A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Please don't hold your breath waiting, she hasn't posted a description of an observation for 4 years, there's little reason to expect her to start now. I would be happy to read anything at all about the alleged observations. So far all we have gotten are some fanciful conclusions that are supposedly from those observations.

You're right, you're not gonna get an observation of an event that can be easy observed since it's dealing with the brain. But his observations did have supporting evidence. If it will make you happy, I will cut and paste a little of this chapter. I already know what your response will be, so please give other people a chance.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality

<skip>

p. 116 Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ.

The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This
desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see
that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception —
in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike
the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But
in order to look, there must be a desire to see.

The child becomes
aware that something will soon follow something else which then
arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the
relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when
this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a
nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a
potato, a fruit. Under no conditions can the eyes be called a sense
organ unless, as in Aristotle’s case, it was the result of an inaccurate
observation that was never corrected.”

“Well I say, what difference does it make whether we have four
senses and a pair of eyes instead of five senses? I certainly don’t feel
any different, and I still see you just as before.”

Once it is understood that something existing in the external
world makes contact with the brain through the four senses, but that
the brain contacts the various objects by peering through the eyes, it
makes a huge difference, and many things can be clarified.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Me too...

Bump.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't even know what his observations were Dragar.

Indeed; you refuse to tell us any.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There has yet to be proof that dogs can recognize their masters from sight alone, without other cues.

No, but there's no such thing as proof. But there's certainly evidence for it.

Why do you insist on using such language when it's been explained to you, time and time again, how misleading this is? It's like you're deliberately trying to be deceptive. I suspect you are.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, you're not gonna get an observation of an event that can be easy observed since it's dealing with the brain. But his observations did have supporting evidence. If it will make you happy, I will cut and paste a little of this chapter. I already know what your response will be, so please give other people a chance.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality

<skip>

It's really amazing. One would think that he would have gotten something right by accident, but what he says in that section is completely wrong, from start to finish.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, you're not gonna get an observation of an event that can be easy observed since it's dealing with the brain. But his observations did have supporting evidence. If it will make you happy, I will cut and paste a little of this chapter. I already know what your response will be, so please give other people a chance.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality

p. 116 Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ.

The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This
desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see
that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception —
in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike
the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But
in order to look, there must be a desire to see.

The child becomes
aware that something will soon follow something else which then
arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the
relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when
this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a
nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a
potato, a fruit. Under no conditions can the eyes be called a sense
organ unless, as in Aristotle’s case, it was the result of an inaccurate
observation that was never corrected.”

“Well I say, what difference does it make whether we have four
senses and a pair of eyes instead of five senses? I certainly don’t feel
any different, and I still see you just as before.”

Once it is understood that something existing in the external
world makes contact with the brain through the four senses, but that
the brain contacts the various objects by peering through the eyes, it
makes a huge difference, and many things can be clarified.

Which infants did Lessans observe, and how did he determine that it was stimulation from the other 4 senses that caused the desire to see the source of the stimulation, and not just the infant looking and seeing what was in front of it. What are the case studies that demonstrate this, and what was the methodology. This is just Lessans making statements based on his own imagination. Yes, an infant will follow a sound to it's source, but that is not proof that the sound is the cause of sight. It could just as well be that an infant will look at and see an object that does not impinge on any other sense. Lessans has made 2 errors in this excerpt, one is that his statement that there are no similar afferent nerve endings in the eye is wrong, the retina is entirely afferent nerve endings. Second the light does strike the retina of the eye and the eye then sends signals to the brain through the optic nerve that the brain interprets as images of objects in the outside world.

FYI, this post still doesn't contain an observation in the sense that has been requested, only some musings by Lessans about an infant seeing. Please provide the data that is indicated in the bolded section.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, you're not gonna get an observation of an event that can be easy observed since it's dealing with the brain. But his observations did have supporting evidence. If it will make you happy, I will cut and paste a little of this chapter. I already know what your response will be, so please give other people a chance.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality

p. 116 Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ.

The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This
desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see
that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception —
in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike
the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But
in order to look, there must be a desire to see.

The child becomes
aware that something will soon follow something else which then
arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the
relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when
this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a
nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a
potato, a fruit. Under no conditions can the eyes be called a sense
organ unless, as in Aristotle’s case, it was the result of an inaccurate
observation that was never corrected.”

“Well I say, what difference does it make whether we have four
senses and a pair of eyes instead of five senses? I certainly don’t feel
any different, and I still see you just as before.”

Once it is understood that something existing in the external
world makes contact with the brain through the four senses, but that
the brain contacts the various objects by peering through the eyes, it
makes a huge difference, and many things can be clarified.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Which infants did Lessans observe, and how did he determine that it was stimulation from the other 4 senses that caused the desire to see the source of the stimulation, and not just the infant looking and seeing what was in front of it. What are the case studies that demonstrate this, and what was the methodology. This is just Lessans making statements based on his own imagination.

This has nothing to do with his imagination.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes, an infant will follow a sound to it's source, but that is not proof that the sound is the cause of sight. It could just as well be that an infant will look at and see an object that does not impinge on any other sense.

I can see how very confused you are by that comment.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans has made 2 errors in this excerpt, one is that his statement that there are no similar afferent nerve endings in the eye is wrong, the retina is entirely afferent nerve endings. Second the light does strike the retina of the eye and the eye then sends signals to the brain through the optic nerve that the brain interprets as images of objects in the outside world.

FYI, this post still doesn't contain an observation in the sense that has been requested, only some musings by Lessans about an infant seeing. Please provide the data that is indicated in the bolded section.

This is why I refuse to go on. You couldn't even wait for me to finish. I posted a few sentences and you're all over me. These were astute observations just like his observation that man's will is not free because he saw that we can only move in one direction each and every moment of time. He was describing exactly what the brain is doing. You are just parroting what science has taught you is true and you can't stand that someone has come along to disrupt your belief that science can do no wrong. You do not have an ounce of open-mindedness which is necessary when someone is offering claims that are extraordinary. An open-minded person who wasn't convinced of his claims would not immediately throw them out. He would want to investigate further. FYI, there is no proof whatsoever that dogs can recognize their masters from sight alone. Not one. Unfortunately, you will never consider the possibility that he was right, therefore I'm in a position where there's nowhere for me to go. You've cut me off at the starting gate. This post was a test, and it failed.

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;1252443]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with his imagination.

I can see how very confused you are by that comment.

This is why I refuse to go on. You couldn't even wait for me to finish. I posted a few sentences and you're all over me. These were astute observations just like his observation that man's will is not free because he saw that we can only move in one direction each and every moment of time. He was describing exactly what the brain is doing. You are just parroting what science has taught you is true and you can't stand that someone has come along to disrupt your belief that science can do no wrong. You do not have an ounce of open-mindedness which is necessary when someone is offering claims that are extraordinary. An open-minded person who wasn't convinced of his claims would not immediately throw them out. He would want to investigate further. FYI, there is no proof whatsoever that dogs can recognize their masters from sight alone. Not one. Unfortunately, you will never consider the possibility that he was right, therefore I'm in a position where there's nowhere for me to go. You've cut me off at the starting gate. This post was a test, and it failed.

Why should I wait for you to post more errors, when I can point out the ones you have made so far. After you have corrected these, perhaps we could go on to more errors that Lessans wrote in his book, but for now these are enough. Lessans had no knowledge of what the brain was doing, he was just describing his own fantasy world. I am quite open minded but I also am aware of what has been discovered and demonstrated to be true, and Lessans is so far off the mark as to be quite humorous.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Unfortunately, you will never consider the possibility that he was right, therefore I'm in a position where there's nowhere for me to go. You've cut me off at the starting gate. This post was a test, and it failed.

Promise? Does this mean that you are not going to post any more of Lessans nonsense?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

FYI, there is no proof whatsoever that dogs can recognize their masters from sight alone.

Only because you refuse to look at the evidence that demonstrates this ability of dogs to recognize their master in a photograph. It only takes a few dogs being able to do this because Lessans claimed that "no dog" could recognize it's master in a photograph, so even one dog would disprove Lessans claim, and there have been several that have demonstrated that ability.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can see how very confused you are by that comment.

Lessans was confused as to what was happening in the human brain, and you are blindly following his lead.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Promise? Does this mean that you are not going to post any more of Lessans nonsense?

Does this mean I am not going to post any more of Lessans' revolutionary discovery? YES

[Vivisectus]

Look, you really cannot blame people for not believing a claim when it is not supprted in any way. Just look at this for example:

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him.

For starters the sentence is hard to even make sense of. Look through what? Through experience? Or through the metaphorical doorways? That makes no sense, as they are just a figure of speech!

But more importantly, it is simply a claim, your father telling us what he believes to be true. He does not explain why he believes it to be true, so we can check if we find that reason convincing also. So that leaves us with no information but that your father believed this.

Then it goes on:

He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars.

Focusing in the context of sight is something inherently afferent: it is all about the point where incoming light from an object hits a retina, film or light detector. Plus, I don't think "as binoculars" is even grammatically correct here. Plus, what on earth does he mean by comparing it to binoculars? What does he think binoculars do that is happening here as well?

Again, he makes all these rather vague claims, but does not tell us why he believes it to be true, whatever it IS exactly.

The next bit is even worse:

The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses.

What a terrible sentence - almost like the waves of light are caused by the striking of the optic nerve (of the same waves of light). The prose needs cleaning up.

But that aside, it is again a terribly vague claim. So - experience is gained, but not because of light detected by the retina, but by "what is looked at" (which IS gaining experience) "In relation to the afferent experience of the senses".

Again, the sentence is so incredibly unclear that it is hard to be sure what he is trying to say, but it sure seems as if he claims that whatever we see, we must also experience through a different sense. But that is patently absurd: we see things all the time that we do not detect through any other sense.

And it just goes on and on like this. Very unclear writing, full of unsupported claims. How is this ever going to convince anyone? You really cannot blame people for rejecting it as garbled nonsense, because with the best will in the world it is impossible to make sense of.

Can you make the case for his position in your own words, clearly and concisely?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Does this mean I am not going to post any more of Lessans' revolutionary discovery? YES

Well, I have to agree with you on this point, Lessans book was quite revolting.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Look, you really cannot blame people for not believing a claim when it is not supprted in any way. Just look at this for example:

For starters the sentence is hard to even make sense of. Look through what? Through experience? Or through the metaphorical doorways? That makes no sense, as they are just a figure of speech!

But more importantly, it is simply a claim, your father telling us what he believes to be true. He does not explain why he believes it to be true, so we can check if we find that reason convincing also. So that leaves us with no information but that your father believed this.

Then it goes on:

Focusing in the context of sight is something inherently afferent: it is all about the point where incoming light from an object hits a retina, film or light detector. Plus, I don't think "as binoculars" is even grammatically correct here. Plus, what on earth does he mean by comparing it to binoculars? What does he think binoculars do that is happening here as well?

Again, he makes all these rather vague claims, but does not tell us why he believes it to be true, whatever it IS exactly.

The next bit is even worse:

What a terrible sentence - almost like the waves of light are caused by the striking of the optic nerve (of the same waves of light). The prose needs cleaning up.

But that aside, it is again a terribly vague claim. So - experience is gained, but not because of light detected by the retina, but by "what is looked at" (which IS gaining experience) "In relation to the afferent experience of the senses".

Again, the sentence is so incredibly unclear that it is hard to be sure what he is trying to say, but it sure seems as if he claims that whatever we see, we must also experience through a different sense. But that is patently absurd: we see things all the time that we do not detect through any other sense.

And it just goes on and on like this. Very unclear writing, full of unsupported claims. How is this ever going to convince anyone? You really cannot blame people for rejecting it as garbled nonsense, because with the best will in the world it is impossible to make sense of.

Can you make the case for his position in your own words, clearly and concisely?

I suppose I can let you go on this, you can prop yourself up in bed and use a laptop. Just don't try to do too much for now, take care, and try not to laugh too hard at Lessans nonsense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I suppose I can let you go on this, you can prop yourself up in bed and use a laptop. Just don't try to do too much for now, take care, and try not to laugh too hard at Lessans nonsense.

This is so sad. I am not going to argue with you thedoc. You won and you ruined the entire thread. It's okay. Feel good about yourself.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is so sad. I am not going to argue with you thedoc. You won and you ruined the entire thread. It's okay. Feel good about yourself.

There you go blaming others again. YOU ruined this thread, and no one else. You ruined it by being dishonest and evasive.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There you go blaming others again. YOU ruined this thread, and no one else. You ruined it by being dishonest and evasive.

I think that we should add that she ruined the thread by posting from her fathers book, and trying to present fantasy as reality.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is so sad. I am not going to argue with you thedoc. You won and you ruined the entire thread. It's okay. Feel good about yourself.

Peacegirl, in case you hadn't noticed that post was directed at Vivisectus and relates to his problems. Everything in this world, or on this forum, is not about you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

so please give other people a chance.

FYI, anyone who has something to say can post on this thread any time they want. There is nothing to prevent them from doing so. Even your inane copy paste of your fathers book can't prevent that. The only real issue is that if I am posting what they are thinking, there is no need for them to post, and they can indicate their agreement with the "thanks" at the bottom of each post.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You only want this because you want to be entertained. Admit it. I don't want to be the one to supply it. Go find someone else.

Well, I am sure not here for the hunting.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, you're not gonna get an observation of an event that can be easy observed since it's dealing with the brain. But his observations did have supporting evidence. If it will make you happy, I will cut and paste a little of this chapter. I already know what your response will be, so please give other people a chance.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality

<skip>

p. 116 Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ.

The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This
desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see
that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception —
in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike
the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But
in order to look, there must be a desire to see.

The child becomes
aware that something will soon follow something else which then
arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the
relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when
this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a
nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a
potato, a fruit. Under no conditions can the eyes be called a sense
organ unless, as in Aristotle’s case, it was the result of an inaccurate
observation that was never corrected.”

“Well I say, what difference does it make whether we have four
senses and a pair of eyes instead of five senses? I certainly don’t feel
any different, and I still see you just as before.”

Once it is understood that something existing in the external
world makes contact with the brain through the four senses, but that
the brain contacts the various objects by peering through the eyes, it
makes a huge difference, and many things can be clarified.

Where's the beef?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I think that we should add that she ruined the thread by posting from her fathers book, and trying to present fantasy as reality.

I have to respectfully disagree with you. It was her posting from her father's book and trying to present fantasy as reality that made this thread. Without that there would be nothing here to discuss or ridicule.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I have to respectfully disagree with you. It was her posting from her father's book and trying to present fantasy as reality that made this thread. Without that there would be nothing here to discuss or ridicule.

I believe that we are working from 2 different interpretations of "Ruined", but that's OK, a lot of jokes are made from switching definitions of words in mid-joke.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Does this mean I am not going to post any more of Lessans' revolutionary discovery? YES

So you are now conceding that you have nothing to post because the book is empty of meaningful content.

[Vivisectus]

Has the thread been ruined again?