A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If Peacegirl knows the kind of bleating or bahing that indicates recognition, does that mean she speaks sheep?

The more important question for this forum, Does Peacegirl speak and understand English?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So when you said "just because someone turns it into an empirical study, does not mean it's anymore accurate than common sense tells us," what you actually meant was "Yes you're right, there's nothing wrong with empirical testing!".

You're dishonest and a liar, peacegirl.

In certain instances empirical testing can be misleading. When I use my own observational skills to give me some indication about the world I live in versus an empirical test that comes to a completely different conclusion, my common sense tells me that something may be screwy with the test, not with my observations.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Stop lying and I won't call you a liar. You just claimed I have "definitely 100%" contradicted myself. That is a lie. Either support this claim or retract it, Peacegirl.

You're the only one lacking answers here. Many of us are genuinely concerned about your mental health, but you can't face up to the fact that your own behavior consistently and without exception convinces other people you are unwell, so you convince yourself that our concerns are not genuine. It is an obvious self defense mechanism, designed - like everything else you do - to allow you to cling on to your faith at all costs.

That is another lie. You went for months at a time deliberately and quite openly ignoring and evading my questions. I also just presented you with two sincere questions related to the book. Did you answer them? No! You weaseled and evaded them. As you always do. Stop lying.

I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, a perfect specimen of reason and knowledge. And I am quite well aware that I am not Socrates. Now it's your turn: Admit that you are a liar who just lied about me having contradicted myself, and who lied about never having ignored or evaded questions. Be honest for a change, Peacegirl.

You haven't shown me any inaccuracy. That's the point. You said I was not taking responsibility for my own mistaken conclusions regarding compatibilism, thereby implying that I have drawn mistaken conclusions. But you can't identify any such mistaken conclusions at all, can you? So I guess that was just another lie, wasn't it?

How on Earth is it grasping at straws to show that you are lying about being willing to answer relevant and intelligent questions relating to the book? I gave you two sincere questions which you DID NOT answer, and which you DID just evade. Your response was to ignore and evade them, and then blatantly lie by claiming never to have ignored or evaded anything. Why do you do this?

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no reason for your average family pet to respond in any noticeable way to a photograph. Photographs are neither food, nor friend, nor threat...so why would a dog waste any energy on it?

Ask almost "anybody" and they will tell you they've never set up an experiment to test or measure canine response to a photograph.

Ask those who have set up tests (you know, scientists) and they will tell you that dogs must be trained to respond to photographs AT ALL. Once trained, then they choose familiar scenes and people from photographs at a much higher rate than could be attributed to chance.

I've said all along there's something very fishy about a test where a dog has to be trained to recognize his master in a picture. Maybe he can be trained to see patterns of dark and light (I'm not sure), but to conclude that he actually recognizes his owner by his features is not at all conclusive.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I got greater satisfaction out of answering you than not. The truth is you cannot resist coming to this thread no matter how hard you try. Your will is not free to do otherwise unless you are trying to prove to me that you can stay away, but it wouldn't last because your compulsion to be here is greater than any of your other options.

LOL. You really are desperate for me to leave, aren't you? I'm here because I want to be. You are the one who has tried yet failed to leave.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He keeps asking me why don't I leave, as if my leaving would allow him to break away from this thread.

Pure projection. YOU are the one who asks others to stop posting so that you might leave. I told you why I want you to leave (post #20310), and it had nothing to do with letting me leave the thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Exact quote, page 134:

Originally Posted by anonymous

This statement is directly contradicted by the evidence.

That's one of my favorite passages. Therein Lessans tells us clearly and without equivocation that the eye is not a sense organ "because" (Lessans' word, not mine) there are no "afferent nerve endings" associated with sight.

That's right. I stand these claims. Your evidence is not conclusive.

In fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a child that no
object is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because
nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any
number of sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate
reaction since the nerve endings are being struck by something
external.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Thus, all the real-time seeing foolishness was based on Seymouron's ignorance regarding physiology. In truth, there are nothing but "afferent nerve endings" associated with human vision. Lessans simply didn't know that.

He said that there is no direct contact with an afferent nerve ending in the case of the eyes.

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.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ.

Originally Posted by anonymous

Lessans wrote that his claims about vision could and should be tested empirically. It's reasonable to conclude that he saying that the physical structures of the human vision system could be taken apart and examined to determine whether those structures are "efferent." He was unaware that this particular ship had already sailed.

No it has not already sailed anonymous. You don't know what you're talking about. You're just using him as a scapegoat for your own unmet needs. His claim can and will be empirically tested, but not by you, someone who is completely biased.

Originally Posted by anonymous

It's been noted before, but it bears repeating. If peacegirl was telling the truth when she described her father as a reasonable and honest person -- and yes, that's a rather porcine "if" -- we can safely assume that ol' Seymouron would have abandoned his claims about real-time seeing had someone sat him down and showed him that his beliefs about the physiology of vision were false.

peacegirl doesn't have that option. She cannot accept that all the time her father spent on this lunacy -- time he could have devoted to his family but did not -- produced anything short of absolute perfection. The only way she could acknowledged that Lessans was wrong about anything is if Lessans told her so personally. That can't happen, since Lessans returned to the Germinal World of Potential Consciousness four decades ago.

You have no clue what this chapter is about. It's so easy to make fun of what you don't understand. And, btw, he did not pass away 4 decades ago.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've said all along there's something very fishy about a test where a dog has to be trained to recognize his master in a picture...

As you've been told before, the dog is not trained to recognize his master. It is trained to respond to photographs.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Stop lying and I won't call you a liar. You just claimed I have "definitely 100%" contradicted myself. That is a lie. Either support this claim or retract it, Peacegirl.

You can't have free will and no free will Spacemonkey, and that's what the compatibilists believe. Since you're a compatibilist I say you are contradicting yourself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ugh, that's the same old attack because you don't want to admit that you don't have the answers, and you cannot prove Lessans wrong with your phony refutations.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're the only one lacking answers here. Many of us are genuinely concerned about your mental health, but you can't face up to the fact that your own behavior consistently and without exception convinces other people you are unwell, so you convince yourself that our concerns are not genuine. It is an obvious self defense mechanism, designed - like everything else you do - to allow you to cling on to your faith at all costs.

You're just pissed because you're wrong and you can't accept it. Don't play this game that you're genuinely concerned about me. It's such a bunch of crap, I could throw up. I just hope people see through you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not evaded, weaseled, or ignored anything.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That is another lie. You went for months at a time deliberately and quite openly ignoring and evading my questions. I also just presented you with two sincere questions related to the book. Did you answer them? No! You weaseled and evaded them. As you always do. Stop lying.

I won't talk to you about the book if you don't stop the put downs.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only reason you keep bringing this up is because you have no defense. Be honest for a change Spacemonkey. Admit to this group that you are not a perfect specimen of reason and knowledge. Sorry, but you are not Socrates.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, a perfect specimen of reason and knowledge. And I am quite well aware that I am not Socrates.

It's good that you can admit you may be wrong about your reasoning ability when it comes to this topic. I just hope you continue to remain humble.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Now it's your turn: Admit that you are a liar who just lied about me having contradicted myself, and who lied about never having ignored or evaded questions. Be honest for a change, Peacegirl.

I never purposely ignored your questions. I will ignore you if you accuse me of being insane, or you ask me one more time why am I still here?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not telling you to admit you're wrong regardling compatibilism unless you see the inaccuracy...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't shown me any inaccuracy. That's the point. You said I was not taking responsibility for my own mistaken conclusions regarding compatibilism, thereby implying that I have drawn mistaken conclusions. But you can't identify any such mistaken conclusions at all, can you? So I guess that was just another lie, wasn't it?

That's right, you have drawn mistaken conclusions regarding the truth of compatibilism. I have identified the mistakes. Man does not have any free will, even though nothing can make him do anything against his will. He can choose, but his choices are not free. Compatibilism is wrong because free will and determinism are not compatible. It's either one or the other, and determinism wins. What are you so afraid of if man's will is not free? This knowledge is the answer to world peace, so why are you so up in arms?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are grasping at straws, face it Spacemonkey. To use this against me is so below the belt that I just hope people see your non-responses for what they are.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How on Earth is it grasping at straws to show that you are lying about being willing to answer relevant and intelligent questions relating to the book? I gave you two sincere questions which you DID NOT answer, and which you DID just evade. Your response was to ignore and evade them, and then blatantly lie by claiming never to have ignored or evaded anything. Why do you do this?

Because I don't like your style, that's why. It feels like an interrogation, not a give and take between two adults. You'd get a lot more from me if you had a little more respect, and a little less arrogance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

As you've been told before, the dog is not trained to recognize his master. It is trained to respond to photographs.

The goal here is to see if dogs can recognize their masters due to light striking the retina and being decoded as an image in the brain. The goal of the experiment is not to train a dog to respond to a photograph. What does that mean if he doesn't actually recognize his master? It certainly wouldn't indicate that the eyes are a sense organ, and you can't use his cognitive ability as a reason why he wouldn't. The eyes should work like the other four senses. He can immediately recognize familiar odors, tastes, sounds, or how something feels. Why should his cognitive ability not work in the case of the eyes, yet work perfectly when it comes to his other senses?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't have free will and no free will Spacemonkey, and that's what the compatibilists believe. Since you're a compatibilist I say you are contradicting yourself.

I have never claimed that we have both free will and no free will. This is not what compatibilists believe. As I have repeatedly corrected you on this point, your continuing to make this claim is another lie. Stop lying, Peacegirl.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just pissed because you're wrong and you can't accept it. Don't play this game that you're genuinely concerned about me. It's such a bunch of crap, I could throw up. I just hope people see through you.

You prove my point yet again. Many of us are genuinely concerned about your mental health, but you can't face up to the fact that your own behavior consistently and without exception convinces other people you are unwell, so you convince yourself that our concerns are not genuine. It is an obvious self defense mechanism, designed - like everything else you do - to allow you to cling on to your faith at all costs.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I won't talk to you about the book if you don't stop the put downs.

What put downs? Everything I just said is entirely true. You went for months at a time deliberately and quite openly ignoring and evading my questions. I also just presented you with two sincere questions related to the book. Did you answer them? No! You weaseled and evaded them. As you always do. Stop lying.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's good that you can admit you may be wrong about your reasoning ability when it comes to this topic. I just hope you continue to remain humble.

I have not admitted that I am wrong about my reasoning ability. I simply never made or held the ludicrous claims/views you attributed to me. Everyone but you has the reasoning ability to see the gaping flaws in your father's work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never purposely ignored your questions. I will ignore you if you accuse me of being insane, or you ask me one more time why am I still here?

There's another blatant lie. I gave you two sincere and intelligent questions relating to the book, and you purposefully evaded them instead of answering them. You still have not even tried to answer them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's right, you have drawn mistaken conclusions regarding the truth of compatibilism. I have identified the mistakes. Man does not have any free will, even though nothing can make him do anything against his will. He can choose, but his choices are not free. Compatibilism is wrong because free will and determinism are not compatible. It's either one or the other, and determinism wins. What are you so afraid of if man's will is not free? This knowledge is the answer to world peace, so why are you so up in arms?

Another fallacious appeal to consequences. And you haven't given me any reason for thinking that compatibilism is wrong. Saying that free will and determinism are not compatible is not to give a reason for rejecting compatibilism - it just is a rejection of compatibilism. At no point have you shown any mistaken conclusion on my part.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I don't like your style, that's why...

You constantly lie in your replies because you don't like my style? What kind of ridiculous excuse is that? And if you want respect then you need to earn it. Not lying would be a good start.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The goal here is to see if dogs can recognize their masters due to light striking the retina and being decoded as an image in the brain. The goal of the experiment is not to train a dog to respond to a photograph. What does that mean if he doesn't actually recognize his master? It certainly wouldn't indicate that the eyes are a sense organ, and you can't use his cognitive ability as a reason why he wouldn't. The eyes should work like the other four senses. He can immediately recognize familiar odors, tastes, sounds, or how something feels. Why should his cognitive ability not work in the case of the eyes, yet work perfectly when it comes to his other senses?

The goal of the training is to get the dogs to respond to photographs. What the experiment shows is that the dogs can recognize their masters. The training is not the experiment.

[Vivisectus]

In fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a child that no
object is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because
nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to cause it

Far from it: babies mimic the expression of their mums, as long as the mothers face is the correct distance away from them. They are not unable to see: they are merely not able to focus yet. Again, this is something that has been tested.

Everywhere you look, whenever someone tests Lessans claims it turns out he was just making it up as he went along.

It is so obvious.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In certain instances empirical testing can be misleading. When I use my own observational skills to give me some indication about the world I live in versus an empirical test that comes to a completely different conclusion, my common sense tells me that something may be screwy with the test, not with my observations.

So your approach to science is to discard the results if they aren't what you expect! And you call us closed minded! You're a hypocrite and a liar.

[LadyShea]

Yeah he was full of shit. Photoreceptors on the retina are neurons. They are afferent. Just like the other receptors in the sensory systems

chemoreceptors: smell and taste receptors
mechanoreceptors: receptors of mechanical forces such as pressure and distortion (touch), and also found in the auditory and vestibular systems
thermoreceptors: heat receptors

Photoreceptos: Light receptors. And yes, there is direct contact between light and photoreceptors

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's right.

Sez you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I stand these claims.

Buh?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your evidence is not conclusive.

Exactly what evidence are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Seymouron

In fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a child that no object is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes

This oft-refuted nonsense again?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He said that there is no direct contact with an afferent nerve ending in the case of the eyes.

I know. Therein lies the problem.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it has not already sailed anonymous.

So you're denying that biologists have examined human optic nerves in great detail and observed them to be entirely afferent?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't know what you're talking about.

You just keep telling yourself that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just using him as a scapegoat for your own unmet needs.

Actually, I'm using him as my own personal lulzcow. That couldn't have happened without your efforts, so I reckon :thanks: are in order.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His claim can and will be empirically tested, but not by you, someone who is completely biased.

See, that's the thing. Science knew that the human vision system is physiologically afferent before Lessans made his claim. Had Lessans known the science, he wouldn't have made the claim. Had someone pointed out the science to him after he made the claim, he likely would have admitted error and concentrated more fully on his other "discoveries."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no clue what this chapter is about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's so easy to make fun of what you don't understand.

As this thread demonstrates abundantly, it's none too difficult to make fun of what you do understand either.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And, btw, he did not pass away 4 decades ago.

Yep, my mistake. It was 1991, so two+ decades.

[Vivisectus]

What I find hilarious is that our man, who was supposedly always reading and studying, apparently never bothered to look up how the eye is actually structured. Five minutes with a highschool biology textbook would have sorted him out, but I guess there were none that had important-sounding titles.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So your approach to science is to discard the results if they aren't what you expect! And you call us closed minded! You're a hypocrite and a liar.

Scoff if you must, but common sense (the idiot's first, last, and often only resort) tells me that the currently accepted scientific explanation of combustion is straight-up bullshit. That's why I'm stocking up on phlogiston. I found a guy who bottles the stuff and sells it for only $99.99 a pint. It's odorless, colorless and invisible, just as common sense tells us it would be!

I've spent all my money on pint jars of phlogiston, but it's totally worth it! One day I'll have enough to convince the entire scientific community, thereby ushering in a revolution in thought!

[Angakuk]

I hope that what you bought was not that Mexican phlogiston. That stuff is just crap. It is not even real phlogiston.

[thedoc]

The eyes aren't the only thing that science is wrong about, they even hafe light wrong.

The Dark-Sucker Theory - The Ultimate Camp Resource

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

LOL. You really are desperate for me to leave, aren't you? I'm here because I want to be. You are the one who has tried yet failed to leave.

Right now I'm here as the lesser of two evils. I'd rather be here and take the crap in the hope that some people will see that this is a genuine discovery, than not have this opportunity. My will is not free to do otherwise unless something better comes along, or it becomes too difficult for me to deal with the backlash. Then it will no longer give me greater satisfaction to be here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He keeps asking me why don't I leave, as if my leaving would allow him to break away from this thread.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Pure projection. YOU are the one who asks others to stop posting so that you might leave.

That is true. It would be easier for me to leave if no one is posting. But if people post it shows me that they can't say goodbye. They are addicted to coming here. It would be like losing an old friend if this thread died.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I told you why I want you to leave (post #20310), and it had nothing to do with letting me leave the thread.

I don't trust your motives with a ten foot pole. I really have no conception as to why you're here and wasting so much of your time, when you could be doing other things.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yeah he was full of shit. Photoreceptors on the retina are neurons. They are afferent. Just like the other receptors in the sensory systems

chemoreceptors: smell and taste receptors
mechanoreceptors: receptors of mechanical forces such as pressure and distortion (touch), and also found in the auditory and vestibular systems
thermoreceptors: heat receptors

Photoreceptos: Light receptors. And yes, there is direct contact between light and photoreceptors

One day, Ladyshea, your namecalling will come back to haunt you. You are all cowards because you hide behind your anonymity and say whatever you feel like in any way you feel like, even if it's nasty as shit. He said there is no direct contact with an afferent nerve ending that would allow for this recognition. That still holds.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The key term is "individual" sheep. That means they can recognize specific individuals for up to two years, not just a sheep.

Show me the proof.

[LadyShea]

He said there is no direct contact with an afferent nerve ending

What do you think a neuron is?

Photoreceptors are nerves. Light directly contacts these afferent nerves.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So is a digital image not a picture? Or did you just respond to another post without even reading it?

Digital or paper, it's still a representation whose owner a dog would be able to identify if his eyes were a sense organ.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Show me the proof.

We gave you the study abstract, which is the evidence. Of course you will dismiss it without bothering to read it or even trying to understand how science works.