A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Words help us distinguish the differences between people. Without the name it is difficult to identify what person someone is talking about if we haven't already formed a connection between the person and the name. A description of a person doesn't help that much either; only the photograph that is attached to the name that allows us to conjure up an image of a particular individual.

You must really be mentally deficient if you can't have an image of a person without a name to attatch to it. I do it all the time, does that make me some kind of freak?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I think it is high time that we conduct a careful analysis of the grounds for and against Lessans claim that dogs cannot recognise their masters by sight alone.

Dogs can't recognise their masters by sight alone.
1. Lessans says they can't.
2. Lessans worked really hard on his book and he would have removed anything that was incorrect.
3. Peacegirl has never seen a dog recognise its master by sight alone.

Dogs can recognise their masters by sight alone.
1. Some scientific studies have been conducted that demonstrate the ability of dogs to recognise their masters by sight alone.
2. People have posted videos of dogs recognising their masters via Skype transmissions.

Clearly, their are more reasons for believing that dogs cannot recognise their masters by sight alone than there are reasons for believing that they can.

Peacegirl wins!

I must agree, Peacegirl should certainly get some sort of prize. with Lessans, the book, and Peacegirl I have not seen anything so daft or dimwitted anywhere else.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it is demonstrably wrong, just like it is demonstrably wrong that man's will is not free because he is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction.

I never said that was demonstrably wrong at all. I said that statement was not provable or disprovable.

This statement is demonstrably wrong in that it can be demonstrated to be wrong.

[LadyShea]

I am contesting that this non-absorbed light is able to reveal said object after it has been dispersed to where it can no longer be seen by a telescope or the naked eye.

Why would you be contesting something nobody else ever said? That's called fighting a strawman.

"Able to reveal said object"? LOL what does that even mean? Contest away on that one because it has nothing to do with light physics or the standard model of vision....so who cares if you reject it or not?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Really looked good in tight jeans, didn't she?

Fantastic!

[Vivisectus]

I am contesting that this non-absorbed light is able to reveal said object after it has been dispersed to where it can no longer be seen by a telescope or the naked eye.

How I have missed these little gems. You are contesting that something cannot be seen once it has been dispersed past the point where it can be seen?

But no-one said otherwise! And your sentence is rather circular: I contest that that which cannot be seem, cannot be seen!

You and the book really love these kind of truisms, don't you?

When you forget things, you have amnesia!

When light disperses past the point the eye can detect it, the eye cannot detect it

[Vivisectus]

Obviously, we can see differences between strangers,

Really? What do we project on to them? Generic person-ness?

but in order to identify a person we need a name.

This is why in police line-ups, people have to wear nametags! Without them, we would only see generic people-shaped blobs.

That's why we can't get a visualization of a person unless the name of that person is retrieved.

And this is why people never, EVER are able to describe people they have not been introduced to to the police. Also, policemen and women are unable to create useful sketches based on descriptions that then lead to arrests.

This allows us to identify that person whether it's in our minds or in real life.

Your next step is going to be to say that while we may be able to do some distinguishing, it is not real distinguishing, as language helps distinguishing things, not noticing that you have created a weird system where there are two kinds of sight: projected sight, which you feel is real sight, and the sight that we use to detect what is there.

[Vivisectus]

That's absolutely true. If someone loses the file in that part of the brain that has stored this photograph of his individual characteristics along with his name, they will not recognize him.

Please note the bolded sentence can be easily replaced with "everything about a person", for convenience. So, if we forget everything about a person, we cannot recognize this person. Bravo! You have added yet another truism to the endless list of self-referencing sentences to do with this book. Do you ever get dizzy from all the circles your mind spins in?

If you know what a xylophone is, you don't have to identify it through the word because the experience with the xylophone has become part of your memory. A face may look familiar but be hard to identify until the name is connected to the face. Then all the memories about that person come flooding in. There have been times I could not picture someone's face until I remembered his name, at which time I was able to retrieve the picture of him in my mind

So we need words to remember things. Also we don't: we can just remember the experience we had of a thing. And examples of the way things sometimes happen are totally good evidence in favour of saying it always happens, and has to happen that way, despite the fact that there are plenty of cases where it does not happen.

But we totally project word-slides outwards, and this is how sight works. It is also how sight does not work, because we can also see things that we have absolutely no prior experience with whatever. In fact, we continually update our collection of photographs using what can only be described as non-efferent sight: this is where we look at something, and in stead of something being projected outwards, and impression is created in the brain.

So there are two kinds of sight: the one where we project stuff, and normal sight. But despite the fact that efferent sight relies on the eyes working as sense organs, really they aren't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You must really be mentally deficient if you can't have an image of a person without a name to attatch to it. I do it all the time, does that make me some kind of freak?

You really need to read this again to understand how words help us identify. This doesn't mean that you can't picture someone in your mind without the name attached to it. After analyzing this carefully, you will see that this is how the human brain works, unlike a dog's.

p. 124 To understand this better let us
observe my granddaughter learning words.

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Really? What do we project on to them? Generic person-ness?

This is why in police line-ups, people have to wear nametags! Without them, we would only see generic people-shaped blobs.

And this is why people never, EVER are able to describe people they have not been introduced to to the police. Also, policemen and women are unable to create useful sketches based on descriptions that then lead to arrests.

Your next step is going to be to say that while we may be able to do some distinguishing, it is not real distinguishing, as language helps distinguishing things, not noticing that you have created a weird system where there are two kinds of sight: projected sight, which you feel is real sight, and the sight that we use to detect what is there.

All he is saying is that naming an object separates the distinguishing characteristics between this object and other objects. When this difference is seen, the name (which is a word slide that has been established in association with this object) is projected which allows for an immediate identification.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

How I have missed these little gems. You are contesting that something cannot be seen once it has been dispersed past the point where it can be seen?

But no-one said otherwise! And your sentence is rather circular: I contest that that which cannot be seem, cannot be seen!

That is true. The only difference is that the object (the real substance) has to be present. Optics works the same way for either model.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You and the book really love these kind of truisms, don't you?

When you forget things, you have amnesia!

When light disperses past the point the eye can detect it, the eye cannot detect it

How in the world can we decode an image in the brain, if the light has dispersed to the point where no image shows up?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would you be contesting something nobody else ever said? That's called fighting a strawman.

Of course that's what they say. They say that light can travel forever through space and time, and as long as it doesn't strike another object the light will bring an image to our eyes. It doesn't matter how far away the light is from its source, or even if the object exists anymore. How can light bring an image to the eyes when the light has dispersed to the point where no photons can be resolved on the retina/film?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"Able to reveal said object"? LOL what does that even mean? Contest away on that one because it has nothing to do with light physics or the standard model of vision....so who cares if you reject it or not?

It means that if Lessans is right, the object is revealed through the light, not because of the light. No, it's not the standard model, which is the very thing that is being disputed.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course that's what they say. They say that light can travel forever through space and time, and as long as it doesn't strike another object the light will bring an image to our eyes. It doesn't matter how far away the light is from its source, or even if the object exists anymore. How can light bring an image to the eyes when the light has dispersed to the point where no photons can be resolved on the retina/film?

No, that is not what they say. It is not what anyone has said. Ever.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[LadyShea]

I recognize people all the time whose names I do not know. The lady at the store, the man at the school, that kid from soccer, Grandma's neighbor that walks the little dog.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

1. That's why we can't get a visualization of a person unless the name of that person is retrieved.

2. Without the name it is difficult to identify what person someone is talking about if we haven't already formed a connection between the person and the name. A description of a person doesn't help that much either; only the photograph that is attached to the name that allows us to conjure up an image of a particular individual

3. This doesn't mean that you can't picture someone in your mind without the name attached to it.

1 and 2 you said we cannot visualize a person without a name
3 you said we can

Which is it?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How in the world can we decode an image in the brain, if the light has dispersed to the point where no image shows up?

We cannot see what we cannot see, this is true. It's also meaningless without the mechanism. Optics explains what can or cannot be seen and why it can or cannot be seen as per the scientific model of sight....hint: it has to do with the specifics of the light detector.

You have no mechanism or explanation for efferent vision, relying on "we can see what we can see because it can be seen". What is large enough? What is bright enough? What is close enough? How is "enough" determined (other than "if we can see it, it is enough" which is vacuous) and what determines enough?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I recognize people all the time whose names I do not know. The lady at the store, the man at the school, that kid from soccer, Grandma's neighbor that walks the little dog.

It might not be a conscious act, but you are identifying a face with an experience. This particular experience is: I see a man at school. The word "man" is the name you have given him, so when you see his face you project that name, even though it's not a proper name. Therefore, when you look at him, the name that is associated with him is: man at school. This allows you to see the difference between him and others, who are not "the man at school".

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course that's what they say. They say that light can travel forever through space and time, and as long as it doesn't strike another object the light will bring an image to our eyes. It doesn't matter how far away the light is from its source, or even if the object exists anymore. How can light bring an image to the eyes when the light has dispersed to the point where no photons can be resolved on the retina/film?

No they don't say that. This is a strawman, meaning it is not anyone's actual position or claim you are refuting. You are battling a fake claim.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We cannot see what we cannot see, this is true. It's also meaningless without the mechanism. Optics explains what can or cannot be seen and why it can or cannot be seen as per the scientific model of sight....hint: it has to do with the specifics of the light detector.

You have no mechanism or explanation for efferent vision, relying on "we can see what we can see because it can be seen". What is large enough? What is bright enough? What is close enough? How is "enough" determined (other than "if we can see it, it is enough" which is vacuous) and what determines enough?

Again, you are trying to figure this out coming from the afferent perspective. We have to assume that Lessans is right in order to work this observation backwards. If it is necessary that we see the object in real time (which we must accept as a starting point), then large enough and bright enough mean exactly what it says; that the object (not the light) must be present in order for us to get an image on the retina.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No they don't say that. This is a strawman, meaning it is not anyone's actual position or claim you are refuting. You are battling a fake claim.

Of course they say that. That's what afferent vision is. It's detecting only light. Light is all that matters and it is supposed to bring an image to the eye, if we happen to be in the right place at the right time.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

No way. You're the one making stuff up to look squeaky clean. You're not squeaky clean LadyShea, and neither is your argument.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

I have done no such thing. I am fabricating no such thing. Did it ever occur to you that you are the one being dishonest because you can't deal with the possibility that your attacks against Lessans have been completely wrong and misdirected?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It might not be a conscious act, but you are identifying a face with an experience. This particular experience is: Man at school. That is the name you have given him, so when you see the face you project the name: man at school.

Of course we identify people through our experiences of them. DUH! That's not what you said was required though, you said a name is required.

Additionally, I don't use language to visualize dropping my son off at school and seeing a man there. In my mind it's all pictures. Only when I want to identify him to others do I need to use language, as I cannot share my mental images with other brains telepathically, only describe them using a shared language.

Dogs may be able to easily visualize the person that feeds them or pets them or takes them for walks in the same way, but they can't describe their visualizations to us because we don't share a common language.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, you are trying to figure this out coming from the afferent perspective. We have to assume that Lessans is right in order to work this observation backwards. If it is necessary that we see the object in real time (which we must accept as a starting point), then large enough and bright enough mean exactly what it says; that the object (not the light) must be present in order for us to get an image on the retina.

No, I am asking you to explain efferent vision. Can you define "enough" without being tautological? You can only seem to say "If we can see it, we can see it". That is vacuous and meaningless.

Assuming a conclusion is right then working backwards is faith, not at all scientific or mathematical. It is also fallacious reasoning of the highest order.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We have to assume that Lessans is right in order to work this observation backwards.

That is exactly what I've tried to do with you many times, but YOU refuse to do it. You have no interest in working backwards to find out how things must work if his claims are correct. The second we hit a snag you refuse to discuss things any further.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course they say that.

No, Peacegirl. They do not.