A revolution in thought - Page 448

peacegirl · #**11176** 09-28-2011, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lessans

I asked this person if it was possible to arrange 105 alphabetical squares divided equally between A and O into groups of 3 so that each of the 15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice with any other letter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The 7 lines? That's the only thing I left out.

What specifically about the 7 lines?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as the puzzle goes, I never worked on it but Lessans did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I never tried to work a solution to the puzzle myself, but at least I made an effort to understand the puzzle. Did you even do that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm not interested in puzzles. This has no bearing on whether I understand the discovery. You are setting up an artificial condition.

It speaks to whether you understand the words Lessans used and how he phrased things. Your interest in the puzzle isn't the issue, whether you can explain it is a big issue. Hint: it's badly written so the conditions are not clear.

How can anyone trust that you understand the discovery when you can't even parse a couple of his sentences?

I never worked on this puzzle. In fact, I never paid much attention to what the conditions were because I assumed they were clearly spelled out. Maybe he could have done better. I am not even sure where he got this puzzle from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You'll have to explain it. I wouldn't tell you if I knew because you are putting me on the spot for one reason only, and that is to make me look foolish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You look foolish because you are unable to answer.

Whether I can answer or not is immaterial LadyShea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again how can anyone trust that you understand the discovery when you can't even parse a couple of sentences?

This is exactly why I wouldn't answer even if I could frame this puzzle in my own words. You are grasping at anything that will make people doubt my credibility. But you're not gonna win.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no idea what you want from me. There isn't much wording to rearrange that would turn it into my own words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I want you to rewrite the puzzle in clearer terms. If you understand the conditions, you should be able to do this easily. It's not about "rearranging" words...it's about using synonyms or using different phrasing. Hint: it's badly written as is so the conditions are not clear.

Feel free to reword it anyway you want; maybe I'll change the wording in the book, but don't play this game where you accuse me of not understanding the discovery because I choose not to reword the puzzle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing I didn't put in there is that there are seven lines, which I thought was arbitrary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is a condition having to do with the 7 lines that is not arbitrary.

I thought it was arbitrary too, until I reread what Lessans wrote and saw what I had missed originally, or forgotten.

Is it that the 7 lines have to be divided equally? :chin:

peacegirl · #**11177** 09-28-2011, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

You are absolutely wrong when you say he uses fallacious reasoning.

No, I am not. You don't understand the modal fallacy. Hint: understanding modal auxiliary verbs and their specific functions and definitions is a big part of it.

Please don't speak in generalizations because then I won't be able to pinpoint where his auxiliary verbs and their "functions and definitions" caused his explanation to be wrong. So be more specific.

Modal verb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

* epistemic, concerned with the theoretical possibility of propositions being true or not true (including likelihood, and certainty); and
* deontic, concerned with possibility and necessity in terms of freedom to act (including ability, permission, and duty)

The following sentences illustrate the two uses of must:

* epistemic: You must be starving. (= "It is necessarily the case that you are starving.")
* deontic: You must leave now. (= "You are required to leave now.")
* ambiguous: You must speak Spanish.
o epistemic = "It is surely the case that you speak Spanish (e.g., after having lived in Spain for ten years)."
o deontic = "It is a requirement that you speak Spanish (e.g., if you want to get a job in Spain)."

You have posted a couple of definitions that point to a modal fallacy, but that is not what I asked for. I need you to be specific (you can use the definitions you copied and pasted if you want to) as to where Lessans is guilty of committing a modal fallacy.

peacegirl · #**11178** 09-28-2011, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Need some assistance?

Each of the 7 lines is required to have A-O

Using some form of must (compelled, can only) wrt possible choices, is fallacious reasoning.

You're right. I had noticed that in his solution, but I forgot to look for that in Captimus's answer. I actually agree with you that the conditions of the puzzle are not as clear as they could be. Did Ceptimus change his answer?

peacegirl · #**11179** 09-28-2011, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What he is saying is that if efferent vision was observed (it hasn't been) and could be tested and evidenced, all living scientists would be on it, competing for the first to demonstrate it and win fame and fortune.

It hasn't been observed, except apparently by Lessans. If he had observed apples falling straight up you would be in the same boat.

Although we know that apples don't fall up, there is still a chance that the eyes are efferent, so you really can't compare.

peacegirl · #**11180** 09-28-2011, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, it doesn't prove that he was a mathematician. And it doesn't prove that he made a discovery. Only his accurate observations and sound reasoning prove that he made a discovery.

So ... when, exactly, are you going to provide us with some examples of his "accurate observations" and "sound reasoning"?

Because so far, his observations have proved most inaccurate, and his reasoning anything but sound.

Where have his observations proved unsound and inaccurate? :eek:

babies can see and dogs can recognize photographs, for starters

Babies can see but they can't focus their eyes in infancy. I'm not the only one that says this. And it has not been proven conclusively that dogs can recognize their owners from a photograph. Try again.

peacegirl · #**11181** 09-28-2011, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, it doesn't prove that he was a mathematician. And it doesn't prove that he made a discovery. Only his accurate observations and sound reasoning prove that he made a discovery.

So ... when, exactly, are you going to provide us with some examples of his "accurate observations" and "sound reasoning"?

Because so far, his observations have proved most inaccurate, and his reasoning anything but sound.

Where have his observations proved unsound and inaccurate? :eek:

Have you not been paying attention for the past 400+ pages? How many more examples do you need?

[That's a rhetorical question by the way: we all know that the answer is ∞ + 1.]

I realize that you don't want a list of examples Lone, but truthfully, you can't say that Lessans is wrong empirically or in any other way.

Bullshit I can't.

Tell me again about how the optic nerve receives light, why don't you?

The optic nerve receives impulses, okay? He didn't feel he had to be specific because it didn't change his point. I already explained this.

peacegirl · #**11182** 09-28-2011, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, it doesn't prove that he was a mathematician. And it doesn't prove that he made a discovery. Only his accurate observations and sound reasoning prove that he made a discovery.

So ... when, exactly, are you going to provide us with some examples of his "accurate observations" and "sound reasoning"?

Because so far, his observations have proved most inaccurate, and his reasoning anything but sound.

Where have his observations proved unsound and inaccurate? :eek:

babies can see and dogs can recognize photographs, for starters

Vivisectus, why are you making light of what Lessans has claimed? I really don't get it. What you just said was not part of an experiment, so why are you using this to discredit Lessans? I'm flabbergasted that you are trying to discredit Lessans from nothing, absolutely nothing. :sadcheer:

That was an inaccurate observation, as we have since found out. Babies CAN see. They just cannot focus their eyes. So Lessans observation that they first need some other stimulus to allow them to see anything was wrong. These tests, by the way, have not just been done in informal settings, but are confirmed in the lab.

He meant focus Vivisectus. Babies cannot see [he didn't mean they are blind, but their eyes are unfocused so they can't really see clear images] until they can focus their eyes.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 117-118

“That is absolutely true, but this does not cause; it is a condition
of sight. We simply need light to see, just as other things are a
condition of hearing. If there was no light we could not see, and if
there was nothing to carry the sound waves to our ears, we could not
hear. The difference is that the sound is being carried to our
eardrums whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the
waves of light to impinge on our optic nerve. This is somewhat
equivalent to a baby sleeping with his eyes wide open who does not
awaken when objects are placed in front of him, although a loud noise
which strikes the ear drum can easily do the job. Did you ever wonder
why the eyes of a newborn baby cannot focus the eyes to see what
exists around him, although the other four senses are in full working
order?”

“I understand from a doctor that the muscles of the eyes have not
yet developed sufficiently to allow this focusing.”

“And he believes this because this is what he was taught, but it is
not the truth. In fact, if an infant was placed in a soundproof room
that would eliminate the possibility of sense experience which is a
prerequisite of sight, even though the eyelids were permanently
removed, he could never have the desire to see. If a newborn infant
was not permitted to have any sense experiences, the brain would
never desire to focus the eyes to look through them at the external
world no matter how much light was present.

Consequently, even
though the lids were removed, and even though many colorful objects
were placed in front of the baby, he could never see because the brain
is not looking. Furthermore, and quite revealing, if this infant was
kept alive for fifty years or longer on a steady flow of intravenous
glucose, if possible, without allowing any stimuli to strike the other
four organs of sense, this baby, child, young and middle aged person
would never be able to focus the eyes to see any objects existing in that
room no matter how much light was present or how colorful they
might be because the conditions necessary for sight have been
removed, and there is absolutely nothing in the external world that
travels from an object and impinges on the optic nerve to cause it. We
need light to see, just as other things are a condition of hearing.

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The same with dog sight. We have tested it, and as it turns out, things don't work the way Lessans said.

So they stand as examples of his observations being inaccurate. The fallacies are good examples of his reasoning being unsound.

You have to go back to the drawing board in order to accuse him of a fallacy. When he used the word "sight", it was synonymous with focus. Until we can focus our eyes, there is no real sight. And as far as dogs being able to identify their owners from a picture, the tests that have been done are far from reliable (you may think they are, but I don't), therefore Lessans is still in the running.

naturalist.atheist · #**11183** 09-28-2011, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, it doesn't prove that he was a mathematician. And it doesn't prove that he made a discovery. Only his accurate observations and sound reasoning prove that he made a discovery.

So ... when, exactly, are you going to provide us with some examples of his "accurate observations" and "sound reasoning"?

Because so far, his observations have proved most inaccurate, and his reasoning anything but sound.

Where have his observations proved unsound and inaccurate? :eek:

babies can see and dogs can recognize photographs, for starters

Babies can see but they can't focus their eyes in infancy. I'm not the only one that says this. And it has not been proven conclusively that dogs can recognize their owners from a photograph. Try again.

You are right they can't change the focus of their eyes. But they can see objects within 8 to 16 inches. So they can see.

You are committing a typical Lessans brain fart. Because babies can't focus at far distances you infer incorrectly that babies can't see anything.

Lessans makes stupid leaps like this all through his book. There is no way that you can say with any credibility that Lessans has shown anything other than there is something wrong with his brain.

And you don't appear to be capable of thinking correctly either. Which makes me think that there is something genetic going on between you and Lessans. Both of you have similarly broken brains.

peacegirl · #**11184** 09-28-2011, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, it doesn't prove that he was a mathematician. And it doesn't prove that he made a discovery. Only his accurate observations and sound reasoning prove that he made a discovery.

So ... when, exactly, are you going to provide us with some examples of his "accurate observations" and "sound reasoning"?

Because so far, his observations have proved most inaccurate, and his reasoning anything but sound.

Where have his observations proved unsound and inaccurate? :eek:

babies can see and dogs can recognize photographs, for starters

Quote:

Babies can see but they can't focus their eyes in infancy. I'm not the only one that says this. And it has not been proven conclusively that dogs can recognize their owners from a photograph. Try again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

You are right they can't change the focus of their eyes. But they can see objects within 8 to 16 inches. So they can see.

You are incorrect. It's not that they can't change their focus. THEY CAN'T FOCUS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

You are committing a typical Lessans brain fart. Because babies can't focus at far distances you infer incorrectly that babies can't see anything.

Lessans makes stupid leaps like this all through his book. There is no way that you can say with any credibility that Lessans has shown anything other than there is something wrong with his brain.

You keep this up natural.atheist and you can say anything you want on ignore. Your posts have slowly turned into nothing more than an attack on Lessans. I'm not going to accept the disrespect you show for him and me just because you don't like what he's written. There is a nice way of getting your point across and a mean spirited way. It's up to you whether you end up on ignore. The ball is in your court.

naturalist.atheist · #**11185** 09-28-2011, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The difference is that the sound is being carried to our
eardrums whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the
waves of light to impinge on our optic nerve.

So here Lessans says that light impinges on the optic nerve. Of course it does not impinge on the optic nerve. It impinges on the rods and cones in the eye. But that is neither here nor there.

What appears to be the problem is that Lessans didn't know that images can be formed from light. Cameras do it all the time. All it takes is a lens and the eye has a lens. A lens will form an image.

So yet again Lessans draws an erroneous conclusion except this time it is not an error in thinking, but pure bald faced ignorance. But his hubris and overconfidence allows him to think that his excrement is not volatile.

naturalist.atheist · #**11186** 09-28-2011, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, it doesn't prove that he was a mathematician. And it doesn't prove that he made a discovery. Only his accurate observations and sound reasoning prove that he made a discovery.

So ... when, exactly, are you going to provide us with some examples of his "accurate observations" and "sound reasoning"?

Because so far, his observations have proved most inaccurate, and his reasoning anything but sound.

Where have his observations proved unsound and inaccurate? :eek:

babies can see and dogs can recognize photographs, for starters

Quote:

Babies can see but they can't focus their eyes in infancy. I'm not the only one that says this. And it has not been proven conclusively that dogs can recognize their owners from a photograph. Try again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

You are right they can't change the focus of their eyes. But they can see objects within 8 to 16 inches. So they can see.

You are incorrect. It's not that they can't change their focus. THEY CAN'T FOCUS.

Wow peacegirl. Thanks for that. You have given me data about the brain defect you share with your dad.

Let's be clear about this.

You are saying that

not being able to focus

means

you can't see at all

is this correct?

And you do not understand how it could be possible to see anything in any way if you could not focus?

http://www.ski.org/Vision/babyvision.html

naturalist.atheist · #**11187** 09-28-2011, 02:39 AM

peacegirl, your illness is fascinating. Its as if your brain has several blind spots. There are certain inferences that you just can't see and there are other inferences that you make automatically whether they apply or not.

With enough data I may be able to nail down more details about your mental pathology.

naturalist.atheist · #**11188** 09-28-2011, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep this up natural.atheist and you can say anything you want on ignore. Your posts have slowly turned into nothing more than an attack on Lessans. I'm not going to accept the disrespect you show for him and me just because you don't like what he's written. There is a nice way of getting your point across and a mean spirited way. It's up to you whether you end up on ignore. The ball is in your court.

Oh no problem peacegirl. I'll be able to see your posts and thus learn more about your pathology. And perhaps I can get some of the posters you are interacting with to interject some of my test questions to further explore your illness.

And I am beginning to feel sorry for you and Lessans. I can't imagine what it would be like to go through life with huge holes in ones ability to think.

But · #**11189** 09-28-2011, 03:54 AM

Peacegirl, can you explain why some people need glasses to see properly? There is enough light to see, they are looking directly at an object, the brain wants to see, there is nothing in the way and they still only see a fuzzy coloured blob. Can you explain that with your "theory"?

naturalist.atheist · #**11190** 09-28-2011, 04:02 AM

Everyone who is posting with peacegirl should stop trying to argue facts with her and concentrate on basic inference tests. If she is unable to infer properly there is no point in arguing anything with her. It would be like trying to get a calculator with broken carry lines and bad logic gates to compute correctly. There is just no point in it. But it does present a possibly interesting problem of inferring what is broken in peacegirls head by asking questions targeted to reveal missing abilities to logically infer or detect a lack of knowledge.

She's been at this for over 400+ pages now. I don't think she is going anywhere. We got us a guinea pig. No need for consent because I am not hiding anything.

But · #**11191** 09-28-2011, 04:05 AM

Fuck off, it's my turn now.

naturalist.atheist · #**11192** 09-28-2011, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Fuck off, it's my turn now.

Just trying to save you some time. The vision question was not to probe her understanding of optics, because she has none. It was to see if she was capable of seeing her error in inference.

LadyShea · #**11193** 09-28-2011, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Need some assistance?

Each of the 7 lines is required to have A-O

Using some form of must (compelled, can only) wrt possible choices, is fallacious reasoning.

You're right. I had noticed that in his solution, but I forgot to look for that in Captimus's answer. I actually agree with you that the conditions of the puzzle are not as clear as they could be. Did Ceptimus change his answer?

Yes, the final solution Ceptimus posted met all conditions.

LadyShea · #**11194** 09-28-2011, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What he is saying is that if efferent vision was observed (it hasn't been) and could be tested and evidenced, all living scientists would be on it, competing for the first to demonstrate it and win fame and fortune.

It hasn't been observed, except apparently by Lessans. If he had observed apples falling straight up you would be in the same boat.

Although we know that apples don't fall up, there is still a chance that the eyes are efferent, so you really can't compare.

No, there really is no chance of that. And my analogy is very valid, because Lessans observed something nobody else has ever observed, nor can observe now, even though they tried.

As has been said many times, efferent vision (the brain looking out through the eyes), was the leading theory for decades and all early experiments and exploration of vision were with it in mind. They discovered our vision works the way it does (light, transduction, visual cortex etc.), they didn't set up experiments with the conclusion already in mind.

Vivisectus · #**11195** 09-28-2011, 10:54 AM

Quote:

You have to go back to the drawing board in order to accuse him of a fallacy. When he used the word "sight", it was synonymous with focus. Until we can focus our eyes, there is no real sight. And as far as dogs being able to identify their owners from a picture, the tests that have been done are far from reliable (you may think they are, but I don't), therefore Lessans is still in the running.

No, I just pointed the fallacies out in the post before this. It lies at the basis of his solution for evil, and it confuses that what does happen with that what has to happen.

And you keep misunderstanding. It is not that babies cannot focus - they can. They just cannot change the focus yet. Also, newborns blink if something approaches their eyes very quickly, long before they have learned to change their focus.

So Lessans observation that babies require stimulation other than sight to learn to "look out" at something through a process of conditioning was wrong. They see right from the get-go, with no conditioning involved. This is something to keep in mind when you think about the number of things he requires us to accept on his authority alone: we know for a fact that he got things wrong, because he never bothered to test his ideas and share both the test and the result.

Spacemonkey · #**11196** 09-28-2011, 12:11 PM

"Molecules of light". QED.

I will also predict that Janis will eventually leave here only to repeat this entire charade all over again on some other forum, only to once again be baffled by all the empirical evidence against Lessan's unsupported claims as if she'd never been shown all this before, along with everybody's inexplicable and unreasonable hostility towards both his work and her own peculiar methods of presentation, defence, avoidance, and denial.

peacegirl · #**11197** 09-28-2011, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep this up natural.atheist and you can say anything you want on ignore. Your posts have slowly turned into nothing more than an attack on Lessans. I'm not going to accept the disrespect you show for him and me just because you don't like what he's written. There is a nice way of getting your point across and a mean spirited way. It's up to you whether you end up on ignore. The ball is in your court.

Oh no problem peacegirl. I'll be able to see your posts and thus learn more about your pathology. And perhaps I can get some of the posters you are interacting with to interject some of my test questions to further explore your illness.

And I am beginning to feel sorry for you and Lessans. I can't imagine what it would be like to go through life with huge holes in ones ability to think.

You made your choice and sealed your fate. Have fun talking to yourself.

peacegirl · #**11198** 09-28-2011, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Need some assistance?

Each of the 7 lines is required to have A-O

Using some form of must (compelled, can only) wrt possible choices, is fallacious reasoning.

You're right. I had noticed that in his solution, but I forgot to look for that in Captimus's answer. I actually agree with you that the conditions of the puzzle are not as clear as they could be. Did Ceptimus change his answer?

Yes, the final solution Ceptimus posted met all conditions.

Could you give me the post #, I want to review it. I think it's really cool that he was able to solve it. Thanks LadyShea for picking up on that one condition that hadn't been met.

LadyShea · #**11199** 09-28-2011, 01:05 PM

Ceptimus solution

peacegirl · #**11200** 09-28-2011, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Peacegirl, can you explain why some people need glasses to see properly? There is enough light to see, they are looking directly at an object, the brain wants to see, there is nothing in the way and they still only see a fuzzy coloured blob. Can you explain that with your "theory"?

Of course. Your eyes need to bend light rays so the image can be focused sharply on your retina. The better your retina records the image, the more likely that your brain will interpret the image, and the more likely you will see the image clearly.

Refracting is a big word that means bending light rays. If a person has vision trouble, it's often a refractive problem. Glasses or contact lenses work so well because they can correct refractive problems. In other words, they bend the light rays in a way that lets you see more clearly. The operative word is "see" more clearly. The brain is looking through the eyes, utilizing the light that is striking the retina. So if the refraction is corrected, the image that the brain sees will be clear. If it's not striking correctly, the brain will not see clear. It would work the same way in afferent vision as in efferent vision, because the exact point at which the light strikes the retina is still necessary in order to see a clear image, but this has nothing to do with how a newborn begins to focus his eyes.