A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

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

Definition of 'time immemorial' Random House Webster's College Dictionary


1. (n.) time immemorial
time in the distant past.

David, you now are being ignored for 24 hours.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

That's a matter of opinion LadyShea.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Definition of 'time immemorial' Random House Webster's College Dictionary


1. (n.) time immemorial
time in the distant past.

David, you now are being ignored for 24 hours.

It doesn't matter what definition of "time immemorial" you adopt, there have not been anywhere near "trillions and trillions" of humans on the earth. The Great Astute Observer's observation on this matter was wrong by many orders of magnitude.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Then take a few Anatomy and Physiology courses.

What I would really like to know is the actual theory behind afferent vision.

If you truly want to understand it, then inevitably, you're going to have to do some reading. And calling it a "theory" is disingenuous. We know that the eyes are sense organs; it's not a theory at all, any more than it's still considered a "theory" that the Earth is a planet in orbit around a star we call the Sun -- not unless you want to redefine the word "theory" beyond recognition.

If there is absolutely no possibility that the eyes could be efferent, then he would be wrong.

Well, guess what? Given what we know of the anatomy of the eye and of neural function, it is impossible -- at least as close to "impossible" as you can get in the sciences. I mean, it's possible that the Earth is really flat, and that all of our decisive proofs to the contrary can be chalked up to unknown principles of physics that create the illusion that the Earth is round. But it's certainly not very likely.

And if you start insisting "but you can't prove that the Earth is round; you just admitted it, so it's possible that it's really flat" then you've just insisted that we can't ever know anything at all. In which case, there's no point in going on.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

The question is not that a dog will hear the voice or pick up the smell, but will they recognize it as their masters. Can you show us any studies that prove that a dog can recognize its masters voice or smell 100% of the time, or are you just pulling this out of the air as well. Your experience with your own dogs is too small a sample to be anykind of proof, you may have a very distinctive smell or voice unlike anyone elses.

[The Lone Ranger]

Heck, name one human who can instantly recognize his or her significant other with 100% accuracy.

[Deadlokd]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Heck, name one human who can instantly recognize his or her significant other with 100% accuracy.

Umm, me of course.

Count still checks in occasionally.

[thedoc]

I think that we (except peacegirl) have been looking at this thread the wrong way. My wife and I like to watch a few 'Murder Mystery' TV shows, Castle is one of our favorites right now, and one of the factors when solving the crime is 'Who has something to gain?' who will profit? Lessans book had gotten a rather negative review on Amazon, so peacegirl needs something to stir up sales, and even her rather questionable claim of $.46 per book at 1 million books is a lot of money. Enough to ghostwrite another book? It seems that on other threads she quit after a few pages, here she changed her tactic to keep the thread going as long as possable. After all if a book can generate 118 pages of 'spirited dialogue' there must be something to it. At first I thought she would cut & paste our posts to get favorable comments but she doesn't need to, a book that can generate 118 pages speaks for itself. We have all been duped. We have unwittingly given peacegirl something to use to promote her book to the gullable people in the world, and there are a lot. She doesn't even need to quote anything from the thread, that would give it away, that the thread exists is enough. I hope we have learned something?

[Deadlokd]

No, probably not.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Heck, name one human who can instantly recognize his or her significant other with 100% accuracy.

I recognize yours with 100% accuracy.

show spoiler

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

You know, the easily read The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat further underscores that people receive visual information not send it to the eyes.

But, you know, reading is so, you know, like, hard.

Here this Prat blathers about how we "just" need to read 850+ pages of drivel but whines she is a "visual learner" who cannot handle 30 pages of high school level science.

FAIL.

--J.D.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

I recognize yours with 100% accuracy.

show spoiler

--J.D.

Doesn't look like 10 feet to me?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Here this Prat blathers about how we "just" need to read 850+ pages of drivel but whines she is a "visual learner" who cannot handle 30 pages of high school level science.

FAIL.

--J.D.

I wonder who read the book to her, Daddy must have read it to her as bedtime stories, and acted it out, no wonder she's so twisted.

[Doctor X]

She kept falling asleep.

--J.D.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Angakuk, that's not true. I can't in all honesty accept a study that I think is skewed. Something isn't right. How many empirical tests are done that people accept hook, line, and sinker, and then are contradicted by another study not long after the first. I have an idea. Let's all go home and put a couple of pictures of ourselves and family members against a wall and see if our dogs (those who have one) do anything at all. Or people could even put a video of a family gathering and stop the frame when your picture comes up. See if the dog does anything. But you have to leave the voice out. I would be very surprised if there was any evidence of recognition. This would be anecdotal, of course, but it would either give Lessans support, or it wouldn't.

Your response to my post is practically a text book example of not giving the benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted by davidm

Nobody is ever going to take the stuff seriously anyway, no matter how peacegirl presents herself, because it's wrong. If it's wrong it's wrong, and that's it. No help for it.

Now david, you know this is not true. A great many people take stuff that is wrong quite seriously. Does Xenu ring any bells? It is a matter of presentation and both Lessans and peacegirl suck at presentation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

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.

It seems clear to me that Lessans did not write that nonsense about "trillions upon trillions of babies". Peacegirl wrote it and, once again, failed to distinguish between Lessans' words and her own. We really have no idea how much of the confusion in Lessan's book is due to the work of the author and how much is owed to his editor/co-author.

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.

If he is not trustworthy with regard to the small details, why should we trust him with the big truths?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

She kept falling asleep.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

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.

That's correct. He did not make up the rules.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's not what it means when discussing data, peacegirl

I realize he was using a different definition, but I was using a definition which was just as legitimate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So what? Everyone thinks he's a crackpot and you're dishonest. What great chance would you be taking? It's not like lives are at stake, or like his sterling reputation would be sullied.

Gimme a break.

Because everything I say online is recorded and will be used to hurt him in the end. It's not that I don't want to share it, but are you kidding, share it, and have it recorded forever so people can google it and mock him, once again? I see what people have done to hurt me and use the fact that I've been to different forums as proof that I'm just a troll. They will just use this as ammunition. They will say he never figured it out; that he got it from a book. I don't know what they have up their sleeve to discount him, but, as I said, I'm not willing to take the chance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Your wish is my command, on very rare occasions, so don't get used to it.

Thanks for the comic relief.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are hopeless. Dogs cannot respond like people do or understand instructions like people do, dogs cannot explain their choices to researchers, nor do they naturally give a shit about photographs, so they have to be trained to respond in such a way that researchers can recognize it as a purposeful response.

Dogs have to be trained to find drugs, and often are trained to signal differently for different kinds of drugs...same with search and rescue dogs. They are trained to do one thing for cadavers and another for living victims. This is how we can communicate with dogs since we don't know they're language. All manner of animal research depends on training. If we could learn dolphinese or doginese things would be a lot easier

Training a dog to do what he is capable of doing depending on his breed is one thing. I don't think that this test to determine if a dog recognizes his handler was accurate. The test itself was flawed, in my humble opinion. To train a dog to associate hitting a lever when he recognizes a face is something I don't believe dogs can do. Okay, you need to test more dogs than just mine or yours, that's fair. But if they are training a dog without any cues, just sight, and pressing a lever to indicate that recognition was taking place, there is no absolute proof of this. To say that it was skewed in the direction of proof, is also skewed because it is not statistically significant even if the dog, out of sheer chance (come on, you can get 85% more heads than tails in a throw of dice), got 85% correct. I am not a statistician, but it doesn't take a statistician to see that these results stack up to nada.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because everything I say online is recorded and will be used to hurt him in the end. It's not that I don't want to share it, but are you kidding, share it, and have it recorded forever so people can google it and mock him, once again? I see what people have done to hurt me and use the fact that I've been to different forums as proof that I'm just a troll. They will just use this as ammunition. They will say he never figured it out; that he got it from a book. I don't know what they have up their sleeve to discount him, but, as I said, I'm not willing to take the chance.

Then you got nothing. This was one thing you could show he was correct about, and really people are more apt to mock the weird sight crap than a solved puzzle. That discounts him more than anything else in the book because it's the most outrageous and disproved claim. The rest of his stuff is more philosophical and psychological and has a lot more room for interpretation.

Speaking of interpretation, that is why mere observations, no matter how astute, are the least compelling and lest convincing type of evidence. Observations by a single person are subjective; a matter of perception and interpretation. Now, if you get a lot of people making the same observation and that's a bit more compelling. You get people using those collective observations to form testable hypotheses, then tests, then repeated tests and you get data that can be analyzed and start forming a body of knowledge.

Nobody here accepts a single study "hook line and sinker", that would not be critical thinking. Critical thinkers consider each bit of data, each bit of evidence, within the context of a whole body of evidence. In science contradictory studies are reviewed and analyzed and hypotheses are formed for the reasons for differences and new studies conducted to try to repeat findings. It's a messy process, but it works over time.

Perhaps you've noticed none of us really use the word "proof", we use evidence or data.

You rely solely on personal observations, such as shit your dogs do. That's not science.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks for the comic relief.

If you thought that was funny, you have no grasp of reality, try to listen to and understand the words.

[peacegirl]

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're not supposed to be taking anything at face value, or be wowed by his ability to solve a math puzzle except to say that he was very perceptive when it came to numbers.