants can barely focus their eyes, so how could they see normally? There's a reason why they can't focus, and it's not just an undeveloped ciliary muscle which has been the explanation given.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Dogs are not much interested in photographs, and they certainly do not confuse them with their owners, which is what you seem to expect them to do. Do you jump up and kiss a photograph of your son? Do you greet it? Well guess what? Neither does your dog.

This is so ridiculous Vivisectus. You're just trying to defend your position at all costs, and it's easy to do that because I'm the underdog in here. If a dog missed his owner who he had not seen in 6 months, and they showed the dog a picture which got no response and 5 minutes later the owner walked in the door and he got an overwhelming response after calling the dog's name, that wouldn't mean anything to you. You will find a way to dismiss what you don't want to be true, the very thing you're accusing me of.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That said, dogs do prefer to look at pictures of their owners over looking at pictures of strangers, something that also came up in one of the studies that have been shared with you.

Why would a dog prefer a picture of his owner over a stranger, when he doesn't even respond to a picture of his owner at all? We know that the dog loves his owner because 5 minutes later his owner comes in from overseas and the dog goes crazy with excitement. Careful observation means nothing to you. You will find any reason you can to disregard the observation because you don't like his claim, period.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

They can pick them out if you reward them for selecting their owners face, and they learn to do so quicker than they learn to pick out faces of people they do not know. They do so with pictures they have not seen before.

That is an unreliable test. How can you believe a test like that as being more reliable than the example I just gave? You are in denial.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is true that dogs have difficulty seeing video and TV and such. This is because the speed at which their brain handles visual information is faster than ours: this makes TV images seem flickery and the movement jerky and disjointed.

Now you're making stuff up. Why would their brain handle a picture any differently if the light is bouncing off the picture and striking their eyes? I'm not even talking about t.v. or a video, although a person could be very still on a video or a television and still not a get a response.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

All this was already explained to you, and the studies were shared. But you ignore this, and demand that your dog does something you have decided he ought to do if he could recognize photographs, even though it has been made clear to you that it is just not a good way to test if he can recognize images. He could recognize his face, but just not be very interested in images, which he cannot actually interact with.

He is not interested in images because he doesn't recognize images, and there is no way to identify who the person is without his sense of smell.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are doing the very thing you are accusing me of. For Lessans to be wrong he has to be proven wrong, which has not happened. It's as simple as that.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

*sigh* no, you semi-literate dunce. I am accusing you of saying "Unless something is proven to not be the case, it is plausible that it is the case!" This is just not true.

The idea that the Flying Spaghetti monster exists has also never been proven wrong. Or Russels Tea-pot: it has never been proven that there isn't one orbiting the moon. But saying "Therefore these ideas are valid" is plain silly: there is no reason to believe that either exists.

The same applies for this silly idea: there is no reason to assume it is correct. Even if dogs cannot see images and infants are blind, that STILL is no reason to assume it is correct: there could be many possible explanations. As usual, Seymour seems to have forgotten to make a case for his idea: he does not bother to show why he feels it is likely the eyes work that way. It is not remotely plausible.

On the other hand, the sheer weight of evidence is so overwhelmingly in favour of the book being utterly wrong that we can treat it as a certainty for all practical purposes. Your theory does not explain the moons of jupiter, why we hit planets where we do not see them, and the fact that cameras see the same thing eyes do. All three of these simple examples falsify his theory: they should not happen if he was right.

The rational response would be to abandon the idea. Or you can just cling to your ignorance, ignore the evidence, pretend you never heard about it and then repeat the previous denial, even though it has been thoroughly dealt with. I don't mind: it is quite entertaining to watch you flail.

You do not learn, do you? You will not call me names and expect me to engage with you. Now you'll have to wait until I give you another chance, and I don't know when that will be.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You do not learn. You will not call me names and expect for me to engage with you. Now you'll have to wait until I give you another chance.

No, Vivisectus only needs to post his rebutals for the benefit of any lurkers reading this thread. You, Peacegirl, are way beyond hope that anyone will ever convince you that your fathers ideas are wrong. The only hope for you, Peacegirl, is that you will seek proper medical treatment for your delusions and insanity, in the hope that it is treatable, though that is by no means certain after this many years of denial.

[Spacemonkey]

You're a weasel, Peacegirl.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're a weasel, Peacegirl.

I believe that is coupled with her insanity.

[LadyShea]

You are trying your best to discount Lessans' observations by proving that there are afferent receptors in direct contact with nerve endings. I DON'T AGREE.

Receptors are afferent nerve endings.

You disagree? Fine, what do you think photoreceptors are?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that this is not how he came to this conclusion...

Weasel. Answer the questions with yes or no.

These questions validly arise when faced with the claim "there are no similar afferent nerve endings in this organ".

How he came to make this claim is irrelevant. He made it. Do you intend to support it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am going to plead the 5th amendment because it will be used against me.

You won't answer because you're a lying weasel.

I have already said that proof will not come from this, yet you are determined to corner me and then say, "See, Lessans was wrong."

Because he was wrong, I just want you to do what you are doing, refuse to answer valid questions because you can't do so. You know Lessans was wrong, but you won't say it, so you say funny things instead like "taking the 5th"....LOL

Empirical testing will need to be constructed that is looking to see if his claim could be correct, not a test to confirm what science already believes is true.

No, that's not how empirical testing works.

I'm leaving it at that LadyShea. You can call me a weasel, I don't care

Whatever you say weasel.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans gave the standard definition of "sense organ", but it is not a useful definition if it is flawed. The part he disagreed with in the definition is "receiving and transmitting external stimuli." He knew that light caused the pupils to dilate or contract (which is a reaction to something external), but he did not believe that this translated into decodable images. I've said this a thousand times.

He said nothing about decodable images, and neither does the standard model of sight. This is a strawman, and a stupid one at that, as you've been told a thousand times.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Photoreceptors in the eye receive light from the outside world. Therefore, the eyes are a sense organ as per the very definition Lessans gave.

Receiving light is not the problem. The problem lies in the belief that light works in exactly the same way as stimuli works in the other senses. Although we know that photoreceptors are present in the retina, he did not believe they converted to impulses that could be decoded.

Where did he say that? He talked about impinging stimuli and indicated the eyes didn't share that. He said nothing about decodable impulses

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has to be in the conversion, in other words, what are those impulses transmitting? Are they transmitting something that can be interpreted as normal vision within the brain itself, or are these impulses a necessary connection to the brain that allows the brain to look through the eyes to see what exists?

So add anatomical to the list of words you don't understand.

Try again.

Nope. Wrong. There are organisms that have no brains, but do have sense organs.

Light is external but, according to Lessans, there is no reaction in a newborn other than the pupils dilating because it takes more than light for the infant to focus and see what exists around him. The infant hears instantly because his sense of hearing is in full working order in contrast to the eyes, which are not in full working order.

That's not at all what Lessans said. He was talking about stimuli impinging on nerve endings

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. I see his reasoning based on careful observation, and I believe it can be empirically verified. Faith has nothing to do with it.

Belief that possible future evidence will verify a currently unverified belief is faith.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A pressure wave.

So he used the pronoun "this" to refer to a proper noun he didn't even use previously in the passage? Really? What kind of person does that?

I am pretty sure that "this" referred to the word "sound" and he thought sound itself traveled. You know this of course, which is why you are putting words in his mouth.

Yes LadyShea, light makes contact with the retina.

So you admit light makes direct contact with afferent nerve endings, contrary to Lessans statement

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is true that dogs have difficulty seeing video and TV and such. This is because the speed at which their brain handles visual information is faster than ours: this makes TV images seem flickery and the movement jerky and disjointed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now you're making stuff up. Why would their brain handle a picture any differently if the light is bouncing off the picture and striking their eyes? .

Because different animals have different visual processing because they have brain differences as well as differences in the anatomy of the eye. Some animals can see in spectrum invisible to humans, for example.

[thedoc]

[quote=LadyShea;1095295]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is true that dogs have difficulty seeing video and TV and such. This is because the speed at which their brain handles visual information is faster than ours: this makes TV images seem flickery and the movement jerky and disjointed.

Because different animals have different visual processing because they have brain differences as well as differences in the anatomy of the eye. Some animals can see in spectrum invisible to humans, for example.

Honey Bees in particular can see into the ultrtaviolet, and flowers have patterns in the ultraviolet that direct bees to the center of the flower where the necter and pollen are located.

[Vivisectus]

I don't either. I have rational points to make also. Your evidence is lacking.

I look forward to hearing it. What is lacking about it?

Show me the studies? There have to be more than one or two under very controlled circumstances. Monkeys might be able to mimic faces because they are growing at a more rapid rate than a human baby. Infants can barely focus their eyes, so how could they see normally? There's a reason why they can't focus, and it's not just an undeveloped ciliary muscle which has been the explanation given.

Go look up the studies. I linked to them last time you were stating silly things like this. Also now one study is not a study? You need lots? What is the minimum you require? I am amazed at all the hoops I have to jump through to satisfy your rigorous standards, while you seem to feel 10 minutes with skype and the family dog is good enough for you!

This is so ridiculous Vivisectus. You're just trying to defend your position at all costs, and it's easy to do that because I'm the underdog in here. If a dog missed his owner who he had not seen in 6 months, and they showed the dog a picture which got no response and 5 minutes later the owner walked in the door and he got an overwhelming response after calling the dog's name, that wouldn't mean anything to you. You will find a way to dismiss what you don't want to be true, the very thing you're accusing me of.

Let me put it this way: in test after careful double-blinded, repeated tests, dogs have shown an ability to select photographs of their owners.

Why would a dog prefer a picture of his owner over a stranger, when he doesn't even respond to a picture of his owner at all? We know that the dog loves his owner because 5 minutes later his owner comes in from overseas and the dog goes crazy with excitement. Careful observation means nothing to you. You will find any reason you can to disregard the observation because you don't like his claim, period.

I am amazed by the incredibly high standards required for all evidence you do not like (there could be some other stimulus!) and the complete lack of standards for anything you do like.

If that is what you call "Careful Observation" then I think I know why the book is so terribly bad, and so deeply unscientific. The only thing we can really conclude from your thought-experiment is that dogs do not respond to photographs. To find out why that is would involve a lot more testing and study, but that does not keep you from immediately jumping to the conclusion you want.

Your dog did not get excited when he heard your sons voice. Does this mean he is deaf?

That is an unreliable test. How can you believe a test like that as being more reliable than the example I just gave? You are in denial.

Ah yes... not enough "Careful Observation", which is way more reliable

The reason these tests are much, MUCH more reliable is because they are carefully designed to make sure the only factor that is different is the factor being tested for, and designed to result in behaviour that requires the minimal amount of interpretation.

Now you're making stuff up. Why would their brain handle a picture any differently if the light is bouncing off the picture and striking their eyes? I'm not even talking about t.v. or a video, although a person could be very still on a video or a television and still not a get a response.

We will add this to the long, LONG list if things you do not understand. I will try not to use big words.

First off, imagine a flicker test. This is where we show a person a small lamp that is turned off and on quite quickly. When the light turns on and off less than 55 times per second, we can see it happening. When we set it faster than 55 times per second, we cannot, and it looks to us like the map stays on permanently: this is because we process visual information at about 55Hz.

We have trained dogs to indicate when a light flickers and when it doesn't. You won't like it: I cannot guarantee no levers were involved. But as it turns out, beagles seem to be able to see a light flicker at 75Hz. Pigeons can see it at a 100Hz, and chickens even higher.

Chicken farmers have know this for decades: keep chickens under fluorescent lamps, and they start pecking each other more and generally show more signs of distress and frustration. This is because the frequency with which these lights flicker on and off is higher than we can see, but lower than a chicken can see. Sitting under a fluorescent light at night is like sitting under a strobe light all night long, poor things.

A TV refreshes it's screen at a rate of about 60Hz, too much for us to notice, but not for most dogs. To them, TV's seems very flickery. Animation is just a jerky series of still pictures to them.

Interesting, no?

He is not interested in images because he doesn't recognize images, and there is no way to identify who the person is without his sense of smell.

As I have pointed out, that is an unwarranted conclusion.

You do not learn, do you? You will not call me names and expect me to engage with you. Now you'll have to wait until I give you another chance, and I don't know when that will be.

I have told you a hundred times: that is entirely up to you. If you are no longer interested in the attention you get by arguing with me, then do not respond!

The point remains though: the only rational response is to abandon this idea. It is deeply silly.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

So he used the pronoun "this" to refer to a proper noun he didn't even use previously in the passage? Really? What kind of person does that?

In all fairness, that is Seymour all over. His sentences are often illogical and weird like that, because he was a terrible writer. Look at this passage:

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him.

What does "them" refer to? The "doorways in"?

PG seems to have the same basic word-blindness.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So why are they working on how the eyes work in regard to the retina and optic nerve?

Irrelevant. Fluid flow in pipes is a valid and important research topic, but you would need to be an idiot to say we don't know how pipes work.

As usual, you make some idiotic irrelevant statement in the hope of it being a valid response.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

None of this is evidence supporting his claims about conscience. It's just your unsupported opinion of his alleged abilities. So why do you keep posting lies about there being a "tremendous amount of evidence" supporting what he said about conscience?

So are you going to stop posting bullshit lies about me not understanding him at all, and not having read the book?

You are again just flatly asserting that there is always a justification. That is the claim I have been asking you to support. Are you going to admit that you cannot support it at all, and that it is therefore an unsupported claim on Lessans' part?

Unlike you and Lessans, I don't redefine my terms. "Everyone" means everyone. His non-discovery will continue to be rejected by everyone because he did not support his claims himself, and as no-one has any reason to believe that he was extremely perceptive or able to see common themes, no-one has any reason to believe that his 'observations' were spot on.

No, we don't. Lessans never provided any direct observations, and did nothing at all to support his claims about conscience. Therefore his claims can and will be rejected. Again, I must ask: If Lessans was such an insightful person, why on Earth did he not anticipate that rational people would require him to provide some kind of evidential support for his claims and assumptions about conscience? Doesn't this strike you as a rather massive oversight on his part?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then we have free will.

What is the contradiction? You haven't identified one.

Very easily. Why shouldn't they be?

They aren't. That's what I just explained.

Then under compatibilism we have free will. Your point?

I already did. I bumped the entire post again.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Receptors are afferent nerve endings.

You disagree? Fine, what do you think photoreceptors are?

A photoreceptor is a structure in a living organism that responds to light falling on it. I'm not going to continue this conversation. For some odd reason people are more interested in this topic than in whether Lessans was right regarding man's will and how we can achieve world peace. Only time will tell whether Lessans was right about the eyes, but it's not going to be determined here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Having the freedom to choose without compulsion or coersion and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices is exactly the definition of freedom of the will.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then we have free will.

NO WE DO NOT HAVE FREE WILL SPACEMONKEY. You don't know what you're talking about, and it's laughable that you think you do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

IT IS A CONTRADICTION, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY QUALIFY IT BY SAYING IT'S NOT CONTRA-CAUSAL FREE WILL.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What is the contradiction? You haven't identified one.

What kind of free will are you talking about that is not contra-causal, yet it is determined but free too? It's completely contradictory.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If our actions are caused by previous determinants, how can our choices be blameworthy?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Very easily. Why shouldn't they be?

Because the definition of determinism means that a person had no choice. How can a person be blamed for something that he had to do because he was not free to do otherwise? I know you don't like the implications, but I'm asking you this question so we can move forward to see where this follows, otherwise we're stuck and we will never be able to get past Chapter One and there will be no discussion possible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And how can compatibilism reconcile these two opposing ideologies when they are mutually exclusive?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

They aren't. That's what I just explained.

They actually are mutually exclusive. I will say again that you can't be free and not free at the same time, and no matter how you frame it, that is what compatibilism is trying to get around; the fact that we can be blameworthy (free to make choices) and determined at the same time. Free to make choices is exactly what Lessans is saying we are able to do, but this does not mean we have "free will" in a deeper sense, even though it appears that way from a superficial standpoint.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

By saying someone is morally responsible because he is not being coerced and is able to act in accordance with one's choices is the definition of free will.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then under compatibilism we have free will. Your point?

My point is that being able to choose without restraint, or being able to make a choice of one's own volition, DOES NOT MAKE WILL FREE. On page 44, he wrote that his proof that what man does "of his own free accord or will" is not done of his own free will.

We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false.”

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

NO WE DO NOT HAVE FREE WILL SPACEMONKEY. You don't know what you're talking about, and it's laughable that you think you do.

Is a flat denial in CAPSLOCK your idea of a rational response? We have compatibilist free will, which is all that is required for moral responsibility.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What kind of free will are you talking about that is not contra-causal, yet it is determined but free too? It's completely contradictory.

I explained this to you. Have you forgotten already? I'm talking about compatibilist free will, which may be deterministic yet is also the only kind of freedom we need. There is nothing contradictory about it. Here is were I explained this before:

Compatibilism is consistent because it doesn't say that we both have and do not have free will. It says only that having the freedom to choose without compulsion or coercion and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices is all that is needed for one to be morally responsible for one's actions. It says that contra-causal free will is not the only kind of free will, and that it is not the kind needed to make us morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions. If you see some kind of contradiction here, then the burden is upon you to identify it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the definition of determinism means that a person had no choice. How can a person be blamed for something that he had to do because he was not free to do otherwise? I know you don't like the implications, but I'm asking you this question so we can move forward to see where this follows, otherwise we're stuck and we will never be able to get past Chapter One and there will be no discussion possible.

You are a determinist and yet you agree we have choices, so your first sentence is obviously false. We can be blamed because we are free to do otherwise - we just aren't free in the indeterministic contra-causal sense, which is not the only kind of free will.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They actually are mutually exclusive. I will say again that you can't be free and not free at the same time, and no matter how you frame it, that is what compatibilism is trying to get around; the fact that we can be blameworthy (free to make choices) and determined at the same time. Free to make choices is exactly what Lessans is saying we are able to do, but this does not mean we have "free will" in a deeper sense, even though it appears that way from a superficial standpoint.

They are not mutually exclusive no matter how many times you keep asserting that they are. And you are again reverting to the same tired strawman I've already refuted a million times - compatibilism does NOT claim that we are both free and not free at the same time. We don't need free will in any deeper sense. The kind Lessans says we have is all that moral responsibility requires.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My point is that being able to choose without restraint, or being able to make a choice of one's own volition, DOES NOT MAKE WILL FREE. On page 44, he wrote that his proof that what man does "of his own free accord or will" is not done of his own free will.

It makes us morally responsible, and any form of freedom which preserves moral responsibility is a form of 'free will' by definition. That you don't like calling it that is irrelevant. (What your daddy said about it is even less relevant.) You can't refute compatibilism simply by refusing to use the term 'free will' for anything other than contra-causal freedom. You can't prove any substantial thesis simply by refusing to use words in a certain way.

The bottom line is that you have yet to show there to be any contradiction in compatibilism, and you have yet to apologize for your baseless claim that I have contradicted myself.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A photoreceptor is a structure in a living organism that responds to light falling on it. I'm not going to continue this conversation.

LOL, because Lessans assertions about the senses are flat out wrong and you just keep digging a deeper stupid hole trying to make them not wrong.

For some odd reason people are more interested in this topic than in whether Lessans was right regarding man's will and how we can achieve world peace. Only time will tell whether Lessans was right about the eyes, but it's not going to be determined here.

You weasel just as badly when we try to get answers about Lessans assertions regarding free will and conscience.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For some odd reason people are more interested in this topic than in whether Lessans was right regarding man's will and how we can achieve world peace.

For some odd reason you are always more interested in whatever topic you are not presently being asked about.

[LadyShea]

Because the definition of determinism means that a person had no choice.

If one can choose then one has a choice. That the choice made is caused by all preceding states of affairs does not negate that it was chosen.

How can a person be blamed for something that he had to do because he was not free to do otherwise?

Can a person contemplate before acting, thereby changing the state of affairs preceding the action and possibly deciding differently?

[LadyShea]

Lessans seems to define "the deeper sense" of free will as being able to choose that which you do not choose. It's just another tautology.

[LadyShea]

Post about conscience you ignored

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, if a child is born into Lessans new world, and never feels guilt or shame, it's possible that the child will not develop a conscience due to having no understanding of the emotions involved in it.

As a parent, I have seen some of these stages in this development, as have most parents. Children are not born with fully developed conscience, as I pointed out. They do have some sense of fairness and empathy very young, but those are aspects only.

[LadyShea]

Another one

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you can't offer anything other than currently non-existent evidence you believe via faith will exist in the future, why should we accept Lessans claims as true today?

Do you have any kind of currently available and reviewable support for conscience working as he described? Anything at all?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Weasel. Answer the questions with yes or no.

These questions validly arise when faced with the claim "there are no similar afferent nerve endings in this organ".

How he came to make this claim is irrelevant. He made it. Do you intend to support it?

You won't answer because you're a lying weasel.

Because he was wrong, I just want you to do what you are doing, refuse to answer valid questions because you can't do so. You know Lessans was wrong, but you won't say it, so you say funny things instead like "taking the 5th"....LOL

No, that's not how empirical testing works.

Whatever you say weasel.

He said nothing about decodable images, and neither does the standard model of sight. This is a strawman, and a stupid one at that, as you've been told a thousand times.

Where did he say that? He talked about impinging stimuli and indicated the eyes didn't share that. He said nothing about decodable impulses

So add anatomical to the list of words you don't understand.

Try again.

Nope. Wrong. There are organisms that have no brains, but do have sense organs.

That's not at all what Lessans said. He was talking about stimuli impinging on nerve endings

Belief that possible future evidence will verify a currently unverified belief is faith.

So he used the pronoun "this" to refer to a proper noun he didn't even use previously in the passage? Really? What kind of person does that?

I am pretty sure that "this" referred to the word "sound" and he thought sound itself traveled. You know this of course, which is why you are putting words in his mouth.

So you admit light makes direct contact with afferent nerve endings, contrary to Lessans statement

You obviously did not hear me. I refuse to get into another discussion on the eyes, so you can try to discredit Lessans. He had strong reasons for why he believed the eyes are not a sense organ, but you will continue to ignore those reasons. Interestingly, you did not even know what the word "afferent" meant until it was explained to you. Now you consider yourself an expert. I will stay here only if people are interested in understanding how we can prevent war on a global scale. If not, I'm gone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans seems to define "the deeper sense" of free will as being able to choose that which you do not choose. It's just another tautology.

That which you do not choose is an impossibility LadyShea. Your reasoning is very limited yet you are acting like you are the queen of reason, and should be honored. No, you should not be honored. My hope is that people see where your reasoning is totally incongruent with reality so that they will want to understand this discovery. Why else would I even be here when I am being constantly ridiculed prematurely? I am not willing to spend my time with you on a one on one basis to show you where your reasoning is completely fallaciouis. I'm sorry to say but you're going to have to figure this out all by yourself.