A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

LOL

And you and Lessans both ALSO say it takes the light some eight minutes to get from the sun to the earth. So IOW you maintain that we can see instantaneously light that ALSO cannot be seen for eight minutes!

Christ, you are you a stupid, dishonest hunk of suckage.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Source for this, ?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What response could possibly meet that criteria?

I already gave you the type of reaction we would expect from a dog who misses his master. If you don't believe a photograph is a fair test, then some other test could be devised that has very tight controls and is replicated.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

If I recognize someone I haven't seen in a long time, I would show that I recognize them by being happy to see them. These are typical signs that a person shows when recognition takes place. A dog would show the same excitement if he hadn't seen his master for 6 months. He would immediately recognize his master (from a picture or Skype as well) because the wavelength/frequency would be going right into his eyes and brain and he would respond. When my son was on Skype and called his dog by her name, she got even more confused. According to that experiment TLR gave me, you would think she would hear him call her name and look at his face with a loving recognition. She did no such thing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Source for this, ?

Okay I admit that I didn't find that percentage anywhere (I had a feeling I would be called out on that), but many studies have turned out to be seriously flawed, especially when it comes to health and nutrition. Remember the egg/cholesterol fiasco? Do you actually think the safety and efficacy studies put out by big pharma are accurate? Look how many people died from Vioxx because the FDA wasn't honest with the public. I don't want to get into this again. All I'm saying is that empirical tests can often be skewed. This may have to do with confirmation bias, lack of reliable testing, or lack of disclosure because it would mean less profit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

LOL

And you and Lessans both ALSO say it takes the light some eight minutes to get from the sun to the earth. So IOW you maintain that we can see instantaneously light that ALSO cannot be seen for eight minutes!

Christ, you are you a stupid, dishonest hunk of suckage.

What are you blathering about now David? We see everything in real time, even light if it is interacting with something in the atmosphere that would cause dispersion. If light is traveling for 81/2 minutes, we wouldn't have daylight until the light arrived, but we could still see a distant celestial body if it met the requirements of brightness and size. Obviously, until light strikes the object we wouldn't be able to see the object.

[BWE]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

BWE, I don't know you but I have no reason not to believe that you are sincerely interested. David was the one that suggested I leave here and go to TR and now he is telling you to go away because he wants me to stay here. He is coo coo. Really truly.

I am. TR is definitely a place with very few rules and a lot of insults but it is also a place with many very bright people. if this is the same davidm from TR, he had a meltdown over something posted by a member named quizalufigus (who teaches logic and math to undergrads and has a fairly rigid worldview). Then davidm (at TR) went pretty far off the rails with posts using a thousand variations of quiz's user name combined with various ways to say poop and eventually left when no one cared. If it is the same davidm, I've seen him write very cogent, thoughtful and intelligent things as well as comical batshit crazy things. Which means that I like him in general.

At TR, you get brainy but you don't get much sympathy. Or empathy. Which is a little hard to get used to at first but it also makes it more interesting once you do get used to it. It's surprising how much we don't think when we get stuck in ruts involving self-worth. Anyway, TR isn't for everyone. I am sincerely interested in your ideas. I suspect they are a bit out there on what I call the wingnut scale but that's where the best ideas come from IMO. This thread is just too long for me to follow it though.

[Angakuk]

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.

The actual bug and the magnified image of the bug are different sizes. If we were seeing the actual bug and the light was merely revealing it wouldn't we be seeing it in its actual size?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

How do you know this? Have you conducted controlled experiments to test this claim?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do we wait for the light to arrive when we see a candle?

Yes, we do. It is just that the wait time is so short that we don't notice the delay. Even if the delay is only a nanosecond (or two or three) we have to wait that nanosecond for the light to arrive from the candle. The further away the candle is, the longer the wait time is.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay I admit that I didn't find that percentage anywhere

So you lied. Again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

(I had a feeling I would be called out on that)

For future reference in case the issue comes up, that makes you a poor liar, not a non-liar.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I'm saying is that empirical tests can often be skewed.

What you said was, "It is a known fact that empirical testing renders false results at least 50% of the time." You made that up and launched it from your shitter. In other words, you lied. Again. Because that's what liars do.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Yes, we do. It is just that the wait time is so short that we don't notice the delay. Even if the delay is only a nanosecond (or two or three) we have to wait that nanosecond for the light to arrive from the candle. The further away the candle is, the longer the wait time is.

And yet, many pages ago, we went over this with her. We showed her the math of how long it would take for, say, light from a candle two feet away to reach our eyes. And yet -- just like with every single other thing, her tiny brain has reset and completely forgotten what she has been shown.

It certainly passes understanding why anyone continues to converse with her.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true because these experiments have flaws.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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!

I know enough about the scientific method (using double blind studies) to discuss where it could be flawed whether it was with the control group or the independent variable, etc.

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

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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"?

I admitted that I made this statistic up, but it does seem that many empirical studies turn out to be flawed or skewed or fail to present the total picture.

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

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

I've actually read that thimerosal is still in vaccines. So now what do you have to say?

CDC Caught Hiding Data Showing Mercury in Vaccines Linked to Autism | Health Impact News

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are lots of interested lurkers reading this thread all the time because they can't all be bots and spiders, right?

I wonder about that. Maybe I'm talking to robots. I wonder if they're getting anything from the thread.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

I said that so long ago and it turned into a joke. You know that's not what I meant. Anyway, why are you bringing this up now? I usually find legitimate websites when I'm doing research.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

That's your perception because of all the accusations against me.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The abstract TLR just posted got dismissed as flawed. Every experiment or paper or data set we've ever posted you've dismissed as flawed.

Because IT IS flawed!

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Identify a single flaw.

I already did.

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?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

I did understand it, and they hypothesized that the dog would be confused and look longer at the stranger's picture because it wasn't congruent. Let them replicate this 20 more times and maybe they'll be onto something.

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

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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 were looking at how long the dog looked at the picture of the stranger versus their master. Then they used that data to come to a conclusion. Am I wrong here?

They have no controls whatsoever.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

Boy are you being feisty today. It wasn't even the controls, it was the flawed conclusion based on what they thought was real evidence.

And this is suppose to be considered fact?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

But there are conclusions being drawn from this study. They are placing a lot of weight that their hypothesis is going to prove to be correct. Can't you see the possible confirmation bias?

Confirmation Bias

The Misconception: Your opinions are the result of years of rational, objective analysis.

The Truth: Your opinions are the result of years of paying attention to information which confirmed what you believed while ignoring information which challenged your preconceived notions.

<snip>

Confirmation bias is a filter through which you see a reality that matches your expectations. It causes you to think selectively, but the real trouble begins when confirmation bias distorts your active pursuit of facts.

Punditry is a whole industry built on confirmation bias. Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck and Arianna Huffington, Rachel Maddow and Ann Coulter – these people provide fuel for beliefs, they pre-filter the world to match existing world-views. If their filter is like your filter, you love them. If it isn’t, you hate them.

Whether or not pundits are telling the truth, or vetting their opinions, or thoroughly researching their topics is all beside the point. You watch them not for information, but for confirmation.

“Be careful. People like to be told what they already know. Remember that. They get uncomfortable when you tell them new things. New things…well, new things aren’t what they expect. They like to know that, say, a dog will bite a man. That is what dogs do. They don’t want to know that man bites a dog, because the world is not supposed to happen like that. In short, what people think they want is news, but what they really crave is olds…Not news but olds, telling people that what they think they already know is true.”

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/...irmation-bias/

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered your question about photons.

The fuck you did, you lying weasel. You haven't answered at all.

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. 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.

What the fuck? How is that "enough for today"? All you've done is lie to me again, and then weasel some more. None of the above addresses any of my questions. How pathetically dishonest can you get?


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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

And yet, many pages ago, we went over this with her. We showed her the math of how long it would take for, say, light from a candle two feet away to reach our eyes. And yet -- just like with every single other thing, her tiny brain has reset and completely forgotten what she has been shown.

It certainly passes understanding why anyone continues to converse with her.

Oh shush David. I know what people have said, but I have said something different in that it's not the light we're waiting for but the size and luminosity of the object relative to the lens (in the efferent account) that make all the difference.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just remember that if we see the object, the light is already at the eye.

And that right there is where your account is incompatible with physics, optics, and reality. Unless you can explain how the light gets to the eye faster than it could possibly travel to the eye, you are talking about magic

ETA: If we see things instantly as per Lessans

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do we wait for the light to arrive when we see a candle?

Yes, dumbfuck.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the Sun being turned on works the same way, we would see it just as instantly.

If it works the same way, then we see the Sun 8min after it is turned on.

Hey, why don't you lie some more about having answered my questions. That's always fun. Or you could use the above term of abuse as an excuse to continue what you are already doing. That won't make you look even more dishonest and stupid, will it?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And that right there is where your account is incompatible with physics, optics, and reality. Unless you can explain how the light gets to the eye faster than it could possibly travel to the eye, you are talking about magic

Nevertheless, it is a perfectly accurate statement. It just doesn't mean what she thinks it means. If we see an object then the light from that object is already at the eye, otherwise we have to wait for the light to arrive, then we will see the object.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

recognize someone I haven't seen in a long time, I would show that I recognize them by being happy to see them.

Yes, and if shown a picture of them I'm sure you'd jump up and down and lick the photo.


And then lie about it.

[LadyShea]

many studies have turned out to be seriously flawed, especially when it comes to health and nutrition. Remember the egg/cholesterol fiasco?

LOL, that wasn't due to flawed studies or flawed data. One large egg has about 186 mg of cholesterol. That could be considered a lot seeing that 200mg of cholesterol is the suggested daily limit.

This is the kind of shit that makes me call you incurious. You don't even know what the egg/cholesterol "fiasco" actually was all about, but you've formed opinions about it!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I recognize someone I haven't seen in a long time, I would show that I recognize them by being happy to see them. These are typical signs that a person shows when recognition takes place.

How would you display "being happy", what behavior or signs are typical of being happy? Are there exceptions or variations in these signs and behaviors? How can you control for individual responses?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

But Dogs do just that, so your assertion is wrong, And the conclusion is that there is an image forming in the brain.

[thedoc]

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.

Everyone else here understands that light brings itself to us, color, intensity, and direction. Light travels at the speed of light over the distance from the object to the eye. Time is a factor.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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"?

She verified it the same way she verifies everything, if it supports Lessans, or even appears to, it must be true.

[thedoc]

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.

It doesn't, except that Lessans wrote it and Peacegirl parrots it as if it were gospel. The relevance to efferent or afferent vision is completely irrelevant.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

The behavior that Peacegirl will accept as facial recognition, are those that a dog never displays. The behavior that Peacegirl will not accept are those that a dog does display.