A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am aware of what the definitions are in the dictionary. That being said, I want accuracy, that's all. Maybe there is no word that states "recognize" in the definition. That in itself does not make Lessans wrong.

You are correct, it does not, in itself, make Lessans wrong. However, it does make your claim that this definition "is in every dictionary that's out there" false. If you are going to appeal to dictionary definitions of terms then you ought to first make sure that dictionaries do indeed define the terms in the way you claim that they do. In this particular case you need to show that not just one dictionary but "every dictionary that's out there" defines the term the way you claim they do.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you know 3 weeks before the Titanic sunk there was another ship in Australia that sunk due to a cyclone? The ships were built very much alike, and both were thought to be unsinkable.

Fateful voyage of Australian 'Titanic' remains a riddle
You might find this website interesting.

http://lostliners.com/content/

I read the article about the Koombana and I could not find where it stated that the Koombana and Titanic were built very much the same. Nor could I find where it stated that the Koombana was thought to be unsinkable. The only comparison I could find was in regard to the similar degree of luxury offered by both ships. Did you have some other source in mind for your claims or are you just making stuff up?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am aware of what the definitions are in the dictionary. That being said, I want accuracy, that's all. Maybe there is no word that states "recognize" in the definition. That in itself does not make Lessans wrong. You're grasping at straws LadyShea, and you can't stand that Lessans may actually be right after all.

I am grasping at straws? I am not the one that made the ridiculously erroneous claim about definitions, you are. Can you read your own words? I bolded them for you.

I didn't say Lessans was wrong, I said YOU are wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I read the article about the Koombana and I could not find where it stated that the Koombana and Titanic were built very much the same. Nor could I find where it stated that the Koombana was thought to be unsinkable. The only comparison I could find was in regard to the similar degree of luxury offered by both ships. Did you have some other source in mind for your claims or are you just making stuff up?

Perhaps I can be of assistance here with a bit of translating. The Kombana and the Titanic were built very much the same in that they both floated in sea water, and they had sufficient water tight intregrety so as to not sink when placed in afore mentioned sea water. This is of course as opposed to ships that are only unsinkable when not placed in sea water or any other kind of water, with the possible exception of 'very hard water'. The Wasa is one very well known example of a ship that was definitely not unsinkable, though possible more due to mishandeling than design.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say that. I said there is no magic number. One piece of evidence could be strong enough to indict, or it could be a number of pieces of circumstantial evidence that leads to a guilty verdict.

show spoiler

See, this is what happens when folks hold forth extemporaneously regarding subjects on which they are bereft of knowledge.

First we learned that a mere one or two "pieces of evidence" is unacceptable in any court of law. Then we learned that there's "no magic number" of evidence pieces. When we made the obvious suggestion that the absence of a magic number suggests that one or two "pieces of evidence" might indeed be sufficient, we encountered a blizzard of authentic Lessantonian gibberish about how one piece of evidence "could be strong enough to indict, or it could be a number of pieces of circumstantial evidence that leads to a guilty verdict."

So now that we've achieved perfect clarity on these matters, it's time for a quiz.

The defendant in a criminal proceeding is charged with rape. A jury is impaneled and trial begins. The state, which bears the burdens of production and persuasion, presents its case first. The prosecutor calls the alleged victim to the stand, who testifies that she was raped and that the defendant was the rapist. After being questioned from both sides on direct, cross, redirect and recross examination, the witness is excused and the prosecutor rests the state's case. The state has presented just one "piece of evidence," namely the alleged victim's testimony.

Defense counsel stands up and moves for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the prosecution's case is insufficient as a matter of law to support a verdict of guilty.

Is the defendant entitled to a judgment of acquittal?

(NOTE: There is a right answer, and unlike so much other law-related nonsense, the answer is not "it depends.")

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I knew someone was going to take what I said and refer it back to my father. Not surprised that it was you Spacemonkey. Having a trusting attitude toward people in general is not the same thing as studying knowledge that has been given to me and coming to my own independent conclusions.

Your self-admitted gullible and trusting attitude is very much a problem, especially when it comes to your fathers unsubstantiated claims. Your approach is the polar opposite of rational skepticism.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know your being wrong is difficult for you to accept, but I can't break it to you any easier. #1: Regardless of how many people have acknowledged this discovery, this proves nothing regarding its validity (I'm surprised that you would use this as proof), and #2 this is not a matter of convincing. Either you have the ability to grasp these principles or you don't. Unfortunately for you, you don't.

Why should I accept your claim that I am wrong, when you do nothing more than assert that this is so? And where did I uses this as proof of the invalidity of Lessans' ideas? I didn't. I simply pointed out that you know as well as we do that you are lying to us about your imaginary supporters. They do not exist, and you know it. You have yet to convince a single person anywhere that Lessans' ideas have any validity or value.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't go there again Spacemonkey. You're looking very foolish. I can't help that you don't see the relations involved, but that does not make Lessans wrong. I can see your angst because you believe if you don't get it, it can't be right. You're thinking too highly of yourself in that regard, I'm sorry to say. I'm not trying to put you down, but you're forcing my hand.

Apparently I'm forcing your hand by making you resort to non sequitur ad hominem responses by presenting points that you cannot address. Once more:

"Prosopagnosia shows that there is a part of the human brain responsible for facial recognition which when damaged can prevent a subject from recognizing faces even when the subject can see perfectly well. So if the canine brain had never evolved or developed this part of the brain, then dogs would be unable to recognize faces even if their eyes were afferent sense organs."

[thedoc]

FYI, Peacegirl is logged on at Dissadent Philosophy where she had posted before coming here. Perhaps she is trolling her old forums looking for someone to talk to, but Dissadent Philosophy is Closed for now.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The capacity for language goes hand in hand with efferent vision, which is why a dog cannot recognize his master in a picture.

No, it doesn't. Not even according to you! You say that humans have efferent vision and the capacity for language, while dogs have efferent vision without the capacity for language. So why on Earth would you say that the two go hand in hand?

And why have you not addressed any other of my above points?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no connection in his brain between the object and the word, and there is no pattern or image traveling from the external world to his brain. Humans have this capacity of language, dogs don't.

So why doesn't the dog just look out through his eyes as windows to see the pattern of his master's face which is there to be seen? If the dog can recognize his master's smell without words, why can't he recognize his face efferently without words?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't know why I'm doing this, but I'm going to give you the following excerpt again, not that it will make one bit of difference.

That's something you should work on - working out why you keep compulsively copypasting your father's words. The rest of us know why you do it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

p. 126 Not knowing what the brain
was able to do, we were convinced that one group of similarities that
were seen with our very eyes contained a lesser value than the opposite
similarities. We were unaware that the brain had reversed the process
by which these negatives were developed and then projected onto the
screen of undeniable differences a value that existed only in our head.
It would not be long before this child would be conditioned to desire
associating with the one type while avoiding the other, and as he would
get older you would not be able to convince him that an ugly or
beautiful person did not exist as a definite part of the real world,
because he has witnessed these differences with his eyes. The confusion
between what is real and what is not comes from the fact that these
words not only describe real differences that exist in the world, but they
also create external values when there are no such things. I will give you
an example of this by using a movie projector.

Here is a smooth white wall in a dark room with nothing on it. I
am dropping a negative plate or slide into the projector, flipping the
switch, and just take a look — there is a picture of a girl on the wall.
But go up and touch her. All you feel is the wall itself because the girl
is not there. We have been doing the same thing with our brain
regarding values. The differences in substance were not only divided
up by the use of words like man, woman, child, etc., but became a
screen upon which we were able to project this value. Drop a negative
plate or word slide in your brain projector and flip the switch. Well
just take a look, there is now a beautiful girl, a homely man, an ugly
duckling! Turn off the switch (remove the negative plate or word
slide) and all you see are the differences in substance because the
projected values have been removed.

Since we were taught that the
eyes receive and transmit sense experience on the waves of light it was
impossible to deny that this beautiful girl actually existed and was a
part of the real world; and when we changed the standard hidden in
the word, all we did was change the screen. By saying that this person
may not be beautiful physically but has a beautiful soul, we were
allowed to see ugly souls as if they, too, existed externally. Scientists,
believing that the eyes were a sense organ, unconsciously confirmed
what man saw with them because they were unaware that it was
possible to project a fallacious relation realistically. Consequently
everything in the external world will be distorted if the words through
which man looks at what he calls reality are inaccurate symbols or if
the relation which is photographed becomes, as in the five senses, an
inaccurate negative which is then projected realistically upon
undeniable substance.

The word ‘beautiful’ has absolutely no external
reality and yet because it is learned in association with a particular
physiognomy a beautiful girl is created, when no such person exists.
Obviously there is a difference between the shape and features of
individuals but to label one beautiful and another ugly only reveals
that you are conscious of a fallacious difference that is projected
through your eyes upon substance that cannot be denied — which
makes the projection appear real.

By having the words beautiful, ugly,
gorgeous, etc. as slides in a movie projector through which the brain
will look at the external world, a fallacious value is placed upon certain
specific differences only because of the words which is then confirmed
as a part of the real world since man will swear that he sees beautiful
women with his eyes, but in actual reality all he sees are different
shapes and different features. This so-called beautiful girl is not
striking his optic nerve which then allows him to see her beauty but
instead he projects the word onto these differences and then
photographs a fallacious relation. The brain records all relations,
whether true or false, and since it was considered an indisputable fact
that man had five senses which were connected in some way with the
external world and since four of these were accurately described as
sense organs, that is, they receive and transmit external stimuli, it was
very easy for Aristotle to get confused and put a closure on further
investigation by including the eyes in the definition, which he did only
because he never understood their true function.

You were right. That was not at all useful. All this shows is that neither you nor Lessans have understood that the projection of values is a psychological rather than a physiological process.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it does.

No, it doesn't. What evidence do you have that our memory for and mental representation of faces is linguistically-based? This is quite obviously false. Facial recognition is based on mental imagery, not words, and once again your only grounds for thinking otherwise is 'My daddy said so!'. How ridiculous is that?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is a necessary truth. It is not a contingent truth. If it was, it would not be a universal law, and I would not be struggling to bring this knowledge to light.

Wrong again. Gravity is a universal law, but it is still a contingent rather than a necessary truth. Obviously you still don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about when it comes to these terms.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm not wrong. Once we make a choice, it could not have been otherwise because we can only go in one direction each and every moment of time, but that does not mean we can't contemplate which choice is more preferable after weighing the pros and cons, before making a decision. You have a block toward this knowledge, and it can't be penetrated.

That is not what you said. You are now changing your tune. You originally said that before a choice is made, it could be different from what it will be. It could go either way. See? Let's look again at what your wrote:

1. "Before it could be [different], but not after."

2. "It could never have been otherwise."

Before it could be different! But after the fact, it could not have been different, before the fact! These are mutally contradictory claims. They cannot both be correct.

Now, in your latest post, the one to which I am currently responding, you are changing your tune. You are saying it's possible to contemplate making a different choice before the fact, not actually make a different choice, from what you will in fact make.

Of course, this claim has no evidence whatsoever to support it. And no, Lessans did not present a coherent argument to demonstrate it.

And if you continue to insist that an act can be contingent before the fact but becomes necessary after the fact, you continue to commit the modal fallacy, in particular violating the principle of modal fixity. So sorry!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why should I accept your claim that I am wrong, when you do nothing more than assert that this is so? And where did I uses this as proof of the invalidity of Lessans' ideas? I didn't. I simply pointed out that you know as well as we do that you are lying to us about your imaginary supporters. They do not exist, and you know it. You have yet to convince a single person anywhere that Lessans' ideas have any validity or value.

I'm not staying for long because I am having a hard time stomaching the unnecessary comments people make. They think that because it's a free-for-all forum, that anything goes even if it ruins a productive conversation. I can't control what people say, but it will prevent me from desiring to continue. Even you Spacemonkey say things that are unnecessary, like his non-discovery. What's your point in saying this, when you don't really know, other than trying to make him wrong, before you even know whether this discovery is valid?

You are trying to use the fact that no one has embraced this book as some kind of proof that this knowledge is inaccurate. There is no other reason for bringing it up. I know you will try to weazel your way out of this (you always do; you never take any responsibility for anything), but the truth is you want him to be wrong. You and David can't stand that science may have made a mistake. And, btw, I have repeatedly said that very few people (except on these forums) even know this book exists. I did not lie when I said there is someone in academia who is very interested in this book. How can you judge who will be interested when very few people know about it, and the ones who do have not even read the book in its entirety, and have their own agenda? You are so convinced that Lessans is wrong that you are trying desperately to get others to not be interested. But it won't happen because the principles are spot on, and people will see intuitively that these principles work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Apparently I'm forcing your hand by making you resort to non sequitur ad hominem responses by presenting points that you cannot address. Once more:

"Prosopagnosia shows that there is a part of the human brain responsible for facial recognition which when damaged can prevent a subject from recognizing faces even when the subject can see perfectly well. So if the canine brain had never evolved or developed this part of the brain, then dogs would be unable to recognize faces even if their eyes were afferent sense organs."

That's a reasonable sounding theory, just like it's a reasonable sounding theory that the ciliary muscle is undeveloped in infants, which is the reason their eyes can't focus well. I'm sorry if you resent him for coming to the conclusions he did based on his astute observations (not mere assertions); just because they are different from yours. This inself does not make him wrong.

[LadyShea]

You are trying to use the fact that no one has embraced this book as some kind of proof that this knowledge is inaccurate. There is no other reason for bringing it up.

Nope, it proves only that neither the book nor your defense of it is convincing to people.

people will see intuitively that these principles work.

This hasn't happened to date, why not? "Very few people" is still dozens across many different forums over a number of years.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a reasonable sounding theory, just like it's a reasonable sounding theory that the ciliary muscle is undeveloped in infants, which is the reason their eyes can't focus well. I'm sorry if you resent him for coming to the conclusions he did based on his astute observations (not mere assertions); just because they are different from yours. This inself does not make him wrong.

He never empirically observed the eyes or brain and simply asserted that science had it wrong and that he had it right.

That doesn't make him wrong, no, the fact that all evidence is against his ideas indicates he was wrong.

[LadyShea]

Was Lessans a dog expert? Are you? Then perhaps neither of you are in a position to determine what facial recognition in dogs might look like
Kujala MV, Kujala J, Carlson S, Hari R (2012) Dog Experts' Brains Distinguish Socially Relevant Body Postures Similarly in Dogs and Humans. PLoS ONE 7(6): e39145. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039145

Humans with autism are often face blind (Prosopagnosia), even with a working fusiform gyrus. If there is variable facial recognition abilities amongst humans, why should one expect dogs to recognize faces?
Jim Tanaka - Centre for Biomedical Research

Tanaka's collaborator, Dr. Bob Schultz, formerly of Yale Child Study Centre and now at Children's Hospital in Philadelphia, showed that when kids with autism see a face, the fusiform gyrus is not activated. But that doesn't mean their fusiform gyri aren't working. In fact, kids with autism seem to be inordinately good at distinguishing ordinary objects, like washing machine brands or obscure trading cards. Moreover, when they see an object of obsession, the fusiform gyrus is activated. "This is important because it is not some organic dysfunction of the fusiform gyrus; it is just that faces don't engage the fusiform gyrus. So maybe we can engage the fusiform gyrus by training up their face recognition skills," reasoned Tanaka.

Hmm, looks like facial recognition is one step in a process, and that determining whether that face is alive is a secondary process.

Here, we show that only responses in the inferior occipital gyrus are organized by global facial form alone (human vs dog) while animacy becomes an additional organizational priority in later face-processing regions: the lateral fusiform gyri (latFG) and right superior temporal sulcus. Additionally, patterns evoked by human faces were maximally distinct from all other face categories in the latFG and parts of the extended face perception system. These results suggest that once a face configuration is perceived, faces are further scrutinized for whether the face is alive and worthy of social cognitive resources. Multivoxel patterns in face-sensitive temporal regions reveal an encoding schema based on detecting life in a face

So upon seeing a photograph, a dog's brain may determine that it is not alive and therefore not worthy of social cognitive resources (meaning not worthy of responding to). After all if it's not a threat, nor is it food, nor is it something that can be interacted with, why waste the energy required (and the brain uses TONS of energy) to respond to it?

In fact, back in February seebs then I even offered the view that a dog may not respond to a photograph any more than a human might strike up a conversation with one. That the dog's brain determines photographs are not worthy of additional brain resources in the social response arena, and therefore even if they do recognize the face they wouldn't respond to it in any way, is a good possible answer for your question from back then

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even if dogs see more clearly at 75 feet, it would be easy to set up an experiment where a huge billboard with their master's features are displayed. What would be the reason for these dogs not to be able to identify their masters features?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, it proves only that neither the book nor your defense of it is convincing to people.

Because they are using this as a some kind of proof that he is wrong without attempting to read the book. People are following the many threads, and coming to very weird conclusions. It just shows how dangerous it can be to follow the crowd.

people will see intuitively that these principles work.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This hasn't happened to date, why not? "Very few people" is still dozens across many different forums over a number of years.

There you go again, using what has happened to me through the years (which has nothing to do with the veracity of this knowledge), against me. You are one of the followers, and you don't even see it.

I used the word intuitively for a reason. Please look the definition up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He never empirically observed the eyes or brain and simply asserted that science had it wrong and that he had it right.

That doesn't make him wrong, no, the fact that all evidence is against his ideas indicates he was wrong.

That's not how he came to these conclusions. I've said this umpteen times, but you fail to recognize this because YOU DON'T WANT HIM TO BE RIGHT. It's really as simple as that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In both cases (whether by picture or in real life), the image of the master would be traveling to the dog's eyes (an afferent experience) and being interpreted in the dog's brain, which is what science believes is occurring.

Also, this old statement of yours is addressed by this research

These results suggest that once a face configuration is perceived, faces are further scrutinized for whether the face is alive and worthy of social cognitive resources. Multivoxel patterns in face-sensitive temporal regions reveal an encoding schema based on detecting life in a face

If the dog's brain interprets the photograph as "not alive", then that would indicate a different response (or even non response) to a photograph than to a real person.

If the dog doesn't respond, or responds differently to the person than to the photograph, how could a human researcher know whether it is due to not recognizing the face (as you claim), or due to recognizing the face and also recognizing that it is not its master but an inanimate object not worth interacting with?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not how he came to these conclusions. I've said this umpteen times, but you fail to recognize this because YOU DON'T WANT HIM TO BE RIGHT. It's really as simple as that.

He came to his conclusions in a way that provides no evidence. I recognize that...and that is what I was pointing out

Evidence wins with me as it does with most critical thinkers, as I've said umpteen times.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because they are using this as a some kind of proof that he is wrong without attempting to read the book. .

I just said that it is not proof he was wrong. That was my exact statement. Nobody else thinks its proof that he was wrong.

He could have been 100% right, but his ideas are not convincing and neither are yours. As I said

There you go again, using what has happened to me through the years (which has nothing to do with the veracity of this knowledge), against me. You are one of the followers, and you don't even see it.

I used the word intuitively for a reason. Please look the definition up.

I know what intuitively means. Are we (those you've interacted over the years) not people? If we are people, and we have not seen intuitively that these principles work, then your statement seems to be disproven.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

FYI, Peacegirl is logged on at Dissadent Philosophy where she had posted before coming here. Perhaps she is trolling her old forums looking for someone to talk to, but Dissadent Philosophy is Closed for now.

Wrong again doc, as usual. The reason I logged in to this forum is because I got an email telling me there was a private message. It's as simple as that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I just said that it is not proof he was wrong. That was my exact statement. Nobody else thinks its proof that he was wrong.

He could have been 100% right, but his ideas are not convincing and neither are yours. As I said

I know what intuitively means. Are we (those you've interacted over the years) not people? If we are people, and we have not seen intuitively that these principles work, then your statement seems to be disproven.

Not at all. It means that you never read the book to see how these principles work, and how war can actually be prevented. You could care less because you are more interested in being right at all costs, even at the cost of peace.