A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where are the photons that were replaced and what are they doing?

What do you mean "what are they doing?" You are trying so dam hard to make me look inconsistent, but you can't, because there is nothing inconsistent about this model.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Personally I would also like to know why Lessans assumed sight is efferent. There is no case for it in the book at all. There is just his claim that it is so: at no point does he explain why he reckons it is the best explanation for all the known facts.

Any chance of you addressing that peacegirl?

If that's what you think, you better wake up from your nap. That's all I have to say.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You really can't help but display your abject ignorance, can you?

I expected you to come forward. You come out of the woodwork when you feel that Lessans is getting the upper hand. It's so predictable, but it doesn't make you right.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

First of all, since the optic nerve is the axons of the neurons of the retina, it most-definitely is "part of the eye structure." In the strictest technical sense, the entire retina of the eye is part of the Central Nervous System, since it develops as an outgrowth of the brain.

However you want to define the eye's structure, the nerve leading into the brain is involved in the CNS. Do the other sense organs involve the central nervous system, or is it just peripheral? I'm just trying to understand.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Second, you have no idea at all what the words "nerve" and "tract" mean.

If that's true, then how can you use the word "nerve" in this particular conversation?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

We call myelinated axons that are bundled together by epineurium "nerves" in the peripheral nervous system and "tracts" in the central nervous system. This is merely a convention in order to indicate whether we're talking about PNS or CNS structures.

But that's a huge difference. Why are you making so light of it?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Since the optic nerve does indeed extend out beyond the brain proper, it is typically referred to as a "nerve" in common discourse.

But it's not part of the eye structure, as was explained in the definition. Is that definition inaccurate? If it is, why doesn't someone change it? They are giving out wrong information.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Technically, the entire structure is the "optic tract," but anatomically, we distinguish between the optic nerve (the portion before the optic chiasma, the portion which extends out beyond the brain proper) and the optic tract (the portion after the optic chiasma, the portion that lies entirely within the CNS).

Bottom line, it still involves the CNS, which is different than the other afferent nerves that don't have any involvement with central nervous system. Doesn't this bother you at all?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The same is true of the olfactory nerve/tract too, by the way.

I'm trying to understand so could you explain where there's a similarity and where there is a difference?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

If you're going to talk about the anatomy and physiology of the optic pathway, do try not to sound like an idiot. It doesn't help your cause at all.

No, you're just being defensive. I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. THIS IS WHAT I READ ON WIKI, SO I'M NOT PULLING THINGS OUT OF A HAT. Lessans said there are no afferent structures in the eye proper, not the brain proper.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If that's what you think, you better wake up from your nap. That's all I have to say.

Ok, so point out where he does anything except stating THAT things work the way he says? I do not think you can, because I do not believe it is there. Did he forget to write it, or is it an editing mistake?

Or am I mistaken and IS there a case for sight working the way your father said it does in the book? If so, please point it out.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, he concluded that conditioning was something other than what is known to be (which is psychological) because he couldn't have empirically observed it, then backwards justified it with some crazy shit about vision. You really have a whole separate dictionary don't you?

That is not what he did LadyShea. He empirically observed how we learn words. What is it in his demonstration about how we learn words that you disagree with? You are trying desperately to make his observations faulty. He did not reason backwards from a false premise. You're just throwing words around in order to be right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ok, so point out where he does anything except stating THAT things work the way he says? I do not think you can, because I do not believe it is there. Did he forget to write it, or is it an editing mistake?

Or am I mistaken and IS there a case for sight working the way your father said it does in the book? If so, please point it out.

Are you kidding me? Everything that science states in terms of light and distant objects is an observation. Where do they prove that what they think they see, and how they see it, IS CONCLUSIVE VIVISECTUS? Answer me this adequately, and then I'll answer your question in turn.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is it in his demonstration about how we learn words that you disagree with?

I disagree that he empirically observed we learn words by creating mind slides (or rapidly whispering into infants ears, which was just creepy and weird)....because that is not empirically observable. He couldn't have empirically observed the workings of the brain. And, though "slides" might have been a pretty handy analogy, he presented as a literal mechanism of how our mind works.

There is no reason or basis to think his conclusions about language acquisition were accurate.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you kidding me? Everything that science states in terms of light and distant objects is an observation. Where do they prove that what they think they see, and how they see it, IS CONCLUSIVE VIVISECTUS? Answer me this adequately, and then I'll answer your question in turn.

No, that is not correct. The things science states are based on observations: we observe that we see the moons of Jupiter appear at different intervals, despite the fact that they circle the planet at the same speed.

We do not observe that this is caused by the difference in the distance between earth and Jupiter, which requires the light to travel further. That is an explanation that we propose that covers all the known facts. It is also an explanation that fits with a great many other observations. One of the best ones is the observable fact that if we fire a probe at where this explanation predicts the moons should actually be, we hit out mark.

You confuse observations with hypotheses. An observation is repeatable, measurable, recordable. It is not theoretical.

All this is of passing interest and it is good that we addressed your ongoing confusion about what an observation is, but it does not answer the question: where does Lessans make the argument in favour of his idea, and what are his arguments in favour? All I see are claims THAT it is so.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I expected you to come forward. You come out of the woodwork when you feel that Lessans is getting the upper hand. It's so predictable, but it doesn't make you right.

What a nasty little idiot you are. You have a nerve talking about TLR "coming out of the woodwork." He simply and correctly pointing out that your claim, that the optic nerve is not part of the eye structure, is wrong; in fact it is the statement of an abject fool.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean "what are they doing?"

What is confusing you about the question?

There were photons present that were replaced by new photons, according to you. Where are the previously present photons now and what are they doing now, meaning any kind of verb describing an active state of being? You said they are not traveling, but they were replaced. Do they exist? If so where, and what are they doing within the state of existing if not traveling?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ok, so point out where he does anything except stating THAT things work the way he says? I do not think you can, because I do not believe it is there. Did he forget to write it, or is it an editing mistake?

Or am I mistaken and IS there a case for sight working the way your father said it does in the book? If so, please point it out.

There's a loose screw somewhere. Did I not explain to you his observations and reasoning? Did you not read this chapter when it was online? What more are you asking for? Did you want him to point out the mechanism in the brain? What do you mean what is the case for sight working this way? He was describing his observations. They can be empirically tested. If you want to know why it is the way it is, take that up with God, not him.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is confusing you about the question?

There were photons present that were replaced by new photons, according to you. Where are the previously present photons now and what are they doing now, meaning any kind of verb describing an active state of being? You said they are not traveling, but they were replaced. Do they exist? If so where, and what are they doing within the state of existing if not traveling?

She has already said:

1. They are not absorbed.

2. They are not reflected.

3. They do not stay in place.

4. They do not travel.

5. They are not teleported.

6. But they are replaced.

Whatever can this mean? The only option left is that "by replaced," she means the photons cease to exist. To be sure, a photon can "cease to exist" when it is absorbed, but then it is transformed into a different state with energy conserved. But she has said they are not absorbed -- and so the only option left, which she appears to believe, is that they literally cease to exist, which is impossible -- it violates the conservation laws.

It should also be noted of course, and her snout needs to be rubbed in this, that Lessans explicitly stated that the photons hang around -- that they stay in place, and the photons that "smile on us" in the morning when we wake up, are the same photons that arrived on the other side of the world while we are sleeping. So she should be confronted with the fact that she is explicitly contradicting what the Great Buffoon wrote.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I disagree that he empirically observed we learn words by creating mind slides (or rapidly whispering into infants ears, which was just creepy and weird)....because that is not empirically observable.

You're the one that's interpreting it as weird and creepy. There's nothing weird and creepy about it. I guess if he said talk in the child's ear, you would have not been so distracted by your strange suspicions. Obviously, we can't go into the brain of a child to see the connection that is made, but that's not necessary. If you choose to reject the demonstration because you don't see that his observation was correct, then you'll have to wait for further testing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He couldn't have empirically observed the workings of the brain. And, though "slides" might have been a pretty handy analogy, he presented as a literal mechanism of how our mind works.

I believe he was correct as to how we learn language. You seem determined to defy anything he says just for the sake of it. If he said white, you would say black; if said up you would say down because it puts you on an equal footing and gives you a feeling of power. I believe you would have a different tune if people you looked up to began showing an interest.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no reason or basis to think his conclusions about language acquisition were accurate.

It doesn't matter if you do or you don't.

[LadyShea]

Do the other sense organs involve the central nervous system, or is it just peripheral? I'm just trying to understand.

What do you mean "just peripheral"? The CNS is always "involved"

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/...rvous%20System

Two main components of the PNS:

sensory (afferent) pathways that provide input from the body into the CNS.
motor (efferent) pathways that carry signals to muscles and glands (effectors).

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're the one that's interpreting it as weird and creepy. There's nothing weird and creepy about it. I guess if he said talk in the child's ear, you would have not been so distracted by your strange suspicions. Obviously, we can't go into the brain of a child to see the connection that is made, but that's not necessary. If you choose to reject the demonstration because you don't see that his observation was correct, then you'll have to wait for further testing.

I believe he was correct as to how we learn language. You seem determined to defy anything he says just for the sake of it. If he said white, you would say black. I guess that gives you power. I believe his observation was absolutely spot on because this is how children learn words.

It doesn't matter if you do or you don't.

It doesn't matter, no, because I am not the one on a mission to convince the world of a revolution in thought or whatever. You asked a question and I answered.


If you think I am the one with the problem, and that other people will accept Lessans claims unskeptically , then you should be out finding those people instead of talking to me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is confusing you about the question?

There were photons present that were replaced by new photons, according to you. Where are the previously present photons now and what are they doing now, meaning any kind of verb describing an active state of being? You said they are not traveling, but they were replaced. Do they exist? If so where, and what are they doing within the state of existing if not traveling?

If you think in terms of the inverse square law, you will know where they are. I've said it umpteen times that they move forward as they are replaced by new photons, but they don't bounce and travel through space and time. They join the other colors of the visual spectrum as the photons spread too far apart to create an image on the film/retina.

[Vivisectus]

Let me make it simple. When I read the section about sight, I can find 3 reasons that Lessans gives to believe his ideas about sight are correct:

1: His claim that there are no afferent nerve-endings in the eye.

The problem with this is that we know Lessans never dissected human eyes and optic nerves: so this must be a conclusion he reached, not part of the reason why he thought efferent sight was the best explanation for what we can observe.

Apart from that there is the problem that the optic nerve looks and acts like an afferent nerve in every possible way we have examined it, down to even the smallest level.

2: His claim that dogs cannot recognize faces.

Even if this is true, then it is a fact that is merely compatible with efferent sight, but is not proof that sight is efferent. Nor is it compatible exclusively with efferent sight: it is also compatible with normal sight in many different ways.

3: His claim about infant sight

The same applies here as above.

These are the only things I can find that even remotely resemble arguments in favour. As you can see they are woefully inadequate.

Apart from this you regularly claim that Lessans somehow "observed" that this is how sight works. However, that is simply an incorrect use of the word "observed". As I have already mentioned, we can observe rocks falling: we cannot observe gravity. That there is such a force as gravity is the explanation we offer for the observed falling rocks: it is not something we observe.

By the same token, one cannot "observe how people learn words" or "observe how sight works". We can observe behaviour, we can observe responses, we can observe brain-scans; we can then form a hypothesis about how we acquire language and test our hypothesis by seeing if it is compatible with other observations.

You are pretending that the very fact that your father thought this is how sight and the learning of words worked is evidence that it works that way. However, your father's say-so does not count as evidence anywhere outside your head I am afraid. It certainly is not science.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It doesn't matter, no, because I am not the one on a mission to convince the world of a revolution in thought or whatever. You asked a question and I answered.

I am explaining what he saw. Children must hear a word and that word must be associated with an actual object. Instead of telling me that his demonstration is weird, why don't you think about what he is saying. You're not doing that. You're not asking anything. You're telling me he is wrong. Where do you come off saying that he's wrong when you don't know?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you think I am the one with the problem, and that other people will accept Lessans claims unskeptically , then you should be out finding those people instead of talking to me.

I don't mind talking to you, but I don't like your attitude when you say he's wrong because... You don't know he's wrong, so why can't you listen to what his observations are, and then let science take over and test his claims. It's going to come down to that. We all know that.

[LadyShea]

they move forward as they are replaced by new photons, but they don't bounce and travel through space and time. They join the other colors of the visual spectrum as the photons spread too far apart to create an image on the film/retina.

If the photons move forward and eventually "join" other photons that are traveling, then they are traveling through space and time, peacegirl. They are simply doing so in the company of other photons.

If you walk out of a building and move forward 20 feet to the sidewalk and join the large crowd of people walking, did you "become" the crowd? Did you cease traveling when you "joined" the crowd?

[LadyShea]

dupe

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's a loose screw somewhere.

You are not the first one to think so. Spacemonkey and Atheist.naturalist have a hypothesis about exactly where it is located.

Did I not explain to you his observations and reasoning?

You talked a lot about WHAT he thought. But we were never told what he based his thoughts on - WHY he thought it worked that way. Please not I am not asking why things work that way. I am merely asking what he based his conclusions on.

Did you not read this chapter when it was online?

Many times.

What more are you asking for?

I am asking what he based his conclusions on, because I cannot find it anywhere in the text.

Did you want him to point out the mechanism in the brain?

That would be nice, but it is not necessary. What IS necessary is to point out why we should assume sight is efferent. He speaks a lot about what he thinks is going on. But he does not explain why he thinks it.

I can talk at length about the fat-arse fairies, but that does not give you a reason to believe they exist. By the same token, there is no reason to believe that sight works like your father said.

What do you mean what is the case for sight working this way? He was describing his observations.

They were not observations: they were conclusions. I am asking what he based those conclusions on. It seems that I am not getting an answer to the question either.

What he described was what he thought was going on. But why did he think that was what was going on? He seems to have forgotten to include that bit.

You can say "He was RIGHT!" but then it is still up to you to explain why we should think he was right.

Nor can you claim that he just observed it directly somehow - that is not what an observation is. An observation is something concrete. It is repeatable, measurable, recordable.

They can be empirically tested. If you want to know why it is the way it is, take that up with God, not him.

I merely want to know what he based his conclusions on. Without the basis for his conclusions, all that is there is your fathers opinions. Why would we assume his opinions were correct?

The proposal that fat-arse fairies fly out of my bum at night can be empirically tested too. Does that make it more believable? Of course not!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Let me make it simple. When I read the section about sight, I can find 3 reasons that Lessans gives to believe his ideas about sight are correct:

1: His claim that there are no afferent nerve-endings in the eye.

The problem with this is that we know Lessans never dissected human eyes and optic nerves: so this must be a conclusion he reached, not part of the reason why he thought efferent sight was the best explanation for what we can observe.

That's why I said he came to these conclusions indirectly.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Apart from that there is the problem that the optic nerve looks and acts like an afferent nerve in every possible way we have examined it, down to even the smallest level.

But the optic nerve is not part of the eye proper. That's why Wiki described it as a misnomer. I'm waiting to hear back from Lone Ranger on that. Lessans said that nothing other than light strikes the optic nerve. If light strikes the optic nerve then that nerve has to connect to the brain, but to say that the image, or signal, is interpreted in the brain is not conclusive by any means.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

2: His claim that dogs cannot recognize faces.

Even if this is true, then it is a fact that is merely compatible with efferent sight, but is not proof that sight is efferent. Nor is it compatible exclusively with efferent sight: it is also compatible with normal sight in many different ways.

Efferent sight is normal sight.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

3: His claim about infant sight

The same applies here as above.

He is giving his observations. This model is just as valid as the afferent model because no one has proved what goes on inside of the brain.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

These are the only things I can find that even remotely resemble arguments in favour. As you can see they are woefully inadequate.

Apart from this you regularly claim that Lessans somehow "observed" that this is how sight works. However, that is simply an incorrect use of the word "observed". As I have already mentioned, we can observe rocks falling: we cannot observe gravity. That there is such a force as gravity is the explanation we offer for the observed falling rocks: it is not something we observe.

From his observations (which I believe were spot on), he made certain inferences.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

By the same token, one cannot "observe how people learn words" or "observe how sight works".

I disagree that we can't see directly how children learn words. Take, for example, how Helen Keller associated the hand sign with the object that it named. She finally got the connection and that's when her whole world opened up due to language.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We can observe behaviour, we can observe responses, we can observe brain-scans; we can then form a hypothesis about how we acquire language and test our hypothesis by seeing if it is compatible with other observations.

He did exactly what a scientist does, but didn't write down his findings because he didn't start out with a hypothesis. He saw patterns in behavior as he studied and read, which led him to these findings. I am not against testing his claims.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are pretending that the very fact that your father thought this is how sight and the learning of words worked is evidence that it works that way. However, your father's say-so does not count as evidence anywhere outside your head I am afraid. It certainly is not science.

This is not based on his say-so. You just didn't like him because you thought he was full of himself, which he wasn't.

[LadyShea]

Children must hear a word and that word must be associated with an actual object

What about abstract representations of actual objects? How did Lessans think children learn that "cat" applies to an actual living moving furry animal and a photograph of that animal and a drawing of that animal and an animation of that animal?

Lessans description made is seem like he believed there was a literal association of the word to the physical object seen, the creation of a single "cat slide", whereas language is incredibly representational and various concepts can be incorporated into one word such as ascribing "catlike" to human movements or pointy ears in another species.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the photons move forward and eventually "join" other photons that are traveling, then they are traveling through space and time, peacegirl. They are simply doing so in the company of other photons.

That is true that they are moving forward, but to say that they are traveling is confusing the issue because it implies that they are traveling independent of the object, which is a fallacy.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you walk out of a building and move forward 20 feet to the sidewalk and join the large crowd of people walking, did you "become" the crowd? Did you cease traveling when you "joined" the crowd?

You're right about that. It is movement but there is a difference in what these photons are capable of doing for the very reason that they join the crowd, which changes everything.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true that they are moving forward, but to say that they are traveling is confusing the issue because it implies that they are traveling independent of the object, which is a fallacy.

Somebody really needs to compile her sayings in one handy dandy book.