A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Huh? Now you're going to claim that we can't learn language unless we see in real-time? And your support for this is...?


How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

'Lessans book' should be an adequate answer for both questions?

Do you mean to say it isn't?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So then help me to understand.

When we do think in terms of efferent vision, and when we do consider the conditions which (allegedly) make real time vision possible without violating the laws of physics, then how do the photons at the film get there without either traveling or teleporting there?

Spacemonkey! I'm surprised at you! Have you understood nothing? Maybe you need to go back to school, the advice that Her Royal Idiot gave to The Lone Ranger (!)

She has already answered this question. Her answer was:

Voila! We See!

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because she gets excited as you round the corner doesn't mean she actually recognizes your features and knows positively that it is you. She probably is use to the routine, which is her cue. My friend's cat use to sit by the door at 8:00 sharp every night waiting for her owner to come home from work. Of course, if someone else came in, she would know immediately that it wasn't him because of the person's smell.

All I know is this: they like to lie down on the couch, with a view out of the window overlooking the front lawn. They like that because barking at strangers is a major hobby of theirs.

But they never bark at me. I don't really have a routine - I work from home a lot, go into the office irregularly, and have to travel for work some as well. So there really is no telling when it is me coming around the corner. The kids have irregular schedules as well: most of them are in college now, they have rooms of their own, so one moment I have a full house, the next moment I have a mere skeleton crew. If there is a predictable pattern to our collective coming and going, I certainly cannot see it. I sure have not figured it out, which is why I still cook for 7 most nights and end up with enough leftovers to feed a small battalion. And yet none of them get barked at.

So how come they know, without fail! to bark at strangers and to greet family? From behind glass? At 30 meters? With no prior warning - people just appear at the gate, and there is not more than a second or so to "recognise gait" or whatnot. One of them is deaf, for goodness sake!

Now obviously - this is a mere anecdote. It means nothing. I may be biased and see what I want to see, as I love my dogs, which may cause me to overestimate their abilities. There could be factors involved that I am simply not aware of - there may be some gap in the hedge that I never spotted, some other weird correlation of events that make this happen. I do not see how at the moment, but I am quite aware of the fact that I am certainly not a neutral observer.

This is why actual peer-reviewed tests are so important. This is why scepticism is so important. This is why actual evidence is crucial.

You should try it sometime.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never seen a dog that recognizes his master's face from a still photograph, even though I haven't seen every dog. Somebody should be able to find evidence of this. I'm not referring to gestures.

We have. You've been given quite a few examples showing very clear evidence that dogs can recognize their masters' faces in photographs and in videos. You're lying, peacegirl, and that's not very becoming.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said I was putting you on ignore, but don't press your luck. You sound really angry ...

Dishonesty and willful ignorance tend to create that effect.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

We have. You've been given quite a few examples showing very clear evidence that dogs can recognize their masters' faces in photographs and in videos. You're lying, peacegirl, and that's not very becoming.

Exactly. The asshat HAS been given evidence of this, REPEATEDLY. Yet she persists in lying. What a contemptible creature.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But learning language is an efferent process.

What does that even mean?

[LadyShea]

Pooping is an efferent process, though, def

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does that even mean?

It means nothing. She's crazy. She just strings words together like a random text generator. When she fucked up the quote tags as she so often does, she ended up challenging one of her own posts.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Pooping is an efferent process, though, def

Are you saying that language is crap?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Hello Murdock13!

Is that same guy that did battle with Tiamat?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

All I know is this: they like to lie down on the couch, with a view out of the window overlooking the front lawn. They like that because barking at strangers is a major hobby of theirs.

But they never bark at me. I don't really have a routine - I work from home a lot, go into the office irregularly, and have to travel for work some as well. So there really is no telling when it is me coming around the corner. The kids have irregular schedules as well: most of them are in college now, they have rooms of their own, so one moment I have a full house, the next moment I have a mere skeleton crew. If there is a predictable pattern to our collective coming and going, I certainly cannot see it. I sure have not figured it out, which is why I still cook for 7 most nights and end up with enough leftovers to feed a small battalion. And yet none of them get barked at.

So how come they know, without fail! to bark at strangers and to greet family? From behind glass? At 30 meters? With no prior warning - people just appear at the gate, and there is not more than a second or so to "recognise gait" or whatnot. One of them is deaf, for goodness sake!

Now obviously - this is a mere anecdote. It means nothing. I may be biased and see what I want to see, as I love my dogs, which may cause me to overestimate their abilities. There could be factors involved that I am simply not aware of - there may be some gap in the hedge that I never spotted, some other weird correlation of events that make this happen. I do not see how at the moment, but I am quite aware of the fact that I am certainly not a neutral observer.

This is why actual peer-reviewed tests are so important. This is why scepticism is so important. This is why actual evidence is crucial.

You should try it sometime.

I told you that I am all for evidence, but sometimes the empirical tests that are supposed to give accurate results are inherently flawed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You're weaseling.

What on Earth makes you think that a dog is so stupid that it wouldn't be able to tell that a flickering, 2-dimensional image is not its master?

Because dogs don't have this ability, that's why. Why mention the word "stupid", which has nothing to do with anything?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And yes, you were given links to experiments in which it was shown that dogs can and do distinguish videos of their masters/handlers from videos of strangers.

Is it the video with the dogs using a lever? I already said that I believe this test is fundamentally flawed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does that even mean?

If you had read this chapter carefully, you would understand why the relationship between words and objects are an efferent process. I will repeat this excerpt because it explains an important concept.

In other words, as she learns these
names and words her brain takes a picture of the objects symbolized
and when she sees these differences again she projects the word or
name, but the brain will not take any picture until a relation is
formed. Consequently, these differences that exist in the external
world which are not identifiable through taste, touch, smell, or sounds
are identifiable only because they are related to words, names or slides
that we project for recognition.

[LadyShea]

If Lessans is right then blind people can't learn language.

Also, that whole projection and brain pictures thing was just more assertion with zero evidence.

[LadyShea]

No dogs are shown or said to have used a lever in any of the studies or videos peacegirl.

I explained to you that I introduced the possibility of a lever, as one of several options, because the study abstract I had posted didn't mention the method.

So you've never read or watched anything we've posted (which is multiple different tests by different scientists), or you would know this. And, your fixation on levers is completely mental.

[Vivisectus]

I told you that I am all for evidence, but sometimes the empirical tests that are supposed to give accurate results are inherently flawed.

Correction: you are all for evidence that supports Lessans. Evidence that does not you dismiss out of hand. Just like in this case: you call the study inherently flawed. Why? Based on what do you come to the conclusion that it is flawed, other than the fact that you do not like the results?

But learning language is an efferent process.

I agree that to learn language the Lessans way, you have to be out of your mind

[LadyShea]

She has now all but admitted to never reviewing any of the tests we've given her (or she would know there are no levers in any of them), which is 4 or 5 I believe. She has simply declared that all of them are flawed and unreliable, without knowing the methods or how the data was interpreted.

Lessans obviously detested science and methodology, though he wanted the credibility science lends. He thought he deserved the recognition without doing the work. He indoctrinated peacegirl so she shares this contempt of all things that aren't unsupported assertions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If Lessans is right then blind people can't learn language.

Not true at all. You just don't see the symbols with your eyes, but it is the external symbol (representing language) that forms the relation and takes a photograph, even if it's through the sense of touch. Without the word relation, it's difficult to identify differences in substance. The only difference is that a blind person can't be conditioned by words like beautiful and ugly.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, that whole projection and brain pictures thing was just more assertion with zero evidence.

That's what you always say. But this was an accurate description of how we learn words and how a mental slide of the object/word relationship is photographed and stored in the brain.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She has now all but admitted to never reviewing any of the tests we've given her (or she would know there are no levers in any of them), which is 4 or 5 I believe. She has simply declared that all of them are flawed and unreliable, without knowing the methods or how the data was interpreted.

Lessans obviously detested science and methodology, though he wanted the credibility science lends. He thought he deserved the recognition without doing the work. He indoctrinated peacegirl so she shares this contempt of all things that aren't unsupported assertions.

You've got it all figured out, don't you LadyShea?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Correction: you are all for evidence that supports Lessans. Evidence that does not you dismiss out of hand. Just like in this case: you call the study inherently flawed. Why? Based on what do you come to the conclusion that it is flawed, other than the fact that you do not like the results?

Not true. These were astute observations and I'm sorry you don't see the reason dogs cannot identify individual features, and why they can easily identify someone through smell or their sound of their voice.

But learning language is an efferent process.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I agree that to learn language the Lessans way, you have to be out of your mind

I'm glad you tempered that comment with a playful smiley, or you would have been put on ignore.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No dogs are shown or said to have used a lever in any of the studies or videos peacegirl.

I explained to you that I introduced the possibility of a lever, as one of several options, because the study abstract I had posted didn't mention the method.

So you've never read or watched anything we've posted (which is multiple different tests by different scientists), or you would know this. And, your fixation on levers is completely mental.

I have never seen any experiments where it proves that dogs can recognize faces without confirming that person's identity using their sense of hearing and smell.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You've got it all figured out, don't you LadyShea?

Yep, Lessans was arrogant and lazy and so are you.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true. These were astute observations and I'm sorry you don't see the reason dogs cannot identify individual features, and why they can easily identify someone through smell or their sound of their voice.

Wow you are becoming blatant in your use of the ole "Astute Observations". Basically whenever you invoke it, you mean "I am not going to provide evidence for this point of view, but I am declaring it an "Astute Observation" which means it must be treated as convincingly proven anyway."

I'm glad you tempered that comment with a playful smiley, or you would have been put on ignore.

Lucky me! You have to admit that sentence is completely incoherent though. Learning language is something that happens in an outward direction from the brain?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what you always say. But this was an accurate description of how we learn words and how a mental slide of the object/word relationship is photographed and stored in the brain.

How do you know it's an accurate description of how we learn words? How do you know he didn't pull the whole thing out of his ass?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never seen any experiments where it proves that dogs can recognize faces without confirming that person's identity using their sense of hearing and smell.

Of course you haven't seen them. You refuse to read them or watch the videos. You refuse to look at data or findings if you think they might refute Lessans. If you had you would know there were no levers in any of them

And you condemn others for bias.