A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, we silence the cognitive dissonance in our heads by changing our worldview when it's warranted, instead of rejecting new information to protect our worldview.

Do you know what "projection" means?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Puzzle rules (I think, Lessans writing style even made the puzzle difficult to understand)

You're being too kind. The real challenge here would be taking Lessans' solution (if it exists, what with peacegirl being a craven liar and all) and working backward to create an actual puzzle. As matters currently stand, no puzzle exists; there's only another exemplar of Authentic Baltimore Gibberish. As is so often the case, the words Lessans used to describe the puzzle mean nothing whatsoever in the order he used them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's not a remotely accurate assessment of how and what we know about sight. As you'd be well aware of if you knew anything at all about the physiology of sight.

So help me here. Could you show me the actual proof that the brain does what science claims it is doing; interpreting data through the impulses coming from optic nerve?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, we silence the cognitive dissonance in our heads by changing our worldview when it's warranted, instead of rejecting new information to protect our worldview.

And who here is protecting a worldview? You're the only one with a childhood indoctrinated dogma and philosophy here.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

According to peacegirl Lessans solved this puzzle, but she won't share the solution with us, so it could be a big fat lie

Some people are taking on the challenge though. We don't want to share solutions with peacegirl however, as we don't know if she is fishing for an answer to pass off as Lessans'

Puzzle rules (I think, Lessans writing style even made the puzzle difficult to understand)

You need to make 35 unique 3 letter combinations using only the letters A-O. So basically you can use each letter 7 times, but cannot overlap any letter combination. SO for example

ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO

No two letters can appear together again in any other grouping.

[Thanks]

Does this have anything to do with the imminent revolution in thought, or whether dogs think the sun is beautiful, or whatever else Lessens claims, beyond the fact that we're apparently supposed to be so wowed by his ability to solve a math puzzle that we'll take all his other nonsense at face value?

Also, I'm pretty sure I know the answer. We're not sharing them?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Page 499

You're right. That was added in place of Chapter Ten. So what are you objecting to?

[Adam]

Um...the notion that "trillions and trillions" of human babies have been born, perhaps?

[LadyShea]

So what are you objecting to?

That there have been trillions upon trillions of babies born. He put way, way, way too many zeros in there.

davidm pointed it out way back thread and you ignored it. I thought I would bring it up again.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Adam

[Thanks]

Does this have anything to do with the imminent revolution in thought, or whether dogs think the sun is beautiful, or whatever else Lessens claims, beyond the fact that we're apparently supposed to be so wowed by his ability to solve a math puzzle that we'll take all his other nonsense at face value?

Also, I'm pretty sure I know the answer. We're not sharing them?

You can send it to me, or thedoc has offered to check anyone's answer, or anyone else you trust

[Kael]

Originally Posted by Adam

[Thanks]

Does this have anything to do with the imminent revolution in thought, or whether dogs think the sun is beautiful, or whatever else Lessens claims, beyond the fact that we're apparently supposed to be so wowed by his ability to solve a math puzzle that we'll take all his other nonsense at face value?

Also, I'm pretty sure I know the answer. We're not sharing them?

This was given in the book as an example of how mathematically awesome Lessans is, and how dogmatic the establishment is for rejecting him. He claims in the book that he gave the puzzle to a math student, who could not solve it and took it to his professor, who also said it was not solvable after hearing Lessans didn't make it past the 7th grade.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So help me here. Could you show me the actual proof that the brain does what science claims it is doing; interpreting data through the impulses coming from optic nerve?

I gave you an entire essay. What else do you want?

More to the point, you could go visit a research library and read up on some of the literally thousands of experiments that have been done in order to determine how the eyes detect and transduce light, and how the impulses are then relayed to the brain. [Not to mention how neurons actually work, and why they're capable of transmission in only one direction. And the careful studies of the composition of the optic nerve, and the directionality of its neural fibers.]


There is a simply enormous number of careful studies that have been done in this field.

[Kael]

Psh. Those are all skewed.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I gave you an entire essay.

Yeah, but that essay was all like and she doesn't have time to read it. She's got hours upon hours every goddamn day to hang out here and dissemble, but she has no time whatsoever for that essay.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

What else do you want?

The study that says the eye is not a sense organ, of course.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was still contrived. Why would that be necessary if a dog recognized his master? Dogs get excited when they identify their master. They don't need a reward to get them to choose.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course it was contrived, it was a controlled experiment. The rewards are used to train the dogs to use the indication selected. All tests and experiments of all kinds are necessarily contrived (as in planned rather than spontaneous) otherwise you have no data, just subjective and probably inaccurate observations....like Lessans.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't keep repeating that Lessans observations were not subjective. Is it subjective to describe the Milky Way Galaxy in detail? A description can be very accurate LadyShea. I don't know why you can't see this.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What "props"? The animals were choosing their preference from photographs. The only training was how to signal their choice. If a dog has been trained to step on a square or point or flip a lever, that is a more accurate and repeatable test. If it was up to the researcher trying to read body language, then there would be no way to control for bias.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How on Earth would you determine a dog was recognizing something if there was no controlled set up for the experiment?

The controls are to eliminate all other sense experience. To try and train a dog to hit a lever in recognition is like asking a monkey to read Shakespeare.

We silence the cognitive dissonance through self-imposed ignorance.~Jonah Lehrer

Stepping, flipping, or pointing at a lever to indicate an answer is a very high order skill because there is association involved. I am not even sure how they trained their dogs to do this

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can train dogs to do all kinds of such "high order skills", they are even being used to detect illness in people, specifically cancer.

That's an instinct that some animals have. It's amazing, but their sense of smell is that strong that it doesn't surprise me.

That being said, the whole experiment could be thrown off because of the belief that the dog is hitting the lever when he recognizes his master.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When given two pictures, the dog chooses one (using whatever means they devised and trained the dog to indicate the choice) and is rewarded. In this experiment the dogs chose their handlers picture much more often than is predicted by chance or random indications. That is a valid and compelling bit of data.

Was it replicated? A bit of compelling data does not prove their case. I still think 85% is not 100%. Dogs hear their master's voices 100%, their smell 100%, why is sight any different?

I believe a more accurate way a dog could show a sign of recognition (even though not a perfect test) would be by wagging its tail, running up to the picture of his owner, circling the picture, scratching at the picture, sniffing the picture, whining at the picture, sitting at the picture, rolling on the floor by the picture, jumping on the picture, etc. Do you get the gist? Why is this show of recognition any less accurate than hitting a lever which might not mean what they believe it is indicating?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What you are positing is not a controlled experiment at all, it's more "observations" and any results would be highly subjective and suspect and other scientists couldn't hope to try to replicate it. If doing this experiment, say, a dozen times in a day, don't you think the dog would stop being exited by his master's picture?

Let's get some common sense here, okay? I would choose an experiment where I saw a direct connection with a dog and a picture of his master by the emotional response given by that dog over any experiment where he has to push a lever and there is no emotional response.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My astute observations include that my dog is very excited when I get home after being away for several hours, but doesn't even get up from his nap if I come in from getting the mail or watering the lawn.

So here's an idea. Stay away from the house all day, and have one of your family members bring a picture of you to the dog. See if the dog gets excited when he sees the picture. He should get excited if there is any recognition at all, or at the very least wag his tail, wouldn't you think?

[LadyShea]

I don't know why I am bothering but I will lay it out peacegirl because you are obtuse

In the experiment the dogs chose the picture of their handler 88% of the time rather than the 50% that would be predicted if the dog was responding randomly. That is statistically very significant.

Additionally, the dogs chose familiar dogs 85% of the time, and a familiar landscape 89% of the time. Again, random choices would predict 50/50. And since the dogs were rewarded regardless of which photo they chose, there would be no incentive for them to choose a specific picture.

The dogs significantly preferring the familiar over the unfamiliar is compelling evidential support that they have purely visual recognition skills

As a control when shown two unfamiliar landscapes the dogs' choices were around 50%

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So help me here. Could you show me the actual proof that the brain does what science claims it is doing; interpreting data through the impulses coming from optic nerve?

Holy shit, how about you read the essay he wrote?

You're asking him to do what he already did!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That there have been trillions upon trillions of babies born. He put way, way, way too many zeros in there.

davidm pointed it out way back thread and you ignored it. I thought I would bring it up again.

He could have been off with his math, I'm not sure. But he did emphasized SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL. That's a pretty long time. You are nitpicking because none of the things you pointed out are relevant to the bigger claims. You could use the fact that he misspelled a word against him. You could use anything, really, to make him look unfit to make a discovery of this magnitude. That's what he was so upset about and why it was necessary to belabor this in the foreword and introduction.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right. That was added in place of Chapter Ten. So what are you objecting to?

Guess you have a short memory, too. As I pointed out many pages ago:

1. There have not been anywhere near "trillions and trillions" of babies born in human history; another example of Lessans' scientific illiteracy.

2. Insofar as he seems to be making a claim at all, it is that we should be suprised to find ourselves alive, when we are alive. As I explained, this is a completely incoherent comment by him.

More examples of why he is unintentionally funny.

[LadyShea]

Humans haven't been around since time immemorial. Hell, life hasn't even been around all that long compared to the age of the Earth. It's not a math mistake to say "trillions upon trillions" it's a grandiose and incorrect assertion.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He could have been off with his math, I'm not sure. But he did emphasized SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL. That's a pretty long time. You are nitpicking because none of the things you pointed out are relevant to the bigger claims. You could use the fact that he misspelled a word against him. You could use anything, really, to make him look unfit to make a discovery of this magnitude. That's what he was so upset about and why it was necessary to belabor this in the foreword and introduction.

No, YOU asked what the problem with this statement is, and we tell you, and when we tell you, you claim we are nitpicking by answering your own question! This shows how dishonest you are. On the BIG subjects, like how vision works and how light works, you have been offered literally dozens, if not hundreds, of decisive refutations throughout this thread.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That there have been trillions upon trillions of babies born. He put way, way, way too many zeros in there.

davidm pointed it out way back thread and you ignored it. I thought I would bring it up again.

A very good estimate I read a few years ago would put the figure of the total number of Humans who have ever lived on the Earth at about 26 Billion. Now that doesn't count all the imaginary 'friends' Lessans had, that would certainly have skewed the numbers a lot.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He could have been off with his math, I'm not sure.

What do you mean, "he"? You wrote earlier that Mr. Lessans never said any such thing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Holy shit, how about you read the essay he wrote?

You're asking him to do what he already did!

I'm not a visual learner. I need experiential or hands-on learning to really retain the information. It's not that I don't want to learn the anatomy of the eye, but I need help with it. What I would really like to know is the actual theory behind afferent vision. Then I can get help with devising another model, if it's possible. As I said, I'm not going to try to change the facts to fit Lessans' ideas on sight. If there is absolutely no possibility that the eyes could be efferent, then he would be wrong.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He could have been off with his math, I'm not sure. But he did emphasized SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL.

Humans have not been around SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL, you dingbat!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

What do you mean, "he"? You wrote earlier that Mr. Lessans never said any such thing.

I forgot that I added this in place of Chapter Ten. It's not in the actual book. When she said Chapter Ten, then I realized she is reading the book online which has that announcement.