A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Eat your heart out, Maturin!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing I said makes me ignorant/

You admitted you were ignorant! Are you unable even to keep track of what you write any longer?

It just shows how threatened you are and what lengths you will take to protect your worldview. Maybe to you I am ignorant in order to keep your pretense alive. I don't want to take something that keeps you going away. So go on your merry way and believe what you need to make you happy. I get it, and I don't blame you for it.

Oh, dear. The queen of projection strikes again.

Not only do I have no world view to defend, I want there to be dramatic new scientific discoveries that overturn the status quo. That makes life interesting.

You, otoh, have the reputation (such as it is) of your father to defend.

Now who has the most stake in defending a "worldview"?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The study didn't say the dogs pushed levers. It didn't say the method used to determine which picture the dog chose.

I gave a series of possibilities, including lever pushing as one of them, based on what dog's can and have been trained to do in other contexts.

You decided that's fishy, and discounted the fact that the abstract didn't say how the dogs indicated their choice, and the other possibilities I mentioned. There are other experiments, you won't look anything up though.

My son has a dog that he got from the pound 4 years ago. That dog loves him so much that the slightest mention of his name, and Roxy goes crazy. She can tell when he is close to home, yet when he visited America (he lives in Israel), and called her name as he watched her on Skype, her ears perked up but she didn't know it was him. She started looking for him in the apartment, but never showed one ounce of recognition even though she was looking directly at him. If she had recognized him she would have wagged her tail, put her nose against the screen, or some indication that she knew it was him. In my opinion this is more reliable than any controlled experiment could ever be, especially when there are inherent flaws.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are no controls or predetermined parameters at all in your anecdote, you did no real time data collection and we know memory is biased and unreliable in the extreme, you are a known biased observer based on your belief that everything Lessans said is absolute truth (and he happened to mention dog's lack of facial recognition), nor are you a dog behavior or neurology expert, so your opinion is meaningless in the context of scientific research and conclusions. For all we know you are outright lying.

This could easily be replicated in a controlled experiment, especially now that we have Skype where you can see and hear a person at the same time. This was interesting because Roxy began cocking her head to the side when she heard his voice, as if to say "Where are you?"

[LadyShea]

LOL, yeah, using Skype in your home on a rescued dog with no control group is a valid controlled experiment.

You don't even understand scientific methodology on a basic level, do you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I'm sorry peacegirl, can you tell me exactly how this explains vision is not a sense let alone one of the "five senses"? And if it isn't one of the "five senses" then what takes it's place? Or are there only four senses?

There are four senses and a set of eyes.

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I know you've posted that quote several times, but frankly I don't see how it explains anything at all. It's just a string of conjectures and not an explanative framework of any kind. For example it makes the claim that sight is not a sense but doesn't bother to provide a framework for identifying what a sense would be. It simply makes an argument from analogy, which is a notoriously bad form of argument.

He does provide a definition. Now that the book is not online, it's going to be even more difficult to explain. This is not the way I wanted it to be, but I couldn't tolerate the way this major work was misconstrued and taken out of context. You can thank David for that.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 115-117

Someone, whose interest had never been sufficiently aroused to
pursue my discoveries because they sounded ridiculous, was visiting an
exposition in Canada where he saw a sign on one pavilion that read,
“Come inside and let us prove scientifically that the eyes are not a
sense organ.” He was absolutely amazed because he knew when I said
that man does not have five sense organs that I was also referring to
the eyes. When seeing this sign he couldn’t believe it, however, after
convincing himself in Canada that man only has four senses and a
pair of eyes, he became very much involved in my work upon his
return.

But to show you again how the person, not the knowledge, is
the one being judged, when someone else told his cousin who is a
dentist that the eyes are not a sense organ, the reply was, “That’s
ridiculous, how can you know what is true and what is not true, you
only went to grade school,” to which he responded, “Well, you don’t
have to take my word for it.

In Canada, the proof has already been
made a part of a scientific exposition.” The dentist then replied,
“Well, I haven’t seen anything to that effect in the newspapers.” This
proves conclusively that what he accepts as the truth is determined by
who tells him something is true, not by his ability to perceive relations
revealing these truths. However, I have my own proof, so let us get on
with what is necessary to open our minds to the fresh air of
undeniable knowledge.

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 eyes are concerned because
nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic
nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

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 light travels at a high rate of speed,
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
eyes function like the other four — which they do 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 eyes are 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 child that no object is
capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is
impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of
sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since
the nerve endings are being struck by something external.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, yeah, using Skype in your home on a rescued dog with no control group is a valid controlled experiment.

You don't even understand scientific methodology on a basic level, do you?

I didn't say that LadyShea. I said that this could be made into an experiment (or at least that's what I meant to say). It can be tested under carefully controlled conditions.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He does provide a definition. Now that the book is not online, it's going to be even more difficult to explain. This is not the way I wanted it to be, but I couldn't tolerate the way this major work was misconstrued and taken out of context. You can thank David for that.

Hear that, Maturin? How do you like them apples?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You admitted you were ignorant! Are you unable even to keep track of what you write any longer?

It depends what it is we were talking about. Do you understand what "in context" means?

It just shows how threatened you are and what lengths you will take to protect your worldview. Maybe to you I am ignorant in order to keep your pretense alive. I don't want to take something that keeps you going away. So go on your merry way and believe what you need to make you happy. I get it, and I don't blame you for it.

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, dear. The queen of projection strikes again.

Not only do I have no world view to defend, I want there to be dramatic new scientific discoveries that overturn the status quo. That makes life interesting.

You, otoh, have the reputation (such as it is) of your father to defend.

Now who has the most stake in defending a "worldview"?

David, you are so invested in your worldview that if 100 scientists told you Lessans was right, you'd still refuse to believe it.

[LadyShea]

This could easily be replicated in a controlled experiment, especially now that we have Skype where you can see and hear a person at the same time.

Hearing the voice would invalidate the results if the test was for visual-only recognition. That you didn't even consider that is another indication that you have no idea what scientific methodology entails.

Since you don't know the conditions of the existing experiments (since you won't research anything), how can you even know how carefully controlled various experiments have already been?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Hearing the voice would invalidate the results if the test was for visual-only recognition. That you didn't even consider that is another indication that you have no idea what scientific methodology entails.

I don't see where it would invalidate anything. It might add more variables to decipher from, but in this case it would just show that the dog hears the voice coming from the screen. If the dog could recognize his master through sound, why would he go off looking for his master when his face was right there on the screen? LadyShea, it seems like your desire for scientific accuracy (which is a noble goal) can override your common sense.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since you don't know the conditions of the existing experiments (since you won't research anything), how can you even know how carefully controlled various experiments have already been?

I read some of the links. I saw some of the videos. I don't see where any of them came even close to proving that dogs can recognize their masters through sight alone. They weren't replicated and the statistical significance was not impressive.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, you are so invested in your worldview that if 100 scientists told you Lessans was right, you'd still refuse to believe it.

Oh, that's a pretty big IF you got there, peacegirl!

BTW, unlike you, I don't believe on the basis of authority. I believe on the basis of what can be independently tested and verified. Even if scientists say something, it means nothing unless it can be checked. Scientists are often wrong. But this way of thinking is foreign to you. In other words, truth is meaningless to you.

I'd like a list of even five scientists who would fail to fall out of their chairs laughing after reading Lessans' drivel, especially about real time seeing.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are four senses and a set of eyes.

He does provide a definition. Now that the book is not online, it's going to be even more difficult to explain. This is not the way I wanted it to be, but I couldn't tolerate the way this major work was misconstrued and taken out of context. You can thank David for that.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 115-117

Someone, whose interest had never been sufficiently aroused to
pursue my discoveries because they sounded ridiculous, was visiting an
exposition in Canada where he saw a sign on one pavilion that read,
“Come inside and let us prove scientifically that the eyes are not a
sense organ.” He was absolutely amazed because he knew when I said
that man does not have five sense organs that I was also referring to
the eyes. When seeing this sign he couldn’t believe it, however, after
convincing himself in Canada that man only has four senses and a
pair of eyes, he became very much involved in my work upon his
return.

But to show you again how the person, not the knowledge, is
the one being judged, when someone else told his cousin who is a
dentist that the eyes are not a sense organ, the reply was, “That’s
ridiculous, how can you know what is true and what is not true, you
only went to grade school,” to which he responded, “Well, you don’t
have to take my word for it.

In Canada, the proof has already been
made a part of a scientific exposition.” The dentist then replied,
“Well, I haven’t seen anything to that effect in the newspapers.” This
proves conclusively that what he accepts as the truth is determined by
who tells him something is true, not by his ability to perceive relations
revealing these truths. However, I have my own proof, so let us get on
with what is necessary to open our minds to the fresh air of
undeniable knowledge.

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 eyes are concerned because
nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic
nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

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 light travels at a high rate of speed,
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
eyes function like the other four — which they do 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 eyes are 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 child that no object is
capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is
impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of
sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since
the nerve endings are being struck by something external.

Peacegirl, if I'm not mistaken he provides the definition that he rejects. By the definition you show in bold, sight would be a sense. But he goes further to say that the definition is wrong. Now a definition is a man made thing. If sight is by definition a sense then by the convention of human language it is a sense. Calling is something else is just silly. Might as well call a dog a cat and see how much confusion that causes and how crazy people will think you are.

Be that as it may, he doesn't provide any framework to support his reclassification. That is fine. He can redefine anything he likes. Anybody can do that. Hell he can make up a whole new language for all I care. But he will be the only one speaking that language. And if he is gonna create a new language and he is serious about others picking up that language then at a minimum he is gonna have to explain his concepts in the old language. Otherwise it's just gibberish to someone who doesn't use words the way he uses them.

Now if he thinks he is onto something new he should have created new words or at a minimum find old words that are out of use and repurpose them. That is usually what legitimate scientists do. They know that using the existing language in a new way is stupid.

It makes me wonder why a person who is supposed to be so smart and would take the time to write a book about his new ideas would not take the time to lay out his framework in terms of the old ideas. Because without doing that he is wasting his time.

It also makes your job impossible, which this thread seems to well represent.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not conjecture because it's already been discovered. It can be tested empirically. If it couldn't, then it would be just a conjecture or an assertion. The truth is unless it is verified by science (through further investigation), it will not be able to benefit our world.

We must be speaking a different language. If it hasn't been verified by anybody else, scientist or whomever, then it is conjecture. You may not know this, but America was not discovered by a scientist. Yet it was reported and it was verified and now the existence of America is not in dispute. But prior to that America was conjecture.

Does it take special equipment to verify it? Have you verified it?

We are talking about efferent (afferent?) vision?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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 child that no object is
capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is
impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of
sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since
the nerve endings are being struck by something external.[/I]

peacegirl, I hope for your sake and for the sake of your father that this is not the basis for claiming that sight is not a sense. It is well documented that not only do newborns react to light, but that the fetus reacts to light.

There is also well known experiment that you can do on a newborn that well illustrates that not only do they see but that they can mimic using the sense of sight. If you place your face around 12inches from the face of new born and then open your mouth wide open for 10 seconds or so then several seconds later the infant will open their mouths. Mimicry is a well explored primate behavior.

I've done this experiment on my own newborns.

peacegirl, please do your homework. If the whole world has to be wrong in order for Lessan's to be right then you are wasting your time here.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, I hope for your sake and for the sake of your father that this is not the basis for claiming that sight is not a sense.

Well, there is that, plus the (wrong!) claim that dogs cannot recognize their masters by sight alone.

That's pretty much it! Brilliant, eh?

[Angakuk]

One of the things that I don't get is why Lessans considers hearing a sense, in the usual meaning of the word, but not sight. I mean, we don't actually hear sounds in the same way that we don't actually see images. Sound waves are received by the ears and converted to signals that are transmitted to the brain and the brain interprets those signals and assigns meaning to them. Likeswise with sight. Light is received by the eyes (Lessans allows that this is the case) and converted into signals that are transmitted to the brian and the brain interprets those signals and assigns meaning to them. Smell, touch and taste work the same way as well. If the light does not carry information that the brain decodes, then sound waves do not carry information that the brain decodes. If it is the case that sight is efferent, then it is also the case that the other four senses are equally efferent, but Lessans makes this claim only with regard to sight and accepts that the other four senses function afferently.

Actually, I do get it, a little bit. Lessans, as peacegirl keeps reminding us, did not arrive at his conclusions regarding sight from the direction of biology. He arrived at these conclusions indirectly. In other words, he had a theory which he thought required that sight function efferently, therefore it is necessarily the case that sight functions efferently. Biology be damned.

[Vivisectus]

It seems to me that the main reason for claiming this is how sight work is the problem of subjectivity. Unable to reconcile subjective value judgments and descriptive labels with an objective basis for reality, he neatened up reality a bit and came up with a rather arcane description of sight.

It is hard to tell, as at no point does he explain exactly what he observed or why he felt the conclusion was warranted. Every time you feel an explanation is coming, he wanders off into a diatribe against academics, people he feels do little else but guard their dogma's.

He does not argue for his own idea, he merely states that poor old-fashioned normal sight is something we accept because it is what we are taught, and leaves it at that. The only thing that comes close to it is a hypothetical anecdote about how dogs recognize people, which tests into dog intelligence disproved: dogs can even recognize items on photographs, even if they have not seen the photograph before.

The irony of the fact that he provides no proof or compelling reason to accept his ideas and is therefor simply proposing we replace the authority he does not like with his own does not seem to have bothered him much.

[LadyShea]

Lessans ideas about conditioning being dependent on efferent sight are the strangest in the book. Neuroscience easily explains all forms of mental conditioning. According to peacegirl, blind people are not subject to such conditioning at all, because only sight can cause it.

Also, how he puts the conditioning of visual subjective ideas such as "beautiful" in the same category as descriptors such as "intelligent" that has no visual aspect is not explained. How does the screen of substance or whatever display features that are "intelligent"?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, that's a pretty big IF you got there, peacegirl!

BTW, unlike you, I don't believe on the basis of authority. I believe on the basis of what can be independently tested and verified. Even if scientists say something, it means nothing unless it can be checked. Scientists are often wrong. But this way of thinking is foreign to you. In other words, truth is meaningless to you.

I'd like a list of even five scientists who would fail to fall out of their chairs laughing after reading Lessans' drivel, especially about real time seeing.

Don't hold your breath. The world may not be ready. As I said, change is slow, but mark my words, one day no one will be laughing at Lessans. And I'm glad we agree on one thing. Scientists are often wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, I hope for your sake and for the sake of your father that this is not the basis for claiming that sight is not a sense. It is well documented that not only do newborns react to light, but that the fetus reacts to light.

There is also well known experiment that you can do on a newborn that well illustrates that not only do they see but that they can mimic using the sense of sight. If you place your face around 12inches from the face of new born and then open your mouth wide open for 10 seconds or so then several seconds later the infant will open their mouths. Mimicry is a well explored primate behavior.

I've done this experiment on my own newborns.

I have also done informal experiments. I have four children and three grandchildren and I have never seen this ability in an infant a few days old.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

peacegirl, please do your homework. If the whole world has to be wrong in order for Lessan's to be right then you are wasting your time here.

I have done my homework. Even so, I still believe I'm wasting my time here, but people won't let me go.

Vision
The sense of vision develops rapidly during the first six months of life. At birth vision is blurred, but by the end of the first month, infants will be able to see faces and distinct patterns. Intellectual development and learning begin with eye contact and visual tracking. Visual tracking is the ability of babies to follow moving objects with their eyes. Thus stimulation of the sense of sight is very important for infants. During the first month, most babies learn to focus on objects at a distance of 8-10 inches. At one month of age, babies are usually able to follow objects with their eyes. This new skill will get progressively better in the coming months. Between four and six months most babies gradually become able to focus on objects at any distance. They will also follow any moving object that catches their attention.

stimulation

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans ideas about conditioning being dependent on efferent sight are the strangest in the book. Neuroscience easily explains all forms of mental conditioning. According to peacegirl, blind people are not subject to such conditioning at all, because only sight can cause it.

It's not strange at all when you understand what the brain is able to do. If the eyes were afferent, this beauty (this value) would be part of reality as it travels to the brain for interpretation. There are other ways to explain how we're conditioned, but no one has ever admitted that "beauty" is not a reality. What is beautiful is not in the eyes of the beholder. Beauty and ugliness do not exist, only personal preference. The minute you call someone "beautiful" as a personal descriptor, you imply someone is "ugly", which is a hurt.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, how he puts the conditioning of visual subjective ideas such as "beautiful" in the same category as descriptors such as "intelligent" that has no visual aspect is not explained. How does the screen of substance or whatever display features that are "intelligent"?

He does explain this in detail in Chapter Eleven. I don't know how far you got.
I can't cut and paste the whole chapter, but I'll give you a little at a time. There is a lot to digest, especially when the content is beyond the framework of modern thought.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Eleven: The New Meaning of Education pp. 512-512

Today, the
greatest disrespect in the world is shown by parents to children when
they constantly criticize them and by teachers to students and all
those who consider themselves intellectually superior, more
intelligent, more educated, to those who are judged inferior, less
intelligent and less educated. We all have seen how children are
scarred so deeply by the ignorance of adults who use these words
because they obviously do not apply to the children who do not receive
these compliments, that it is no wonder psychiatry came into
existence.

This proves conclusively that the expression in Chapter
Four, page 123 — ‘Sticks and stones will break my bones but names
will never hurt me’ is completely fallacious and further reveals how
unconscious man has been of his ignorance. As we continue to
observe the truth of our nature it becomes crystal clear that the
famous expression of Shakespeare, ‘To Thine Own Self Be True,’
which has been alluded to throughout the book, is proven completely
false not only because it is mathematically impossible for man to be
true to himself when looking through fallacious symbols but also
because it is impossible not to be false to another when one recognizes
in this dishonesty an advantage to oneself, for his motion is in the
direction of greater satisfaction. Only when he sees there is no
advantage or a still greater benefit by being truthful to others does he
desire to mend his ways, but such a preference required knowledge
that was not even available until now.

As we enter the Golden Age, all words that create external values
will never be used or taught. Students will be given a list of words
that are soon to become obsolete along with an explanation as to why
they are being removed. Although there may be a number of books
in circulation that still contain these words, children will understand
that they were written long ago. When these words are permanently
removed from our dictionaries (because they are not symbolic of
reality), and a child is never made to feel the slightest bit inferior to
any other child and never hurt in other ways, the desire to learn will
become insatiable.

In a school setting such as the one described there
can be no disrespect whatsoever and students who are given the
utmost respect will learn to give respect to others. As these changes
take effect the school’s day to day operations will be noticeably
different, as well as the relationship between teachers and students,
because there will be an equality that was never before possible. Let
us now take a closer look at how the school atmosphere is transformed
from one of fear and intimidation to one of complete security by
following our magic elixir, Thou Shall Not Blame.

[Vivisectus]

It's not strange at all when you understand what the brain is able to do. If the eyes were afferent, this beauty (this value) would be part of reality as it travels to the brain for interpretation. There are other ways to explain how we're conditioned, but no one has ever admitted that "beauty" is not a reality. What is beautiful is not in the eyes of the beholder. Beauty and ugliness do not exist, only personal preference. The minute you call someone "beautiful" as a personal descriptor, you imply someone is "ugly", which is a hurt.

No-one is saying that "beauty" is a reality. It is a label, something that describes things that people find aesthetically pleasing. There are certain traits (such as a symmetric face) that people are more likely to find aesthetically pleasing. Some of these seem to go through societal fashions. A few hundred years ago, small breasts, a plump figure and wide hips seem to have been all the rage. Extreme paleness seems to have been popular at one stage too, to such an extent that people used a lot of make-up to create this effect. Japanese Geishas used to blacken their teeth, because that seems to be part of that particular beauty-ideal. Etc. etc. etc.

To say that this has some sort of independent reality is idiotic. No-one ever did.

Nor can get rid of them as is proposed, without removing aesthetic pleasure altogether.

Tell me, in the brave new world, will we also stop judging music? Is it not a hurt to call one kind of music more beautiful than another? One composer better than the other? Will we stop thinking a Monet is nicer to look at than some doodles I scribbled on a page? Is it not a hurt to make such a judgment, as if Monet is somehow worth more than me? Will we find Shakespeare's work as valuable as Dan Browns?

[LadyShea]

That doesn't explain why efferent vision is necessary for the conditioning to take place regarding the descriptor intelligent.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not conjecture because it's already been discovered. It can be tested empirically. If it couldn't, then it would be just a conjecture or an assertion. The truth is unless it is verified by science (through further investigation), it will not be able to benefit our world.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

We must be speaking a different language. If it hasn't been verified by anybody else, scientist or whomever, then it is conjecture. You may not know this, but America was not discovered by a scientist. Yet it was reported and it was verified and now the existence of America is not in dispute. But prior to that America was conjecture.

Verification does not make a discovery valid. That is total BS. But...verification allows new knowledge to be applied for the betterment of mankind.

Please
remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development. And now my friends,
if you care to come along, let us embark; the hour is getting late.

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Does it take special equipment to verify it? Have you verified it?

We are talking about efferent (afferent?) vision?

I'm trying to verify it for the sake of those here. I know he was spot on, but to prove it to the world is a different ballgame. That's why I said let's keep it going and let empirical evidence prove that he was right all along.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That doesn't explain why efferent vision is necessary for the conditioning to take place regarding the descriptor intelligent.

I know it didn't. This is not an easy concept to explain. It's in the book and if you had read the book carefully you would have seen this. But everyone jumped to certain pages in order to make the book look stupid. In time, you will get it [hopefully], but part of getting it is releasing your prejudices so that your mind will be open to listening to something completely new. It's like talking a different language.