A revolution in thought

[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.

The training actually backfires because it is assumed the dog recognizes his master but, if he did, he would not need this training Spacemonkey. He would show signs of recognition even if the controls had to be manipulated where the owner did not see the dog in a week's time, which would have caused the dog to be very anxioius to have some kind of contact with his owner, even in a picture.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

Show me a newborn that is the exact distance from its mum that is purportedly supposed to allow for recognition, and I will concede. There's no such evidence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you think a neuron is?

Photoreceptors are nerves. Light directly contacts these afferent nerves.

There is no direct contact of images (or impulses) that connect with the receptors in the brain equivalent to what occurs with the other senses.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

I know how science works even better than you LadyShea. Come down off your high horse Lady and show your humility for once.

[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.

Full of shit is nasty; it's demeaning; it's putting someone down; it's disrespectful. Is that enough, or do you need more?

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

I don't care how you label what I'm saying or doing, as if by giving my behavior a label disqualifies the truth of what I'm saying. You and everyone in here are hiding behind their anonymity. People would not say the disgusting things they say if they knew they would be identified. That's what I call cowardice.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no direct contact of images (or impulses) that connect with the receptors in the brain equivalent to what occurs with the other senses.

There is a direct contact of light with the receptors (which are on the retina not in the brain), light is the stimulus, this is exactly equivalent with what happens with the other senses. The receptors do the transduction and send impulses to the brain, exactly the same as the other receptors do.

In hearing, pressure is the stimulus
In taste and smell, chemical compounds are the stimulus
In touch, mechanical forces are the stimulus

What are you talking about with images? How many times do you have to be told that is a stupid strawman?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know how science works even better than you LadyShea. Come down off your high horse Lady and show your humility for once.

Then why is your approach to science to dismiss anything it teaches you that you disagree with? You told me that earlier, remember?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know how science works even better than you LadyShea. Come down off your high horse Lady and show your humility for once.

LOL, you know nothing about science.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no direct contact of images (or impulses) that connect with the receptors in the brain equivalent to what occurs with the other senses.

Trying to pretend light carries images again? You think somehow Lessans' misunderstanding of how the scientific model of vision works vindicates his factually incorrect statements?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The training actually backfires because it is assumed the dog recognizes his master but, if he did, he would not need this training Spacemonkey. He would show signs of recognition even if the controls had to be manipulated where the owner did not see the dog in a week's time, which would have caused the dog to be very anxioius to have some kind of contact with his owner, even in a picture.

You are being purposefully obtuse. I explained to you the need for training, it is only to teach the animal to do something specific to indicate it's choice of photograph. Any human interpreting animal behavior, or trying to ascertain a state of mind, would not be scientifically valid methodology.

A human would need to do something specific to indicate a choice as well (you do it all the time. Ever taken a fill in the bubble test?) but researchers can simply explain it to them "Bush this button or that button" or "Point" or whatever. Animals need training because they can't understand verbal or written explanations.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Full of shit is nasty; it's demeaning; it's putting someone down; it's disrespectful. Is that enough, or do you need more?

I don't care how you label what I'm saying or doing, as if by giving my behavior a label disqualifies the truth of what I'm saying. You and everyone in here are hiding behind their anonymity. People would not say the disgusting things they say if they knew they would be identified. That's what I call cowardice.

So? Does being nasty or demeaning or even cowardly make my arguments less accurate? No.

Like millions of woo peddlers and evangelists before you, you are using ad homs and tone arguments and such as a way to evade responding to valid criticisms because you are a weasel.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So? Does being nasty or demeaning or even cowardly make my arguments less accurate? No.

Like millions of woo peddlers and evangelists before you, you are using ad homs and tone arguments and such as a way to evade responding to valid criticisms because you are a weasel.

YOU, LADYSHEA, are doing a disservice to mankind because YOU are claiming ownership of what you are not being privy to. Where in the world Lady do you come off being God? I'm being serious. Tell me Ladyshea where your scientific investigation usurps the claim that God is in charge, or the claim that completely obliterates the proof that God does not exist (which He does), not in the usual sense but in the sense of there being a divine order to this world. Explain it to me, would you Lady, since you are the Queen of all truth?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So? Does being nasty or demeaning or even cowardly make my arguments less accurate? No.

Like millions of woo peddlers and evangelists before you, you are using ad homs and tone arguments and such as a way to evade responding to valid criticisms because you are a weasel.

I get you now. You have given, as you have done before, a total disservice to this knowledge. You think that by comparing and seeing similarities that you can attack me with; labels that have nothing to do with this knowledge, that this has somehow disproved Lessans' claims and makes you Queen Bee of the Atheist movement. There is really nothing I can do if people side with your terribly wrong conclusions.. I will not talk to you anymore unless you can alter some of your fallacious conclusions that are total lies. There are many threads you can go to other than this one. That's why I ask why are you here? I don't get it unless you aren't sure of your own worldview.

[LadyShea]

Have you spoken to your son, the radiologist, about Lessans theory of sight yet? He is a scientist with relevant expertise in optics, and you love and trust each other presumably. Your excuse that he's just too busy doesn't fly, because surely he isn't too busy to have a discussion with his mom, especially about the most important discovery in human history and the answer to world peace?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get you now. You have given, as you have done before, a total disservice to this knowledge. You think that by comparing and seeing similarities that you can attack me with; labels that have nothing to do with this knowledge, that this has somehow disproved Lessans' claims and makes you Queen Bee of the Atheist movement. There is really nothing I can do if people side with your terribly wrong conclusions.. I will not talk to you anymore unless you can alter some of your fallacious conclusions that are total lies. There are many threads you can go to other than this one. That's why I ask why are you here? I don't get it unless you aren't sure of your own worldview.

More weaseling and evasion. You're MO.

I've not lied at all. My conclusions are mine and are based on facts and evidence, and therefore valid unless shown to be incorrect with superior facts and evidence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

More weaseling and evasion. You're MO.

I've not lied at all. My conclusions are mine and are based on facts and evidence, and therefore valid unless shown to be incorrect with superior facts and evidence.

Oh really? I am not even going to touch that.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A human would need to do something specific to indicate a choice as well (you do it all the time. Ever taken a fill in the bubble test?) but researchers can simply explain it to them "Bush this button or that button" or "Point" or whatever. Animals need training because they can't understand verbal or written explanations.

Students have to be trained how to use the "fill-in-the-bubble" tests in order to indicate their choices. Granted, humans are pretty smart, and the training is pretty quick. Still, it is training.

So does that invalidate all the exams I've been giving my students?




As far as access to Nature goes, alas, they make only their abstracts and figures available online unless you pay for the full articles. Of course, I have access to the print version through the library, and could make copies.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As far as access to Nature goes, alas, they make only their abstracts and figures available online unless you pay for the full articles. Of course, I have access to the print version through the library, and could make copies.

Years ago Al Gore was indicating that he hoped the internet could become the information superhighway. I remarked almost as many years ago that it appears that, at least for the good stuff, the internet is becoming a toll road.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

YOU, LADYSHEA, are doing a disservice to mankind because YOU are claiming ownership of what you are not being privy to. Where in the world Lady do you come off being God? I'm being serious. Tell me Ladyshea where your scientific investigation usurps the claim that God is in charge, or the claim that completely obliterates the proof that God does not exist (which He does), not in the usual sense but in the sense of there being a divine order to this world. Explain it to me, would you Lady, since you are the Queen of all truth?

All hail the most wonderful, glorious, and all powerful Ladyshea. LadyShea I do hereby sincerely appologize for any reference to you in the past that did not include the proper honorific. Please teach us lesser mortal beings the proper manner of addressing you. I had no idea that you wielded such awsom power and authority. All hail Ladyshea.

[Stephen Maturin]

So then, Seymouron Lessans - the buffoon who used "scientific" as a synonym for "undeniable" - was a scientist.



Also:

I get you now. You have given, as you have done before, a total disservice to this knowledge. You think that by comparing and seeing similarities that you can attack me with; labels that have nothing to do with this knowledge, that this has somehow disproved Lessans' claims and makes you Queen Bee of the Atheist movement. There is really nothing I can do if people side with your terribly wrong conclusions.. I will not talk to you anymore unless you can alter some of your fallacious conclusions that are total lies. There are many threads you can go to other than this one. That's why I ask why are you here? I don't get it unless you aren't sure of your own worldview.

Oh deary me! Someone's obviously been dipping into the MD 20/20 this morning.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Have you spoken to your son, the radiologist, about Lessans theory of sight yet? He is a scientist with relevant expertise in optics, and you love and trust each other presumably. Your excuse that he's just too busy doesn't fly, because surely he isn't too busy to have a discussion with his mom, especially about the most important discovery in human history and the answer to world peace?

Unless her son is more tactful than I can ever be, expect a big reset after that conversation.

[Vivisectus]

Show me a newborn that is the exact distance from its mum that is purportedly supposed to allow for recognition, and I will concede. There's no such evidence.

No, I said they could mimic faces. You move goalposts like it is a game of Three Cup Shuffle! Please do not interpret that as me trying to make you stop now.

I cannot find the abstract proper at this moment, but I do have a mention of this famous study here Andrew N. Meltzoff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which showed that infant as young as 72 hours can in fact mimic facial expressions, such as sticking out their tongue. If they needed

Astonishingly and fascinatingly enough, apparently even neonatal macaques can do it!

Mirror neuron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which is kind of wicked - there is some reason to suspect we have specialised neurons that not only allow us to display behaviours but observe them, recognize them and reproduce them. This would allow for a limited amount of hard-wiring of behaviour, and then relying on the surroundings to trigger them at a hopefully appropriate time.

How do you explain that in terms of lessanese sight? Should the newborn not be triggered by some sense other than sight to "focus" on the tongue, and then "project a word-association" on it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is a direct contact of light with the receptors (which are on the retina not in the brain), light is the stimulus, this is exactly equivalent with what happens with the other senses. The receptors do the transduction and send impulses to the brain, exactly the same as the other receptors do.

In hearing, pressure is the stimulus
In taste and smell, chemical compounds are the stimulus
In touch, mechanical forces are the stimulus

What are you talking about with images? How many times do you have to be told that is a stupid strawman?

That is why I clarified it --- for that very reason. Did you not see the word "impulses" next to the word "images" in the parenthesis LadyShea? As far as your comparison, he is saying that the light (which would be the stimulus) is not being decoded in the brain as an image even though impulses are awakening the brain to look through the eyes, as a window.

[Vivisectus]

YOU, LADYSHEA, are doing a disservice to mankind because YOU are claiming ownership of what you are not being privy to. Where in the world Lady do you come off being God? I'm being serious. Tell me Ladyshea where your scientific investigation usurps the claim that God is in charge, or the claim that completely obliterates the proof that God does not exist (which He does), not in the usual sense but in the sense of there being a divine order to this world. Explain it to me, would you Lady, since you are the Queen of all truth?

Well done Shea! I thought I was doing well, getting her to call the book "divine knowledge" but this is much, much better.

By the way, is anyone else noticing that everyone has to be humble, and that questioning the Holy Book is per definition arrogance? How dare you think you know better than Prophet Lessans! All you people will feel really sorry after you are dead! The petty cry of the small-minded religious fanatic through the ages.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is why I clarified it for that very reason. Did you not see the word "impulses" next to the word "images" in the parenthesis LadyShea? As far as your comparison, he is saying that the light (which would be the stimulus) is not being decoded in the brain as an image even though impulses are awakening the brain to look through the eyes, as a window.

Are you really so ignorant of basic physiology that you think that vision is the only sense in which there are synapses between the receptors and the brain?

A rhetorical question, I know ...