Peacegirl, you say you have a proof that Lessans came up with, at this point I do not believe it, but if you want you can PM it to me and I will check it. If Lessans is correct I will post an apology and will not reveal the answer, If Lessans is incorrect I will post that and point out the errors. Are you up for the challenge? I am usually good at puzzles like this.
Dogs, but not cats, can readily recognize the face of their handler
Shortly after weaning, twelve pure-breed beagles and twelve domestic cats were each assigned a different human handler who worked with the animal for two hours each day for six months. The animals were trained to work in a two-alternative forced choice testing apparatus and mastered many different types of pattern and object discriminations. At about 9 months of age, each animal was tested on four different visual discriminations (for 50 trials each), with both stimuli in each pair being rewarded on all trials. Stimulus pairs and results: 1) The face of the handler versus an unfamiliar face. Dogs chose the face of their handler at 88.2%, while the cats chose their handler at 54.5%. 2) The face of an animal that lived with them in the colony versus an unfamiliar animal. Dogs chose the face of the familiar dog at 85.1% and the cats chose the face of the familiar cat at 90.7%. 3) A previously learned natural scene versus and unfamiliar scene. The dogs chose the familiar scene at 89.0% and the cats chose the familiar scene at 85.8%. 4) An unfamiliar natural scene versus an unfamiliar natural scene. The dogs chose one scene at 49.8% and the cats chose one scene at 51.7%. Overall, the only significant difference between the performance of the dogs and cats was in the recognition of the face of their handlers. Neither dogs nor cats had any difficulty recognizing other animals they lived with or a previously-viewed scene. As expected, neither dogs nor do cats have any preference for two scenes that they had not previously seen. Therefore, dogs are able to discriminate their handler from another human based solely upon face recognition.
It really is offensive to me to put this knowledge in the category of the Time Cube guy, Flat Earthers, or the Holocaust deniers. Lessans just doesn't fit there, and it's wrong of you to place him in this category. Why can't everyone refrain from categorizing him until there's further evidence?
Lessans offered less evidence for his notions than Time Cube offers for his. You may be offended, but what convincing case can you make for Lessans not fitting into this group? What would you base such a case on?
Lessans had 30 years to gather evidence and you've had another 20 since his death to try to find some. That 50 years isn't enough time to get a shred of evidence that his ideas were correct ought to tell you something.
That's why there are 'beautiful' girls and 'ugly' girls, and don't tell me that an 'ugly' girl is subjective.
It is subjective. You can deny that all you want but it is a subjective value applied by an individual's brain. There is no universal constant standard.
You can't even hope to demonstrate that you are correct, though I would like to see you try to do so convincingly, you know with evidence.
There is no universal standard, because every country has their own standards, but standards of beauty are used everywhere. That is more proof that what is considered beautiful depends on what features are associated with the word. It does seem that the standard of what is beautiful is becoming more and more universal. Everyone is trying to live up to Western standards. Children don't know what's going on, so when they are not called beautiful, they are hurt. They grow up believing they are not as pretty as the next one, and it is confirmed by what they see in the mirror. This has serious ramifications, as if you didn't know. We all see how girls grow up to hate their bodies and their faces. We can tell our children until the cows come home that they are beautiful inside, if not on the outside. That doesn't always help because people who are considered more beautiful get the guys, get the jobs, and get the respect. The source of the problem comes from the words themselves, and is not easy an easy problem to solve unless we recognize what we're doing and stop using these words in reference to people's physical characteristics.
Why can't everyone refrain from categorizing him until there's further evidence?
Provide the evidence, stop asking others to do your work for you. If you are so sure of this, do the experiments and provide the proof, but make sure you carefully record and document everything. If you do 25 experiments there must be records of everyone, not just a few that might favor your theory. Otherwise you are just asking us to accept it on faith. You and Lessans claim it is mathmatical and scientific, follow through and do it properly.
It really is offensive to me to put this knowledge in the category of the Time Cube guy, Flat Earthers, or the Holocaust deniers. Lessans just doesn't fit there, and it's wrong of you to place him in this category. Why can't everyone refrain from categorizing him until there's further evidence?
Lessans offered less evidence for his notions than Time Cube offers for his. You may be offended, but what convincing case can you make for Lessans not fitting into this group? What would you base such a case on?
Lessans had 30 years to gather evidence and you've had another 20 since his death to try to find some. That 50 years isn't enough time to get a shred of evidence that his ideas were correct ought to tell you something.
Because this discovery is valid and sound. It's not some off the wall theory that has no basis in reality. The evidence comes from his observations and his reasoning. That was proof, but if you don't see it, then there needs to be more empirical evidence, which I believe will be in his favor. Some things cannot be proved empirically, but that doesn't mean they are any less valid, such as his discovery on death.
Why can't everyone refrain from categorizing him until there's further evidence?
Provide the evidence, stop asking others to do your work for you. If you are so sure of this, do the experiments and provide the proof. Otherwise you are just asking us to accept it on faith. You and Lessans claim it is mathmatical and scientifi, follow through and do it properly.
If I need help from a biologist to see whether everything that is already known in science can be explained slightly differently using the same anatomy, I don't see anything wrong with that. So far there is nothing that says definitively (without exception) that there is no other way for the brain to work other than receiving data from the light and interpreting it.
If I need help from a biologist to see whether everything that is already known in science can be explained slightly differently using the same anatomy, I don't see anything wrong with that.
This is all still subjective and differs from one child to another and one family to another. Many people do not adhere to or accept societal standards of beauty and apply the word beautiful to those others find ugly. So since there are multiple exceptions, your rule that it is universal and non-subjective fails.
Quote:
Children don't know what's going on, so when they are not called beautiful, they are hurt. They grow up believing they are not as pretty as the next one, and it is confirmed by what they see in the mirror.
Not true for all children
Quote:
This has serious ramifications, as if you didn't know. We all see how girls grow up to hate their bodies and their faces.
Not true of all girls
Quote:
We can tell our children until the cows come home that they are beautiful inside, if not on the outside. That doesn't always help because people who are considered more beautiful get the guys, get the jobs, and get the respect.
Not true of all people. In fact I would counter that money and societal connections are more influential than beauty with regard to various ideas of success.
As for respect, physical appearance isn't even on my radar of what makes a person worthy of respect.
Were you raised this shallowly that you believe all this crap about the word beauty is true for all people? Because if it is not true for all people, which it is not, then it is, by definition, subjective.
Quote:
The source of the problem comes from the words themselves, and is not easy an easy problem to solve unless we recognize what we're doing and stop using these words in reference to people's physical characteristics.
You have some kind of personal hang up or neurosis about this issue. It is not universal at all.
Peacegirl, If you have Lessans notes on his 'observations' posting them would be helpful to validate his claims. If his observations were accurate and valid there should be no problem, and others could try to repete them for further validation. As it is you claim there were observations but do not specify what they were, only the conclusions on which they were based. If Lessans was any kind of a mathetician or scientist he would have kept notes, no scientist worth anything works just from his memory in his head.
You mentioned his discovery about death, but that chapter is only available in the book form so we don't know what it is. However, his introduction mentions "trillions and trillions" of babies having been born. If he meant human babies, he is incredibly wrong with that number.
This is not the same as with smells, tastes, tactile sensations and sounds because there is direct input to the brain, so it is purely person even if most people like the taste of sweet over bitter. And yes, I was aware that odor is a very strong memory trigger. It also is being used as a healing modality, or a stress reliever.
None of these senses feature direct input to the brain. And the sense of hearing least of all. The process by which sound waves are transduced into neural impulses is considerably more convoluted than the process by which photons are transduced into neural impulses.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
So, are neural impulses "self-reflecting?" Meaning, is this what constitutes consciousness, more specially a conscious mind?
Or, in what way do these neuron "thingies" structure themselves to form a thought? If it simply entails extracting information from the memory, how exactly does that become conscious?
__________________
Death (and living) is all in our heads. It is a creation of our own imagination. So, maybe we just "imagine" that we die?
therefore what is pleasing to the ear or the palate is purely subjective because there is no conditioning involved.
This is completely wrong, and you cannot tell me that you have had children and believe this. Young children can be heavily conditioned by what they hear others saying about food. If one child says something bad about some particular food other children will automatically say they don't like it without even tasting it. Food conditioning in young children is very common and will be known by anyone who has ever been around children their own or others.
That's not what I'm talking about. A child might like a certain food but feel pressured to go along with his friends. That's called peer pressure. Or he may be influenced when kids tell him that a certain food doesn't taste good, so he won't taste it. He may be uncomfortable about trying new things, and even when he does try it, it may take him awhile to get use to the taste. But taste itself is not adultered by conditioning, as in the case of the eyes, because taste is a sense organ and it goes directly from the mouth to the brain for interpretation.
It's interesting to observe that the other senses have a direct connection to incoming stimuli, therefore what is pleasing to the ear or the palate is purely subjective because there is no conditioning involved. You can tell me all the reasons why classical music is wonderful, but if I don't like it, your trying to convince me to like it won't do a thing. I might try to appreciate the instruments and work involved, but I can't be conditioned to like it if I don't. The same thing with food. You can tell me how great sardines are, but if I don't like them, nothing is going to change my dislike for them unless, of course, my taste for certain foods change through time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael
This is purely nonsense. Conditioning, if it could change such things at all, would make something more subjective, not less. Everything you say here about tastes and preferences in music and food applies EXACTLY as much to visual aesthetics, i.e. "beautiful" or "ugly."
No it doesn't. You say conditioning would make something more subjective, not less. Can you explain that?
[Here's three lines from my attempt under the spoiler, if anyone cares:
ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO
ADK BEL CFO JMG NKI
AEG BDH CMK JNF OLI
As you can see, no letter is "twice with any other/same letter" which I took to mean that if A has been grouped with B, as it is in the first group, it cannot be grouped with B again. I'll keep poking at it when I have free time, puzzles are fun even though I am not good at them.
You got to 15 groups of 3 under the new rules, I got 29 groups and ran out of letters that could be in a group with another letter. There is either some trick or Lessans proof is incorrect.
Lessans proof is absolutely correct just like the rest of his book.
Peacegirl, you say you have a proof that Lessans came up with, at this point I do not believe it, but if you want you can PM it to me and I will check it. If Lessans is correct I will post an apology and will not reveal the answer, If Lessans is incorrect I will post that and point out the errors. Are you up for the challenge? I am usually good at puzzles like this.
doc, I would do this but at this point in the discussion, I am not going to take a chance that it could somehow get on the internet. But I would definitely tell you if it was correct. I'll tell you this. From A to 0, his proof had 105 combinations, 7 on each line and 15 lines.
If I need help from a biologist to see whether everything that is already known in science can be explained slightly differently using the same anatomy, I don't see anything wrong with that.
Then stop wasting time and do it.
I need to talk to a biologist, or someone who can help me map out what could be happening based on Lessans' theory. If there was no way he could be right because there is no way the brain could do this, we wouldn't be having this conversation. That would be like trying to prove to everyone that one plus one equals three. But there is the possibility that the mechanism by which the brain uses the eyes, could very well be easily explained. Whether anyone will listen is another story. It would have to be taken seriously.
The Lone Ranger is a biologist, but I don't think you've explained Lessans model of how sight works well enough for him to even begin to map it out.
He already mentioned way back that one of the nerves in question is one way only to the brain, rather than away from it. So that may be pertinent, depending on exactly what Lessan's model is and what it states.
Quote:
A nerve (such as the optic nerve, for example) that contains only afferent fibers can only conduct impulses toward the brain, not away from it.
doc, I would do this but at this point in the discussion, I am not going to take a chance that it could somehow get on the internet. But I would definitely tell you if it was correct. I'll tell you this. From A to 0, his proof had 105 combinations, 7 on each line and 15 lines.
Originally Posted by Seymour Lessans
I recently gave a math problem to a student of mathematics. I asked
this person if it was possible to arrange 105 alphabetical squares
divided equally between A and O into groups of 3 so that each of the
15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice
with any other letter.
Do you know what you are saying? Lessans said 105 lettered square, now you are saying 105 combinations, Is a combination a group of 3, do you even know? And what the hell difference would it make if it did get on the internet? If his proof was right it would prove at least that that part of his book was correct. YOU DON'T HAVE A PROOF, this is just more of you stalling, because you have nothing at all to offer. I'm begining to think this is just another one of your made up fictions to fool people.
This is all still subjective and differs from one child to another and one family to another. Many people do not adhere to or accept societal standards of beauty and apply the word beautiful to those others find ugly. So since there are multiple exceptions, your rule that it is universal and non-subjective fails.
No it doesn't fail. I think people are beginning to see that these standards are artificial and choose to raise their children in a different type of environment. Kudos to them! But in order to do this you almost have to move into a commune, separate from society. For most of society, beauty is a gift at birth, just like being born with a musical talent. Many people will be handicapped for the rest of their lives because of how they perceive themselves when they look in the mirror. Some can move on in spite of how they look to others.
Quote:
Children don't know what's going on, so when they are not called beautiful, they are hurt. They grow up believing they are not as pretty as the next one, and it is confirmed by what they see in the mirror.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Not true for all children.
I disagree. Some children might look in the mirror and say they are not pretty but be able to handle it better than other girls. But that doesn't change the fact that they have already been conditioned by the word itself and will be judging themselves according to the standards that exist.
Quote:
This has serious ramifications, as if you didn't know. We all see how girls grow up to hate their bodies and their faces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Not true of all girls.
Not true of all girls, but of many girls. Some mothers help their girls to compensate in spite of their looks, or will help pay for nose jobs, facial reconstruction, etc. This is rampant in our society. The advantage goes to the girl who has the 'better' looks, hands down.
Quote:
We can tell our children until the cows come home that they are beautiful inside, if not on the outside. That doesn't always help because people who are considered more beautiful get the guys, get the jobs, and get the respect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Not true of all people. In fact I would counter that money and societal connections are more influential than beauty with regard to various ideas of success.
That is a big influence but if you have two people with money and societal connections, and one is considered beautiful and the other ugly (based on conditioning; I hate to even use those words), the beautiful one will win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
As for respect, physical appearance isn't even on my radar of what makes a person worthy of respect.
Me neither, but I've seen it. I saw a test (I guess you could say it was empirical) where 'beautiful' people were associated with honesty, and other important values. I couldn't believe it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Were you raised this shallowly that you believe all this crap about the word beauty is true for all people? Because if it is not true for all people, which it is not, then it is, by definition, subjective.
Everyone who hears the word 'beautiful' only with certain type individuals, get conditioned. They have no control over this. How they react to their rating depends on many factors, including parental love and support. This is not subjective at all.
Quote:
The source of the problem comes from the words themselves, and is not easy an easy problem to solve unless we recognize what we're doing and stop using these words in reference to people's physical characteristics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You have some kind of personal hang up or neurosis about this issue. It is not universal at all.
Not at all. I am very concerned for our youth, and I feel sad for those who have to grow up feeling inferior in any way. You are dismissing this concept because you don't quite see how we get conditioned by words, and how the brain is able to do this. You believe it's just a descriptor of what you personally like or value. But that is not what is occurring, and until you see that, you will charge me with a hang up. When these words are removed, then you will be able to say that this is a personal descriptor. I don't know if you see the difference. Just remember there is a huge difference between saying a person is beautiful (which creates a standard for everyone because of how we're conditioned), and saying a person appeals to you, which is a personal descriptor. Please read this again if you so desire.
From the time we were small children our relatives, parents,
friends and acquaintances have expressed their personal likes and
dislikes regarding things that definitely exist in the external world.
The words beautiful, pretty, cute, adorable, handsome, etc., heard over
and over again with an inflection of pleasure as to someone’s physical
appearance, took a picture of the similarities between this type of
physiognomy and developed negatives which also contained the degree
of feeling experienced.
Similarly, an entire range of words heard over
and over again with an inflection of displeasure as to someone’s
physical characteristics, took a picture of the similarities between this
type of physiognomy and developed negatives containing the degree
of feeling experienced below this line of demarcation. As time went
on a standard was established which separated good looks from bad
looks using a gradient that measured someone’s features against a
scale of perfection that did not symbolize reality.
Not knowing what
the brain was able to do, we were convinced that one group of
similarities that were seen with our very eyes contained a lesser value
than the opposite similarities. We were unaware that the brain had
reversed the process by which these negatives were developed and then
projected onto the screen of undeniable differences a value that existed
only in our head. It would not be long before this child would be
conditioned to desire associating with the one type while avoiding the
other, and as he would get older you would not be able to convince
him that an ugly or beautiful person did not exist as a definite part of
the real world, because he has witnessed these differences with his
eyes. The confusion between what is real and what is not comes from
the fact that these words not only describe real differences that exist
in the world, but they also create external values when there are no
such things.
I am too lazy to actually read the answers given to me so I LIKE UNICORNS!!!
None of these senses feature direct input to the brain. And the sense of hearing least of all. The process by which sound waves are transduced into neural impulses is considerably more convoluted than the process by which photons are transduced into neural impulses.
The only one that counts as "direct input" is, ironically, sight. The eyes are actually extensions of the brain. They lack a relay neuron found in senses of touch, proprioception, hearing, and I Think She's a Skank.
Which she would have known if she had bothered to read an essay that high school students could understand
I am looking for a physicist who may help me prove that the Earth might be flat.
With Al Gore's interwebs it is very easy to post something as published and go after any who try to steal it since, you know, you have time stamps and everything. Just ask Wiki after a prat tried to use one of my essays as his own.
Just ask BettyKillick . . . oh wait! You cannot!
--J.D.
Last edited by Doctor X; 04-27-2011 at 10:55 PM.
Reason: [For that ellusive "k".--Ed.]
You believe it's just a descriptor of what you personally like or value. But that is not what is occurring
Yes, it is. You are wrong. It is merely a descriptor applied to something that is pleasing to the senses or mind. Wow, unsupported assertions sure are easy to use...but really boring if the goal is learning something or deeply discussing something.
Quote:
Just remember there is a huge difference between saying a person is beautiful (which creates a standard), and saying a person appeals to you
I completely disagree that there is a difference or that using the word beautiful creates a standard. More fun with assertions!
Quote:
I am very concerned our youth, and where low self-esteem originates.
As am I, and it ain't the words beautiful and ugly. That is, as I said, a very shallow point of view.
Low self esteem originates, in my observations, from lack of encouragement to actively seek and determine where a child's interests and talents lie, as well as a lack of encouraging the setting and accomplishing of personal goals. We shield kids from the wrong things and push them in the wrong things and just in general have lost sight of nurturing each child's unique attributes, and largely fail at helping them set up a track record of capability to base their self worth on.
Do I agree that our current society largely values appearance more highly than it should? Absolutely, but that is not a problem that can be solved by eliminating words from our vocabulary.
Re: A revolution in thought
Linear Mode
