A revolution in thought

[koan]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You misread the quote tag koan, that wasn't peacegirl who said that

I guess that vindicates me as the person who is stalking her then.

[koan]

I bet it's peacegirl sockpuppeteering her own arch-nemesis. She'll make it seem like she is trying to take herself down then she'll suddenly be reborn into the new age of Lessansism.

If that's not true she should think about doing it. As Emeril would say "Kick it up a notch! BAM!!"

[traumaturgist]

I guess no one really learns their Lessans in this thread...

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by koan

I guess that vindicates me as the person who is stalking her then.

Nah, once Peacegirl gets the bit in her teeth, she'll never let go.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It can be anyone who has participated on this thread in the last 2 years. The person said s/he is neither Spacemonkey or Vivisectus and knew too many details about things like the 500 page parties to be koan, who wasn't participating then.

You're right. It was as vindictive as something she would do which is why I thought of her and Vivisectus. After reading a few more posts, I knew it was Davidm. What surprised me is that he left this thread long ago and all of a sudden, like a lion ready to pounce, he came out of hiding.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no real evidence whatsoever. It's a case of people trying to fit what they see into their deeply held position.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, that would be you fitting what you see with your deeply held position. None of us, nor the scientists conducting these experiments, have anything personal at stake when trying to answer the question "Can dogs recognize their masters from a photograph?". Nobody's worldview, except yours, is affected by the answer.

It's not a matter of having a personal stake; it's a matter of an accepted "fact". Everyone takes for granted that the eyes are a sense organ. It sounds ridiculous that someone would even debate this.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But, because it is a specific example Lessans used and Lessans must be right at all costs, the answer must be NO or your deeply held position is harmed.

But that's not it LadyShea. This is not one specific example. There has been no such cases where a dog recognizes his master from a picture. What you claim to be accurate controls is not conclusive in the least. Training a dog to hit a lever for a reward when he recognizes his master (which appears as if it's statistically significant) is flawed. Sometimes accurate observation over long periods of time trumps empirical testing that does not work because of the flawed nature of the test.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All you have offered is anecdotes about the family dog and Skype, with the dog's behavior being interpreted through your strong bias towards Lessans being 100% correct in his statements about this issue.

Careful observation is not just anecdotal. Again, you are trying to downplay how one can derive at a truth. Epistemologically speaking, observation, if it is done carefully, can be just as reliable as an empirical test, which can be slanted or misinterpreted.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you don't think you have bias?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would I? I have nothing riding on the answer. If the evidence points to either yes or no my life goes on as usual. Only you have a horse in this race, because if the answer is yes then Lessans was wrong.

Don't you see how you've already determined that if I argue that your answer might be wrong, that automatically means I am basing this on faith because I don't want Lessans to be wrong? You've already set up a premise that is unsound, therefore your conclusion is unsound. That's why this thread has deteriorated to the degree it has. You have all joined the bandwagon that if I say anything in favor of Lessans, it means only one thing: I'm not being objective and it's all based on faith. It's too late for this thread because of the extreme bias that has taken over.

Any person that is not stuck on this idea that empirical testing is better than observation

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, any person that is not holding on to a faith position you mean?

This is why it's useless for me to be here. You will continue to claim that everything I've discussed is nothing more than a faith positon, and it's not.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have found a better home for this discovery where people do not use their own "intelligence" to determine what is true and what isn't.

So just to be clear, the above was complete bullshit in reference to yet another forum where you've once again employed exactly the same methods and met with exactly the same results, right?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you remember posting here that you would definitely not move on to another forum after this one? Do you remember us telling you at the time that you almost certainly would? What does it tell you about your own level of self knowledge that we can regularly predict your own behaviour better than you can yourself?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That the light is already at the eye is not the issue. Your problem is that you have no explanation for where that light came from or how it got there. The afferent account can explain where light at the retina came from and how it got there. Your efferent account cannot, and that is why it fails.

Did the photons which are at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

I bet it's peacegirl sockpuppeteering her own arch-nemesis. She'll make it seem like she is trying to take herself down then she'll suddenly be reborn into the new age of Lessansism.

If that's not true she should think about doing it. As Emeril would say "Kick it up a notch! BAM!!"

I would never do that. I also would never put up fake reviews to kick it up a notch. Soon enough the reviews will be pouring in, and they will be positive.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

No Spacemonkey. Talk about someone who has a compulsion!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everyone takes for granted that the eyes are a sense organ.

No they don't. They believe it on the basis of evidence. The same evidence that you have been unable to explain from your efferent perspective.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It sounds ridiculous that someone would even debate this.

It sounds ridiculous particularly when you debate it, because you end up saying things that are contradictory and impossible every single time you try to explain yourself.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey. Talk about someone who has a compulsion!

Yes, you do have a compulsion. And you are also again weaseling and evading reasonable questions. Just as you've been doing for your entire decade-long online spree of promoting your father's book. Can you explain why you are not willing to answer these questions?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a matter of having a personal stake; it's a matter of an accepted "fact". Everyone takes for granted that the eyes are a sense organ. It sounds ridiculous that someone would even debate this.

The eyes are a sense organ. This is proven. Your obstinate refusal to even look at the evidence demonstrates the religious nature of your worldview.

It is a specific example that Lessans used which makes it important to you.

I had never even thought about dogs and facial recognition before you came along with this assertion of Lessans', because it is not remotely important to me. If dogs can't recognize people from pictures then they can't and why would I care?

You care very deeply though, so deeply that you automatically dismiss the evidence that is coming in that seems to indicate there is recognition of faces happening...again, demonstrating that you deeply hold a faith based position not a rational one.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There has been no such cases where a dog recognizes his master from a picture.

That's a mighty strong claim. Can you back that up with any evidence at all?

Careful observation is not just anecdotal.

Personal experiences in your own life are anecdotal.

Scientific observation is not, as it is recorded and replicated.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would never do that. I also would never put up fake reviews to kick it up a notch. Soon enough the reviews will be pouring in, and they will be positive.

Now this is odd? Peacegirl, you have been posting fake claims, fake data, and fake reviews, (every time you praise your father and his book) for 10 years, why would you stop faking things now? Also the book is full of fake interviews and fake praise for your fathers ideas, so you could just follow his example again. You haven't had a positive comment about the book (other than your own) for 10 years and that is not likely to change.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by koan

I bet it's peacegirl sockpuppeteering her own arch-nemesis. She'll make it seem like she is trying to take herself down then she'll suddenly be reborn into the new age of Lessansism.

If that's not true she should think about doing it. As Emeril would say "Kick it up a notch! BAM!!"

I hope not. She is already schizophrenic. No need to add multiple personalities to the list. She is crazy enough.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So just to be clear, the above was complete bullshit in reference to yet another forum where you've once again employed exactly the same methods and met with exactly the same results, right?

This is true, but this is not a reflection on Lessans. It's a reflection of the inherent problem when a bunch of people get together on discussion boards where they can feed off of each other and become one entity. It shows just how serious this issue is in regard to useful debate. This whole thread is an experiment in itself which could be used by psychologists because it shows just how difficult it is to get beyond the bias of the group whether it's in the academic world or on a typical online forum. This has farreaching implications.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is true, but this is not a reflection on Lessans. It's a reflection of the inherent problem when a bunch of people get together on discussion boards where they can feed off of each other and become one entity. It shows just how serious this issue is in regard to useful debate. This whole thread is an experiment in itself which could be used by psychologists because it shows just how difficult it is to get beyond the bias of the group whether it's in the academic world or on a typical online forum. This has farreaching implications.

Whatever else it may be, it is a reflection of your dishonesty.

Though I agree that this thread could be a valuable resource for psychologists.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, you do have a compulsion. And you are also again weaseling and evading reasonable questions. Just as you've been doing for your entire decade-long online spree of promoting your father's book. Can you explain why you are not willing to answer these questions?

Because I have begun to dislike you, that's why. I don't like the fact that you copied NA by calling me mentally ill. Retract that statement or I have no desire to engage with you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The eyes are a sense organ. This is proven. Your obstinate refusal to even look at the evidence demonstrates the religious nature of your worldview.

It is a specific example that Lessans used which makes it important to you.

I had never even thought about dogs and facial recognition before you came along with this assertion of Lessans', because it is not remotely important to me. If dogs can't recognize people from pictures then they can't and why would I care?

You care very deeply though, so deeply that you automatically dismiss the evidence that is coming in that seems to indicate there is recognition of faces happening...again, demonstrating that you deeply hold a faith based position not a rational one.

That's a mighty strong claim. Can you back that up with any evidence at all?

Personal experiences in your own life are anecdotal.

Scientific observation is not, as it is recorded and replicated.

I give up LadyShea. You can believe that dogs recognize their masters from pictures. I have no desire to try to change your opinion or to prove to you that sometimes empirical evidence is misleading.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I have begun to dislike you, that's why.

What does your liking or disliking me have to do with your willingness to answer perfectly reasonable questions? Is it in your best interests to publicly evade questions about the book's claims?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't like the fact that you copied NA by calling me mentally ill. Retract that statement or I have no desire to engage with you.

Why would I retract something that I am still convinced is true? We are not name-calling or trying to put you down. We are genuinely concerned about your mental health.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is true, but this is not a reflection on Lessans. It's a reflection of the inherent problem when a bunch of people get together on discussion boards where they can feed off of each other and become one entity. It shows just how serious this issue is in regard to useful debate. This whole thread is an experiment in itself which could be used by psychologists because it shows just how difficult it is to get beyond the bias of the group whether it's in the academic world or on a typical online forum. This has farreaching implications.

Just curious, after 10 years of gathering data on this "group mentality' that you have mentioned in the thread, what are your conclusions as to it's effect on a dialogue? Can you cite examples that illustrate the different effects? These implications must have been addressed in your book on child safety, as children would definately exibit such behavior.

[Vivisectus]

We know she must have taken at least psychology 100 and Educational psychology 101 in order to get your bachelor of Science degree (special education).

She has also done "extensive research" on "Safety", identifying a "gap in knowledge" of kids between 6 and 12 years old. You would think someone like that would be able to get us some sort of insight, and tell us what she bases that on.

Do you still have the data and the methodology for your safety research? Or was it Lessanese research, which leaves no trace except for a conclusion that you are STILL required to accept, even though you have no way of checking to see if the research was any good?

[LadyShea]

I found an interesting discussion on anecdote vs. observation on another forum

Eyewitness anecdotes vs scientific observations - JREF Forum

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I give up LadyShea. You can believe that dogs recognize their masters from pictures. I have no desire to try to change your opinion or to prove to you that sometimes empirical evidence is misleading.

I am aware that evidence can be misleading (the faster than light neutrinos at CERN), but when different tests and different scientists get similar results over time, it becomes pretty convincing. I don't know or care if dogs can recognize their masters from a photograph. It seems it might be possible and I can't think of any reason they shouldn't be able to, being mammals with brains. If they cannot, though, it is much more likely to be due to cognitive processing differences and not because of the eyes being efferent.

You also never explained why, if eyes are efferent in both species, we have this ability to recognize faces but dogs do not. If facial recognition is attributed to the eyes being efferent, what accounts for the difference between dogs and humans in your model? You've previously attributed it to language, but that makes no sense unless you also believe dogs can't recognize the difference between any two things visually.