A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

6th time

Originally Posted by LadyShea

5th time to post this to you.

Either respond or concede your continuously bringing up the dogs is nothing but a red herring to get us off your back about relativity and causality

[Angakuk]

Here is Seymore Lessans talking to himself.

Seymore: "Now be honest with yourself; do you really know, or only think you know?"

Lessans: "I really know, and that should be enough for anyone."

Seymore: "If you will admit there is just the slightest possibility that you have not been endowed with the wisdom of God; that you may be wrong regarding many things despite the high opinion you hold of yourself; I know this is difficult for you to conceive, but if there is the slightest possibility you could be mistaken and you are willing to admit this to yourself...

Lessans: Hold it right there! Now you are just talking crazy. It is ridiculous to even suppose that I might be mistaken, about anything. Who are you and what have you done with the real Seymore?

Seymore: You are right. What was I thinking? Of course you can't be mistaken. I know that with mathematical certainty. I am so sorry that I even suggested that. I have no idea what came over me. I think I will go have a little lie-down. I don't feel at all well.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

5th time to post this to you.

Either respond or concede your continuously bringing up the dogs is nothing but a red herring to get us off your back about relativity and causality

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You actually believe the test with the dog was valid.
I mean, seriously, have you ever seen a dog wag its tail in recognition when he sees a picture of his master? You don't need a dog to push a lever to prove that a dog is incapable of this. Why can't a dog recognize his master if the image is traveling to his eye? That's just one test of many that could cast some doubt as to whether afferent vision is true.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If vision is afferent: dogs cannot do what humans do (recognize someone by facial features alone) even though humans also have afferent vision.

But if sight is efferent, dogs should be able to recognize their master from facial features alone because the image would be in the light that is bouncing off the picture and entering their brain.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So if the premise "Dogs cannot recognize people by only their facial features" is true, and the premise "Humans can recognize people by only their facial features" is also true, then whether sight is afferent or efferent doesn't seem to be the cause of the difference.

The premise is this: If afferent vision is true, dogs should be able to recognize their master from a picture.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In both cases the difference would be seem to be related to differences in how the dog brain processes information, not in how they see

Originally Posted by LadyShea

.

That's partly true. Most species cannot distinguish between objects because they don't have the ability to associate the name of the object with the object itself, which is a requirement. The question remains: Why would all their senses be fully developed where their brain can easily process what they smell, taste, feel, and hear, yet they are unable to process what they see? Doesn't that seem strange to you?

[LadyShea]

The post wherin david explains in detail where the modal fallacy was commited

Originally Posted by davidm

Your argument commits the modal fallacy.

Let us assume, for argument’s sake, that all of us invariably do what we think will bring us the greatest satisfaction (a premise that I find highly dubious, but let’s just assume it for argument’s sake.)

Your argument, or the author’s argument, seems to go: If option A is best for me, than I must choose option A (hence, no free will).

This commits the fallacy of modal logic, illicitly assigning necessity to a contingent outcome.

If indeed there is a “necessity” component to your argument (true in all possible worlds,) then the necessity lies, not in the consequent, but in the conjoint relation between the consequent and the antecedent.

Assuming the truth of the claim that we all invariably choose what we think is best for us, the proper logical construction is:

Necessarily, (If I think A is best for me, then I will (Not Must!) choose A)

And NOT:

If I think A is best for me, then I must (necessarily) choose A.

The modal fallacy here is plain to see, and the author’s argument against free will is formally logically invalid, and needs no further rebuttal.

For more on the modal fallacy, see here, for example.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if sight is efferent, dogs should be able to recognize their master from facial features alone because the image would be in the light that is bouncing off the picture and entering their brain.

Why on Earth do you think this?
There is nothing about afferent vision that leads to this conclusion.
There is no "should" in the model of vision at all.

Recognition, and acting based on it, is a product of the brain processing the visual information, making associations, assigning importance etc.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The premise is this: If afferent vision is true, dogs should be able to recognize their master from a picture.

No, there is no reason to believe they should be able to do anything of the sort. What a strange notion.

That's partly true. Dogs cannot distinguish facial features because they don't have the language that is necessary. The question still remains: Why would all their senses be highly developed where their brain can easily process what they smell, taste, feel, and hear, yet not be able to process what they see?

They can of course process what they see in some form or fashion, they simply may do so differently than humans. We don't know that they cannot distinguish facial features.

Perhaps they can but do not, perhaps they can and do. I don't know enough about how dogs process information to say one way or the other, though there is quite a bit of literature indicating they do recognize objects visually and I have no reason to believe they cannot recognize facial features.

I do know they process and act on visual input, meaning they can see.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Here is Seymore Lessans talking to himself.

Seymore: "Now be honest with yourself; do you really know, or only think you know?"

Lessans: "I really know, and that should be enough for anyone."

Seymore: "If you will admit there is just the slightest possibility that you have not been endowed with the wisdom of God; that you may be wrong regarding many things despite the high opinion you hold of yourself; I know this is difficult for you to conceive, but if there is the slightest possibility you could be mistaken and you are willing to admit this to yourself...

Lessans: Hold it right there! Now you are just talking crazy. It is ridiculous to even suppose that I might be mistaken, about anything. Who are you and what have you done with the real Seymore?

Seymore: You are right. What was I thinking? Of course you can't be mistaken. I know that with mathematical certainty. I am so sorry that I even suggested that. I have no idea what came over me. I think I will go have a little lie-down. I don't feel at all well.

WILL THE REAL SEYMOUR LESSANS PLEASE STAND UP:

I am the real Seymour Lessans. The other is an imposter. He doesn't even know how to spell Seymour. I know that I know only because I see the mathematical relations involved. I have done my best to explain my observations and the reasoning that follows, but no one wants to listen because they insist that I could not have made such a discovery without data collection. They don't understand that this law is not a contingent truth, but a universal truth.

A Starting Point: Can We Agree That Truth Matters? « Perspectives: Food for the Skeptic's Soul (if there is one)

1. Knowing the truth about something makes it easier to fix, understand, or improve that thing. (Assuming for now that an earthly truth exists for all questions, no matter how complex that truth may be—and that some earthly “truths” are knowable and comprehensible to humans; e.g., the space shuttle flies because we ”know” gravity and the “proven” laws of physics to be “true.”)

2. Actions taken based upon true assumptions are more likely to be effective and bear fruit than those based on untrue assumptions.

3. Therefore, improved estimations of what is true (a.k.a. “how the world really works”) are most useful for improving anything, including the wellbeing of human beings.

And finally, although absolute “Universal Truth” is unknowable and likely unintelligible to humans:

4. The best estimates of truth (reality and “how the world really works”) are attained through the naturalistic methods of science, reason, logic, and empirical evidence;

5. Therefore, those are the best tools for advancing the wellbeing of humanity.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why on Earth do you think this?
There is nothing about afferent vision that leads to this conclusion.
There is no "should" in the model of vision at all.

Recognition, and acting based on it, is a product of the brain processing the visual information, making associations, assigning importance etc.

No, there is no reason to believe they should be able to do anything of the sort. What a strange notion.

They can of course process what they see in some form or fashion, they simply may do so differently than humans. We don't know that they cannot distinguish facial features.

Perhaps they can but do not, perhaps they can and do. I don't know enough about how dogs process information to say one way or the other, though there is quite a bit of literature indicating they do recognize objects visually and I have no reason to believe they cannot recognize facial features.

I do know they process and act on visual input, meaning they can see.

It's worth mentioning that dogs and humans have quite different densities and distributions of rods and cones, reflecting our differing evolutionary histories and adaptations. Humans, as befitting diurnal primates have excellent color vision and much sharper vision than do dogs.

Cones provide color information (we have 3 different kinds of cones; dogs have only 2) and provide much sharper vision than do rods. Rods provide better low-light vision. Dogs (unlike cats) don't have much greater concentrations of rods than we do, so aren't especially well-suited to nocturnal hunting, but a dog's eyes are much less specialized for sharp vision and discernment of fine detail (or fine differences in color) than are a human's. That's probably not too surprising, since most canines are specialized for hunting by scent, whereas felines tend to be more specialized for hunting by sight.

Most primates are arboreal, so sharp vision is essential for survival, and most are frugivores. The ability to see fine differences in color is an important clue to how ripe fruit may be, and so would have had great survival value. Since cones confer sharper vision than do rods, increasing the density of cones in the retina also has the benefit of increasing visual acuity.


The density of cones in the human retina is up to 180,000 cells per millimeter2. By contrast, the concentration of cones in the most cone-dense part of a dog's retina is only about 23,000 per mm2.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the image would be in the light that is bouncing off the picture and entering their brain.

Also, your repeatedly saying "the image is in the light" is not an accurate statement regarding afferent vision. Is it a strawman, or do you use it because you don't understand what afferent visions states, or are you using it as a type of shorthand?

Nobody here thinks that light somehow carries a complete, embedded image to the eyes.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody here thinks that light somehow carries a complete, embedded image to the eyes.

However, that is what peacegirl thinks that everyone means by afferent vision, because that is what Lessans' thought everyone meant by afferent vision. No amount of correction has the power to change her thinking on this because she knows that Lessans could not have made a mistake in his description of the scientific understanding of afferent vision.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am the real Seymour Lessans. The other is an imposter. He doesn't even know how to spell Seymour.

As a result of astute observation and careful reasoning Seymore has concluded, with mathematical certainty, that Seymore is the correct spelling. Seymore can hardly be held responsible for Seymour's inability to correctly spell Seymore. What are we to think of someone who can't even spell his own name correctly?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

4. The best estimates of truth (reality and “how the world really works”) are attained through the naturalistic methods of science, reason, logic, and empirical evidence;

Was there some particular reason that you highlighted the word "reason"? Is it possible that you failed to notice the absence of the word "or" in that sentence? Reason, logic and empirical evidence work together in the enterprise of science. Lessans' employs no empirical evidence and both his logic and reasoning are suspect. He pretty much fails on every count. This is an undeniable truth. I know this because I have subjected Lessans' arguments to my own astute observation and careful reasoning and have concluded that Lessans' fails to make his case, on any grounds.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You tell me this is a pathetic charade, yet you can't even offer me one reason why his definition of determinism is a modal fallacy? If you can make such a snap judgment with nothing to back it up, you hold no credibility in this area either.

I did that more than 200 pages ago, you lying sack of shit!

That you did not UNDERSTAND where your father's reasoning ran afoul of the modal logical fallacy, is YOUR problem, and not mine. Just like you can't (or won't) see the OBVIOUS contradiction between relativity theory and Lessans' stupid claims.

Relativity: It is a POSTULATE that the speed of light is finite and invariant in all inertial frames, and that light carries signals that are transduced to the brain. RESULT: people in differing inertial frames in motion with respect to one another have different planes of simultaneity, which is IMPOSSIBLE if "real-time seeing" were true. If real-time seeing were true, everyone would share the SAME plane of simultaneity, OBVIOUSLY.

Oh, and peacegirl? You are now on record as saying that information does, and does not, travel faster than light. Egads, girl, which is it!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The post wherin david explains in detail where the modal fallacy was commited

The first premise is wrong because you don't have to choose what's best for you, according to this definition.

This analysis is completely wrong from beginning to end LadyShea.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

As a result of astute observation and careful reasoning Seymore has concluded, with mathematical certainty, that Seymore is the correct spelling. Seymore can hardly be held responsible for Seymour's inability to correctly spell Seymore. What are we to think of someone who can't even spell his own name correctly?

Are you coo coo Angakuk? I'm beginning to think I'm in, "One Flew Over the Coo Coo's Nest."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

4. The best estimates of truth (reality and “how the world really works”) are attained through the naturalistic methods of science, reason, logic, and empirical evidence;

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Was there some particular reason that you highlighted the word "reason"? Is it possible that you failed to notice the absence of the word "or" in that sentence? Reason, logic and empirical evidence work together in the enterprise of science. Lessans' employs no empirical evidence and both his logic and reasoning are suspect. He pretty much fails on every count. This is an undeniable truth. I know this because I have subjected Lessans' arguments to my own astute observation and careful reasoning and have concluded that Lessans' fails to make his case, on any grounds.

Yes, there was a reason I highlighted the word "reason." Because that's what he did. He reasoned with mathematical precision. He fails on no counts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody here thinks that light somehow carries a complete, embedded image to the eyes.

I thought you knew by now what I meant by that. The wavelengths contain the image. I thought I cleared that up 150 pages ago.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I did that more than 200 pages ago, you lying sack of shit!

That you did not UNDERSTAND where your father's reasoning ran afoul of the modal logical fallacy, is YOUR problem, and not mine. Just like you can't (or won't) see the OBVIOUS contradiction between relativity theory and Lessans' stupid claims.

Relativity: It is a POSTULATE that the speed of light is finite and invariant in all inertial frames, and that light carries signals that are transduced to the brain. RESULT: people in differing inertial frames in motion with respect to one another have different planes of simultaneity, which is IMPOSSIBLE if "real-time seeing" were true. If real-time seeing were true, everyone would share the SAME plane of simultaneity, OBVIOUSLY.

Oh, and peacegirl? You are now on record as saying that information does, and does not, travel faster than light. Egads, girl, which is it!

There is no modal fallacy!!! You have diarrhea of the mouth!!!! Yuch, it's spewing out!!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It's worth mentioning that dogs and humans have quite different densities and distributions of rods and cones, reflecting our differing evolutionary histories and adaptations. Humans, as befitting diurnal primates have excellent color vision and much sharper vision than do dogs.

Cones provide color information (we have 3 different kinds of cones; dogs have only 2) and provide much sharper vision than do rods. Rods provide better low-light vision. Dogs (unlike cats) don't have much greater concentrations of rods than we do, so aren't especially well-suited to nocturnal hunting, but a dog's eyes are much less specialized for sharp vision and discernment of fine detail (or fine differences in color) than are a human's. That's probably not too surprising, since most canines are specialized for hunting by scent, whereas felines tend to be more specialized for hunting by sight.

Most primates are arboreal, so sharp vision is essential for survival, and most are frugivores. The ability to see fine differences in color is an important clue to how ripe fruit may be, and so would have had great survival value. Since cones confer sharper vision than do rods, increasing the density of cones in the retina also has the benefit of increasing visual acuity.


The density of cones in the human retina is up to 180,000 cells per millimeter2. By contrast, the concentration of cones in the most cone-dense part of a dog's retina is only about 23,000 per mm2.

If it's true that dogs have less cones than humans, and this accounts for their inability to see detail, then why do researchers do experiments to see if dogs can see detail (i.e., recognize their masters)? As usual, it doesn't add up.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it's true that dogs have less cones than humans, and this accounts for their inability to see detail, then why do researchers do experiments to see if dogs can see detail (i.e., recognize their masters)? As usual, it doesn't add up.

You're either really, really stupid, or you're doing a great impression of someone who's really, really stupid.

That dogs' vision isn't as sharp as humans' does not mean that "dogs cannot see detail."

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This analysis is completely wrong from beginning to end LadyShea.

There is no modal fallacy!!! You have diarrhea of the mouth!!!! Yuch, it's spewing out!!!

Oh, dear, she is reduced to nothing but empty-headed assertions. She offers no rebuttal of the disproofs of her idiot father's bizarre ravings, because she CAN'T. And she KNOWS that she can't. What else can she do but post stuff like the above?



Hey, peacegirl, WHY is my explanation of the modal fallcy with regard to your father's argument wrong? Can you explain WHY?

Of course not!

Hey peacegirl, can you explain WHY "real-time seeing" is compatible with the theory of relativity, given that a POSTULATE of SR is that light is finite in speed but invariant across all inertial frames AND that it carries information to the eye that is then transduced to the brain, THE VERY THING THAT YOUR FATHER DENIES?

Would your care to EXPLAIN that for us, peacegirl?



Thought not!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it's true that dogs have less cones than humans, and this accounts for their inability to see detail, then why do researchers do experiments to see if dogs can see detail (i.e., recognize their masters)? As usual, it doesn't add up.

And where did anyone say that dogs were UNABLE TO SEE DETAIL?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

As a result of astute observation and careful reasoning Seymore has concluded, with mathematical certainty, that Seymore is the correct spelling. Seymore can hardly be held responsible for Seymour's inability to correctly spell Seymore.

As with the definition of words, the spelling of words has nothing to do with reality, which is what it is regardless of what scientifically inaccurate variant of "Seymore" one uses.

I efferently smelled the mathematical certainty and astuteness of observations and conclusions, which leads me to believe that you have initiated a revolution in thought.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by erimir

Still waiting, peacegoil

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it's true that dogs have less cones than humans, and this accounts for their inability to see detail, then why do researchers do experiments to see if dogs can see detail (i.e., recognize their masters)? As usual, it doesn't add up.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You're either really, really stupid, or you're doing a great impression of someone who's really, really stupid.

That dogs' vision isn't as sharp as humans' does not mean that "dogs cannot see detail."

You are waffling Lone Ranger. First you say dogs can't see in detail because they don't have enough rods that would allow them to. Then you say that even though dogs' vision isn't as sharp as humans, that doesn't mean they can't see in detail. Make up your mind, will you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by erimir

Still waiting, peacegoil

I deny that the definition of "information" as far as efferent sight is concerned has anything to do with faster than light transmission, and I'm going to leave it at that erimir. I refuse to stay on this topic. It's a complete waste of time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

As with the definition of words, the spelling of words has nothing to do with reality, which is what it is regardless of what scientifically inaccurate variant of "Seymore" one uses.

I efferently smelled the mathematical certainty and astuteness of observations and conclusions, which leads me to believe that you have initiated a revolution in thought.

You continue to live up to your name as a ...

Complete and total son of a bitch. Also nuts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

And where did anyone say that dogs were UNABLE TO SEE DETAIL?

This is getting funnier and funnier by the minute. Your very own comrade David. Now how are you going to weasel out of this one? I'm sure you'll find a way.