A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

No, you can't use this as an analogy because the molecules ARE actually traveling to the nose and there is no other way around this fact.

Same with light

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Same with light

As Lessans would say, molecules of light.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

As Lessans would say, molecules of light.

Or really I should say: You are confused because you are looking at it from the afferent account. If smell is efferent, then when we smell a distant fart, the conditions for smell have been met, because we are already in olfactory range!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Same with light

Reset, back to square one. This could go on for another hundred years and would get nowhere.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Reset, back to square one. This could go on for another hundred years and would get nowhere.

Peacegirl, the molecules are already at the nose when something is in olfactory range because the conditions of smell have been met IN THE EFFERENT ACCOUNT OF SMELL.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump for

Bump.

[Vivisectus]

Maybe it will help if I wrote down my observations that show that smelling is efferent in an undeniable and mathematical way:

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 nose is concerned because
nothing from the external world, other than molecules, strikes the olfactory
nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and sight.
Upon hearing this my friend asked me in a rather authoritarian
tone of voice, “Are you trying to tell me that this is not a scientific
fact? ”

I replied, “Are you positive because you were told this, or positive
because you yourself saw the relations revealing this truth? And if you
are still positive, will you put your right hand on the chopping block
to show me how positive you really are?”

“I am not that positive, but we were taught this.”

It is an undeniable fact that molecules travel,
but great confusion arises when this is likened to sound as you will
soon have verified. The reason we say man has taste, touch, smell,
sight, and hearing is because these describe individual differences that
exist, but when we say that these five are senses we are assuming the
nose functions like the other four — which it does not. 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 nose is 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 baby that no object is capable
of getting a reaction from the nose because nothing is impinging on
the olfactory nerve to cause it, although any number of sounds, tastes,
touches or sights can get an immediate reaction since the nerve
endings are being struck by something external.

“But do not smells cause the nose to wrinkle depending on the intensity?”

That is absolutely true, but this does not cause; it is a condition
of smell. We simply need molecules in the air to smell, just as other things are a condition of hearing. If there were no molecules we could not smell, and if there was nothing to carry the sound waves to our ears, we could not
hear. The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums
whereas there is no scent traveling from an object on the molecules to impinge on our olfactory nerve. Did you ever wonder why the nose
of a newborn baby cannot sniff out what exists around him, although the other four senses are in full working order?

“I understand from a doctor that the infant simple cannot distinguish many smells yet.”

And he believes this because this is what he was taught, but it is
not the truth. In fact, if a newborn infant was placed in a soundproof
room that would eliminate the possibility of sense experience which is
a prerequisite of smell — even though his nose were wide open — he
could never have the desire to smell. Furthermore, and quite revealing,
if this infant was kept alive for fifty years or longer on a steady flow of
intravenous glucose, if possible, without allowing any stimuli to strike
the other four organs of sense, this baby, child, young and middle aged
person would never be able to sniff out any objects existing
in that room no matter how many molecules were present or how stinky
they might be because the conditions necessary for smell have been
removed, and there is absolutely nothing in the external world that
travels from an object and impinges on the olfactory nerve to cause it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Maybe it will help if I wrote down my observations that show that smelling is efferent in an undeniable and mathematical way:

It doesn't work that way because smell IS a sense. You're just trying to make his claim look stupid.

[Vivisectus]

What exactly is the difference, though? Nothing has changed to make it more or less persuasive at all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't work that way because smell IS a sense. You're just trying to make his claim look stupid.

That is simply not true, no-one else can make your father look stupid. You are doing that quite well and in a most amusing manner. Just as molecules of light don't strike the optic nerve, and bad photons of odor don't strike the olfactory nerve, no-one else can post passages from the book in such a nonsensical way as you do. Your manner of posting and defending his claims have gone a long way to make him look even more stupid that the book does. Keep up the good work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What exactly is the difference, though? Nothing has changed to make it more or less persuasive at all.

The difference is the fact that the brain and eyes don't function like the other senses. You don't get to take that excerpt and fill it in with another sense. It sounds ridiculous. I have said that there was more to his demonstration as to how the brain works in relation to the eyes, but you haven't asked me to continue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

That is simply not true, no-one else can make your father look stupid.

Bullshit.

Originally Posted by thedoc

You are doing that quite well and in a most amusing manner. Just as molecules of light don't strike the optic nerve, and bad photons of odor don't strike the olfactory nerve, no-one else can post passages from the book in such a nonsensical way as you do. Your manner of posting and defending his claims have gone a long way to make him look even more stupid that the book does. Keep up the good work.

Blah blah blah!

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The difference is the fact that the brain and eyes don't function like the other senses. You don't get to take that excerpt and fill it in with another sense. It sounds ridiculous. I have said that there was more to his demonstration as to how the brain works in relation to the eyes, but you haven't asked me to continue.

Ok - so what more is there to his demonstration?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The difference is the fact that the brain and eyes don't function like the other senses.

I'm sure you can explain why this is so, and that this claim isn't 100% bullshit.

Please enlighten us by explaining how G-protein function in phototransduction differs from G-protein function in olfactory transduction. After that, please explain the anatomical differences between the optic nerve and the olfactory nerve.



Or, if you prefer, you might explain to us how the more than 15,000 investigations I referenced earlier investigating how the eyes and brain function to create vision got it wrong. What were the methodological flaws in those investigations?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ok - so what more is there to his demonstration?

He demonstrates how the brain functions in relation to language, which is where he drew his conclusion that the eyes weren't a sense organ. I will continue if you want me to. It's not that long.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I'm sure you can explain why this is so, and that this claim isn't 100% bullshit.

Please enlighten us by explaining how G-protein function in phototransduction differs from G-protein function in olfactory transduction. After that, please explain the anatomical differences between the optic nerve and the olfactory nerve.

Or, if you prefer, you might explain to us how the more than 15,000 investigations I referenced earlier investigating how the eyes and brain function to create vision got it wrong. What were the methodological flaws in those investigations?

I don't think there were flaws in their investigations. All I can offer is Lessans' demonstration regarding what the brain does in relation to learning words, and why he concluded what he did.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

What were the methodological flaws in those investigations?

The methodological flaws were that the results didn't agree with Lessans.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I can offer is Lessans' demonstration regarding what the brain does in relation to learning words, and why he concluded what he did.

Lessans made no demonstrations, he only made fictional claims about how the brain learned words and connected them to objects. If he would only have gotten some education on the subject he could have saved himself many errors in his account of vision. His conclusions were all made in ignorance.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He demonstrates how the brain functions in relation to language, which is where he drew his conclusion that the eyes weren't a sense organ. I will continue if you want me to. It's not that long.

Oh, that. Na, we've been over that. That is just another claim that you choose to call a "demonstration" to make it sound like he proved that it was so. He didn't. He just expressed the opinion that this is how it works. There is not a single passage in there anywhere where he shows that there is a reason to believe he was right. But go ahead, prove me wrong and post a passage where he actually gives us a convinving reason to believe he was right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Oh, that. Na, we've been over that. That is just another claim that you choose to call a "demonstration" to make it sound like he proved that it was so. He didn't. He just expressed the opinion that this is how it works. There is not a single passage in there anywhere where he shows that there is a reason to believe he was right. But go ahead, prove me wrong and post a passage where he actually gives us a convinving reason to believe he was right.

You will not be convinced. I already know that. We've had this discussion before, but it still does not mean he was wrong. You are not god the last time I checked.

[Vivisectus]

No need to be god to point out all he did was express an opinion. That is a simple fact. But go ahead: prove me wrong. Post any passage where he actually backed up what he said about sight in any way.

If you cannot, then the case for efferent smelling is exactly as strong as the case for efferent sight.

[peacegirl]

I really am not into posting unless I know people want to investigate before they attack. If there is resistance before I even finish, then that will put an end to the discussion.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality

p. 116 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. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ.

The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This
desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see
that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception —
in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike
the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But
in order to look, there must be a desire to see. The child becomes
aware that something will soon follow something else which then
arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the
relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when
this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a
nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a
potato, a fruit. Under no conditions can the eyes be called a sense
organ unless, as in Aristotle’s case, it was the result of an inaccurate
observation that was never corrected.”

“Well I say, what difference does it make whether we have four
senses and a pair of eyes instead of five senses? I certainly don’t feel
any different, and I still see you just as before.”

Once it is understood that something existing in the external
world makes contact with the brain through the four senses, but that
the brain contacts the various objects by peering through the eyes, it
makes a huge difference, and many things can be clarified.

Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light
travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for granted
that 5 senses was equally scientific, made the statement (which my
friend referred to and still exists in our encyclopedias) that if we could
sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the
earth we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching
America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught
this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure
Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is
not a scientific fact?”

Again my reply was, “Are you positive because you were told this,
or positive because you, yourself, saw the relations revealing this
truth? And if you are still positive, will you put your right hand on
the chopping block to show me how positive you really are?”

<snip>

We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant stars, etc., not
because the one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes away, and the
last many light years away, but simply because these objects are large
enough to be seen at their great distance when enough light is present.
This fallacy has come into existence because the eyes were considered
a sense organ, like the ears. Since it takes less time for the sound
from an airplane to reach our ears when it is a thousand feet away
than when five thousand, it was assumed that the same thing occurred
with the object sending a picture of itself on the waves of light. If it
was possible to transmit a television picture from the earth to a planet
as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the people living there
would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into America for the
first time because the picture would be in the process of being
transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But objects do
not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge on the
optic nerve. We see objects directly by looking at them and it takes
the same length of time to see an airplane, the moon, the sun, or
distant stars.

To sum this up — just as we have often observed that
a marching band is out of step to the beat when seen from a distance
because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been taken, so
likewise, if we could see someone talking on the moon via a telescope
and hear his voice on radio we would see his lips move instantly but
not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3 seconds later
due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles
a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric image of his lips
impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this distance. Because
Aristotle assumed the eyes functioned like the other four and the
scientific community assumed he was right, it made all their reasoning
fit what appeared to be undeniable. According to their thinking, how
else was it possible for knowledge to reach us through our eyes when
they were compelled to believe that man had five senses? Were they
given any choice? Let me prove in still another way that the eyes are
not a sense organ.

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight
distance away cannot identify his master. If the eyes were a sense, if
an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic
nerve, then he would recognize his master instantly as he can from
sound and smell. In fact, if he was vicious and accustomed to
attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his sense
of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no way of
identifying his master’s face even if every feature was lit up like a
Christmas tree, and would attack. This is why he cannot recognize his
master from a picture or statue because nothing from the external
world is striking the optic nerve. The question as to how man is able
to accomplish this continues to confound our scientists. The answer
will be given shortly, however, let me make one thing absolutely clear.

The knowledge revealed thus far although also hidden behind the door
marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses’ is not what I referred to as
being of significance. Frankly, it makes no difference to me that the
eyes are not a sense organ, that our scientists got confused because of
it, and that a dog cannot identify his master from a picture. What
does mean a great deal to me, when the purpose of this book is to
remove all evil from our lives (which word is symbolic of any kind of
hurt that exists in human relation), is to demonstrate how certain
words have absolutely no foundation in reality yet they have caused
the worst suffering and unhappiness imaginable. Let me explain.
One of the greatest forms of injustice still exists because we have
never understood our true relationship with the external world which
is related to what we think we see with our eyes. What is this
injustice? It is to be judged an inferior production of the human race
because of physiognomic differences and this judgment takes place the
moment we call one person beautiful and another one ugly, handsome
and homely, good looking and bad looking.

“But I have been taught that sticks and stones will break my bones
but names or words will never hurt me. Isn’t that a true statement?”

Actually, I’m not referring to those names. To be called the N
word, or any name used in an effort to make a person feel inferior, is
actually not a hurt if this does not lower ourselves in our own eyes
because we allow for the source. But when we believe we are inferior
productions because of words that have told us so, the expression,
‘Sticks and stones will break my bones…’ is completely erroneous
since we have been unconsciously hurt. This unconsciousness has its
source in the failure to understand how the eyes function which is
revealed by the fact that they are included as one of the five senses.
When someone is judged an inferior production of the human race by
others as well as himself, all because of words that have no relation to
reality although he sees this inferiority as if it is a definite part of the
real world, then he is seriously hurt and God is going to put a
permanent end to the use of these words.

What makes someone
remark — “It’s a darn shame she got killed, she was such a pretty girl”
— indicating that the tragedy was greater because of this prettiness.
What makes parents give their children cosmetic surgery if not to
increase their physiognomic value? As a consequence of the belief
that one person is more beautiful or handsome than another, which
places a greater value on certain features, many people will go to great
lengths to correct their ‘imperfections’ by getting breast implants and
eyelid surgery, while others will have nose operations and squeeze their
teeth together. These operations are not without risk yet many people
are willing to have these cosmetic procedures because they believe it
will improve the quality of their lives; and the doctor who must earn
a living justifies his professional advice on the undeniable grounds that
they will definitely be more attractive when their teeth are together
and their nose straightened. After all, what makes someone good
looking, cute, adorable, lovely, gorgeous, beautiful, or handsome if not
for the belief that certain features or combination of features contain
this value called ‘beauty.’ And isn’t it also true that we see these
differences with our very eyes? “We do,” you might reply, “but even
if we differ as to who is the most beautiful, the real truth is that beauty
is in the eyes of the beholder.” This comment does not reveal the
truth at all; instead it reveals our confusion still more since this
expression does not negate the existence of ugliness but only observes
a difference of opinion regarding the type of features that constitute
what is beautiful and ugly. To prove what I mean, could you possibly
call Miss America ugly, or the Wicked Witch beautiful? You might
disagree with someone as to which girl in a beauty contest should be
judged the winner, but none would be considered ugly. I then asked
my friend this question to clarify my point.

[peacegirl]

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality

p. 121 “Who do you think is more beautiful, Elizabeth Taylor or your
girlfriend?”

How is it possible to answer your question when beauty is in the
eyes of the beholder? This is just a matter of opinion, not a fact, and
you said these words were symbolic of reality, or gave the appearance
of being so.”

Let me rephrase the question, “In your eyes, do you consider your
girlfriend as beautiful as Elizabeth Taylor?”

“No I don’t.”

“In your eyes, is this an opinion that you are less good looking
than Paul Newman, or a fact?”

“He is an extremely handsome man, and I do consider him better
looking than myself.”

“Who do you consider better looking, Paul Newman or Robert
Redford?”

“I say the latter.”

Someone listening in on the conversation replied, “Not in my
book. Newman has it all over him.”

“Are you able to see what the expression, ‘beauty is in the eyes of
the beholder’ refers to? There is a difference of opinion as to who is
better looking in your eyes, but once you admit to yourself that a
certain person is more handsome or beautiful than another, then in
so far as you’re concerned this is not an opinion but a fact. Take a
look at this picture. It is of a girl who has an aquiline nose, buck
teeth, a receding hair line, heavy bow legs, sagging breasts, a projected
rear end, a hair lip, and she lisps and stutters. Now compare her with
Elizabeth Taylor and tell me the truth. In your eyes, which one is
more beautiful?”

"Are you trying to be funny? Elizabeth Taylor naturally, but this
is a fact, she is more beautiful. These differences exist and are a
definite part of the real world because I see them with my very eyes.”

“Differences exist, this is true, and you do see them with your very
eyes, but the words we have been looking through are not and because
these symbols are a terrible hurt they must come to an end. You will
soon have verified that when we use the expression, ‘beauty is in the
eyes of the beholder,’ what we are saying in reality is that beauty is
only a word existing in the brain of the beholder. To be classified as
homely is the greatest injustice, yet every time we use the whole range
of words expressing good looks we do that very thing.

You will soon
understand how these words developed and how they fooled even the
most analytic minds into believing they were true descriptions of
reality. The truth is that nobody is beautiful or ugly, just different.
However, the first thing I must do is demonstrate exactly why they are
words only, not reality, and why they must become obsolete,
otherwise, you will classify this kind of evil as one of those unfortunate
things like being born without legs, arms, or eyes.”

“I agree with you so far,” my friend replied, “but let’s assume for
a moment that you actually convince us that these words are not
symbolic of reality, why should we or others stop using them if there
is greater satisfaction in continuing with them? Just because you
teach us that using certain words, whatever they are, is wrong because
they are a hurt won’t necessarily stop their use.”

“No it won’t, but the basic principle will. God is giving us no
choice in this matter, as you will soon begin to understand.” Let us
get back to our discussion to observe how our brain operates.

At a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste, touch
and smell, but photographs the objects involved which develops a
negative of the relation whereas the brain of a dog is incapable of this.
When he sees the features of his master without any accompanying
sound or smell he cannot identify because no photograph was taken.
A dog identifies predominantly through his sense of sound and smell
and what he sees is in relation to these sense experiences, just as we
identify most of the differences that exist through words and names.
If the negative plate on which the relation is formed is temporarily
disconnected — in man’s case the words or names, and in the dog’s
case the sounds and smells — both have a case of amnesia. This gives
conclusive evidence as to why an animal cannot identify too well with
his eyes.

As we have seen, if a vicious dog accustomed to attacking
any person who should open the fence at night were to have two
senses, hearing and smell, temporarily disconnected, he would actually
have amnesia and even though he saw with his eyes his master come
through the gate he would have no way of recognizing him and would
attack. But a baby, having already developed negatives of relations
that act as a slide in a movie projector, can recognize at a very early
age. The brain is a very complex piece of machinery that not only acts
as a tape recorder through our ears and the other three senses, and a
camera through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as
a movie projector.

As sense experiences become related or recorded,
they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects
held in relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, since
the eyes are the binoculars of the brain all words that are placed in
front of this telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of
relation, are projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world
and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses,
man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and
if words correctly describe then he will be made conscious of actual
differences and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for
those who do not know the words. To understand this better let us
observe my granddaughter learning words.

[peacegirl]

It is obvious that this baby looks out through her eyes and sees
various animals and people in motion, but she is not conscious of
differences. She may be drawn to play with one animal in preference
to another, or may prefer to play with one toy over another, but in so
far as she is concerned all she sees are a bunch of objects. However,
as her eyes are focused on one of our canine friends I shall repeat the
word ‘dog’ rapidly in her ear. When she turns away I stop. This will
be continued until she looks for him when hearing the word which
indicates that a relation between this particular sound and object has
been established and a photograph taken. Soon this relation is
formed which makes her conscious of a particular difference that exists
in the external world. As she learns more and more words such as cat,
horse, bird, sun, moon, etc., she becomes conscious of these
differences which no one can deny because they are seen through
words or slides that circumscribe accurately these various bits of
substance. This is exactly how we learn words only I am speeding up
the process.

Before long she learns house, tree, car, chair, door,
kitchen, television, airplane, moon, stars, nose, teeth, eyes, hair, girl,
boy, and so on. Until she learns the word cat she could very easily
point to a dog when hearing that word because a negative of the
difference has not yet been developed, just as a fox cannot be
differentiated from a dog until a photograph of the difference has been
developed. She also learns the names of individuals: Mommy,
Daddy, Linda, Janis, Marc, David, Elan, Justin, Shoshana, Adam,
Jennifer, Meredith, etc. My granddaughter can identify her mother
from hundreds and hundreds of photographs because the difference is
a negative that not only reveals who her mother is, but who she is not.

In other words, as she learns these names and words her brain takes a
picture of the objects symbolized and when she sees these differences
again she projects the word or name, but the brain will not take any
picture until a relation is formed. Consequently, these differences
that exist in the external world which are not identifiable through
taste, touch, smell, or sounds are identifiable only because they are
related to words, names or slides that we project for recognition. If we
would lose certain names or words we would have amnesia because
when we see these ordinarily familiar differences we are unable to
project the words or names necessary for recognition.

By the same reasoning the word Chinese develops not only a
negative of differences but of similarities, consequently, when someone
is not acquainted with the differences that exist among this race he
only sees that they resemble each other. But if we would live among
this group and separate them by their individual names, we would
soon see their differences and not their similarities. Seeing
similarities is what takes place when someone does not learn colors
properly and he may be called color blind when in reality he is word
blind. Supposing we were to teach a child that blue is green and green
is blue and then place him in surroundings where his identification of
colors would be tested.

you imagine how quickly he would be
called color-blind? This child would argue that the green is blue and
the blue is green while the other children, brought up differently,
would reverse the argument. If someone gets confused between
certain shades of blue and green, it is only because the relation
between colors was never accurately photographed. In the majority of
cases colors are learned in a haphazard manner and if a blue negative
was developed when looking at a subtle shade of green, he will see blue
just as you would see something blue through blue glasses even though
the object was green. This is equivalent to getting confused between
certain type leaves and trees only because these differences were not
accurately photographed in relation to the word. For example, if a
particular leaf is given a specific name and another leaf resembling this
leaf to a degree but still slightly different is given a different name,
then when the relation is accurately photographed the person learning
the words will never mistake one for the other. Once children are
made to understand that they are referring to the same bit of
substance, regardless of the different names used to identify it, then
there can be no argument between them. Of course, if a child can’t
see a difference before learning the words, then he is genuinely color
blind. Let’s take another example.

If you were taught one word, orange, which included within that
symbol a grapefruit and tangerine you would hand me any one of the
three if I asked for an orange, but when you learn the other two words
which photographs the difference then you could not hand me a
tangerine or grapefruit if I asked for an orange. The reason we have
a word for the sun and a word for the moon is because these two
bodies are different, and the reason we have a planet named Earth,
one named Saturn, Venus, etc. is only because these are not one and
the same planet and we have separated them by calling them different
names. However, the reason we do not call the moon a planet is
because we learned it does not function like one, therefore it does not
fall in the same category. Once it is understood as an undeniable law
that nothing impinges on the optic nerve, even though the pupils
dilate and contract according to the intensity of light, it becomes
possible to separate what exists in the external world from that which
is only a negative or word in our head. The belief in five senses made
it possible to imagine light waves hitting an object and then reflecting
an image to the eyes — for this appears logical — but how is it
possible for light to reflect a value that doesn’t even exist in the
external world?

In the course of our children’s development they learn
other kinds of words that form inaccurate relations not only because
a judgment of personal value is given external reality by the symbol
itself, but also because the logic of unconscious syllogistic reasoning
confirms the apparent validity of inaccurate observations. Let me
show you how this was accomplished.

[Vivisectus]

Lets see - claims, claims, more claims, some claims...

I suppose the one about the dog not being able to recognize people from sight comes closest to support, but then he never actually TRIED that so even THAT is based in a claim.

Where in all that did you think there was anything but claims?