A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Ah, but evidence that shows Lessans was wrong needs to meet the special Peacegirl standard of evidence. Just like the fact that there are afferent nerve endings in the eye in no way means Lessans was wrong when he said there weren't any.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

One day, Ladyshea, your namecalling will come back to haunt you.

LOL, divine retribution? Karma? Just how exactly will I be punished...lightening bolts? What namecalling are you referring to, anyway? "Full of shit" is not a name.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Ad hom and tone argument....aka more ways in which you weasel.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, divine retribution? Karma? Just how exactly will I be punished...lightening bolts? What namecalling are you referring to, anyway? "Full of shit" is not a name.

Ad hom and tone argument....aka more ways in which you weasel.

As I said to Spacemonkey, you are no Socrates.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah, but evidence that shows Lessans was wrong needs to meet the special Peacegirl standard of evidence. Just like the fact that there are afferent nerve endings in the eye in no way means Lessans was wrong when he said there weren't any.

NO IT DOES NOT SHOW THAT THERE IS A DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN AFFERENT FIBERS AND INSTANT RECOGNITION. YOU ARE LOST VIVISECUS. I REFUSE TO TALK TO YOU ANYMORE UNLESS YOU GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BECAUSE IT'S NOT WORTH IT TO ME.

[LadyShea]

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.

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.

The sensory receptors are being struck by something external in all of the senses including photoreceptors being struck by light in the eyes. There is no fundamental difference between photoreceptors and the other sensory receptors. All are neurons (nerves) and all are afferent structures.

Lessans was just absolutely wrong in the above claims.*
Did Lessans even bother to read about anatomy or neurology before making these assertions? If not, why not?

• Mechanoreceptors respond to physical force such as pressure (touch or blood pressure) and stretch.
  
• Photoreceptors respond to light.
  
• Thermoreceptors respond to temperature changes.
  
• Chemoreceptors respond to dissolved chemicals during sensations of taste and smell and to changes in internal body chemistry such as variations of O2, CO2, or H+ in the blood.
  
• Nociceptors respond to a variety of stimuli associated with tissue damage. The brain interprets the pain.

CliffsNotes.com. Sensory Receptors. 21 Oct 2012
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_gui...Id-277647.html

*Now taking bets that peacegirl will suddenly remember that she wrote these parts

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Let's get this straight. The training is not the experiment, true, but the training is supposed to prove that dogs can identify their masters from an image, and it fails over and over again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The sensory receptors are being struck by something external in all of the senses including photoreceptors being struck by light in the eyes. There is no fundamental difference between photoreceptors and the other sensory receptors. All are neurons (nerves) and all are afferent structures.

Lessans was just absolutely wrong in the above claims.*
Did Lessans even bother to read about anatomy or neurology before making these assertions? If not, why not?

• Mechanoreceptors respond to physical force such as pressure (touch or blood pressure) and stretch.
  
• Photoreceptors respond to light.
  
• Thermoreceptors respond to temperature changes.
  
• Chemoreceptors respond to dissolved chemicals during sensations of taste and smell and to changes in internal body chemistry such as variations of O2, CO2, or H+ in the blood.
  
• Nociceptors respond to a variety of stimuli associated with tissue damage. The brain interprets the pain.

CliffsNotes.com. Sensory Receptors. 21 Oct 2012
<http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/topicArticleId-277792,articleId-277647.html>

*Now taking bets that peacegirl will suddenly remember that she wrote these parts

Fuck off LadyShea, you are so wrong it's a disgrace to the scientific community if there is anyone left who truly depends on the absolute truth of scientific inquiry.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, divine retribution? Karma? Just how exactly will I be punished...lightening bolts? What namecalling are you referring to, anyway? "Full of shit" is not a name.

Ad hom and tone argument....aka more ways in which you weasel.

No, none of those things. Just complete and total embarrassment over prematurely judging that this man was wrong in his analysis.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

NO IT DOES NOT SHOW THAT THERE IS A DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN AFFERENT FIBERS AND INSTANT RECOGNITION. YOU ARE LOST VIVISECUS. I REFUSE TO TALK TO YOU ANYMORE UNLESS YOU GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BECAUSE IT'S NOT WORTH IT TO ME.

Instant recognition of what? Where did Lessans use the word recognition in the excerpt under discussion? He said the following:

Originally Posted by Lessans

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.

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.

You are moving the goalposts, weasel.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, none of those things. Just complete and total embarrassment over prematurely judging that this man was wrong in his analysis.

I don't think making judgments of material presented to me, using my own knowledge and critical thinking and analysis using the information available, is cause for embarrassment...even if it turns out I was wrong.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Fuck off LadyShea, you are so wrong it's a disgrace to the scientific community if there is anyone left who truly depends on the absolute truth of scientific inquiry.

LOL, what am I wrong about?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let's get this straight. The training is not the experiment, true, but the training is supposed to prove that dogs can identify their masters from an image, and it fails over and over again.

The training only provides a consistent method by which researchers can ascertain the animals choice between pictures during the actual experiment. The training is not the actual experiment. It's called operative choice tasks.

As a human, if you were in a study in which you needed to choose between two pictures, in what ways might you indicate your choice? Pointing? Clicking a button? Saying A or B or saying 1 or 2? Writing down "right" or "left" on a piece of paper?

Would you expect a scientific study to involve researchers trying to ascertain your choice from your facial expressions?

Interpreting an animal's sounds and body posture is not consistent from one researcher to another, nor is it measurable or duplicatable. Touching a picture with its nose, pressing a button, etc. is consistent and measurable.

What are you not getting?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

NO IT DOES NOT SHOW THAT THERE IS A DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN AFFERENT FIBERS AND INSTANT RECOGNITION. YOU ARE LOST VIVISECUS. I REFUSE TO TALK TO YOU ANYMORE UNLESS YOU GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BECAUSE IT'S NOT WORTH IT TO ME.

Direct connections? Instant recognition? What does that have to do with anything? I am referring to the rather silly claim ole seymour made, without even bothering to check if he was right. If he had been ascientist he would have acted like this:

1: I have a hypothesis that sight works the other way around, based on... well, common folk-wisdom about dog sight and infant sight. Which is in fact a common misconception, which has been well documented and tested. I do not provide any other reason for thinking this way really. Nor have I tested either. never mind! Lets keep going anyway: since I am a scientist, we are going to test this idea for validity, so there will be plenty of opportunity to amend things.

2: I am going to go furtherout in a limb and claim there are no "afferent nerve endings" in the eyes.

3: Lets check! Oh dear. Turns out I did not have the slightest inkling about how the eyes work. The damn things are actually crammed with "afferent nerve endings". Afferent nerves, anyway, and since they must have ends, I seem to have made a boo-boo. Lets take that out, or re-word it a bit.

But he didn't, did he? In fact he never seems to have checked anything.

How come he brought up the example of seeing Columbus land, when observing earth from a distant star without saying anything about the moons of jupiter, the many, many other observations regarding the speed of light and the delay in sight, relativity, and the myriad other conflicting facts? This is all readily available information.

It seem he just never bothered to check. He saw no reason to test his claims, in any way or form.

And let not forget that we are talking about a man who claims that if you disagree with what he says, you have simply failed to understand something. Perhaps that is why he never checked: he simply did not believe that he was capable of a mistake.

All this is especially funny when you remember all his boasting about how much he read and thought. How he was so affronted at that professor for not even letting him explain how his home-grown education was vastly superior to that of the profesor... despite the fact he really did not know what kind of education the man had had. Apparently all that reading did not include, say, a simple high-school physics textbook. Or a simple overview of the structure of the eye, and how it works.

But then again, he had no time for science. Science is hard, it requires discipline, and does not produce simple, ready answers. It does not yield comforting fairy-tales and certainties. Science is reason applied to empirical observation, not building extensive cloud-castles on foundations made up of anecdotes and wishful thinking. And that is all this book is based on.

[Vivisectus]

Fuck off LadyShea, you are so wrong it's a disgrace to the scientific community if there is anyone left who truly depends on the absolute truth of scientific inquiry.

I am so glad you said that! Because Science does not just make claims: it tests them. This book has nothing to do with science. It is just endless speculation based on trivial tautologies, anecdotes and often pure ignorance of the subject being discussed.

At no stage are the opinions in this book tested - in any way. And whenever we do test them, the evidence points the other way.

[ceptimus]

Science really comes down to, "Let's test it and see..."

When you test your elegantly-crafted theories against the hard reality of the universe, then it's the universe's answer that always wins. When your theory predicts the wrong outcome, then it doesn't matter how beautiful or elegant your theory is - your theory is junk and should be thrown out like a piece of mouldy fruit.

"Believers" have a different mindset - they think their story, framework, book or whatever is more important than reality. They trump our reality by saying that we only perceive a tiny part of the whole - if we could see the big picture they say, then we'd see how right they are. How or why their belief gives them the magical window through which they glimpse the 'true reality' is, sadly, never explained.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

*Now taking bets that peacegirl will suddenly remember that she wrote these parts

Or simply scrubs them from the Sacred Text altogether, a la "molecules of light."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Instant recognition of what? Where did Lessans use the word recognition in the excerpt under discussion? He said the following:

You are moving the goalposts, weasel.

Lessans didn't have to use the word 'recognition' in that particular excerpt for you to extract the relevant parts. Do I have to spoon feed this to you? Obviously.

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight
distance away cannot identify his master. If the eyes were a sense; if
an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic
nerve then he would recognize his master instantly as he can from
sound and smell. In fact, if he was vicious and accustomed to
attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his sense
of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no way of
identifying his master’s face even if every feature was lit up like a
Christmas tree, and would attack. This is why he cannot recognize
his master from a picture or statue because nothing from the external
world is striking the optic nerve. The question as to how man is able
to accomplish this continues to confound our scientists.

Call me a weasel one more time LadyShea, and I'm not going to engage with you. You are the last person I would have thought to say this to, but just like a little child, you need reprimanding.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans didn't have to use the word 'recognition' in that particular excerpt for you to extract the relevant parts. Do I have to spoon feed this to you? Obviously.

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight
distance away cannot identify his master. If the eyes were a sense; if
an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic
nerve then he would recognize his master instantly as he can from
sound and smell. In fact, if he was vicious and accustomed to
attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his sense
of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no way of
identifying his master’s face even if every feature was lit up like a
Christmas tree, and would attack. This is why he cannot recognize
his master from a picture or statue because nothing from the external
world is striking the optic nerve. The question as to how man is able
to accomplish this continues to confound our scientists.

Call me a weasel one more time LadyShea, and I'm not going to engage with you. You are the last person I would have thought to say this to, but just like a little child, you need reprimanding.

That wasn't the excerpt under discussion at all. We were talking of his claim about no afferent nerves in the eyes.

You weaseled yet again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Science really comes down to, "Let's test it and see..."

When you test your elegantly-crafted theories against the hard reality of the universe, then it's the universe's answer that always wins. When your theory predicts the wrong outcome, then it doesn't matter how beautiful or elegant your theory is - your theory is junk and should be thrown out like a piece of mouldy fruit.

"Believers" have a different mindset - they think their story, framework, book or whatever is more important than reality. They trump our reality by saying that we only perceive a tiny part of the whole - if we could see the big picture they say, then we'd see how right they are. How or why their belief gives them the magical window through which they glimpse the 'true reality' is, sadly, never explained.

Sometimes you have to see something in total perspective, which is difficult for the majority of people. How, or why, certain people get a glimpse of 'true reality' doesn't have to be explained. It just needs to be heeded. This was not the same situation with Lessans. To your dismay, he was a scientist. He was not interested in becoming famous. This is all in your head Ceptimus. You don't even understand the first thing about his first discovery -- nada. So for you to jump on this bandwagon of naysayers doesn't change reality. In the not so distant future his discovery will be the most tested book ever, and it will be proven to be 100% valid.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That wasn't the excerpt under discussion at all. We were talking of his claim about no afferent nerves in the eyes.

You weaseled yet again.

He said there is no similar afferent nerve ending in the eye that MAKES DIRECT CONTACT WITH A RECEPTOR. I believe he is right.

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.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

So now you are blaming Spacemonkey for being here and compelling you to be here as well. Shame on you both.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Wonderful! Marvellous! Right on cue!

Peacegirl, you never, ever disappoint!

So now you want... what? Lambs to act like they do in Disney cartoons? Would you be happy if they started bleating "mommy!"? How do measure a bleat for happiness?

This is the most blatant goalpost-moving I have ever seen in my life. I love it! If you did not exist, we would have to invent you.

This is not changing the goalposts. The goal is to see if animals do or do not respond to photographs of a family member. If an animal would react in such a way that shows recognition, we would know it whether he bah'd or bleated (or showed excitement) only after seeing the picture. No, we would not know just from bleating, but we would know from a combination of other movements and noises to get a clue that he was responding to the picture.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Every time I think we have hit bedrock, you manage to find some hitherto unsuspected stratum of stupid to explore. I feel truly enriched, knowing you. I always knew that there are people who think like you, but it is a real privilege to get to interact with one for an extended period of time.

Think what you want Vivisectus. You are an extremely hard headed person, and you would probably be the last person to understand these principles, so your opinion really doesn't matter to me.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I always wondered: How can someone follow a man who has predicted the end of the world three times the fourth time around, and really believe it is going to happen this time? How can someone really believe that the earth is only 6000 years old? Or that little green men come down to probe someone's backside?

Now I know it is easy: just make them feel like believing makes them special, and that all their questions are answered. You won't have to explain every bit of reality that does not fit to them: they will explain it away or ignore it themselves. Because they will want to.

Then I wondered: but surely, reality must seep in? They must feel at least a little bit uneasy?

Not at all! In fact, the more any new information threatens the comforting fairy-tale they tell themselves, the harder they will deny it. No sophistry is too shallow, no fallacy too obvious if it allows them to make themselves believe they are still special, and that they still have Everything Figured Out.

And can you blame them, really? Once you have a cozy system that makes everything so lovely and simple... and when you have a special position within that system, as it's High Priestess and Heiress to the Divine Wisdom... would you want to go back to the real world? The real world is never simple. It is extremely complex. It takes discipline and hard work to understand even a small part of it, and everything you figure out is sure to lead to 2 new questions. Nor is it comforting at all: the more you learn, the more it looks like we live in a big, uncaring universe.

Would you admit that you have lived your life believing a fairy-tale, and not even a particularly convincing one? That you have followed a pompous fool, and that you actively fooled yourself in order to keep doing so? I sure hope I would. But I cannot be sure, not at all.

You will one day eat crow when you learn that he was right all along, and you had the audacity to call him names. This is not reducing life to simplicity. Mankind had to go through many years of development to reach this turning point in our history. There's nothing simple about it. You have no idea what kind of studying it took that allowed him to perceive these undeniable relations. He was so opposite of your portrayal of him, your words are lies. There is no fallacy or sophistry in his entire book. This knowledge is divine, but it has nothing to do with me having a special position as High Priestess. This is all in your head.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He said there is no similar afferent nerve ending in the eye that MAKES DIRECT CONTACT WITH A RECEPTOR. I believe he is right.

He said nothing about nerves making contact with receptors...WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? You are weaseling by making inferences having nothing to do with what Lessans wrote. You are now claiming, in the sentence above, that he meant that no similar afferent nerve endings in the eye makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending in the eye.

Photoreceptors are afferent nerves. Light (external stimuli) makes direct contact with photoreceptors.

How could he possibly be right?

Let's break his statement down

The same holds true for anything that makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending

Anything=light
Afferent nerve ending=photoreceptors on the retina

but this is far from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ

Yes, there is. Photoreceptors are afferent neurons

[Vivisectus]

He said there is no similar afferent nerve ending in the eye that MAKES DIRECT CONTACT WITH A RECEPTOR. I believe he is right.

Ermmm... first off that is not what he said. Secondly, it is still wrong: the retina is made up of nerves that are receptors. Light-receptors to be exact. You just don't have a clue what you are talking about don't you? But hey, here is an opportunity to learn! Your father was never very interested in these, it seems, but that does not mean you don't have to be.

[Vivisectus]

This is not changing the goalposts. The goal is to see if animals do or do not respond to photographs of a family member.

No it isn't. It is to see if they can recognise another animals face. Nice try though!

If an animal would react in such a way that shows recognition, we would know it whether he bah'd or bleated (or showed excitement) only after seeing the picture.

No, we really wouldn't. That kind of thinking is appropriate for episodes of Lassie, Flipper, or Skippy the bush kangaroo. It has nothing to do with reality.

No, we would not know just from bleating, but we would know from a combination of other movements and noises to get a clue that he was responding to the picture.

No, that is some nonsense that you just made up.

Think what you want Vivisectus. You are an extremely hard headed person, and you would probably be the last person to understand these principles, so your opinion really doesn't matter to me.

What a pity! Your opinions are an ongoing source of entertainment to me. Too bad you do not appreciate mine.

You will one day eat crow when you learn that he was right all along, and you had the audacity to call him names. This is not reducing life to simplicity. Mankind had to go through many years of development to reach this turning point in our history. There's nothing simple about it. You have no idea what kind of studying it took that allowed him to perceive these undeniable relations. He was so opposite of your portrayal of him, your words are lies. There is no fallacy or sophistry in his entire book. This knowledge is divine, but it has nothing to do with me having a special position as High Priestess. This is all in your head.

No, I really won't be eating any crow. I will be right here, enjoying your feeble antics. And I am glad you admit this is a religious work - divine knowledge huh?

Tell me this: if this is such a scientific work, where is the evidence? If he was so smart, why did he forget to include any? If he was so right, then how come every time we do any kind of empirical testing the results indicate the exact opposite of what he predicted?

Don't you think that it would be kind of important to include why we should believe something? If I were to declare that firemen are what allows fires to happen, would you not expect me to provide you with a compelling case the believe this was the case? If so, then why is this book exempt somehow?

And seriously - he couldn't even be bothered to learn the very basics of the fields he made these grandiose claims about. He never even checked a single fact - even the simple ones! He never bothered to actually study anything he was talking about. What a pompous ass - going on about things he didn't even bother to learn about.

Either show me the evidence, or admit that this book is nothing but a collection of a vain man's unsupported opinions. Or better still: continue these feeble attempts at moving the goalposts, setting up strawmen, and generally cheating and lying in any way you can, as long as you can hold on to what you have now openly admitted is a religious belief. It may be an example of all that is ignorant and despicable in dogmatic belief, but I do find it very entertaining.