A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Why are tomatoes shaped like cubes? No one knows the answer!

Why don't you educate yourself a bit about statistics and learn exactly why the results of the study are statistically significant?

Lessans probably knew, but for some reason he isn't telling us now.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's a blatant lie, and you know it. You've already admitted that my questions do apply to your account, so they cannot be just coming from the afferent perspective. They apply directly to what YOU have said about YOUR OWN account.

Neither can you. Hence my questions. You have yet to give any explanation at all for how this light can be at the retina on Earth before it has had time to get there. This is exactly the problem my questions address.

So show us all another way of looking at it by answering my questions in a way that does not require teleportation or faster than light travel. You can't can you?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Bump.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're playing with semantics then. All incoming stimuli is received and sent to the brain for interpretation otherwise there would be no point in having a sense organ. I will ask again: Why are dogs able to recognize familiar sounds, tastes, touches, and smells (which all require cognition) but cannot recognize a familiar face without other cues? This has not been answered.

Even if dogs weren't able to recognize particular human faces it wouldn't have much to do with the eyes. It's a cognitive issue which depends on how the brain is wired.

The claim that eyes aren't sense organs is really, really stupid shit.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will ask again: Why are dogs able to recognize familiar sounds, tastes, touches, and smells (which all require cognition) but cannot recognize a familiar face without other cues? This has not been answered.

That question has been answered several times, but you refuse to recognize the answer because it contradicts Lessans claim. Dog's CAN recognize their owners face in a photograph, but you refuse to acknowledge the evidence. Willful ignorance, at it's worst.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The dictionary states that the word ‘sense’ is defined as
any of certain agencies by or through which an individual receives
impressions of the external world; popularly, one of the five senses.
Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and
transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc. But this is a
wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because
nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic
nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

I am not a scientist and I don't even play one on the internet, but I am pretty sure that light does not strike the optic nerve. Light strikes the retina which then transmits that information to the optic nerve. TLR can correct me if I am wrong about this. If I am right about this then Lessans' reference to light striking the optic nerve is just another in the long string of his factual errors.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My father said that if a dog was trained to attack and he had no other sensory cues other than sight to help him recognize who this person was --- even if his master's face was lit up like a Christmas tree --- he would attack.

What was your father's evidence for this claim?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If I am right about this then Lessans' reference to light striking the optic nerve is just another in the long string of his factual errors.

You are indeed correct. It has been pointed out to her before that light does not strike the optic nerve, either directly or indirectly, since the optic nerve is behind the eye, and the posterior portion of the eye is opaque.


For all the good that it has done.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I am not a scientist and I don't even play one on the internet, but I am pretty sure that light does not strike the optic nerve. Light strikes the retina which then transmits that information to the optic nerve. TLR can correct me if I am wrong about this. If I am right about this then Lessans' reference to light striking the optic nerve is just another in the long string of his factual errors.

Lessans wasn't a scientist either but he did make very important observations. I am not disputing that he failed to use all the right words to describe what is going on. You really need to overlook this or you will miss his reasoning entirely and call him a loon unfairly. Isn't that what people do in this forum? They are very quick to call people loons for reasons that don't make them crazy. I don't get why they work so hard to prove their position based on flimsy evidence unless they have no other option but to use unreliable tests to support a position that has already been decided in advance. This is called "confirmation bias" and it's a huge problem.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My father said that if a dog was trained to attack and he had no other sensory cues other than sight to help him recognize who this person was --- even if his master's face was lit up like a Christmas tree --- he would attack.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What was your father's evidence for this claim?

He based this conclusion on his observations. He did not do an empirical study, which is why I am urging "true" scientific investigators to do just that because false accusations regarding his credentials are being used against him. The results would be a major advance in what we know about the eyes and whether they are true sense organs.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He based this conclusion on his observations. He did not do an empirical study, which is why I am urging "true" scientific investigators to do just that

because false accusations regarding his credentials are being used against him.

The results would be a major advance in what we know about the eyes and whether they are true sense organs.

Since both you and Lessans have failed to enumerate any observations, other than his imagination, we must assume that there were no observations. If you could provide detailed accounts of these "observations" we could evaluate them for ourselves. Also "true" scientific investigators have tested the ideas about dogs and vision, you just refuse to recognize them, willful ignorance.

There have been no false accusations regarding Lessans credentials, Lessans didn't have any credentials to criticize. Reading a 200 year old account of 2,000 year old events, doesn't qualify him for anything.

Vision and the eyes have been carefully investigated already, there is a lot to learn, but whether they are sense organs is not something that needs to be determined. It is already known and well understood that the eyes are sense organs.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He based this conclusion on his observations...

Are you saying that your father had occasion to observe a dog that was trained to attack actually attack its master for the sole reason that it failed to recognize its master's face?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Are you saying that your father had occasion to observe a dog that was trained to attack actually attack its master for the sole reason that it failed to recognize its master's face?

I would certainly like to see the documentation of this observation, perhaps Peacegirl could provide a detailed account of the incident? And how Lessans determined that the dog didn't recognize it's masters face and attacked? Could the dog even see it's masters face?

[thedoc]

From the Odyssey,

"As they were thus talking, a dog that had been lying asleep raised his head and pricked up his ears. This was Argos, whom Ulysses had bred before setting out for Troy, but he had never had any work out of him. In the old days he used to be taken out by the young men when they went hunting wild goats, or deer, or hares, but now that his master was gone he was lying neglected on the heaps of mule and cow dung that lay in front of the stable doors till the men should come and draw it away to manure the great close; and he was full of fleas. As soon as he saw Ulysses standing there, he dropped his ears and wagged his tail, but he could not get close up to his master. When Ulysses saw the dog on the other side of the yard, dashed a tear from his eyes without Eumaeus seeing it, and said:

"Eumaeus, what a noble hound that is over yonder on the manure heap: his build is splendid; is he as fine a fellow as he looks, or is he only one of those dogs that come begging about a table, and are kept merely for show?"

"This hound," answered Eumaeus, "belonged to him who has died in a far country. If he were what he was when Ulysses left for Troy, he would soon show you what he could do. There was not a wild beast in the forest that could get away from him when he was once on its tracks. But now he has fallen on evil times, for his master is dead and gone, and the women take no care of him. Servants never do their work when their master's hand is no longer over them, for Jove takes half the goodness out of a man when he makes a slave of him."

As he spoke he went inside the buildings to the cloister where the suitors were, but Argos died as soon as he had recognized his master."

Argos recognized it's master from sight alone.

[thedoc]

Man in his arrogance - A Great Speech By Carl Sagan - YouTube

[thedoc]

The Nature of Science - YouTube

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Man in his arrogance - A Great Speech By Carl Sagan - YouTube

I didn't realize what a pessimist Sagan was.

[peacegirl]

dupe

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't realize what a pessimist Sagan was.

If you listened to that and thought that was an expression of pessimism on Sagan's part, then you clearly weren't paying attention and/or failed to understand his points. You should also read more of Sagan's writings. He was pointing out (as he does over and over again in his writings) that we need to encourage scientific thinking and science literacy, in part so that we might circumvent some of those less-than-admirable aspects of human nature.


Note also -- and try to understand -- one of his key points: Every telescope is a time machine.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

If you listened to that and thought that was an expression of pessimism on Sagan's part, then you clearly weren't paying attention and/or failed to understand his points. You should also read more of Sagan's writings. He was pointing out (as he does over and over again in his writings) that we need to encourage scientific thinking and science literacy, in part so that we might circumvent some of those less-than-admirable aspects of human nature.


Note also -- and try to understand -- one of his key points: Every telescope is a time machine.

I will listen again, but he sounded pessimistic to me. It's wonderful that he encouraged scientific thinking and science literacy. After all, my father made a scientific discovery. I noted that he called a telescope a time machine, and he also believed we are seeing the past. Did that make him right? No.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's wonderful that he encouraged scientific thinking and science literacy.

This, coming from the least scientific-thinking and scientifically-literate adult I have ever encountered, is pretty rich.

After all, my father made a scientific discovery.

Even we assume that he made any such discovery, "scientific" is the very last word that could be honestly used to describe it. What experiments did he perform? What were the controls? How did he analyze his data? Where are the records? How did he control for bias? Heck, he could conceivably have been right -- even so, calling what he did "scientific" is just a straight-up lie. (Yes, I know; he invented his own vocabulary. But as the word "scientific" is actually used, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Lessans' claims. Indeed, as the word "scientific" is actually defined, what Lessans was doing was the exact opposite of science.

I noted that he called a telescope a time machine, and he also believed we are seeing the past. Did that make him right? No.

Does your complete failure to understand the relevant science or logic make it wrong? No.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

This, coming from the least scientific-thinking and scientifically-literate adult I have ever encountered, is pretty rich.

Even we assume that he made any such discovery, "scientific" is the very last word that could be honestly used to describe it. What experiments did he perform? What were the controls? How did he analyze his data? Where are the records? How did he control for bias? Heck, he could conceivably have been right -- even so, calling what he did "scientific" is just a straight-up lie. (Yes, I know; he invented his own vocabulary. But as the word "scientific" is actually used, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Lessans' claims. Indeed, as the word "scientific" is actually defined, what Lessans was doing was the exact opposite of science.

Does your complete failure to understand the relevant science or logic make it wrong? No.

TLR, you do realze that you are responding to Peacegirl, one of the most scientifically illiterate, willfully ignorant people I have ever encountered. I can only say that some creationists are worse than she is, and she is endorsing a book that is the most eye bleedingly painful to read, along with being totally unscientific butt hurt. Sagan was correct, for his time, about almost everything he described.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will listen again, but he sounded pessimistic to me. It's wonderful that he encouraged scientific thinking and science literacy. After all, my father made a scientific discovery. I noted that he called a telescope a time machine, and he also believed we are seeing the past. Did that make him right? No.

Your fathers claims were anything but scientific, mostly a lot of butt hurt because no-one would take his silly ideas seriously. It's odd that you would encourage scientific literacy because that would totally negate and disprove everything your father wrote.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

This, coming from the least scientific-thinking and scientifically-literate adult I have ever encountered, is pretty rich.

Even we assume that he made any such discovery, "scientific" is the very last word that could be honestly used to describe it. What experiments did he perform? What were the controls? How did he analyze his data? Where are the records? How did he control for bias? Heck, he could conceivably have been right -- even so, calling what he did "scientific" is just a straight-up lie. (Yes, I know; he invented his own vocabulary. But as the word "scientific" is actually used, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Lessans' claims. Indeed, as the word "scientific" is actually defined, what Lessans was doing was the exact opposite of science.

I think the word "scientific" applies to his discovery even if he came to his conclusions through careful observation which formed the basis of his reasoning rather than using the scientific method of empirical testing per se.

Reserving this point for a moment, let us ask, "What is the essential issue between the believers in Free-Will and the upholders of the doctrine of Determinism?" One may put the Deterministic position in a few words. Essentially it is a thorough-going application of the principle of causation to human nature. What Copernicus and Kepler did for the world of astronomy, Determinism aims at doing for the world of psychological phenomena. Human nature, it asserts, is part and parcel of nature as a whole, and bears to it the same relation that a part does to the whole. When the Determinist refers to the "Order of Nature" he includes all, and asserts that an accurate analysis of human nature will be found to exemplify the same principle of causation that is seen to obtain elsewhere. True, mental phenomena have laws of their own, as chemistry and biology have their own peculiar laws, but these are additional, not contradictory to other natural laws. Any exception to this is apparent, not real.

Man's nature, physical, biological, psychological, and sociological, is to be studied as we study other natural phenomena, and the closer our study the clearer the recognition that its manifestations are dependent upon processes with which no one dreams of associating the conception of "freedom." Determinism asserts that if we knew the quality and inclination of all the forces bearing upon human nature, in the same way that we know the forces determining the motions of a planet, then the forecasting of conduct would become a mere problem in moral mathematics. That we cannot do this, nor may ever be able to do it, is due to the enormous and ever-changing complexity of the forces that determine conduct. But this ought not to blind us to the general truth of the principle involved.

To some extent we do forecast human conduct; that we cannot always do so, or cannot do so completely, only proves weakness or ignorance. The Determinist claims, therefore, that that his view of human nature is thoroughly scientific, and that he is only applying here principles that have borne such excellent fruit elsewhere; and, finally, that unless this view of human nature be accepted the scientific cultivation of character becomes an impossibility.

Cohen, Chapman (2011-09-13). Determinism or Free-Will? (Kindle Locations 90-91). . Kindle Edition.

I noted that he called a telescope a time machine, and he also believed we are seeing the past. Did that make him right? No.

Originally Posted by TLR

Does your complete failure to understand the relevant science or logic make it wrong? No.

What relevant science are you talking about when you say I don't understand it?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What relevant science are you talking about when you say I don't understand it?

Pretty-much all of modern physics, to start. For now, we'll restrict it to Relativity, though. And Cosmology. And Astronomy.

Note that "every telescope is a time machine" is not just a prediction of Relativity Theory, it's a carefully-measured, easily-quantifiable, and repeatedly-verified phenomenon.

You can start your dissent by showing us where Einstein got his math wrong.

[Vivisectus]

I think the word "scientific" applies to his discovery even if he came to his conclusions through careful observation which formed the basis of his reasoning rather than using the scientific method of empirical testing per se.

You'd be wrong. He did not do any science. You could call his claims a philosophical hypothesis, I think. He explicitly redefines the word scientific to mean undeniable, or self-evidently true. I think that is a mistake on his part as it leaves too much potential ambiguity on the part of the reader, who might wonder is he consistently talks about the new, redefined meaning of the word or the original one.

But perhaps it is best to simply state, briefly and in your own words, what he observed and how that lead him to draw the conclusions that he did about sight, without quoting long reams of text. Then we can worry about details about the optic nerve and such later: let us first establish WHAT he observed, and WHY this necessarily leads to the conclusion he arrived at.