A revolution in thought - Page 1597

Artemis Entreri · #**39901** 08-07-2014, 07:39 PM

This is a diagram from a webpage titled "A Gentle Introduction to Optical Design"

Notice that the reason the bug is magnified is because the lens bends the light that is traveling from the bug thru the lens to the eye.
Light travelling from the bug to the eye... Afferent vision.
If the eye isn't seeing via light travelling from the bug to the eye, as you say with efferent vision, then how is the lens magnifying it?

Angakuk · #**39902** 08-07-2014, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Interestingly, a dog's other senses are fully developed. Why are the eyes singled out as being undeveloped?

They aren't. They work and are adequate to the dog's needs. If the dog's sense of sight were as well developed as its sense of smell it could probably recognize its owner by the number and arrangement of its owner's nose hairs, from 100 yards away. It doesn't need to do that, so they aren't. Next question please.

Angakuk · #**39903** 08-07-2014, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This still doesn't answer the question as to why a dog would not be able to recognize his master from a picture or on a computer unless he got other cues.

It is a question that doesn't need to be answered because the question itself assumes a fact which is not in evidence. It is rather like asking why birds can't fly.

Angakuk · #**39904** 08-07-2014, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was not rejecting the review because he went behind my back. I was rejecting the review because it was written poorly. It was a reflection of his biases. He did not like the claim about the eyes and that's what prompted him to do what he did.

Why then do you invariably bring up your claim that he went behind your back if that has no bearing on the legitimacy of his review?

Angakuk · #**39905** 08-07-2014, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dogs can associate names with things to a limited degree. If I said to my dog, "Go get your toy" she would know what toy means. But that's about it. She could not identify me in a line up.

How often has this been tested and in what cities and police precincts were these line ups conducted? There must be records that could be checked.

Angakuk · #**39906** 08-07-2014, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Only time will tell if my father was right.

Time has told. Your father was wrong. Game over.

peacegirl · #**39907** 08-07-2014, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL. Cracks me up every time

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sound is interpreted from differences in pressure as they hit the receptors in the ear. Sound travels slower than light travels. That is why you can often see something before you can hear it. The light travels many times faster than the sound.

So if that's true then why can't we see an airplane before we hear the sound? Explain this to me LadyShea without weaseling as you are constantly accusing me of doing.

We can absolutely see a plane before we hear the sound if we are looking at the planes flight path at the moment it comes into view. If you know where and when to look, you will see it first, every time.

If we aren't looking at the sky or don't know exactly where to look, we would probably hear the sound first.

That is not true LadyShea. We hear planes before we ever see them, even if we know where to look. You are wrong.

Isn't that something? And where did Lessans come up with such a stupid idea?

He didn't. He said we will see something before we hear it. So we would see the plane before we hear it unless the plane was not within optical range. Then we would hear it first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

I think I know. He had a very primitive mind, and probably one day he had the experience of hearing an airplane and only later seeing it. Why? This will happen often if the airplane is obscured by a cloud! :awesome:

I've had the same experience, of hearing but not seeing the plane. Lessans, lacking even rudimentary thinking skills, jumped to the conclusion that we hear planes before seeing them.

He didn't even say that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

But here is what is really astonishing: His claim that we hear planes before we see them contradicts his own real-time seeing! For we know the speed of sound, and it's much slower than the speed of light; if we saw instantaneously, as he claimed, it's obvious we couldn't hear the plane first; we would always see it first under his own hypothesis!

Jesus Crap, he was one dumb bunny, wasn't he?

David, that is what he said. He said that we would see before hearing. It's not a hypothesis.

peacegirl · #**39908** 08-07-2014, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dogs can associate names with things to a limited degree. If I said to my dog, "Go get your toy" she would know what toy means. But that's about it. She could not identify me in a line up.

How often has this been tested and in what cities and police precincts were these line ups conducted? There must be records that could be checked.

It doesn't have to start there. Just show a dog a photograph of his owner whom he loves very much and hasn't seen in a long time, and see if he wags his tail or shows signs of recognition. Do this with all kinds of breeds to get a large sample. If it is confirmed that no dog is able to do this, then it's time to move to the next experiment to see if a dog can recognize his owner on a computer screen without any other cues. If it is confirmed that no dog is able to do this, then it's time to move to the next experiment which is either a line up or to see if a dog can recognize his owner in an unfamiliar setting where there are no other cues that could give it away. They said the experiment has been done and dogs can, in fact, recognize. I certainly haven't seen any reliable conclusions to that end.

peacegirl · #**39909** 08-07-2014, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was not rejecting the review because he went behind my back. I was rejecting the review because it was written poorly. It was a reflection of his biases. He did not like the claim about the eyes and that's what prompted him to do what he did.

Why then do you invariably bring up your claim that he went behind your back if that has no bearing on the legitimacy of his review?

You're right, it doesn't have anything to do with the actual review, but it does show that he was angry about the claim regardomg the senses, and he wanted to ruin it for me by giving me a 1. The review was horrible.

peacegirl · #**39910** 08-07-2014, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This still doesn't answer the question as to why a dog would not be able to recognize his master from a picture or on a computer unless he got other cues.

It is a question that doesn't need to be answered because the question itself assumes a fact which is not in evidence. It is rather like asking why birds can't fly.

The question itself does not assume a fact which is not in evidence. Actually, it is in evidence. It certainly is not analogous to the question: Why birds can't fly because the evidence is clearly supported that birds can fly. It is not evidenced that dogs can recognize their owners without help from their other senses or scientists wouldn't need to confirm this through further testing which is itself biased because they believe it's a fact that the eyes are a sense organ. This leads to confirmation bias.

peacegirl · #**39911** 08-07-2014, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Interestingly, a dog's other senses are fully developed. Why are the eyes singled out as being undeveloped?

They aren't. They work and are adequate to the dog's needs. If the dog's sense of sight were as well developed as its sense of smell it could probably recognize its owner by the number and arrangement of its owner's nose hairs, from 100 yards away. It doesn't need to do that, so they aren't. Next question please.

No, it might not be able to recognize its owner by the number and arrangement of its owner's nose hairs, from 100 years away, but he should certainly be able to recognize his owner's facial features at a distance that a human would be able to recognize.

Artemis Entreri · #**39912** 08-07-2014, 08:28 PM

It's more akin to saying dogs can't tap dance is evidence that they can't hear music.
They hear music just the same way we do but they don't have the mental capacity to dance.
They can also see just the same way that we do but they may not have the mental capacity to remember faces.

peacegirl · #**39913** 08-07-2014, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

This is a diagram from a webpage titled "A Gentle Introduction to Optical Design"

Notice that the reason the bug is magnified is because the lens bends the light that is traveling from the bug thru the lens to the eye.
Light travelling from the bug to the eye... Afferent vision.
If the eye isn't seeing via light travelling from the bug to the eye, as you say with efferent vision, then how is the lens magnifying it?

Artemis, light works the same way in this account because optics works the same way. Whatever light does in the afferent account, it does the same thing in the efferent account. Remember, light is a necessary condition of sight. The only difference is that in the efferent account light doesn't travel away from the object through space/time and bring the information to the eye. In the example you just gave, the bug is present. The lens is just magnifying the bug, which would occur in the efferent account as well.

Artemis Entreri · #**39914** 08-07-2014, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Interestingly, a dog's other senses are fully developed. Why are the eyes singled out as being undeveloped?

They aren't. They work and are adequate to the dog's needs. If the dog's sense of sight were as well developed as its sense of smell it could probably recognize its owner by the number and arrangement of its owner's nose hairs, from 100 yards away. It doesn't need to do that, so they aren't. Next question please.

No, it might not be able to recognize its owner by the number and arrangement of its owner's nose hairs, from 100 years away, but he should certainly be able to recognize his owner's facial features at a distance that a human would be able to recognize.

Not necessarily.
1. Dogs can't see as well as we can. Dog Vision
2. Facial recognition is a brain function not an eye function.

Artemis Entreri · #**39915** 08-07-2014, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

This is a diagram from a webpage titled "A Gentle Introduction to Optical Design"

Notice that the reason the bug is magnified is because the lens bends the light that is traveling from the bug thru the lens to the eye.
Light travelling from the bug to the eye... Afferent vision.
If the eye isn't seeing via light travelling from the bug to the eye, as you say with efferent vision, then how is the lens magnifying it?

Artemis, light works the same way in this account because optics works the same way. Whatever light does in the afferent account, it does the same thing in the efferent account. Remember, light is a necessary condition of sight. The only difference is that in the efferent account light doesn't travel away from the object through space/time and bring the information to the eye. In the example you just gave, the bug is present. The lens is just magnifying the bug, which would occur in the efferent account as well.

But how is the lens magnifying the bug?
If the eye is seeing the bug and not the light reflected from the bug then it can't be magnified in the same way that optics explains it. Because it explains it using light traveling from the bug thru the lens to the eye. Which is afferent vision not efferent vision.

Artemis Entreri · #**39916** 08-07-2014, 08:37 PM

Follow up; do you understand how the lens is bending the light to make the bug appear magnified?

Angakuk · #**39917** 08-07-2014, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dogs can associate names with things to a limited degree. If I said to my dog, "Go get your toy" she would know what toy means. But that's about it. She could not identify me in a line up.

How often has this been tested and in what cities and police precincts were these line ups conducted? There must be records that could be checked.

It doesn't have to start there. Just show a dog a photograph of his owner whom he loves very much and hasn't seen in a long time, and see if he wags his tail or shows signs of recognition. Do this with all kinds of breeds to get a large sample. If it is confirmed that no dog is able to do this, then it's time to move to the next experiment to see if a dog can recognize his owner on a computer screen without any other cues. If it is confirmed that no dog is able to do this, then it's time to move to the next experiment which is either a line up or to see if a dog can recognize his owner in an unfamiliar setting where there are no other cues that could give it away. They said the experiment has been done and dogs can, in fact, recognize. I certainly haven't seen any reliable conclusions to that end.

I was addressing your specific claim that your dog couldn't identify you in a line up. Where and when did this line up take place that you are able to make such a definite statement with regard to the results?

Angakuk · #**39918** 08-07-2014, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This still doesn't answer the question as to why a dog would not be able to recognize his master from a picture or on a computer unless he got other cues.

It is a question that doesn't need to be answered because the question itself assumes a fact which is not in evidence. It is rather like asking why birds can't fly.

That's why it needs testing so there are no assumptions. It certainly is not analogous to the question: Why birds can't fly because the evidence is clearly supported that they can fly. It doesn't hold for sight.

I have seen penguins in the zoo. They could not fly. I also had a neighbor who raised ostriches, they too could not fly. That being the case it is not, as you claim, clearly supported that birds can fly. The verdict is still out and there needs to be more testing done.

Angakuk · #**39919** 08-07-2014, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This still doesn't answer the question as to why a dog would not be able to recognize his master from a picture or on a computer unless he got other cues.

It is a question that doesn't need to be answered because the question itself assumes a fact which is not in evidence. It is rather like asking why birds can't fly.

The question itself does not assume a fact which is not in evidence. Actually, it is in evidence. It certainly is not analogous to the question: Why birds can't fly because the evidence is clearly supported that birds can fly. It is not evidenced that dogs can recognize their owners without help from their other senses or scientists wouldn't need to confirm this through further testing which is itself biased because they believe it's a fact that the eyes are a sense organ. This leads to confirmation bias.

You have never offered any reliable evidence that dogs can't recognize their masters' faces. It is simply another of Lessans' unsupported assertions that you keep parroting. That is why it is true to say that the question assumes a fact which is not in evidence.

Angakuk · #**39920** 08-07-2014, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Interestingly, a dog's other senses are fully developed. Why are the eyes singled out as being undeveloped?

They aren't. They work and are adequate to the dog's needs. If the dog's sense of sight were as well developed as its sense of smell it could probably recognize its owner by the number and arrangement of its owner's nose hairs, from 100 yards away. It doesn't need to do that, so they aren't. Next question please.

No, it might not be able to recognize its owner by the number and arrangement of its owner's nose hairs, from 100 years away, but he should certainly be able to recognize his owner's facial features at a distance that a human would be able to recognize.

I never said anything about 100 years.

Spacemonkey · #**39921** 08-07-2014, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Care to explain why you are still dishonestly evading my questions?

I'm not dishonestly evading your questions... I am answering to the best of my ability.

Why do you keep blatantly lying like this? There really isn't any excuse for it. Below are the questions you are still dishonestly evading and which you are still not even attempting to answer. (They all apply to your account because they concern the light your account claims will be at the retina or film, which must either travel or not travel from the Sun to get there.)

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

Spacemonkey · #**39922** 08-07-2014, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So, I ask you yet again, what do you mean by saying that he went behind your back?

He was supposed to help me but instead did the opposite. That's what I mean by going behind my back.

What do you mean by saying that Kevin Greene was supposed to help you?

Stephen Maturin · #**39923** 08-07-2014, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL. Cracks me up every time

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sound is interpreted from differences in pressure as they hit the receptors in the ear. Sound travels slower than light travels. That is why you can often see something before you can hear it. The light travels many times faster than the sound.

So if that's true then why can't we see an airplane before we hear the sound? Explain this to me LadyShea without weaseling as you are constantly accusing me of doing.

We can absolutely see a plane before we hear the sound if we are looking at the planes flight path at the moment it comes into view. If you know where and when to look, you will see it first, every time.

If we aren't looking at the sky or don't know exactly where to look, we would probably hear the sound first.

That is not true LadyShea. We hear planes before we ever see them, even if we know where to look. You are wrong.

Oh dear. Oh my. Oh dearie dearie me oh my, what a breathtakingly stupid statement!

I've gotta rethink this whole theism thing. peacegirl is far too dumb to have survived sixty years without divine aid. But for the existence of a god who really really loves low morons, she's have offed herself decades ago by sticking her tongue in a live light socket, climbing into that one enclosure at the zoo to play with the really big kitties, repeatedly rubbing food on her toes then wondering why she's still hungry, etc.

Dragar · #**39924** 08-07-2014, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference is that in the efferent account light doesn't travel away from the object through space/time and bring the information to the eye. In the example you just gave, the bug is present. The lens is just magnifying the bug, which would occur in the efferent account as well.

So why does changing the path of light magnify the insect?

Why does a mirror work?

Why does a coloured filter change the colour of objects?

Unless you believe that the wavelength, position and intensity of the light landing on the retina governs what we see, you have no explanation for any of the above. And if you believe it's the properties of light striking the retina that governs what we see, you can't have your precious real-time vision.

Dragar · #**39925** 08-07-2014, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true LadyShea. We hear planes before we ever see them, even if we know where to look. You are wrong.

Oh dear. Oh my. Oh dearie dearie me oh my, what a breathtakingly stupid statement!

Yup! Watch her lie about it now.