A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

As I said before Brownie was a sight hound, and just about the smartest dog I ever had. We lived in farm country and groundhogs were a nuisance that needed constant attention. Brownie liked to hunt groundhogs. One day I looked out a window and saw her with one in the open in a field about 200+ yards away. I picked up the .22 and started toward her. She would occasionally step back and watch my progress and then go back to circling and nipping at the groundhog. When I had almost gotten close enough to call her off and shoot the groundhog, she looked one last time and went in and killed it. At no time during my progress could she have gotten my scent or heard me, I hadn't said anything. She knew me by sight alone and was not going to let me take her 'kill'. The only down side was that she liked to bring her trophies home and lay them on the front yard for us to admire. We had to burry them, if we just threw them somewhere she'd just bring them back.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Rainbows, asterism and color change in gemstones are not optical illusions, they are objectively verifiable, and predictable phenomena based on the properties of light and how our eyes and brain work to allow sight.

I am getting at your explanation does not coherently explain how we see things like rainbows. The theory is incomplete and incoherent. You believe it warrants further investigation. Can you defend the theory and the call for investigation?

I don't have to explain how we see rainbows in order for Lessans' observations to be right. If Lessans is correct regarding the way in which we project words onto a screen of the outside world, then the investigation needs to follow from that point. Obviously, we can see rainbows. The question is do we see the rainbows by looking at them directly, or do the lightwaves send signals to the brain for decoding.

[The Lone Ranger]

Another way to demonstrate that the finite speed of light imposes a delay between when something happens and when we see it.

When a star goes up in a supernova explosion, it produces a massive burst of light, obviously. It also produces a massive burst of neutrinos. If we saw supernovae in real time, then the neutrino burst should be detected thousands or even millions of years after we see the supernova. This is not what happens. They are essentially coincident.

[LadyShea]

In other words, how can words be projected as slides onto a screen of the outside world (which the brain then photographs and records)

What does this even mean?

The brain makes many, many, many associations between images and words/concepts. These associations are subjective-unique and individual- as they are based on the unique mind of the subject.

This has nothing to do with how our eyes see.

How does synesthesia fit into your beliefs? There are people who hear color and taste sounds, etc. If sight is not a sense, why would the brain make associations with the other senses?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

As I said before Brownie was a sight hound, and just about the smartest dog I ever had. We lived in farm country and groundhogs were a nuisance that needed constant attention. Brownie liked to hunt groundhogs. One day I looked out a window and saw her with one in the open in a field about 200+ yards away. I picked up the .22 and started toward her. She would occasionally step back and watch my progress and then go back to circling and nipping at the groundhog. When I had almost gotten close enough to call her off and shoot the groundhog, she looked one last time and went in and killed it. At no time during my progress could she have gotten my scent or heard me, I hadn't said anything. She knew my by sight alone and was not going to let me take her 'kill'. The only down side was that she liked to bring her trophies home and lay them on the front yard for us to admire. We had to burry them, if we just threw them somewhere she'd just bring them back.

I don't know how this proves that she could identify you by your facial features. She obviously felt threatened because she saw you coming so she killed the groundhog first, but this doesn't prove that she knew it was you by sight alone.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to explain how we see rainbows in order for Lessans' observations to be right. If Lessans is correct regarding the way in which we project words onto a screen of the outside world, then the investigation needs to follow from that point. Obviously, we can see rainbows. The question is do we see the rainbows by looking at them directly, or do the lightwaves send signals to the brain for decoding.

Rainbows are light.

Please explain again "seeing directly" as you understand it. I am not understanding it as a concept. Does this mean the eyes are merely windows the brain looks out of?

[The Lone Ranger]

In the Mongillo, et alia study, not only could dogs recognize their masters' faces, many of them were unable to distinguish between their masters and other people when the people were wearing masks.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does this even mean?

The brain makes many, many, many associations between images and words/concepts. These associations are subjective-unique and individual- as they are based on the unique mind of the subject.

This has nothing to do with how our eyes see.

This has everything to do with how our eyes see. How do you think we become conditioned to seeing some people as beautiful and others as ugly, if not for these word/image associations? You are right that there are many associations between images and words/concepts. Unfortunately, many of these associations are inaccurate. Didn't you read the part that explains the how the projection of words onto substance can make something appear real when it is only a projection of our realistic imagination?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How does synesthesia fit into your beliefs? There are people who hear color and taste sounds, etc. If sight is not a sense, why would the brain make associations with the other senses?

There must be some kind of scrambling of the wiring in the brain to cause this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In the Mongillo, et alia study, not only could dogs recognize their masters' faces, many of them were unable to distinguish between their masters and other people when the people were wearing masks.

Did you mean 'able'? If that's true, I would like to see the study. How on earth could they distinguish their masters' faces from other people when there was a covering over their faces? That's like my being able to identify two people who are covered in blankets.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Rainbows are light.

Please explain again "seeing directly" as you understand it. I am not understanding it as a concept. Does this mean the eyes are merely windows the brain looks out of?

Yes, the brain looks through the eyes, as windows, to see the universe. Focussing occurs when other sense experience awaken the brain to desire to see what it is experiencing, but the focussing only occurs when one is a baby. When we see something, we are able to see it because of the object's ability to reflect the light. We are not decoding the signals from the light itself. I don't know how else to put it.

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.

[LadyShea]

This has everything to do with how our eyes see. How do you think we become conditioned to seeing some people as beautiful and others as ugly, if not for these word/image associations? You are right that there are many associations between images and words/concepts. Unfortunately, many of these associations are inaccurate. Didn't you read the part that explains the how the projection of words onto substance can make something appear real when it is only a projection of our realistic imagination.

These associations, as a product of an individual mind, are too subjective to be properly labeled "inaccurate" or even accurate. They merely are. The associations all combine to create our worldview, our personality.

Concepts (such as perception of beauty and emotions) are "real", they just aren't physical objects that can be sensed externally.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There must be some kind of scrambling of the wiring in the brain to cause this.

I know what causes synesthesia, I want to know how a scrambling of the 5 senses is explained by your idea of 4 senses plus sight

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I still would like to get more empirical evidence to confirm that only when light reaches us do we see an object. I know I'm upsetting everyone, so I'm going to end the discussion on sight.

Holy shit, you are fucking stupid.

How the hell can we see an object until the light reflected from it reaches us?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not thinking anything.

You got it!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you mean 'able'? If that's true, I would like to see the study. How on earth could they distinguish their masters' faces from other people when there was a covering over their faces? That's like my being able to identify two people who are covered in blankets.

What he's saying is the dogs can't distinguish between masked people because they need to see the facial features for identification

This refutes your assertion that dogs cannot identify their masters by site alone. They obviously see and recognize facial features

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

These associations, as a product of an individual mind, are too subjective to be properly labeled "inaccurate" or even accurate. They merely are. The associations all combine to create our worldview, our personality.

Concepts (such as perception of beauty and emotions) are "real", they just aren't physical objects that can be sensed externally.

No, that is incorrect. Experiences are subjective depending on how we interpret them, but this is not what Lessans is talking about. He is showing how conditioning takes place, which has no reference to external reality. This has caused a serious injustice because once these word-image associations get photographed in the brain, we believe that what we are seeing is objective; that real beauty and real ugliness exist.

[LadyShea]

peacegirl, how dependent is the rest of the book on the author's beliefs about sight? I have really, really tried to understand the concept well enough to see if it's remotely, possibly close to being somewhat compatible with the facts, and it's just absolutely not. The belief about sight you are positing is total nonsense.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that is incorrect. Experiences are subjective depending on how we interpret them, but this is not what Lessans is talking about. He is showing how conditioning takes place, which has no reference to external reality. This has caused a serious injustice because once these word-image associations get photographed in the brain, we believe that what we are seeing is objective; that real beauty and real ugliness exist.

Feelings, thoughts, concepts, and values exist, therefore they are real. They are not part of the external world true, but that doesn't make them not real.

I'll eat my shoe if anyone here believes beauty and ugliness are objective external reality. We are all aware these are merely subjective mental constructs.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What he's saying is the dogs can't distinguish between masked people because they required to see the facial features for identification

This refutes your assertion that dogs cannot identify their masters by site alone. They obviously see and recognize facial features

That still doesn't prove that dogs can recognize their masters from their facial features. It only proves that they can't identify their masters when they have masks on. The only way to prove this is for them to take their masks off and see if the dog, from a distance away, can identify. The problem is that as the dog gets closer, the smell of his master can interfere with the experiment.

[LadyShea]

It was the flip side of the experiment. They could recognize their masters by sight when they could see the faced, and could not recognize their masters when the face was obscured.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Feelings, thoughts, concepts, and values exist, therefore they are real. They are not part of the external world true, but that doesn't make them not real.

I'll eat my shoe if anyone here believes beauty and ugliness are objective external reality.

The problem is that we have already been conditioned by these words which is why you would never call Elizabeth Taylor ugly, or The Wicked Witch pretty. You need to read this chapter over again.

The word ‘beautiful’ has absolutely no
external reality and yet because it is learned in association with a
particular physiognomy a beautiful girl is created, when no such
person exists. Obviously there is a difference between the shape
and features of individuals but to label one beautiful and another
ugly only reveals that you are conscious of a fallacious difference
that is projected through your eyes upon substance that cannot be
denied — which makes the projection appear real. By having the
words beautiful, ugly, gorgeous, etc. as slides in a movie projector
through which the brain will look at the external world, a fallacious
value is placed upon certain specific differences only because of
the words which is then confirmed as a part of the real world since
man will swear that he sees beautiful women with his eyes, but in
actual reality all he sees are different shapes and different features.

[wildernesse]

For someone who is so concerned with other people reading their crap, you sure don't seem able to read with comprehension what anyone else posts. Go back and read The Lone Ranger's posts again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It was the flip side of the experiment. They could recognize their masters by sight when they could see the faced, and could not recognize their masters when the face was obscured.

That's not what he said. He said they couldn't recognize their masters when they had masks on, but that didn't confirm that they could recognize their masters when their features were exposed.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That still doesn't prove that dogs can recognize their masters from their facial features. It only proves that they can't identify their masters when they have masks on. The only way to prove this is for them to take their masks off and see if the dog, from a distance away, can identify. The problem is that as the dog gets closer, the smell of his master can interfere with the experiment.

Err, Did you miss this post? BTW, The Lone Ranger is a biologist. The author of this "book," by contrast, is a lunatic.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what he said. He said they couldn't recognize their masters when they had masks on, but that didn't confirm that they could recognize their masters when their features were exposed.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It has been experimentally verified that dogs can recognize and categorize objects in photographs. See, for instance, Kaminski, J., S. Templeman, J. Call and M. Tomasello. 2009. Domestic dogs comprehend human communication with iconic signs. Developmental Science, volume 12. pp. 831 - 837.


Similarly, it has been experimentally verified that dogs can recognize their masters' faces. See, for instance, Paolo Mongillo, Gabriele Bono, Lucia Regolin, and Lieta Marinelli. 2010. Selective attention to humans in companion dogs, Canis familiaris. Animal Behaviour. volume 80(6), pp. 1057 - 1063.