A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[LadyShea]

And my point stands that if you were capable of careful reasoning, you would see that this reasoning is very accurate. You are just throwing around words and thinking that your rebuttal is more accurate than Lessans' extremely astute observations. You are arguing with someone who was as capable as Einstein was, in his own right. I know you don't believe this, which is why I really have no desire to talk to you any further unless you can admit that you may be wrong. That your ability to determine what is true and what isn't may not be as up to par as you think.

Statement of faith. Do you have some actual evidence or valid reasoning to back this up?

I may be wrong, but you are certainly not refuting my claims in any valid manner nor are you supporting your own claims.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Statement of faith. Do you have some actual evidence or valid reasoning to back this up?

I may be wrong, but you are certainly not refuting my claims in any valid manner nor are you supporting your own claims.

You don't understand his proof, so of course you would say this. That's because you didn't take this book seriously and have never read it in earnest. You can say you did but I know you didn't by the way you respond. All attacks, no real questions sincerely trying to understand what he meant by what he said. I did not come back to FF to convince you of the book's validity, so let's end on a good note, and agree to disagree. That would be the nicest way to end this discussion.

[LadyShea]

I am asking YOU to refute my claim or support your own using your own reasoning. Can you do so?

Here is my concise claim to help you along:

Immaterial concepts with variable, subjective meanings can be neither proven nor disproven

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Once one has started the wrong way with one mistake after another, The hard work is irrevelant, you are just compounding the original error.

Very true. They say that practice makes perfect, but if you are practicing doing it wrong you just get better and better at doing it wrong. Both Lessans and Peacegirl appear to be nearly perfect examples of the truth of that dictum.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am asking YOU to refute my claim or support your own using your own reasoning. Can you do so?

Here is my concise claim to help you along:

Immaterial concepts with variable, subjective meanings can be neither proven nor disproven

I could prove that you are wrong about that, but you wouldn't be able to understand my proof and would continue to believe that you are right. That being the case, there is no point in my even bothering to show you the proof. Pearls before swine, pearls before swine.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am asking YOU to refute my claim or support your own using your own reasoning. Can you do so?

Here is my concise claim to help you along:

Immaterial concepts with variable, subjective meanings can be neither proven nor disproven

Just because a concept is immaterial does not mean it has a variable subjective meaning. This knowledge is objective because it is describing an observation that is part of the real world. The concept of determinism is anything but variable or subjective, and it can be proven.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are a weasel still. Good god.

Yes, if the eyes are a sense organ, then the end result is recognition of something that is going in. Something is going into a dog's nostrils and he can identify if that smell is familiar. Same thing for taste. Same thing for touch. Same thing for sound. But it is not the same thing for vision.

What are you talking about? I am not saying anything about their ability to see or the quality of their sight. Recognition is a cognitive function not a visual function. There are humans who can see perfectly well but are unable to recognize individual faces due to a brain problem, not an eye problem.

I'm talking about an entire species, not an individual brain problem. Dogs do not have a brain problem just because they can't identify their master from a picture. A person that can't identify individual faces would have a problem.

It is true that the brain does the interpreting, but if the eyes are a sense organ it would follow (wouldn't it?) that the brain should be able to see his master and interpret who he is from a picture (if those wavelength/frequencies are striking his optic nerve). The other senses can do this, so why not the eyes?

But they cannot identify their master from sight alone if the other senses are not there to assist him.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is an assertion you have not supported with evidence.

Whatever.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Before what? Have you ever been able to leave a forum on your own power? Do you actually think that you have any chance at all of stopping people's negative assessment of your dad?

Here is the legacy you have single handedly created for your dad. If you had never bothered to post on the web then results for Lessans would have returned his personal accomplishments and the love of his family. Now he comes across as a moron, thanks to his loving daughter. I wouldn't wish a daughter like you on any father. Get help peacegirl.

People are going to have to consider the source. They will believe what they want to believe. If they don't want to read the book because they choose to listen to anonymous people on forums, this book is not for them. If they followed the timeline they would see the evolution of my experiences online, and why introducing a book of this magnitude the way I did was my mistake, but that doesn't make the book any less valuable. I am confident that there will be many people who will overlook what's on google, and give this author a chance.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If they followed the timeline they would see the evolution of my experiences online, and why introducing a book of this magnitude the way I did was my mistake, but that doesn't make the book any less valuable.

There has been no evolution of your experience, you have kept on with the same aproach and results for 10 years without any change or growth at all.

And your most important mistake is in not understanding that the book has no value.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is true that the brain does the interpreting, but if the eyes are a sense organ it would follow (wouldn't it?) that the brain should be able to see his master and interpret who he is from a picture (if those wavelength/frequencies are striking his optic nerve). The other senses can do this, so why not the eyes?

But they cannot identify their master from sight alone if the other senses are not there to assist him.

First, it does not follow, there is no reason to believe that whether vision is afferent or efferent, it would make any difference in how the brain intreprets an image.

And, as has been pointed out to you Dogs do recognize their masters image from a photograph. That you deny the validity of that evidence does in no way change the accuracy of those observations.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because a concept is immaterial does not mean it has a variable subjective meaning.

I didn't say all material concepts have variable, subjective meanings, but most do, and both free will and determinism certainly do.

This knowledge is objective because it is describing an observation that is part of the real world.

Determism can be objectively observed? How?

The concept of determinism is anything but variable or subjective

Sure it is. Different people understand and define the concept differently...that is variable and subjective meaning.

and it can be proven.

You are again merely asserting that it can be proven not explaining how.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

First, it does not follow, there is no reason to believe that whether vision is afferent or efferent, it would make any difference in how the brain intreprets an image.

And, as has been pointed out to you Dogs do recognize their masters image from a photograph. That you deny the validity of that evidence does in no way change the accuracy of those observations.

Exactly. It doesn't follow at all, peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is true that the brain does the interpreting, but if the eyes are a sense organ it would follow (wouldn't it?) that the brain should be able to see his master and interpret who he is from a picture (if those wavelength/frequencies are striking his optic nerve). The other senses can do this, so why not the eyes?

But they cannot identify their master from sight alone if the other senses are not there to assist him.

Originally Posted by thedoc

First, it does not follow, there is no reason to believe that whether vision is afferent or efferent, it would make any difference in how the brain intreprets an image.

It makes a helluva difference because the eyes would work the same way that the other senses work, but they don't. In the other senses the brain recognizes the stimuli. It does not recognize any visual input from light.

Originally Posted by thedoc

And, as has been pointed out to you Dogs do recognize their masters image from a photograph. That you deny the validity of that evidence does in no way change the accuracy of those observations.

No they don't. Show me a video where the dog shows excitement as he does with smell when he sees a picture of his master, especially if he hadn't seen his master in awhile. There is no proof of this at all. You're making stuff up just because you want to fight with me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't say all material concepts have variable, subjective meanings, but most do, and both free will and determinism certainly do.

Determism can be objectively observed? How?

By observation LadyShea. You cannot prove it through empirical testing because no matter what choice you make, is in this direction. But that does not change a deeper truth, which I've explained to you but you ignore.

The concept of determinism is anything but variable or subjective

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sure it is. Different people understand and define the concept differently...that is variable and subjective meaning.

No no no, you can't get away with that. It is not subjective at all. Again, you can define something any way you want but the only one that matters is the one that is reflective of reality. I don't care how many definitions there are LadyShea. The bottom line is we can't have both determinism and free will. Therefore, one is right and the other is a delusion.

and it can be proven.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are again merely asserting that it can be proven not explaining how.

Oh my goodness. I have explained his observations and all you do is tell me it's a tautology. You will not listen, so now you're on your own.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Can photons come from somewhere they were never located?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You will leave when you find another forum to waste your time on, be sure and leave a forwarding address. Anyone making odds.

When I leave this forum, you will never talk to me again; you will never know where I go, and if for any reason you do, I will leave before you have a chance to interfere and try to ruin it. You have tried to ruin every conversation I have ever had not because you're right about anything, but because you're vindictive.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Have you ever permanently left a forum voluntarily?

Why would you ask such a question? I wouldn't answer this kind of question coming from you if you paid me. Remember how you used the fact that someone said something awful, and I told you the forum, and you turned against me? I learn from my mistakes and I wouldn't trust you with a ten foot pole. You can now think that I was banned from every site, if it makes you happy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Can photons come from somewhere they were never located?

No Spacemonkey. I am not going to talk about photons anymore. If you think I'm wrong and there's a contradiction, then you won. Doesn't that give you a sense of satisfaction? I say you won. Now there's nothing left to do but go on your merry way.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I learn from my mistakes...

You keep saying this but it still isn't true.

If you learned from your mistakes you wouldn't still be here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dogs wouldn't need to visually differentiate between individual human faces in order to survive, so why should they have this ability if the eyes are a sense organ?

Because that's what a sense organ is LadyShea. If something is coming into the eyes and going to the brain for interpretation, what would be the point of stopping short of interpretation? That doesn't even make sense according Occam's razor. Why would all the other senses be developed and not the eyes? Think about it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey. I am not going to talk about photons anymore. If you think I'm wrong and there's a contradiction, then you won. Doesn't that give you a sense of satisfaction? I say you won. Now there's nothing left to do but go on your merry way.

No, I don't derive any satisfaction from proving you wrong. For one thing, it's trivially easy, and for another that isn't my goal. I want to know why you show no interest at all in addressing potential problems with your own claims. It isn't very scientific of you. If you were rational about this you'd want to investigate the problematic aspects of your ideas to see if they can be corrected or overcome. That you show no interest in this shows that you know these ideas of yours don't hold up under scrutiny.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because that's what a sense organ is LadyShea. If something is coming into the eyes and going to the brain for interpretation, what would be the point of stopping short of interpretation? That doesn't even make sense according Occam's razor. Why would all the other senses be developed and not the eyes? Think about it.

Facial recognition is an incredibly complex cognitive task, and it doesn't come for free just because an individual or species has good vision. There is absolutely no reason why dogs should be expected to recognize human faces just because vision is afferent, and no reason either to think that they would be less likely to recognize faces if vision were efferent. The whole idea is patently ridiculous. It is also moot, given that there is no evidence to suggest that dogs can't recognize faces, and plenty of evidence to show that they can.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The only premise I've started from is your own, so if it is wrong then it's your own damn fault. I've started from YOUR premise that the light at the retina at 12:00 came from the Sun and was previously located there. That leads to a direct contradiction because there is no possible time when this light could have been located at the Sun. That means your account is contradictory and wrong, but you continue to evade the point because you lack any trace of intellectual honesty.

The confusion is your idea of a photon, a packet of energy that travels with a certain wavelength/frequency. In your mind no matter how the eyes work, if the blue photons are first in line, there is no way that light is going to reveal a red object because it has to travel through space/time and therefore [you conclude] the blue light must strike the eye first. I don't know what to tell you Spacemonkey, so I'm conceding. You won the debate. Now you can relax and do something else with your time. Bye bye.