A revolution in thought - Page 222

Pyrrho · #**5526** 06-04-2011, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyrrho

Here's a thought experiment that people can try at home. More cooperative and less allergenic objects may be substituted for the cat.

Person A walks into the room and places a cardboard shoebox on the table. They declare, "There is a cat in this box. You may apply any test to this box, except that you may not open the box. Prove that there is no cat in this box."

We weigh the shoebox and compare the weight of the shoebox to an identical shoebox and find that the box weighs almost exactly the same as a box we know to be empty. We repeat this test using 100 identical shoeboxes, and find that the original shoebox weighs almost exactly the same as all of the shoeboxes we know to be empty. There are variances; sometimes the empty box weighs more, sometimes it weighs less. We apply statistical tests and find that the variances are within a range expected by virtue of random chance. There is no indication that the original shoebox contains anything at all, because its weight falls within the range of weights of 100 identical shoeboxes which are known to be empty.

Based on this evidence, we conclude that "There is no cat in this box." The evidence provided by weighing the shoeboxes should be sufficient evidence of this conclusion. There is nothing more to be done; in this world, cats have mass and, by virtue of gravity, have weight. A shoebox containing a cat just naturally weighs more than a shoebox containing nothing but air. We can be reasonably certain that there is no cat in the box.

Person A declares that we haven't proven anything, that there is in fact a cat in the box, but that the cat is a quantum cat whose waveform collapses any time a human applies tests (i.e. observations) to the box. Person A simply knows that there is a cat in the box, and that's that, "Prove me wrong!"

We cannot prove that Person A's assertions are not true, because those assertions make the cat into an unobservable phenomenon.

As a side note, Person A's original assertion did not specify the nature of the cat. For all we know, because we cannot open the box, Person A could have been referring to a photograph of a cat. This is why people need to clearly define their terms. The experiment assumes that Person A was referring to a live (or dead) terrestrial cat, and not a figment of the imagination.

We can get into philosophical discussions of whether or not there is a figurative cat in the box because Person A imagines that one is there, and if Person A imagines something, then it must exist in their consciousness, and if it exists in their consciousness, then it does exist, even if not physically, therefore if Person A imagines that there is a cat in the box, then there is a cat in the box, and because we can't test such things scientifically, therefore there is a cat in the box if Person A says there is, and there is no cat in the box if Person B says there isn't, therefore everybody is right, but Person A's imagination is positive, while Person B's is negative, and negative is bad, so Person B is bad while Person A is good, and so on, and so forth, but that is wandering into the realm of the farcical.

The example you just gave doesn't fit at all Pyrrho. The premises upon which this entire discovery is based are falsifiable, so it shows me right there you either didn't read the posts carefully, or you are new to this thread which is ready to self-destruct. Please don't use this strange cat example as some kind of indication that Lessans was wrong or was in an imaginary world. This is the most ridiculous analogy to date.

Wait...you mean this isn't the LOL cats thread?

davidm · #**5527** 06-04-2011, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyrrho

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyrrho

Here's a thought experiment that people can try at home. More cooperative and less allergenic objects may be substituted for the cat.

Person A walks into the room and places a cardboard shoebox on the table. They declare, "There is a cat in this box. You may apply any test to this box, except that you may not open the box. Prove that there is no cat in this box."

We weigh the shoebox and compare the weight of the shoebox to an identical shoebox and find that the box weighs almost exactly the same as a box we know to be empty. We repeat this test using 100 identical shoeboxes, and find that the original shoebox weighs almost exactly the same as all of the shoeboxes we know to be empty. There are variances; sometimes the empty box weighs more, sometimes it weighs less. We apply statistical tests and find that the variances are within a range expected by virtue of random chance. There is no indication that the original shoebox contains anything at all, because its weight falls within the range of weights of 100 identical shoeboxes which are known to be empty.

Based on this evidence, we conclude that "There is no cat in this box." The evidence provided by weighing the shoeboxes should be sufficient evidence of this conclusion. There is nothing more to be done; in this world, cats have mass and, by virtue of gravity, have weight. A shoebox containing a cat just naturally weighs more than a shoebox containing nothing but air. We can be reasonably certain that there is no cat in the box.

Person A declares that we haven't proven anything, that there is in fact a cat in the box, but that the cat is a quantum cat whose waveform collapses any time a human applies tests (i.e. observations) to the box. Person A simply knows that there is a cat in the box, and that's that, "Prove me wrong!"

We cannot prove that Person A's assertions are not true, because those assertions make the cat into an unobservable phenomenon.

As a side note, Person A's original assertion did not specify the nature of the cat. For all we know, because we cannot open the box, Person A could have been referring to a photograph of a cat. This is why people need to clearly define their terms. The experiment assumes that Person A was referring to a live (or dead) terrestrial cat, and not a figment of the imagination.

We can get into philosophical discussions of whether or not there is a figurative cat in the box because Person A imagines that one is there, and if Person A imagines something, then it must exist in their consciousness, and if it exists in their consciousness, then it does exist, even if not physically, therefore if Person A imagines that there is a cat in the box, then there is a cat in the box, and because we can't test such things scientifically, therefore there is a cat in the box if Person A says there is, and there is no cat in the box if Person B says there isn't, therefore everybody is right, but Person A's imagination is positive, while Person B's is negative, and negative is bad, so Person B is bad while Person A is good, and so on, and so forth, but that is wandering into the realm of the farcical.

The example you just gave doesn't fit at all Pyrrho. The premises upon which this entire discovery is based are falsifiable, so it shows me right there you either didn't read the posts carefully, or you are new to this thread which is ready to self-destruct. Please don't use this strange cat example as some kind of indication that Lessans was wrong or was in an imaginary world. This is the most ridiculous analogy to date.

Wait...you mean this isn't the LOL cats thread?

Kael · #**5528** 06-04-2011, 02:50 PM

One of the things I love about this whole thing is how staggeringly flimsy it is, to be put forward as undeniable truth. The entire book stands up to the most cursory skeptical inquiry like a wet cardboard cutout stands up to a stiff breeze. This is true both at the scientific level, where a simple amateur astronomy project is enough to disprove the claims of how vision is supposed to work, and at the philosophical, where the reasoning behind the claim of our chained will is practically a textbook example of tautological. It keeps going, such as the claims on sight being wholly unnecessary to support the claims of the harm and un-truth of certain descriptors, save in the fevered depths of the author's imagination. Then there's the abysmal and appalling descriptions of how sex and marriage will work, based only upon the author's personal fantasies and frustrations in his own relationships. Everywhere words are redefined into meaninglessness, simply so the author might use them as he sees fit to support his claims.

There doesn't seem to be a single point in the book where, when one asks the simple question, "Let's see if things really work as described," that the answer isn't a resounding "NO." Yet the defense is so vehement, so absolute, so unwavering. Peacegirl has, for example, changed stances regarding cameras and how they relate to this efferent vision idea, when it was pointed out that her current position, arrived at after nauseatingly repetitive explanations of the actual evidence, did not fit with what Lessans wrote in his book. There was no questioning, not even an admittance of error, she simply changed her claim and carried on as though that's what she'd been claiming all along. She discovered she was out of step with her marching orders and BAM! Back in full lock-step, no questions asked.

I cannot help but be fascinated and repulsed in equal measure, which is probably why I can't stop checking the thread again and again.

davidm · #**5529** 06-04-2011, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kael

One of the things I love about this whole thing is how staggeringly flimsy it is, to be put forward as undeniable truth. The entire book stands up to the most cursory skeptical inquiry like a wet cardboard cutout stands up to a stiff breeze. This is true both at the scientific level, where a simple amateur astronomy project is enough to disprove the claims of how vision is supposed to work, and at the philosophical, where the reasoning behind the claim of our chained will is practically a textbook example of tautological. It keeps going, such as the claims on sight being wholly unnecessary to support the claims of the harm and un-truth of certain descriptors, save in the fevered depths of the author's imagination. Then there's the abysmal and appalling descriptions of how sex and marriage will work, based only upon the author's personal fantasies and frustrations in his own relationships. Everywhere words are redefined into meaninglessness, simply so the author might use them as he sees fit to support his claims.

There doesn't seem to be a single point in the book where, when one asks the simple question, "Let's see if things really work as described," that the answer isn't a resounding "NO." Yet the defense is so vehement, so absolute, so unwavering. Peacegirl has, for example, changed stances regarding cameras and how they relate to this efferent vision idea, when it was pointed out that her current position, arrived at after nauseatingly repetitive explanations of the actual evidence, did not fit with what Lessans wrote in his book. There was no questioning, not even an admittance of error, she simply changed her claim and carried on as though that's what she'd been claiming all along. She discovered she was out of step with her marching orders and BAM! Back in full lock-step, no questions asked.

I cannot help but be fascinated and repulsed in equal measure, which is probably why I can't stop checking the thread again and again.

This sums up my feeling exactly.

Fascination and repulsion in equal measures, exactly. I compared it earlier to rubbernecking at a terrible accident.

How she changed her stance on cameras is very telling. She never stopped to ask herself: How is it possible for me to support two diametrically different versions of this story, when it's obvious that each version entails an entirely different reality? And it's because she is unable to think. She has NO curiosity about how the world really works; all that matters is what Lessans wrote, no matter how stupid it is. She simply forgot what he wrote, went back and checked the Sacred Text and then got back with the correct Lessans-inspired program.

This also accounts for her flat refusal to explain HOW it is possible for the reflected light of the moon to arrive instantaneously while the refelcted light of the neighbor arrives 8.5 minutes later. In her dream world, explanation is superfluous. All that matters is what the idiot Lessans said. If he had said that the moon is made of goat dung and that stars are fireflies, then for her, those claims would be undeniably true.

Fascinating and repulsive at the same time, indeed.

thedoc · #**5530** 06-04-2011, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Take the example of the Fat Man and the Train. A train is trundling down some tracks, impossible to steer. It will pass under a bridge, and then come to a halt at the end - where 3 people are standing that will be crushed to death if you do not act. There is no time to explain to the fat man. If you push him off the bridge, he will derail the train but undoubtedly die in the process, but 3 people will be saved. Do you have the right to push him off?
.

Disregarding all the other difficulties with this example I would answer the last question with 'no'. The 'Fat Man' would have the right to make that decision to sacrifice himself for the safety of others, but another person does not have that right. In essence the other person on the bridge is commiting Murder to save other lives, and it may seem like a fair trade I don't think it would do more than reduce the sentence at his trial, after all what risk or sacrifice was he facing? A friend of mine drove for Amtrack on the 'Norhteast Corridor', when someone walked onto the track in front of his train to commit suicide, should he have risked the lives of his passangers trying to stop? He usually got some time off after an event like this.

davidm · #**5531** 06-04-2011, 04:56 PM

DINNER IN THE NEW WORLD

:minnie:

THE END

peacegirl · #**5532** 06-04-2011, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kael

One of the things I love about this whole thing is how staggeringly flimsy it is, to be put forward as undeniable truth. The entire book stands up to the most cursory skeptical inquiry like a wet cardboard cutout stands up to a stiff breeze. This is true both at the scientific level, where a simple amateur astronomy project is enough to disprove the claims of how vision is supposed to work, and at the philosophical, where the reasoning behind the claim of our chained will is practically a textbook example of tautological.

As far as Lessans' claim regarding efferent vision, why can't you wait until further empirical evidence determines whether there is anything to the claim? What are you afraid of? If it's wrong, then we'll know soon enough. I know I know... you don't think there is anything wrong with the present model, so there's no reason to look any further.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kael

It keeps going, such as the claims on sight being wholly unnecessary to support the claims of the harm and un-truth of certain descriptors, save in the fevered depths of the author's imagination.

That's not true Kael. If what Lessans is saying is true regarding how we become conditioned which does not happen with any other sense but the eyes [and please don't bring up any of the examples that were given previously because they were not true cases of conditioning], then there is support for his claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kael

Then there's the abysmal and appalling descriptions of how sex and marriage will work, based only upon the author's personal fantasies and frustrations in his own relationships. Everywhere words are redefined into meaninglessness, simply so the author might use them as he sees fit to support his claims.

You did not know his personal fantasties, which is really the part that bugs me the most. You are all supposed to be unbiased thinkers? Hell no. For you to even imply that this had to do with his personal life is absurd Kael. It's just another tactic that allows you to look right and Lessans wrong, and it was constantly used in here. Anyone can attack someone unfairly and come out looking squeaky clean.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kael

Actually

There doesn't seem to be a single point in the book where, when one asks the simple question, "Let's see if things really work as described," that the answer isn't a resounding "NO." Yet the defense is so vehement, so absolute, so unwavering. Peacegirl has, for example, changed stances regarding cameras and how they relate to this efferent vision idea, when it was pointed out that her current position, arrived at after nauseatingly repetitive explanations of the actual evidence, did not fit with what Lessans wrote in his book. There was no questioning, not even an admittance of error, she simply changed her claim and carried on as though that's what she'd been claiming all along. She discovered she was out of step with her marching orders and BAM! Back in full lock-step, no questions asked.

The discussion on cameras goes back to the discussion on light and supernovas. In order for me to feel confident that these results are correct is to do more empirical testing on the functioning of the eye in relation to the brain (even though Lone Ranger thinks all the tests have already been done). But the tests would have to be very well controlled since it's so easy to create an unreliable test, or to skew the results, in order to confirm the theory you want to see. The irony meter is exploding again. I want accuracy just as much as anybody else because I am invested in knowing the truth, and nothing but the truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kael

I cannot help but be fascinated and repulsed in equal measure, which is probably why I can't stop checking the thread again and again.

You don't have to worry about checking this thread for too much longer because I refuse to be the whipping board anymore. And I also refuse to hear disgusting comments about my father, who was so different than what people have portrayed. I went along with the jokes thinking they were nothing but an annoyance, but now I can see that behind the facade of humor is rage waiting to explode at the slightest provocation. Just the way David responded yesterday is so completely out of control, it is shocking. This has more to do with his personal agenda than anything I did to cause this kind of rage.

davidm · #**5533** 06-04-2011, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just the way David responded yesterday is so completely out of control, it is shocking.

Says the woman who said she felt like people were gang-raping her.

gtfo.

LadyShea · #**5534** 06-04-2011, 06:50 PM

Quote:

By the way, homosexuals are not here for the purpose of livening up the place so LadyShea will be less bored

They also aren't here because of widespread belief in free will or an environment of blame, yet Lessens insists they will not really be around in the New World. He didn't mention why he thought that. What do you think? Why would the incidence of homosexuality be reduced?

And nobody here is enraged, hateful, or wanting to rape or murder or crucify you. You are histrionic.

Quote:

If you believe that the prevention of war, crime, poverty, and hatred is dehumanizing, you are on another planet.

Yeah, maybe Rigel! Anyway I don't think that. I didn't imply that I think that. I didn't state that I think that. You inferred incorrectly.

Oh, also note he refers to the hypothetical person with no sexual organs as "this anomaly of nature" rather than "This person with a rare medical condition" or even "this person who cannot have sex". Nope the person IS an anomaly. More subtle, but still dehumanization and objectification. It really is pervasive in the book.

davidm · #**5535** 06-04-2011, 06:58 PM

Oh, dear, I just dug up the Great Man's comments about gays after reading LadyShea's post. Well, what do you know! Naturally we'll have a lot fewer gays in Teh New World! Wonder why that is? The Great Man apparently does not say, just asserts! Well, now we know in addition to grudges against his wife's cooking and bedroom demands, and against scientists and fancy-pants thinkers in general, he's got the hate for teh gays! :yup:

peacegirl · #**5536** 06-04-2011, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

By the way, homosexuals are not here for the purpose of livening up the place so LadyShea will be less bored

They also aren't here because of widespread belief in free will or an environment of blame, yet Lessens insists they will not really be around in the New World. He didn't mention why he thought that. What do you think? Why would the incidence of homosexuality be reduced?

He did not judge homosexuals if that's what you're thinking. If the environment plays any part in why a person may become gay, then an alteration in that environment may affect those factors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And nobody here is enraged, hateful, or wanting to rape or murder or crucify you.

Maybe not, but I'm not going to test it to find out.

Quote:

:
If you believe that the prevention of war, crime, poverty, and hatred is dehumanizing, you are on another planet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yeah, maybe Rigel! Anyway I don't think that. I didn't imply that I think that. I didn't state that I think that. You inferred incorrectly.

Well if you didn't, at least you got a taste of what I've gone through in this thread. Most of the responses in here were incorrect inferences, and there is nothing I can do to change anyone's misperceptions, nor do I care to at this point. The investment isn't worth the returns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh, also note he refers to the hypothetical person with no sexual organs as "this anomaly of nature" rather than "This person with a rare medical condition" or even "this person who cannot have sex". Nope the person IS an anomaly. More subtle, but still dehumanization and objectification. It really is pervasive in the book.

There was absolutely nothing wrong, or insulting, with him saying that it would be difficult to fall in love with someone who had this anomaly of nature. Just because he didn't say it using the wording you would have preferred does not make his book dehumanizing in any way. Do you see what you are doing LadyShea? You are setting up a false premise and trying to find anything that will support your claim in order to justify your opinion about him. It's not right ethically, and it's not right logically.

thedoc · #**5537** 06-04-2011, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh, also note he refers to the hypothetical person with no sexual organs as "this anomaly of nature" rather than "This person with a rare medical condition" or even "this person who cannot have sex". Nope the person IS an anomaly. More subtle, but still dehumanization and objectification. It really is pervasive in the book.

There was absolutely nothing wrong, or insulting, with him saying that it would be difficult to fall in love with someone who had this anomaly of nature. Just because he didn't say it using the wording you would have preferred does not make his book dehumanizing in any way. Do you see what you are doing LadyShea? You are setting up a false premise and trying to find anything that will support your claim in order to justify your opinion about him. It's not right ethically, and it's not right logically.

Except that Lessans did not say the person "had an anomaly" he said the person "is an anomaly of nature", LadyShea is right it is dehumanizing, it reduces that person to the medical condition of their genitals.

thedoc · #**5538** 06-04-2011, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Most of the responses in here were incorrect inferences,

Well actually No, most responses were correct and were stated directly, with no inferences.

specious_reasons · #**5539** 06-04-2011, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl;95072[...

but now I can see that behind the facade of humor is rage waiting to explode at the slightest provocation.[..] this kind of rage.

At most, you annoy me, but honestly, the strongest emotion I feel about you and Lessans is pity. Lessans thought he was was going to save the world, and now you're following in his footsteps. It's truly a shame that he got parts of it so very, very wrong.

Vivisectus · #**5540** 06-04-2011, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Take the example of the Fat Man and the Train. A train is trundling down some tracks, impossible to steer. It will pass under a bridge, and then come to a halt at the end - where 3 people are standing that will be crushed to death if you do not act. There is no time to explain to the fat man. If you push him off the bridge, he will derail the train but undoubtedly die in the process, but 3 people will be saved. Do you have the right to push him off?
.

Disregarding all the other difficulties with this example I would answer the last question with 'no'. The 'Fat Man' would have the right to make that decision to sacrifice himself for the safety of others, but another person does not have that right. In essence the other person on the bridge is commiting Murder to save other lives, and it may seem like a fair trade I don't think it would do more than reduce the sentence at his trial, after all what risk or sacrifice was he facing? A friend of mine drove for Amtrack on the 'Norhteast Corridor', when someone walked onto the track in front of his train to commit suicide, should he have risked the lives of his passangers trying to stop? He usually got some time off after an event like this.

This is part of a series of questions that I came across a while ago that illustrate how oddly our sense of right and wrong works sometimes. Please note that the fat man in this question cannot see the train, so he cannot make the decision himself, and there is no time to explain.

Almost no-one will agree to push him off. But almost everyone will throw a switch that will make the train go down a different track that has only 1 person on it in stead of 3. The moral of the story seems to be that most people feel it is wrong to use a human being as if (s)he was a willess object.

ChuckF · #**5541** 06-04-2011, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

a person may become gay

Vivisectus · #**5542** 06-04-2011, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as Lessans' claim regarding efferent vision, why can't you wait until further empirical evidence determines whether there is anything to the claim? What are you afraid of? If it's wrong, then we'll know soon enough. I know I know... you don't think there is anything wrong with the present model, so there's no reason to look any further.

...and we showed you empirical evidence we already have. You rejected it on the grounds that you "wanted to wait for experiments that are closer to earth". - as if that makes any difference. The lone ranger showed you the original experiment that we used to calculate the speed of light, which shows the same effect right here on earth - spin a wheel which blocks and unblocks a line if sight fast enough, and at one stage you will no observe the beam of light being sent through it because it will not have enough time to make it back through before it is blocked off. You rejected that too, saying it didn't disprove efferent vision at all. The test that shows that dogs can recognise their master by sight got the same treatment.

It is the same tactic that all fundamentalists use: claim loudly there is no evidence, and then when evidence is presented, move the goalposts by redefining what you consider evidence.

Vivisectus · #**5543** 06-04-2011, 08:10 PM

Quote:

There was absolutely nothing wrong, or insulting, with him saying that it would be difficult to fall in love with someone who had this anomaly of nature. Just because he didn't say it using the wording you would have preferred does not make his book dehumanizing in any way. Do you see what you are doing LadyShea? You are setting up a false premise and trying to find anything that will support your claim in order to justify your opinion about him. It's not right ethically, and it's not right logically.

He didn't say difficult, he said impossible, because he states quite clearly that all love is just extended sexual gratification. He even says that it would be impossible to fall in love with someone who cannot satisfy you sexually.

ShottleBop · #**5544** 06-04-2011, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

. . . As far as Lessans' claim regarding efferent vision, why can't you wait until further empirical evidence determines whether there is anything to the claim? What are you afraid of? If it's wrong, then we'll know soon enough. I know I know... you don't think there is anything wrong with the present model, so there's no reason to look any further.

The empirical research has been done. That is why we currently know that sight is not efferent. If Lessans had asserted that the world was flat, would you now be calling for more empirical studies, on the off-chance that he might have been right?

peacegirl · #**5545** 06-04-2011, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl;95072[...

but now I can see that behind the facade of humor is rage waiting to explode at the slightest provocation.[..] this kind of rage.

At most, you annoy me, but honestly, the strongest emotion I feel about you and Lessans is pity. Lessans thought he was was going to save the world, and now you're following in his footsteps. It's truly a shame that he got parts of it so very, very wrong.

He really didn't specious_reasons, and time is my refuge. The very sad part of all this is that people didn't even know there would be no authority or control, no police, no one in charge, which is fundamental to understanding this book. And people tell me they read it? It is very disturbing and telling at the same time.

I feel pity for this group because they think they can decipher the wheat from the chaff. But they got it all wrong this time, and like I said to LadyShea, I'm not going to invest my time and energy in a room filled with negative energy. I can't even express a simple sentence without people saying horrible things about Lessans and me just for the sake of it. This is not a healthy place for me to be. You're all sheep following the lead of the person before. It's not objective at all, but it's not your fault really; it's the format that lends itself to this type of behavior.

Doctor X · #**5546** 06-04-2011, 08:38 PM

Again, if she remains willfully ignorant, she can pretend, to herself, knowledge does not actually exist.

--J.D.

peacegirl · #**5547** 06-04-2011, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShottleBop

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

. . . As far as Lessans' claim regarding efferent vision, why can't you wait until further empirical evidence determines whether there is anything to the claim? What are you afraid of? If it's wrong, then we'll know soon enough. I know I know... you don't think there is anything wrong with the present model, so there's no reason to look any further.

The empirical research has been done. That is why we currently know that sight is not efferent. If Lessans had asserted that the world was flat, would you now be calling for more empirical studies, on the off-chance that he might have been right?

No I wouldn't. But I don't believe it's a slam dunk like everybody thinks, therefore I am not going to concede until I am convinced, and I'm not going to be convinced until more studies are done. The ones I've seen are not reliable, especially the one with the dog pushing the lever as an indication that he recognized his handler.

Vivisectus · #**5548** 06-04-2011, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShottleBop

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

. . . As far as Lessans' claim regarding efferent vision, why can't you wait until further empirical evidence determines whether there is anything to the claim? What are you afraid of? If it's wrong, then we'll know soon enough. I know I know... you don't think there is anything wrong with the present model, so there's no reason to look any further.

The empirical research has been done. That is why we currently know that sight is not efferent. If Lessans had asserted that the world was flat, would you now be calling for more empirical studies, on the off-chance that he might have been right?

No I wouldn't. But I don't believe it's a slam dunk like everybody thinks, therefore I am not going to concede until I am convinced, and I'm not going to be convinced until more studies are done. The ones I've seen are not reliable, especially the one with the dog pushing the lever as an indication that he recognized his handler.

As was pointed out before, you simply refuse to let evidence change your beliefs, making them irrational.

Doctor X · #**5549** 06-04-2011, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShottleBop

That is why we currently know that sight is not efferent. If Lessans had asserted that the world was flat, would you now be calling for more empirical studies, on the off-chance that he might have been right?

No I wouldn't. But I don't believe it's a slam dunk like everybody thinks, therefore I am not going to concede until I am convinced, and I'm not going to be convinced until more studies are done.

As was pointed out before, you simply refuse to let evidence change your beliefs, making them irrational.

I refuse to be convinced the world is round until more studies are done. . . .

That she refuses to read a summary of hundreds of years of studies rather demonstrates that she is, indeed, lying again.

Methinks she stays HERE because on other fora, Mods close the threads when it is clear she cannot defend her claims and will not engage in debate, and/or ban her for spamming. I am not stating that should be the case HERE--else we would have banned liserea hours ago--but that is why she remains.

--J.D.

LadyShea · #**5550** 06-04-2011, 10:47 PM

The dog experiment isn't even related to whether humans have afferent or efferent vision.