A revolution in thought

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In fact, I said that optics works exactly as described.

Ahem....

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Bump.

We see the bug magnified because the light traveling from the bug through the lens is slowed and bent as it passes through the lens. This means that we are seeing light that is traveling from the bug through the lens to our eyes, which is afferent vision.
How does this fit with efferent vision? How does this change in the speed of the light traveling through the lens fit into your model where we see objects instantly without regard to time, distance, or the speed of light?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would they react to a photograph? Do you "react" to a photograph of your grandkids, whom you probably love very much, with the same excitement as you "react" to seeing them in person?

We already went through this. I know that if my child missed me and someone showed him a picture of me, he would react. I don't even mean a big reaction, but there would definitely be a reaction.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you think dogs are unable to tell the difference between an inanimate object and the real thing? A photograph can't talk to them, feed them, pet them, throw a ball for them or interact in any way...why should a dog react to a photograph as if it is the person? A photograph is useless to meeting any of a dog's needs or desires.

Doesn't matter. If the eyes are a sense organ, that light would be entering the dog's eyes, and if he missed his master he would show some recognition such as a wag of a tail, or even a whimper. Dogs can't do that because there is no image being formed in his brain.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Ahem....

You have to understand the efferent account. The light is not bringing us anything. We are using the light to see. Magnification is consistent with this account because optics is consistent with this account. But time is not a factor because, once again, we're not waiting for the light to arrive to get the information. We are seeing the real object due to light's presence. Light is a condition of sight; it is not a cause of sight.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

HEY PEACEGIRL!

Care to explain why you are still completely ignoring my questions?

I answered your question about photons. The photon that left the Sun had to travel, just like light has to travel from a candle when you first light it. It takes virtually no time to see it. The same holds true for seeing the Sun when it's first turned on. The scenario is exactly the same because it's proportional to the size and brightness of the object. That's enough for today.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true because these experiments have flaws.

List the flaws in the experiments you've been given and explain why it is a flaw. List any flaw in any experiment we've shown you. A flaw in a scientific experiment is a flaw in methodology by the way, so how you hope to identify flaws when you don't understand the scientific method is a mystery, but let's see you try!

It is a known fact that empirical testing renders false results at least 50% of the time.

whose ass did you pull that statistic out of and how did you verify it to be accurate let alone conclude it is a "known fact"?

You can't be serious LadyShea, or you are the one with your head in the sand, not me.

Yeah, we've only ever sent a probe to Mars, right? We can only see Mars because of the power of the Hubble, right? There is or is not an increase or a decrease in autism rates since the removal or non-removal of thimerosal in vaccines...or some convoluted shit, right? There are lots of interested lurkers reading this thread all the time because they can't all be bots and spiders, right? There are Internet checkers to ensure people post the truth on websites, right? If the Internet has someone quoted as saying something, they must have actually said it or even posted it themselves, right?

You don't seem to know anything about anything at all!

Because IT IS flawed!

Identify a single flaw.

Look at it carefully and see what is wrong with this test. Anyone who is not biased would see the flaw. The length of time a dog looks at something is supposed to mean exactly what they think it means? Really?

Yes really. You don't even understand the experiment, or what the hypothesis was, so your calling it flawed is hilarious.

And how long is too long, and how short is too short?

LOL, there is no too long or too short. There is only data to analyze. You do not understand data analysis in the slightest.

They have no controls whatsoever.

LIke what controls do you think are missing there, Einstein?

And this is suppose to be considered fact?

No, it is not. It is merely data. Experimental results to add to the body of information.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We already went through this. I know that if my child missed me and someone showed him a picture of me, he would react. I don't even mean a big reaction, but there would definitely be a reaction.

So how would that reaction be objectively quantified and measured? How would the reaction be defined and described for replication purposes in an experimental setting? What controls could be put in place to ensure that reaction is not related to something else entirely? How would it be determined that this child's reaction is to be universally expected from all children?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The photon that left the Sun had to travel, just like light has to travel from a candle when you first light it. It takes virtually no time to see it.

So the light photon traveled faster than the speed of light in your model.

Yeah, incompatible with reality, there, Genius.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to understand the efferent account. The light is not bringing us anything. We are using the light to see. Magnification is consistent with this account because optics is consistent with this account. But time is not a factor because, once again, we're not waiting for the light to arrive to get the information. We are seeing the real object due to light's presence. Light is a condition of sight; it is not a cause of sight.

1. "You have to understand the efferent account."
If I already "understood efferent account" then we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm asking you to explain how efferent vision and optics can both work without contradicting one another.

2. "The light is not bringing us anything." Well this is consistent with the afferent account since we don't receive anything from light. We receive light itself and based on the properties of that light we are able to form an image in the brain.

3. "We are using the light to see." This is not really detailed enough. I assume from everything else you've posted that what you mean is that the light allows us to see but what we're seeing isn't light... but that's reading a lot into it.

4. "Magnification is consistent with this account because optics is consistent with this account." This was a useless sentence. I'm asking you to explain how optics could be consistent with efferent vision. If you do that then you explain the magnification but just saying that optics is consistent doesn't prove that it is.

5. "But time is not a factor because, once again, we're not waiting for the light to arrive to get the information. "
Time is a factor in optics. Time is a component of speed and speed is what makes the light bend. The speed of the light changes as it passes through the lens. This change in speed and the shape of the lens surface effects how the light bends and thus how the image appears to the eye. If we're seeing the object and not the light then how does the lens change what we see? The current explanation is based entirely on afferent vision, you're going to need a new explanation for efferent vision one where time, and therefore speed, isn't a factor.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Wow. You didn't even read the study, did you?

Here's a clue for you: What was the null hypothesis that they were testing?

Here's another clue: It was not that dogs can recognize photos of their masters.

By the way, given that you are the anthropomorphic personification of confirmation bias, it's profoundly dishonest and hypocritical of you to reject carefully-constructed and controlled scientific experiments in favor of anecdotes which you think support your view.

But then, if there's anything we've come to expect from you, it's hypocrisy and dishonesty.

I did read it Lone Ranger and it's absurd that anyone could determine from this one study that a dog can connect his master's voice with a visual stimulus by how long the dog looks at the picture that is incongruent with his expectation.

[The Lone Ranger]

So what was the null hypothesis that they were testing, then?

You claim to have read and understood the study, so it should be a piece of cake for you to answer the question.

Also, contrary to your claims, the study did have controls. Can you identify them? Again, it should be a piece of cake, assuming you read and understood the study.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a known fact that empirical testing renders false results at least 50% of the time.

From what part of your ass did you pull THAT howler? Every day you sound a little more like some fuck-all ignorant Republican legislator waxing moronic about human reproduction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

One is a controlled experiment with measurable data and with methodology that others can replicate and your idea is not science at all. This has been explained to you. You want to use subjective human interpretation of variable and individual dog behaviors (tail wagging and body language), when you have a clearly biased expectation of how dogs should behave.

You don't trust science, so you think their methods are flawed. You trust anecdotes which are worthless.

It's not that I don't trust science. It's that in this case their methodology is far from accurate. Where is there any replication of the experiments that you are counting on for proof? I am not looking for individual dog behaviors. I said that I would want a test that would examine all breeds. If a dog started licking the picture, wagging its tail, jumping up and down, whimpering from excitement, or doing anything that would indicate some kind of recognition, that would be a pretty valid indicator. This has nothing to do with what I expect.

This is not about anecdotes. This is such a crock of you know what!

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Weasel. You want to use subjective human interpretation of variable and individual dog behaviors (tail wagging and body language), when you have a clearly biased expectation of how dogs should behave.

No LadyShea. If a dog reacted strongly toward a picture of his master whom he misses, this would be a more reliable result than these flawed experiments you and Lone Ranger keep coming up with.

How do you know it's never been seen? You know exactly dick about most things, yet you think you know everything that has been seen on one topic, a topic on which you have a strong bias because your father commented on it? LOL.

So help me then. I'm trying to find any evidence based on empirical observation, not experiments, that show any breed of dog responding to a photograph in such a way that we would normally think of as facial recognition.

[LadyShea]

I'm trying to find any evidence based on empirical observation, not experiments,

Are. You. Drunk.

What the fuck do you think experimental results and data are, especially in behavioral experiments like this latest one?

That a dog gazed at a photograph for x amount of time under y conditions is the empirical observation in this particular experiment.

[Artemis Entreri]

I'm still completely failing to see how whether a dog can recognize a picture of it's master has any bearing at all on whether it is seeing "efferently" or afferently.

Imagine if we were dogs. Would we be arguing over efferent smelling and using our pet humans as evidence? "Well, humans cannot recognize their master by smell alone so scent is obviously efferent."

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

dog responding to a photograph in such a way that we would normally think of as facial recognition.

What response could possibly meet that criteria?

Just exactly what behavior is "normally" thought of as indicating facial recognition, and where did such a consensus of thought on that come from?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

I'm still completely failing to see how whether a dog can recognize a picture of it's master has any bearing at all on whether it is seeing "efferently" or afferently.

Imagine if we were dogs. Would we be arguing over efferent smelling and using our pet humans as evidence? "Well, humans cannot recognize their master by smell alone so scent is obviously efferent."

Nobody understands it, Artemis. Lessans just assumed it, and peacegirl absorbed that assumption at his knee.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So what was the null hypothesis that they were testing, then?

You claim to have read and understood the study, so it should be a piece of cake for you to answer the question.

Also, contrary to your claims, the study did have controls. Can you identify them? Again, it should be a piece of cake, assuming you read and understood the study.

The control was the stranger. The dog stared longer at the stranger's face which supposedly indicated confusion because the face didn't match the sound of his master's voice. How do they know the length of time the dog stared at the incongruent picture had anything to do with what they were assuming? How do they know what is going on in the dog's mind? I would love to try this with my son's dog. She is especially attentive to him. I know that when he talked to her online, she heard his voice but could not recognize his face on Skype. She kept cocking her head in confusion. And this experiment you would trust more than seeing a dog react to a photograph of his master? Really?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are. You. Drunk.

What the fuck do you think experimental results and data are, especially in behavioral experiments like this latest one?

That a dog gazed at a photograph for x amount of time under y conditions is the empirical observation in this particular experiment.

Right, but there is a place in science for empirical observation without using experiments and hypotheses.

empirical observation

Web definitions

Empirical evidence is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim. ...

Empirical evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peacegirl]

[quote=Artemis Entreri;1199861]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to understand the efferent account. The light is not bringing us anything. We are using the light to see. Magnification is consistent with this account because optics is consistent with this account. But time is not a factor because, once again, we're not waiting for the light to arrive to get the information. We are seeing the real object due to light's presence. Light is a condition of sight; it is not a cause of sight.

1. "You have to understand the efferent account."

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

If I already "understood efferent account" then we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm asking you to explain how efferent vision and optics can both work without contradicting one another.

Trust me, they don't. Light works exactly the same way in the efferent account. The only difference is that the eyes do not interpret the impulses coming from the light itself.

2. "The light is not bringing us anything."

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Well this is consistent with the afferent account since we don't receive anything from light. We receive light itself and based on the properties of that light we are able to form an image in the brain.

That's the dispute in a nutshell. Are we decoding the images we see from light itself, or is light the bridge that allows us to see in real time? In both accounts, light is necessary for us to see anything.

3. "We are using the light to see."

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

This is not really detailed enough. I assume from everything else you've posted that what you mean is that the light allows us to see but what we're seeing isn't light... but that's reading a lot into it.

We can see light in some instances, but we're seeing it in real time. The main argument is whether light brings us the information through space/time to be decoded into normal vision, or whether light is allowing us to see the external world in real time.

4. "Magnification is consistent with this account because optics is consistent with this account."

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

This was a useless sentence. I'm asking you to explain how optics could be consistent with efferent vision. If you do that then you explain the magnification but just saying that optics is consistent doesn't prove that it is.

It works the same way. If the lens is convex it will cause the image to be enlarged.

A magnifying glass is simply a convex lens meant to be held up to an object to see it magnified. It is a very simple form of microscope, and its invention allowed many later breakthroughs in optics to occur. The magnifying glass is most notably seen in mystery fiction, and is iconically associated with the fictional character Sherlock Holmes, who used one to study the scene of a crime in order to locate clues.

The earliest magnifying glass recorded was created by the master scientist Alhazen in 1021. He published a comprehensive work, The Book of Optics, which laid out many principles of optics and many interesting devices. One of these was described as "a magnifying device, a convex lens forming a magnified image." This basic invention went on to inspire many others, including the microscope, which helped revolutionize the fields of biology and chemistry.

The magnification of a glass is determined by the optical power of the lens and the distance it is held from the object being viewed and from the eye. A typical one would be labeled as a 2X magnifier, implying that the size of objects viewed is doubled, although this is likely to be better than most average users would achieve. On the other hand, someone with relatively poor eyesight could use such a tool to achieve an even higher relative magnification.

Although some people think that a magnifying glass is cutting off the area being viewed, in reality, the area covered by the glass is the area shown. Unlike a straight viewing, however, some areas are much larger than they would be with the naked eye, while others are much smaller. Each point viewed under the lens has its own ideal focal distance, which is why most people will move the glass closer and further from the object being viewed to find the ideal distance.

The best way to think about how a magnifying glass works is to imagine it in a two-dimensional situation first. If a person imagines something underneath the glass, like a ladybug, he can then imagine two lines coming up from either side of the insect into the air. Under a normal piece of glass, those lines would just travel straight and never meet, and the viewer would see both points of the ladybug relative to where they actually are. With a magnifying glass, however, the light is bent such that the two invisible lines eventually meet in the air. An ideal distance has that point right at the eye.

After these two imaginary lines meet, they will cross and pass each other in the opposite direction. This is why at an extremely close distance, an object under the lens may appear to be upside down. The light has just kept moving, but has flipped its orientation as it is viewed.

How Does a Magnifying Glass Work? (with pictures)

5. "But time is not a factor because, once again, we're not waiting for the light to arrive to get the information. "

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Time is a factor in optics. Time is a component of speed and speed is what makes the light bend. The speed of the light changes as it passes through the lens. This change in speed and the shape of the lens surface effects how the light bends and thus how the image appears to the eye. If we're seeing the object and not the light then how does the lens change what we see? The current explanation is based entirely on afferent vision, you're going to need a new explanation for efferent vision one where time, and therefore speed, isn't a factor.

Everything remains the same except for the claim that we see the object rather than interpret the light. Just remember that if we see the object, the light is already at the eye. It doesn't mean we don't need light; it only means we aren't waiting for the light to arrive. Do we wait for the light to arrive when we see a candle? If the Sun being turned on works the same way, we would see it just as instantly. If we couldn't see it, that would mean we were out of optical range because the object was too small or it wasn't luminous enough to be seen.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, but there is a place in science for empirical observation without using experiments and hypotheses.

empirical observation

Web definitions

Empirical evidence is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim. ...

Empirical evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All research includes observation, as this one did. But there must be records that can be analyzed, and a method of verification for it to be "empirical", otherwise it's just an anecdote or personal experience.

em·pir·i·cal
adjective \im-ˈpir-i-kəl\

: based on testing or experience

: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment

Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience. Empirical evidence (the record of one's direct observations or experiences) can be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively. Empirical research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The control was the stranger. The dog stared longer at the stranger's face which supposedly indicated confusion because the face didn't match the sound of his master's voice. How do they know the length of time the dog stared at the incongruent picture had anything to do with what they were assuming? How do they know what is going on in the dog's mind? I would love to try this with my son's dog. She is especially attentive to him. I know that when he talked to her online, she heard his voice but could not recognize his face on Skype. She kept cocking her head in confusion. And this experiment you would trust more than seeing a dog react to a photograph of his master? Really?

How do you know the confusion was due to lack of recognition of his face? How do you know what's going on in the dogs mind? How do you know the confusion had anything to do with what you are assuming?

Maybe the confusion was due to seeing and hearing a recognized person and not understanding why she couldn't smell and touch him.

[Artemis Entreri]

PG,
The information you cut and pasted is entirely based on afferent light. I asked you to explain how a lens works in efferent vision model. There are no websites you can go to that will do that, you're going to have to explain it in your own words.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

While washing dishes, I had an epiphany as to why I think so many of us find peacegirl so very irksome...she is stunningly lacking in curiosity. She is incurious, yet has strong opinions about things she doesn't even have enough interest in to learn the basics about. That is a fundie in a nutshell.

You obviously don't know me at all. I am very curious about a lot of things. Just because I remain steadfast regarding my father's discoveries does not make me an incurious fundie.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Optics is the "afferent account"...what are you not understanding here? The standard model of light and sight is described and explained by optics. So if optics works exactly as described, then vision works exactly as described.

You are contradicting yourself.

The only difference between the two accounts has to do with how the eyes and brain work. This does not change the properties of light but it does change the function of light which I've said more times than I can count.

[LadyShea]

We surely have different experiences with the results of curiosity, and so have different definitions