A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I happen to prefer hard rock to classical music. I don't now feel, and never have felt, the least bit less important because of that preference. I don't believe that this standard you are talking about even exists. If it does, then I never got the memo.

Times are changing Angakuk, but years ago it was a sign of sophistication to be in a crowd that enjoyed classical music. You were considered a very cultured individual if you attended operas and those who liked other kinds of music were thought of as uncultured.

[peacegirl]

It's not strange at all when you understand what the brain is able to do. If the eyes were afferent, this beauty (this value) would be part of reality as it travels to the brain for interpretation. There are other ways to explain how we're conditioned, but no one has ever admitted that "beauty" is not a reality. What is beautiful is not in the eyes of the beholder. Beauty and ugliness do not exist, only personal preference. The minute you call someone "beautiful" as a personal descriptor, you imply someone is "ugly", which is a hurt.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No-one is saying that "beauty" is a reality. It is a label, something that describes things that people find aesthetically pleasing. There are certain traits (such as a symmetric face) that people are more likely to find aesthetically pleasing.

You're still missing the point. Whether one has a symmetrical or asymmetrical face, and whether the majority like symmetrical looking faces, does not make those people more beautiful because beauty is not an external reality.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No one is claiming that it is. Or that there even is such a thing as an external reality. It is a clumsy strawman.

So then what are you saying?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Some of these seem to go through societal fashions. A few hundred years ago, small breasts, a plump figure and wide hips seem to have been all the rage. Extreme paleness seems to have been popular at one stage too, to such an extent that people used a lot of make-up to create this effect. Japanese Geishas used to blacken their teeth, because that seems to be part of that particular beauty-ideal. Etc. etc. etc.

To say that this has some sort of independent reality is idiotic. No-one ever did.

Nor can get rid of them as is proposed, without removing aesthetic pleasure altogether.

Absolutely wrong. What a person finds aesthetically pleasing will always exist; it just won't be conditioned by an external standard. The only thing it will do is allow everyone a chance to be happy. When the word is removed, so will the standard, therefore what will appeal to someone in the new world might be someone with a big nose, beady eyes, and buck teeth, and no one will ever criticize their choice of a partner.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You miss the point. Either that which people find aesthetically pleasing is determined by what they are taught or by what they innately find pleasing. Either way, anyone who does not conform to it will be considered ugly - whether the word exists or not.

Either that, or do away with aesthetics altogether.

That's not true at all. They are two different things.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah - personal standard. But we are doing away with any personal standard of what we find pleasing in the looks of other people, as this is a hurt.

No, personal attraction is just that...personal. It is not an artificial standard that tells people what is beautiful and what is ugly.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So a learned preference is bad, but an innate one is ok. Just like a learned distinction is bad, but an innate one is ok.

Yes, because there won't be this division between beautiful people and those who are not. Therefore, everyone will find it much easier to find someone that they are attracted to, instead of feeling like they are settling because they can't find any better. If you didn't read Chapter Five, this is not going to make sense.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What is the difference in practical terms? Hurt occurs either way - whether I reject you because of personal standards or standards that I follow because society holds them.

They are completely different. In the new world one will not be hurt by an initial refusal, especially when these words are not in use. But in this society if a girl is rejected, she will immediately turn against herself because she is judging herself against a standard of beauty that she cannot compete against.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So I am not to have a personal standard as to who I find pretty anymore, as this is a part of the bad conditioning and causes hurt.

He isn't saying that. He is saying that the word "beautiful" is a man-made standard, which conditions us to find attractive those that meet that standard. You wouldn't call the witch of the west pretty, would you? Those that fall below this line of demarcation would never be called "pretty", which sets them up for a lifelong of inferiority and low self-esteem. Yes, we get over it, but if it's false that we are not uglier or prettier than others, just different, why should we use words that falsely identify us?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually I kinda fancy the wicked witch. She reminds me of that lady that does the "Victorian farm" and "Edwardian farm" programmes on Discovery, and even though she is just about the opposite of a classical beauty she seems really lovely to me. There is a spark to her. Seeing her in period costumes really cheers me up.

Awww, that's so sweet Vivisectus, but you get the gist, don't you? There are exceptions to the rule, especially when a person's mannerisms are associated with something pleasant. But you could not say she is beautiful by society's standards, and most young girls judge themselves very harshly due to this. There is a thing called dysmorphic disorder because of how girls have been conditioned to see themselves.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Which just goes to show that we are not actually such moronic automatons as your father thought we all were.

Where did that come from? How could you say something like that Vivisectus? He never thought we are moronic automatons, so why are you making up stories?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Apart from that, we are proposing to do away with the word "pretty" altogether. So there is to be no more "finding the look of someone aesthetically pleasing" - whether the preference is taught or innate, or a mixture of both. You are trying to have your cake and eat it, but within the system you are embracing, that is not an option.

No one is going to tell you what to say or not to say, but people will not use these words when they know they are not symbolic of reality and they also know it is a hurt for which there will be no blame. People will always be attracted to certain type individuals, and there is nothing wrong with saying that a certain person appeals to you. There is a huge difference between saying, "She appeals to me very much," and saying, "She is beautiful" which creates a standard for everyone because of how our brain gets conditioned. I don't know any other way to explain this.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I fact we are doing away with the whole word, as saying pretty suggests there may be not-pretty, and we are no longer making value-judgments.

But this is not that much different from saying that the screeching I can get out of a violin is an ugly sound, while the performance of a virtuoso violinist is not - it is also something judged against a personal standard which could be thought of as hurtful to me.

When it comes to talent, there is a standard that determines how well a person sings or plays an instrument. If this person doesn't meet the standard of what most people consider pleasing to the ear, then in the new world they will know they can't compete with the more professional musicians. If they try to compete and people walk out, they will quickly realize that their music is not pleasing to the majority of listeners. That doesn't mean they can't play as a hobby, but as a profession, they wouldn't be able to survive financially. More importantly, when we realize that we all have different talents (but that doesn't mean we are inferior intrinsically), we will not be hurt when we learn the truth; we will be helped to find out what our true gifts are.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah ok. So a learned standard is perfectly OK when it comes to music, but unacceptable when it comes to appearance?

There are technical standards that are used to determine how controlled someone's voice is, as well as what kind of voice they have. But actually what one likes in music is strictly personal because hearing is afferent.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I could make the same case for a beauty pageant - but they are reviled as being detrimental to self-esteem in the new system, whereas apparently performance in other fields is judged the hell out of, and that is perfectly ok.

People who are developing a skill will be judged by their teachers because their teachers are using a certain standard that the student is aiming to achieve. The goal of this training is to ultimately get recognition from an audience who enjoys that type of music. But how can we have beauty pageants when there is no such thing as a beautiful or ugly individual? As far as performance in other fields, they will be judged according to a technical standard. Bottom line: Their music will be bought or it won't, just like today, and this will be the gauge as to whether they can make it in the business. Just because someone doesn't have the same talent as another does not usually cause a loss of self-esteem, but being physiognomically inferior does. We live in a society that values "beauty", so it should be no surprise that many children grow up with a distorted image of themselves.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What about the way I do my job? It could be just as hurtful to say that I am doing my job badly. Perhaps we should get rid of that word too...

There is a standard as to what a good job is. It is completing certain tasks within a reasonable amount of time. If an employer says you are doing a job badly (which only means doing a less than satisfactory job), it only means that you are not doing the job you were hired to do (which you knew about before being hired). In the new world you would do everything in your power to do a good job, because you would not be blamed for doing a bad one, even if you caused your employer to lose money.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And the standard for a good job is determined by society, just like the beauty-fashions that are supposedly such a bane. What exactly is the difference between not being able to do a job well and not being able to have looks according to the current fashion in beauty?

I don't see the comparison. Doing a good job is a description of how one has performed. It's true that when you tell a child, "Good job" and another child doesn't hear you say that to him, then this is a concrete hurt. The child may also be fishing for an external reward (that compliment) from you, and he'll do whatever you want him to do, just so he can get it, even if he doesn't enjoy performing. This would be selfishness on your part. But there is nothing wrong with saying "good job" when complimenting an employee because no one is being hurt.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have also done informal experiments. I have four children and three grandchildren and I have never seen this ability in an infant a few days old.

One day old

Day old Newborn sticks her tongue out on...

&feature=related

Newborn Mimic - YouTube

Granted this shows mimicking at 5.5 weeks but certainly you see far more going on here than simply reacting to noise or a touch. Obviously sight as a sense plays a major role in primates.

Peacegirl, I have no doubt that in your life you haven't seen much about this. Perhaps you live a very deprived life. Perhaps your children are very slow developers. But please for one second consider that simply because you don't know about it that it can't be so. You expect the very same thing from everyone here but you don't seem willing to do it yourself. That is a very inconsiderate stance to take.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Verification does not make a discovery valid. That is total BS. But...verification allows new knowledge to be applied for the betterment of mankind.

Agreed, verification does not make a discovery valid, but at least it has a chance at it. But if there is no verification then you definitively can't say you have a discovery.

You don't have verification of any kind and yet you insist that it is a discovery.

You realize that by claiming a discovery with no verification, this doesn't help your case at all. It rather makes you and Lessan's look like charlatans. You would have more credibility if you called it a conjecture and let verification from others turn it into a discovery. You can claim the idea for Lessan's and it will in no way diminish it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There are different opinions about that these days. I hear Johnny Rotten objects to being spit at these days even! But then again the pistols were to punk what Boyzone is to pop.

I could see the relevance if the spitting is somehow related to the music. For example if they were doing a rendition of an 'Old Standard' like "Raindrops keep falling on my head" or "Singin' in the Rain" I could see how it would fit musically, but random spitting just doesn't work for me.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Times are changing Angakuk, but years ago it was a sign of sophistication to be in a crowd that enjoyed classical music. You were considered a very cultured individual if you attended operas and those who liked other kinds of music were thought of as uncultured.

It may have been the case, and may still be the case, that aficionados of classical music consider themselves to be cultured and look down their noses at the unwashed mob that fails to appreciate that which they value so highly. Nevertheless, this was never a universal societal value and I have no doubt that many in that same unwashed mob considered the classical music crowd to be a bunch of arrogant pricks and did not feel the least diminished by the lack of regard in which they were held.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are technical standards that are used to determine how controlled someone's voice is, as well as what kind of voice they have. But actually what one likes in music is strictly personal because hearing is afferent.

According to those who should know, my singing falls well short of those technical standards. Nevertheless, I think I sound just fine and I continue to enjoy singing, whatever the experts may say. Those technical standards are nothing more than codified shared personal preferences. They are simply a matter of convention, as are the notions of what constitutes good art or physical beauty.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

One of the things that I don't get is why Lessans considers hearing a sense, in the usual meaning of the word, but not sight. I mean, we don't actually hear sounds in the same way that we don't actually see images. Sound waves are received by the ears and converted to signals that are transmitted to the brain and the brain interprets those signals and assigns meaning to them. Likeswise with sight. Light is received by the eyes (Lessans allows that this is the case) and converted into signals that are transmitted to the brian and the brain interprets those signals and assigns meaning to them. Smell, touch and taste work the same way as well. If the light does not carry information that the brain decodes, then sound waves do not carry information that the brain decodes. If it is the case that sight is efferent, then it is also the case that the other four senses are equally efferent, but Lessans makes this claim only with regard to sight and accepts that the other four senses function afferently.

Actually, I do get it, a little bit. Lessans, as peacegirl keeps reminding us, did not arrive at his conclusions regarding sight from the direction of biology. He arrived at these conclusions indirectly. In other words, he had a theory which he thought required that sight function efferently, therefore it is necessarily the case that sight functions efferently. Biology be damned.

He never insinuated that biology be damned. It was not his fault that his observations regarding our relationship to the external world contradict some of the early conclusions biologists have made regarding how the eyes work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Times are changing Angakuk, but years ago it was a sign of sophistication to be in a crowd that enjoyed classical music. You were considered a very cultured individual if you attended operas and those who liked other kinds of music were thought of as uncultured.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It may have been the case, and may still be the case, that aficionados of classical music consider themselves to be cultured and look down their noses at the unwashed mob that fails to appreciate that which they value so highly. Nevertheless, this was never a universal societal value and I have no doubt that many in that same unwashed mob considered the classical music crowd to be a bunch of arrogant pricks and did not feel the least diminished by the lack of regard in which they were held.

I agree that some people fought back. But there are many who internalized the judgment that their preferences for certain music or art displayed a lack of sophistication. This stratification system made many feel that what they liked in the way of music or art was inferior, which translated to "I am inferior". It still exists today in some circles, but it is weakening.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are technical standards that are used to determine how controlled someone's voice is, as well as what kind of voice they have. But actually what one likes in music is strictly personal because hearing is afferent.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

According to those who should know, my singing falls well short of those technical standards. Nevertheless, I think I sound just fine and I continue to enjoy singing, whatever the experts may say. Those technical standards are nothing more than codified shared personal preferences. They are simply a matter of convention, as are the notions of what constitutes good art or physical beauty.

I enjoy singing too, but only in the shower. I agree with you that the technical standards are nothing more than codified personal preferences. And even if the majority of people find certain voices more pleasing than others based on certain technical skills, it all boils down to personal preference since hearing is afferent. The only thing I disagree with is, of course, your clumping together physical beauty as a personal preference since the conditioning has already taken place and is therefore adulterated.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are four senses and a set of eyes.

He does provide a definition. Now that the book is not online, it's going to be even more difficult to explain. This is not the way I wanted it to be, but I couldn't tolerate the way this major work was misconstrued and taken out of context. You can thank David for that.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 115-117

Someone, whose interest had never been sufficiently aroused to
pursue my discoveries because they sounded ridiculous, was visiting an
exposition in Canada where he saw a sign on one pavilion that read,
“Come inside and let us prove scientifically that the eyes are not a
sense organ.” He was absolutely amazed because he knew when I said
that man does not have five sense organs that I was also referring to
the eyes. When seeing this sign he couldn’t believe it, however, after
convincing himself in Canada that man only has four senses and a
pair of eyes, he became very much involved in my work upon his
return.

But to show you again how the person, not the knowledge, is
the one being judged, when someone else told his cousin who is a
dentist that the eyes are not a sense organ, the reply was, “That’s
ridiculous, how can you know what is true and what is not true, you
only went to grade school,” to which he responded, “Well, you don’t
have to take my word for it.

In Canada, the proof has already been
made a part of a scientific exposition.” The dentist then replied,
“Well, I haven’t seen anything to that effect in the newspapers.” This
proves conclusively that what he accepts as the truth is determined by
who tells him something is true, not by his ability to perceive relations
revealing these truths. However, I have my own proof, so let us get on
with what is necessary to open our minds to the fresh air of
undeniable knowledge.

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.

Upon hearing this, my friend asked me in a rather authoritarian tone
of voice, “Are you trying to tell me that this is not a scientific fact?”
I replied, “Are you positive because you were told this, or positive
because you yourself saw the relations revealing this truth? And if
you are still positive, will you put your right hand on the chopping
block to show me how positive you really are?”

“I am not that positive, but we were taught this.”

It is an undeniable fact that light travels at a high rate of speed,
but great confusion arises when this is likened to sound as you will
soon have verified. The reason we say man has taste, touch, smell,
sight, and hearing is because these describe individual differences that
exist, but when we say that these five are senses we are assuming the
eyes function like the other four — which they do not. When you
learn what this single misconception has done to the world of
knowledge, you won’t believe it at first.

So without further delay, I
shall prove something never before understood by man, but before I
open this door marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses’ to show
you all the knowledge hidden behind it, it is absolutely necessary to
prove exactly why the eyes are not a sense organ.

Now tell me, did it
ever occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally
accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately
symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult
since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is? In
fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a child that no object is
capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is
impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of
sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since
the nerve endings are being struck by something external.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

Peacegirl, if I'm not mistaken he provides the definition that he rejects. By the definition you show in bold, sight would be a sense. But he goes further to say that the definition is wrong. Now a definition is a man made thing. If sight is by definition a sense then by the convention of human language it is a sense. Calling is something else is just silly. Might as well call a dog a cat and see how much confusion that causes and how crazy people will think you are.

The definition of sense isn't wrong, but putting the eyes in that classification is wrong.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

Be that as it may, he doesn't provide any framework to support his reclassification. That is fine. He can redefine anything he likes. Anybody can do that. Hell he can make up a whole new language for all I care. But he will be the only one speaking that language. And if he is gonna create a new language and he is serious about others picking up that language then at a minimum he is gonna have to explain his concepts in the old language. Otherwise it's just gibberish to someone who doesn't use words the way he uses them.

But he isn't changing an entire language, he is not even redefining anything. He is just reclassifying in regard to the eyes, and helping to clear up the confusion that exists when people use the word "determinism".

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

Now if he thinks he is onto something new he should have created new words or at a minimum find old words that are out of use and repurpose them. That is usually what legitimate scientists do. They know that using the existing language in a new way is stupid.

I don't know how that would have helped him in this case. Could you give me an example? Unfortunately, no matter how you slice it people don't like that he is reclassifying the eyes as efferent. I don't care what words that are used, people resent Lessans messing with "facts" that have already been established.

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

It makes me wonder why a person who is supposed to be so smart and would take the time to write a book about his new ideas would not take the time to lay out his framework in terms of the old ideas. Because without doing that he is wasting his time.

But he has done that. He has shown exactly what the old ideas are (in terms of afferent vision and determinism) and where the problem lies.

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

It also makes your job impossible, which this thread seems to well represent.

I think that this knowledge is so far removed from conventional thinking, that unless it is stamped with the brevet of truth by science (which it has not at this point), then he will be viewed as just another run of the mill crackpot, which makes me very sad.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

We must be speaking a different language. If it hasn't been verified by anybody else, scientist or whomever, then it is conjecture.

It doesn't always take confirmation by someone else, to be right, and it certainly doesn't mean it's conjecture.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

You may not know this, but America was not discovered by a scientist. Yet it was reported and it was verified and now the existence of America is not in dispute. But prior to that America was conjecture.

I don't call that conjecture. I call that lack of confirmation.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

Does it take special equipment to verify it? Have you verified it?

We are talking about efferent (afferent?) vision?

It just takes empirical testing, which is within the realm of science, not religion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It seems to me that the main reason for claiming this is how sight work is the problem of subjectivity. Unable to reconcile subjective value judgments and descriptive labels with an objective basis for reality, he neatened up reality a bit and came up with a rather arcane description of sight.

It is hard to tell, as at no point does he explain exactly what he observed or why he felt the conclusion was warranted. Every time you feel an explanation is coming, he wanders off into a diatribe against academics, people he feels do little else but guard their dogma's.

He does not argue for his own idea, he merely states that poor old-fashioned normal sight is something we accept because it is what we are taught, and leaves it at that. The only thing that comes close to it is a hypothetical anecdote about how dogs recognize people, which tests into dog intelligence disproved: dogs can even recognize items on photographs, even if they have not seen the photograph before.

Show me that dogs can recognize people and items in photographs and I'll leave with my tail between my legs. To enlighten you, he did not just go into diatribes against academics. That's what you focused on.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The irony of the fact that he provides no proof or compelling reason to accept his ideas and is therefor simply proposing we replace the authority he does not like with his own does not seem to have bothered him much.

He is not proposing that you give up anything or replace anything unless you see the proof. So you are wrong once again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

1. The part where he compares the professors who discount his work to burglars breaking into a home, and comparing criticizing said professors to shooting burglars in the head.

2. His loathing of people who correctly stated that they are/were better educated than other people.

He was obviously talking about himself, and again about the professors who discounted his work.

You are so mistaken LadyShea, it just shows me how YOU are reading into this and coming to false conclusions about him and his intentions.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The words he wrote and the phrasing he used sound like sour grapes to me for the reasons I detailed above. I didn't know the man, so can only draw conclusions from what he wrote. What he wrote sounds quite bitter indeed.

not my fault that he was such a poor writer that it sounded like a revenge fantasy and not any kind of serious work of science.

Hey, don't shift your responsibility and place the blame on me or Lessans. You obviously did not take this work seriously. You are trying to dismiss this knowledge because you believe it doesn't mean the rigors of science, and yet you are actually ripping this knowledge apart unfairly and calling it a revenge fantasy. Do you not think your attitude has anything to do with your false conclusions?

He was in a tough position and therefore challenged those who used a false standard to judge what they didn't even read. Isn't that what people are doing in here?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He felt entitled to have his views reviewed by everyone from the President and other world leaders to top scientists and some kind of professors. That is arrogance.

No, that was his desperation to stop the bloodbath of war, crime, and all the other evils of our world that have killed millions. It is YOU who is arrogant in your feeble attempt to make him look arrogant.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never insinuated that biology be damned. It was not his fault that his observations regarding our relationship to the external world contradict some of the early conclusions biologists have made regarding how the eyes work.

You really, really don't know what you're talking about. And you go to considerable lengths to ensure that you remain ignorant of the relevant information.

Need I remind you -- again -- that early investigators thought that vision was efferent? But their experiments disproved that belief. And, of course, we've come a long way since in our understanding of vision -- not to mention neurophysiology and why the optic nerve not only isn't efferent but cannot be.


But by all means, go right on insisting that you and Lessans -- who know/knew nothing of the relevant physics, ocular anatomy, and neurophysiology, and who conducted no experiments -- are right and that the entire scientific community is wrong. Go right on insisting that half-understood anecdotal accounts trump thousands of carefully-conducted, peer-reviewed and fully-replicated studies.

Not only is that practically the definition of arrogance, nothing could make Lessans' claims look more ridiculous than your own nonsensical, ham-fisted, and often-contradictory attempts to defend them.

[LadyShea]

No, that was his desperation to stop the bloodbath of war, crime, and all the other evils of our world that have killed millions. It is YOU who is arrogant in your feeble attempt to make him look arrogant.

LOL

[The Lone Ranger]

While we're on the subject, peacegirl is not just displaying her near-total ignorance of the relevant science, but of what science is in the first place.

Science is a competitive enterprise, and the surest way to gain recognition in the scientific community is to disprove some previously-held belief. That's precisely why we remember and revere people like Darwin and Einstein.

If there were evidence that vision was efferent and that the eyes are not sense organs, far from suppressing that information, biologists would be fighting for the opportunity to publish this atonishing information first and to thus secure their fame and renown. Anyone who could prove such a thing would be all but guaranteed a Nobel Prize.

Of course, if I tried to publish a paper in any scientific journal in which I claimed that the eyes are not sense organs -- and I couldn't provide some actual evidence for that remarkable claim -- I'd be ridiculed. And rightly so.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Show me that dogs can recognize people and items in photographs and I'll leave with my tail between my legs.

This has been shown to you, you liar. Just as it has been shown to you via dozens of conclusive examples, like the moons of Jupiter discussion hundreds of pages back, that real-time seeing is not only wrong, but impossible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

One day old

&feature=related

Granted this shows mimicking at 5.5 weeks but certainly you see far more going on here than simply reacting to noise or a touch. Obviously sight as a sense plays a major role in primates.

Peacegirl, I have no doubt that in your life you haven't seen much about this. Perhaps you live a very deprived life. Perhaps your children are very slow developers. But please for one second consider that simply because you don't know about it that it can't be so. You expect the very same thing from everyone here but you don't seem willing to do it yourself. That is a very inconsiderate stance to take.

I am taking into consideration what everyone is saying. I have been researching this and everything I read seems to support what Lessans was saying. It takes a couple months for babies to focus their eyes.

Vision
Newborns can see, but their eyes may be crossed because it is hard for them to focus at first. Newborns can see movement and the contrast between black and white objects. For the first couple of months, it is easier for them to look at things at an angle. By two to three months, babies have more control of their eye muscles and are able to focus their eyes on one thing. They can also follow objects with their eyes.

http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health..._behavior.aspx

* At birth, babies' vision is abuzz with all kinds of visual stimulation. While they may look intently at a highly contrasted target, babies have not yet developed the ability to easily tell the difference between two targets or move their eyes between the two images. Their primary focus is on objects 8 to 10 inches from their face or the distance to parent's face.
* During the first months of life, the eyes start working together and vision rapidly improves. Eye-hand coordination begins to develop as the infant starts tracking moving objects with his or her eyes and reaching for them. By eight weeks, babies begin to more easily focus their eyes on the faces of a parent or other person near them.
* For the first two months of life, an infant's eyes are not well coordinated and may appear to wander or to be crossed. This is usually normal. However, if an eye appears to turn in or out constantly, an evaluation is warranted.
* Babies should begin to follow moving objects with their eyes and reach for things at around three months of age.

A drawback to a newborn's vision is that the baby's eye muscles are both mildly weak and definitely uncoordinated. So, even though the vision may advanced enough to recognize shapes and contrasts, the muscles of the eye make it difficult to both focus and follow these objects. Most parents are familiar with the cross-eyed look newborn babies can give. However, this poor coordination of the eyes to move as one unit becomes less of an issue by three months of age.

http://www.ivillage.com/what-can-newborn-see/6-n-137770

Babies' eyes don't always move in perfect unison either, and that's a perfectly normal, and common, newborn characteristic. That off-kilter gaze is caused by the fact that their eyes are just as uncoordinated as the rest of them and can't always track together. Happily, it's nothing to worry about (unless the eyes never seem to align), and will generally right itself by the time a baby reaches the three-month milestone. By four months, babies should be following objects with both of their increasingly coordinated eyes, thanks to better-developed and more-mature eye-hand coordination and depth perception.

Cross-Eyed Baby

[LadyShea]

Computer-savvy canines

Dog Behavior Blog: Dogs Can Understand Photographs

Dogs can learn to recognize smiles, study finds

A Dog's Growl Announces Its Size - ScienceNOW

[LadyShea]

It takes a couple months for babies to focus their eyes.

Your research showed that they can focus short distances* very early on and that their focus continues to improve over greater distances and less distinct separations. It says they don't initially focus well, not that it takes "a couple of months to focus" at all.

*

Their primary focus is on objects 8 to 10 inches from their face or the distance to parent's face.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am taking into consideration what everyone is saying. I have been researching this and everything I read seems to support what Lessans was saying. It takes a couple months for babies to focus their eyes.

<SNIP REST OF PEACEGIRL'S BULLSHIT>

And this has been addressed as well, liar. The Lone Ranger went over all these points with you, didn't he, liar?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never insinuated that biology be damned. It was not his fault that his observations regarding our relationship to the external world contradict some of the early conclusions biologists have made regarding how the eyes work.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You really, really don't know what you're talking about. And you go to considerable lengths to ensure that you remain ignorant of the relevant information.

Need I remind you -- again -- that early investigators thought that vision was efferent? But their experiments disproved that belief. And, of course, we've come a long way since in our understanding of vision -- not to mention neurophysiology and why the optic nerve not only isn't efferent but cannot be.

What experiments are you talking about that proved efferent vision wrong? And what proven technologies disprove efferent vision? You never answered this. The optic nerve does not have to be the mechanism that allows the eyes to see efferently.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

But by all means, go right on insisting that you and Lessans -- who know/knew nothing of the relevant physics, ocular anatomy, and neurophysiology, and who conducted no experiments -- are right and that the entire scientific community is wrong. Go right on insisting that half-understood anecdotal accounts trump thousands of carefully-conducted, peer-reviewed and fully-replicated studies.

Go right ahead and make it appear as if Lessans was trumping thousands of carefully-conducted studies based on anecdotal accounts. That's not what he was doing and you know it. And if you don't know it, you had better refrain from acting like you do or you are no better than the person you are accusing.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Not only is that practically the definition of arrogance, nothing could make Lessans' claims look more ridiculous than your own nonsensical, ham-fisted, and often-contradictory attempts to defend them.

I will say again that he was not an arrogant man. Just because his observations were outside of the field of physics, ocular anatomy, and neurophysiology, this in itself does not necessarily discredit him. You are doing a wonderful job of making him look ridiculous. Are you happy now?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your research showed that they can focus short distances* very early on and that their focus continues to improve over greater distances and less distinct separations. It says they don't initially focus well, not that it takes "a couple of months to focus" at all.

*

By two to three months, babies have more control of their eye muscles and are able to focus their eyes on one thing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

While we're on the subject, peacegirl is not just displaying her near-total ignorance of the relevant science, but of what science is in the first place.

Science is a competitive enterprise, and the surest way to gain recognition in the scientific community is to disprove some previously-held belief. That's precisely why we remember and revere people like Darwin and Einstein.

If there were evidence that vision was efferent and that the eyes are not sense organs, far from suppressing that information, biologists would be fighting for the opportunity to publish this atonishing information first and to thus secure their fame and renown. Anyone who could prove such a thing would be all but guaranteed a Nobel Prize.

Of course, if I tried to publish a paper in any scientific journal in which I claimed that the eyes are not sense organs -- and I couldn't provide some actual evidence for that remarkable claim -- I'd be ridiculed. And rightly so.

I get that part. That's why I keep saying that empirical testing is the only way to determine if he is right. You keep saying efferent vision was already disproved. Show me where.

[LadyShea]

How is he supposed to "show" you 1000's of experiments and decades of research and literature by scientists all over the world in multiple disciplines? How can he "show" you such a vast body of knowledge?

You can't learn about everything by the links we give you. You need to take some responsibility here.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get that part. That's why I keep saying that empirical testing is the only way to determine if he is right. You keep saying efferent vision was already disproved. Show me where.

The empirical testing has been done, you willful ignoramous.


You've been given many, many examples of observations and phenomena that flatly disprove efferent vision. Not to mention that I wrote an entire essay which explains why the anatomy of the eye and the physiology of the optic nerve [which provides the only neural connection between the human brain and the retina] make efferent vision impossible.

And far from being "hypothetical," the transduction of light by retinal cells and conduction of those electrochemical impulses to the brain via the optic nerve is an observed phenomenon.


But then, I have repeatedly all but begged you to make even a minimal effort to educate yourself on the matter. And you've very pointedly refused to do so.

You don't have to take my word. You could easily spend some time in a good university library and learn for yourself more than you could ever want to know about the anatomy and physiology of sight and why they flatly rule out efferent vision. Or you could take some Anatomy & Physiology courses.

Or you take a few Physics courses and learn for yourself why Special Relativity flatly rules out real-time seeing as well.


But you will do none of this. Instead, you will continue to lie and claim that "the matter is not yet settled" and that "more research needs to be done."

It's a good thing that Lessans didn't make an offhand claim that the Earth is flat. If he had, you'd be arguing that all the data we have showing that the Earth round is "biased" and unreliable, and that the matter of the Earth's shape is "not yet settled," and that "more research needs to be done."