A revolution in thought - Page 836

peacegirl · #**20876** 10-28-2012, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No commercial airliner currently used in the U.S. travels faster than sound.

Yet I've often seen airliners in flight before they could be heard. It's an especially common occurrence at night, since their running lights make them easier to see.

Try it for yourself.

Why should peacegirl try it for herself when she already knows the answer? Facts and evidence won't change the truth of Lessans' book.

And, by the same token, anything Lessans says you will scuff at and throw out without a true regard for what he is saying, just because it is Lessans saying it. That knee jerk reaction is a common theme in here.

peacegirl · #**20877** 10-28-2012, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

Quote:

Yes, but these are higher order skills.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Choosing between two things is not a high order skill. Touching something is not a high order skill. Dogs trained in drug detection can indicate to a handler which of two (or more) boxes contain marijuana. Bomb detection dogs can indicate which of multiple substances is the explosive.

They can naturally discriminate between two substances, but they must be trained to impart that information to a human in an unambiguous manner to be useful data.

Animals of all kinds can often distinguish between safe food and toxic food. They indicate their choice by eating the safe food, or they die.

That is true. Dogs have the ability to recognize a safe food from a toxic food because they are able to discriminate using their sense of smell. So why shouldn't a dog be able to see the difference between two pictures if the image is being interpreted in his brain? They should not have to be trained in this manner. It's a contrived test. It's also true that he can be trained to do certain tasks, such as identify controlled substances, but this can't be used in the same manner in regard to sight if he is incapable of making this kind of discrimination. I would like to see a test where the animal is trained to push a lever, with the background being exactly the same. I would also like to see a test where two people have similar hair color and facial structure, but they are still different enough to where a human would immediately be able to identify these differences and point correctly to their loved one.

Quote:

When you give instructions to a human, you know they understand what you are asking of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Right. Animals are different, so we have to train animals to do something to indicate a choice in these experiments.

All the data indicates is which picture the animals chose. If they choose the familiar picture 80% of the time, that indicates that they recognize and prefer the familiar. If they choose the color picture over the black and white picture well above 50% (which is random chance) that indicates they can see and prefer color. If they choose whatever is to their right most of the time...well they prefer the right.

If I gave you a series of pairs of pictures, and merely said "choose", without giving you further instructions, you would choose based on your own criteria. I could then look at that data for patterns in your choices. That's how these are done with animals.

That's different LadyShea. Of course I would need to understand what it is you want so I can answer correctly. But if I was given two pictures and left alone, I would react to the familiar picture if it was a loved one over a stranger, even without you having to give me instructions. Also, some tests are meant to deceive the subject in order to test other behavior which the tester does not want to reveal. If the subject knew, it would change the results of the test.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not the case with a dog. Just because a dog is supposedly trained to push a lever when a certain picture is shown to them, does not mean that the dog is actually identifying what you think he is when he pushes the lever, even if it seems statistically significant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're right, but it is evidence and data. If it is statistically significant over multiple tests and with different dogs and with different researchers, that is stronger evidence.

Multiple tests could still be concluding the wrong thing, if the animal is responding to something other than the owner's facial features.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hence, the dangers of certain empirical tests which can be misleading.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's why tests are repeated and published and duplicated. No single experiment offers absolute proof of anything, nor has anyone here or any scientists claimed it does. A body of data and evidence indicates things though

Even multiple tests could be misleading if the animal is responding to dark and light patterns. This is not conclusive in any way as proof that he can recognize individual features, which is the purpose of the test.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

Quote:

Absolutely. There are better ways to tell if an animal recognizes his owner, especially if he is an affectionate dog who shows this kind of recognition under normal circumstances. I would trust my observations over a contrived test that is not reliable in the least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, there are not better ways. There is too much room for anthropomorphizing and seeing what you want to see, as you are doing.

You have a preconceived expectation of how a dog should behave if he recognizes a photo, and that is a huge bias in an objective test.

There is nothing preconceived LadyShea in an empirical observation. This can be much more accurate when it comes to animals whose cognitive abilities are quite different than humans. It is you who is anthropomorphizing, if anyone, because you have an expectation that the eyes are a sense organ, so the test is out to prove this and the results will confirm your belief.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

For the results to be scientifically valid, the choice must be indicated unambiguously...what you are talking about is not research, it's layperson "horse sense" and worth no more than and old wives tale.

What is unambiguous about a dog who can't recognize a picture of his beloved master and shows no emotion, when two minutes later when his master walks in from Iraq, the dog goes berserk from excitement? I don't call that horse sense or a wives tale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

This test does prove one thing. That a dog knows how to press a button or touch his nose to a picture, after he's been trained to do this. But whether it proves that what he's pressing is an indication of true recognition, is extremely questionable and should be recognized as such.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It might be measurable, but what good is the measurement if it's wrong. :

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How can it be "wrong"? The animal does a task. Let's say it chooses between two pictures by touching one with its nose. The results are written down. It's data...neither right nor wrong.

If that data indicates something, then it does. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

You cannot go in to an empirical test with expectations like that or with thoughts of right and wrong. That is not science at all

This is where absurdity in the scientific method shows its true colors. :eek:

If an animal does a task, it is the interpretation of what he is doing that counts. Yes, the results are written down, but if the interpretation is misleading then the results are wrong as far as the test is concerned.

Vivisectus · #**20878** 10-28-2012, 01:51 PM

Quote:

And, by the same token, anything Lessans says you will scuff at and throw out without a true regard for what he is saying, just because it is Lessans saying it. That knee jerk reaction is a common theme in here.

You would be able to say that if you had any support for conscience working the way the book says, or an explanation for the piles of evidence against efferent sight. But since everyone has taken the time to explain to you exactly why they feel your father was dimmer than a penny candle, and you do not have an adequate answer to any of it, I must conclude

ceptimus · #**20879** 10-28-2012, 02:06 PM

The training is just so that we can see which of two pictures the animal chooses in an unambiguous way.

We train the animal so that when it is presented with two pictures, it chooses one of them, say by touching the chosen picture with its nose, then we are ready for the actual tests.

Each test consists of letting the animal pick one of two pictures. These are all 'new' pictures that the animal never saw during the training phase. Ideally, for each test, both pictures should be new ones that the animal has never seen before.

Now lets say one of the pictures is a freshly-taken photo of the animal's master, and the other picture is a freshly-taken photo of a person who is a stranger to the animal.

We conduct the test lots of times, each time using fresh photos. We photograph the master and the strangers against the same backgrounds, and dress both people in the same clothes while taking each pair of photos. We use lots of different strangers, some who look similar to the master and some who look completely different. For each trial we toss a coin to decide which photo is placed on the left. Then we let the animal into the room so that it can choose.

Now, if the animal were choosing the photo purely by chance, we'd expect it to be correct half the time. If the rate it chooses is significantly different from 50%, over a large number of trials, then we can be sure that the animal can recognise its master in a photograph.

Note that the ''success rate' might be (much) less than 50% and this would still be significant. Say the animal only chose its master's photo in 3% of the trials - this might be because the animal was more interested in looking at photos of new people then it was in choosing yet another photo of its master - but it would still prove that the animal could identify WHICH of the two photos was of its master.

Vivisectus · #**20880** 10-28-2012, 02:09 PM

We still do not know how efferent sight actually works. How does the information end up in the brain? How does it actually work, when you get right down to it?

We still do not know why light needs to be refracted in order for us to see it properly in the case of glasses.

We still do not know how a camera, which works afferently and is just a light-detector (we built them that way) can show the same image as the eyes over large distances.

There are still "afferent nerve endings" in the eye, and they are still the same as the ones on the ear or the nose.

We still have nu clue how televisions work: they just emit light, not images.

We still do not know why we should assume conscience works the way the book claims it does. Because of this, the claim that the book is a logical, undeniable progression is proven to be false.

But hey! If you don't agree with the book, that is because you are biased, a meany, or just not bright enough to get it. Absolutely not because it fails to make sense, and fails to support it's rather grandiose claims.

Spacemonkey · #**20881** 10-28-2012, 02:14 PM

Do you think you are making progress here, Peacegirl?

Or is the satisfaction you are deriving from this discussion not related to the actual results you are achieving?

Do you think Lessans would be impressed by your behavior in this thread if he were here to witness it?

peacegirl · #**20882** 10-28-2012, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

And, by the same token, anything Lessans says you will scuff at and throw out without a true regard for what he is saying, just because it is Lessans saying it. That knee jerk reaction is a common theme in here.

You would be able to say that if you had any support for conscience working the way the book says, or an explanation for the piles of evidence against efferent sight. But since everyone has taken the time to explain to you exactly why they feel your father was dimmer than a penny candle, and you do not have an adequate answer to any of it, I must conclude

That response is as confusing as a baby's cry. Now you are just responding because you feel the need, with nothing at all to offer. I am passing over this thread.

peacegirl · #**20883** 10-28-2012, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you think you are making progress here, Peacegirl?

Or is the satisfaction you are deriving from this discussion not related to the actual results you are achieving?

Do you think Lessans would be impressed by your behavior in this thread if he were here to witness it?

Obviously, you are doing your best to make me look stupid. Your question is inappropritate as usual. I'm not looking for results per se, so that question doesn't apply. And my father would have applauded me for my effort no matter what the results turned out to be.

peacegirl · #**20884** 10-28-2012, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

The training is just so that we can see which of two pictures the animal chooses in an unambiguous way.

We train the animal so that when it is presented with two pictures, it chooses one of them, say by touching the chosen picture with its nose, then we are ready for the actual tests.

Each test consists of letting the animal pick one of two pictures. These are all 'new' pictures that the animal never saw during the training phase. Ideally, for each test, both pictures should be new ones that the animal has never seen before.

Now lets say one of the pictures is a freshly-taken photo of the animal's master, and the other picture is a freshly-taken photo of a person who is a stranger to the animal.

We conduct the test lots of times, each time using fresh photos. We photograph the master and the strangers against the same backgrounds, and dress both people in the same clothes while taking each pair of photos. We use lots of different strangers, some who look similar to the master and some who look completely different. For each trial we toss a coin to decide which photo is placed on the left. Then we let the animal into the room so that it can choose.

Now, if the animal were choosing the photo purely by chance, we'd expect it to be correct half the time. If the rate it chooses is significantly different from 50%, over a large number of trials, then we can be sure that the animal can recognise its master in a photograph.

Note that the ''success rate' might be (much) less than 50% and this would still be significant. Say the animal only chose its master's photo in 3% of the trials - this might be because the animal was more interested in looking at photos of new people then it was in choosing yet another photo of its master - but it would still prove that the animal could identify WHICH of the two photos was of its master.

I'm just curious Ceptimus, why did you ignore the part where the dog goes crazy over his master coming from Iraq, and yet his inability to recognize his master in a picture right before his master shows up in person? Why did you ignore this completely if you were seriously interested in figuring out the truth? :chin:

Vivisectus · #**20885** 10-28-2012, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

And, by the same token, anything Lessans says you will scuff at and throw out without a true regard for what he is saying, just because it is Lessans saying it. That knee jerk reaction is a common theme in here.

You would be able to say that if you had any support for conscience working the way the book says, or an explanation for the piles of evidence against efferent sight. But since everyone has taken the time to explain to you exactly why they feel your father was dimmer than a penny candle, and you do not have an adequate answer to any of it, I must conclude

That response is as confusing as a baby's cry. Now you are just responding because you feel the need, with nothing at all to offer. I am passing over this thread.

If someone supplies you with detailed objections that you are unable to answer, then complaining that the idea is dismissed because of personal reasons is childish, and irrational. Besides: if your idea is dismissed because of such irrational reasons, it should be easy to show this.

In stead you just complain and whine, just like the book spends pages complaining about bias.

naturalist.atheist · #**20886** 10-28-2012, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The point I was making is that the airplane must be within one's visual range for the reflected light to strike the photoreceptors.

If we see efferently and the brain is looking out through the eyes, why does light need to strike the photoreceptors?

That's simple. The brain generates all objects inside of itself like a diorama, however without light it's all dark and the brain can't see it. That's why the light is necessary.

If only the brain had evolved to include a flashlight. Then we could all see in the dark.

peacegirl · #**20887** 10-28-2012, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We still do not know how efferent sight actually works. How does the information end up in the brain? How does it actually work, when you get right down to it?

We still do not know why light needs to be refracted in order for us to see it properly in the case of glasses.

I already answered that. The brain is still using light to see, and if that light is not striking the eye correctly because of its abnormal shape, the outside world will be blurred.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We still do not know how a camera, which works afferently and is just a light-detector (we built them that way) can show the same image as the eyes over large distances.

Because they work the same way as the eye does Vivisectus. If the object is in the camera's field of view, the image will show up. If the object is not within the camera's field of view, the object will not show up because the light from the object cannot be resolved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There are still "afferent nerve endings" in the eye, and they are still the same as the ones on the ear or the nose.

That's not quite right. The structure of the eye is different than the structure of the ear and nose. It is a much more complicated organ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We still have nu clue how televisions work: they just emit light, not images.

That's right, they emit light, and in HD we see a sharper image due to a higher resolution of pixels. But the television screen that is emitting this light is within our visual range.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We still do not know why we should assume conscience works the way the book claims it does. Because of this, the claim that the book is a logical, undeniable progression is proven to be false.

No it does not mean that. It means you haven't taken the actual time necessary to study this work for a clear understanding. Don't pass the buck onto me when you haven't done your part Vivisectus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But hey! If you don't agree with the book, that is because you are biased, a meany, or just not bright enough to get it. Absolutely not because it fails to make sense, and fails to support it's rather grandiose claims.

I never said people weren't bright enough. In fact, I even said to Spacemonkey that he has the intellectual capacity. The same goes for you and everyone else in here.

Vivisectus · #**20888** 10-28-2012, 08:23 PM

[quote][QUOTE=peacegirl;1092452]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We still do not know how efferent sight actually works. How does the information end up in the brain? How does it actually work, when you get right down to it?

This one remains unanswered.

Quote:

We still do not know why light needs to be refracted in order for us to see it properly in the case of glasses.

I already answered that. The brain is still using light to see, and if that light not striking the eyeball correctly, the outside world will be blurred.

Why? How does that work? The light carries no information, so why would it have to hit the "eyeball correctly?"

That is no answer at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We still do not know how a camera, which works afferently and is just a light-detector (we built them that way) can show the same image as the eyes over large distances.

Because they work the same way as the eye does Vivisectus. If the object is in the camera's field of view, the image will show up. If the object is not within the camera's field of view, the object will not show up because the light from the object cannot be resolved.

It cannot work the same way - you say the eye works "efferently" while a camera just detects light.

The rest is meaningless: basically you are saying that if an object is roughly in front, it shows up, but not if it is not roughly in front... trivial. It explains nothing at all.

Finally, if it is "light from the object" that needs to be resolved, then there is a delay as the camera would have to wait for the light to arrive. We would not be able to photograph a new supernova, but we would be able to see it.

This is once again a non-answer. I wonder - do you even notice, or do you just select words that sound nice and sort of string them together?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There are still "afferent nerve endings" in the eye, and they are still the same as the ones on the ear or the nose.

That's not quite right. The structure of the eye is different than the structure of the ear and nose. It is a much more complicated organ.

Not really. In fact there are only afferent nerves in the retina. Ask TLR.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We still have nu clue how televisions work: they just emit light, not images.

That's right, they emit light, and in HD we see a sharper image due to a higher resolution of pixels. But the television screen that is emitting this light is within our visual range.

...and emits only light. If light did not contain information and is merely a requirement for sight, a TV should not work. There is no object to look at in the case of a TV.

Again you have no answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We still do not know why we should assume conscience works the way the book claims it does. Because of this, the claim that the book is a logical, undeniable progression is proven to be false.

No it does not mean that. It means you haven't taken the actual time necessary to study this work for a clear understanding. Don't pass the buck onto me when you haven't done your part Vivisectus, and you know it.

Ah, so then you do know, as the person who has studied this book the most? Then why are you unable to explain it? Again, evasion and no answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But hey! If you don't agree with the book, that is because you are biased, a meany, or just not bright enough to get it. Absolutely not because it fails to make sense, and fails to support it's rather grandiose claims.

I never said people weren't bright enough. In fact, I even said to Spacemonkey that he has the intellectual capacity. The same goes for you and everyone else in here.

And yet you consistently blame any disagreement on a lack of understanding, bias or just malice.

Congratulations! You have not actually answered any of it because you are unable to. And you do not even seem to realize it.

Vivisectus · #**20889** 10-28-2012, 08:50 PM

The TV answer is interesting

Quote:

That's right, they emit light, and in HD we see a sharper image due to a higher resolution of pixels. But the television screen that is emitting this light is within our visual range.

first off, LOL at whatever you felt was relevant about HD.

So you are now saying that while we just "look out" at an object, at the same time we can also see light, and perceive that as an image.

That is very weird, especially in the case of a TV. Beams of light are emitted by it - if we could see the light efferently, we should be able to see those beams. In fact, the light of the TV is everywhere between us and the TV - but somehow we only see it on the screen!

Light itself is invisible: if we shine a laser beam from left to right in front of our eyes, we cannot see it unless there is something for them to hit, like smoke or dust. How can this be in efferent vision? There is plenty of light for the retina to use to see with.

So how come that light that does not reach the retina cannot be seen? Why do we perceive TV as an image at the screen, and not as a sort of solid beam of coloured light?

Spacemonkey · #**20890** 10-28-2012, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, you are doing your best to make me look stupid.

How am I making you look stupid? What am I doing that you think I should not be doing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your question is inappropritate as usual.

What was inappropriate about my question? What questions will you answer? I've asked you several sincere, relevant, and intelligent questions relating to the book, and you keep ignoring and evading them... and then lying by claiming you never do this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not looking for results per se, so that question doesn't apply.

How does this show that the question doesn't apply? Surely it shows that it does apply, and the answer is that the satisfaction you are deriving from this discussion is not related to the actual results you are achieving. And why are you not seeking results? Why are you not trying to convince people that Lessans was right? Why are you here if not to achieve such results?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And my father would have applauded me for my effort no matter what the results turned out to be.

Even when you lie, weasel, and evade? He would have applauded that? You don't think there are any aspects of your behavior here that he might have criticized?

Spacemonkey · #**20891** 10-28-2012, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not a lie. I answer your questions.

It was a lie. I showed it to be a lie by quoting you evading my questions instead of answering them. You have evaded them again in this post. Therefore you lied when you said you never do this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never purposely ignore your questions unless you start frustrating me by your better than thou attitude, which I'm starting to feel.

IOW, you never ignore questions... except for when you do. If you purposefully ignore questions when you are feeling frustrated, then it is a lie to claim that you never do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Question #1: What support did Lessans provide for your claim that under his changed conditions, people will be unable to harm others without justification?

[Weasel #1:] That's because you have no clue as to what the two-sided equation is even about, yet you tell me you now more about this discovery than me, when I've been privy to it my entire life.

[Weasel #2:]He was so clear in the book as to why this occurs under conditions of a no blame environment, and why we can't justify striking a first blow under these same conditions, that you either didn't read it, or you don't understand his demonstration.

Where am I evading anything? You do not understand the two-sided equation whatsoever, yet you think you do. This poses a real stumbling block.

Where are you evading anything? See above! Neither of your above responses to the question actually provide any kind of answer to it. Your first quoted response was an evasion. Your new response above is also an evasion. Telling me that I am lost or don't understand is a weaseling evasion. Telling me that it is clear in the book is a weaseling evasion. Anything that does not consist of providing actual support from Lessans for your claim (that under his changed conditions, people will be unable to harm others without justification) is a weaseling evasion. And claiming that we will be unable to justify harm is not the same as showing that we will be unable to harm without a justification.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Question #2:Question #2: How could it be that NASA successfully uses delayed-time vision to calculate trajectories, when if Lessans were right about real-time seeing, they should then miss by thousands of miles?

[Weasel #1:] I already said that I'm not getting into this because it is fueling the rage that is being directed at me. This is not airtight by any means, as far as I'm concerned. Only further testing will determine who is right.

[Weasel #2:] Maybe in their calculations there was a correction made. I really don't know, but this is not how this knowledge is going to be confirmed. If this claim is confirmed valid, then we have to go back to the drawing board to understand what is really going on, and why the trajectories are on target.

This is not a weasel. I am evading nothing. Empirical testing will be the ultimate judge of who is right.

Again, both of these responses are weaseling evasions. Neither of them answer the question by explaining how it could be that NASA does not miss while using delayed vision calculations, if vision is real-time. Explaining why you are not answering the question is simply explaining why you are evading it. Appealing to a need for further empirical testing is a weaseling evasion. It does not answer the question. And no correction is made. You have even been shown the calculations. So this is another weaseling evasion. The only legitimate part of your reply is where you admit that you don't really know how it is possible for Lessans to still be right. But of course, you are still certain that he is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Before I ever give you an apology, you are you going to have to get down on your hands and knees and ask for forgiveness for calling me insane, mentally ill, and all the other crazy nutty things you have called me and accused me of in the space of a very short time.

I'm not going to apologize for telling you that you are mentally ill. You are. I am not using this as an insult. I am seriously concerned about your mental health, as are most of your audience here. My conclusion concerning your mental state is one based upon the evidence of your posts. When I say that you are crazy, I can support this by showing where you have said or done crazy things. Whereas you asserted that I had contradicted myself when I had not (merely because I have not agreed with your unsupported claim that compatibilism is wrong), and still refuse to retract the accusation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as your false indignation over my comment, explain to me how then can you reconcile the two opposite sides that compatibilists try to reconcile without it being a complete and utter contradiction? Are you saying that we don't have free will, or that we do have free will? And if you think we have both, show me how this works in a compatabilist framework.

Like I already told you, I already did explain this. But I'll be happy to explain it to you again just as soon as you retract and apologize for your lies and false accusations. You were wrong to say that I had contradicted myself. You were wrong to say that I had claimed that we both have and do not have free will. And you are blatantly lying every time you claim that you never weasel or evade anything.

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**20892** 10-28-2012, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, here is that question concerning conscience again which you have yet to answer with anything but weaseling evasion:

What support did Lessans provide for your claim that under his changed conditions, people will be unable to harm others without justification?

If you'd rather discuss efferent vision (despite previously insisting that you would not be returning to this topic), then here are some questions on that topic for you to answer:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You need to answer these questions without contradicting yourself, otherwise real-time photography and efferent vision remains impossible:

1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?

3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

5. How did the light already present at the camera get to be there, i.e. where did it come from?

6. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?

7. Can light travel faster than light?

8. Is wavelength a property of light?

9. Can light travel without any wavelength?

10. Can wavelengths travel independently of light?

11. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?

12. What does a reflection consist of?

13. What does light consist of?

14. Do you agree with our account of what it means for the ball to be blue (i.e. that it is presently absorbing all non-blue light striking it, and reflecting from its surface only the light of blue-wavelength)?

15. What happens to any light striking the surface of an object which does not get absorbed, after it strikes that object?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why does efferent vision still have no answers to the following simple questions?

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

3. If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?

Show us all again how you never ignore or evade questions, Peacegirl.

Bump.

Vivisectus · #**20893** 10-28-2012, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Obviously, you are doing your best to make me look stupid.

I don't think he is doing that, but he may be assisting.

Spacemonkey · #**20894** 10-28-2012, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Conscience works exactly like he described.

Unsupported assertion.

It is supported...

No, it isn't. You have never offered so much as a shred of support for this claim. Not once. Therefore it remains unsupported.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What else is conscience for but to determine whether our actions can be justified when it comes to hurting someone. If we can justify it, our conscience will permit the action. If we can't justify it, our conscience won't let us permit the action.

Kindergarten level psychology. What makes you think conscience will always be strong enough to perform this function under his changed conditions? What support do you have for the claim that it will then be impossible to harm others without a justification?

Weasel in 3... 2... 1...

If he is correct that we must have a justification to harm others...

Learn to read, Peacegirl. I asked you what makes you think a justification will always be required, and you have started your answer with the conditional assumption that this is the case. So the question you answered is not the question I asked. Try again: What makes you think conscience will always be strong enough to perform this function under his changed conditions? What support do you have for the claim that it will then be impossible to harm others without a justification?

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**20895** 10-28-2012, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay, so? That supports Lessans. We don't see the plane because it's too distant and the reflected light cannot be resolved, therefore we can't see the plane. I never said we don't need light to see; I just said that we also need the object to be within our field of view to see.

No, it does not support Lessans. You are appealing to an explanation based on resolution, which (i) is the same explanation which offered by afferent vision, meaning efferent vision does not explain anything here that is not already explained by current theory; and which (ii) is an explanation relying upon the dispersion of traveling light, meaning it is an explanation that is only available for afferent (and not for efferent) vision. I pointed this out before, and you have evaded the post twice already.

Bump.

thedoc · #**20896** 10-28-2012, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The point I was making is that the airplane must be within one's visual range for the reflected light to strike the photoreceptors.

If we see efferently and the brain is looking out through the eyes, why does light need to strike the photoreceptors?

That's simple. The brain generates all objects inside of itself like a diorama, however without light it's all dark and the brain can't see it. That's why the light is necessary.

If only the brain had evolved to include a flashlight. Then we could all see in the dark.

Or perhaps the batteies have died?

peacegirl · #**20897** 10-28-2012, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We still do not know how efferent sight actually works. How does the information end up in the brain? How does it actually work, when you get right down to it?

This one remains unanswered.

Quote:

We still do not know why light needs to be refracted in order for us to see it properly in the case of glasses.

I already answered that. The brain is still using light to see, and if that light not striking the eyeball correctly, the outside world will be blurred.

Why? How does that work? The light carries no information, so why would it have to hit the "eyeball correctly?"

That is no answer at all.

Of course it's an answer, just one you don't like. Light is still a medium which is necessary to see anything, so if it's not striking the eye correctly, the brain can't use that light to see correctly. Duh! :doh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We still do not know how a camera, which works afferently and is just a light-detector (we built them that way) can show the same image as the eyes over large distances.

Because they work the same way as the eye does Vivisectus. If the object is in the camera's field of view, the image will show up. If the object is not within the camera's field of view, the object will not show up because the light from the object cannot be resolved.

It cannot work the same way - you say the eye works "efferently" while a camera just detects light.

Their functions are similar. Light is necessary for both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The rest is meaningless: basically you are saying that if an object is roughly in front, it shows up, but not if it is not roughly in front... trivial. It explains nothing at all.

It's only the most important observation in this whole thing. It might not explain how the brain does this, but it is still a plausible model that needs to be taken seriously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Finally, if it is "light from the object" that needs to be resolved, then there is a delay as the camera would have to wait for the light to arrive. We would not be able to photograph a new supernova, but we would be able to see it.

No, it would not have to wait for the light to arrive. The supernova would have to be large enough to be seen. If that is the case, then light would already be at the film, just as the light would already be at the retina. The photo would be the same as what we are seeing. This is the great confusion, which is why he explained that you could see the sun turned on instantly, but it would take 8 minutes for you see someone next to you because the light has not arrived. All that is necessary is light to be surrounding the object, not that the light has to travel to Earth first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is once again a non-answer. I wonder - do you even notice, or do you just select words that sound nice and sort of string them together?

I'm doing the best I can with some really hard headed people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There are still "afferent nerve endings" in the eye, and they are still the same as the ones on the ear or the nose.

Quote:

That's not quite right. The structure of the eye is different than the structure of the ear and nose. It is a much more complicated organ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Not really. In fact there are only afferent nerves in the retina. Ask TLR.

I didn't say there weren't, but that's not the only condition. He said there are no similar nerves that make direct contact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We still have nu clue how televisions work: they just emit light, not images.

Quote:

That's right, they emit light, and in HD we see a sharper image due to a higher resolution of pixels. But the television screen that is emitting this light is within our visual range.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

...and emits only light. If light did not contain information and is merely a requirement for sight, a TV should not work. There is no object to look at in the case of a TV.

Again you have no answer.

I never said light does not have information. It has information which the brain is using to look at the external world. It's just that the brain doesn't decode the light; it uses the light to see the actual object.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We still do not know why we should assume conscience works the way the book claims it does. Because of this, the claim that the book is a logical, undeniable progression is proven to be false.

Quote:

No it does not mean that. It means you haven't taken the actual time necessary to study this work for a clear understanding. Don't pass the buck onto me when you haven't done your part Vivisectus, and you know it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah, so then you do know, as the person who has studied this book the most? Then why are you unable to explain it? Again, evasion and no answer.

I'm not evading anything. If anything, I'm going overboard to explain things to people who don't deserve it because they haven't read the book. They want everything handed to them on a silver platter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But hey! If you don't agree with the book, that is because you are biased, a meany, or just not bright enough to get it. Absolutely not because it fails to make sense, and fails to support it's rather grandiose claims.

Quote:

I never said people weren't bright enough. In fact, I even said to Spacemonkey that he has the intellectual capacity. The same goes for you and everyone else in here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet you consistently blame any disagreement on a lack of understanding, bias or just malice.

There's a lot of that too, but that doesn't mean you don't have the capacity to learn if you would just open your mind and let in the fresh air of undeniable reasoning. :yup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Congratulations! You have not actually answered any of it because you are unable to. And you do not even seem to realize it.

Again, I have answered and will continue to answer as long as I'm here, to the best of my ability. May the best man win! :wave:

Spacemonkey · #**20898** 10-28-2012, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Their functions are similar. Light is necessary for both.

You don't know how either work. You can't explain how either the eyes or cameras actually work on your real-time account.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's only the most important observation in this whole thing.

It's a trivial tautology amounting to no more than that we can see what can be seen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It might not explain how the brain does this, but it is still a plausible model that needs to be taken seriously.

You don't have a model at all, never mind a plausible one that could be taken seriously. An actual model would have to provide a mechanism, and be able to account for the behavior of photons. You have no model.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not evading anything. If anything, I'm going overboard to explain things to people who don't deserve it because they haven't read the book.

You are a liar. People have read the book, and you are evading questions.

ceptimus · #**20899** 10-28-2012, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm just curious Ceptimus, why did you ignore the part where the dog goes crazy over his master coming from Iraq, and yet his inability to recognize his master in a picture right before his master shows up in person? Why did you ignore this completely if you were seriously interested in figuring out the truth? :chin:

It's because I think the dog may be smart enough to know the difference between his master, and a picture of his master.

And I'm also quite prepared to believe that, in this instance, Lessans was right that dogs can't recognise their masters in photographs; or it may be that some exceptional dogs can do it but most ordinary mutts can't: I don't know.

My point - it's the same point that others here have tried to explain to you - is that just because a dog doesn't get all excited and jump around when shown a photograph, that doesn't PROVE that dogs can't recognise faces in photographs; it's certainly anecdotal evidence that they can't, but anecdotal evidence isn't good enough for science - we need more than that.

Maybe dogs can recognise the photos, but the reason they get excited when they see their real master, is that they can also smell and hear their master; they know that their real master can play with them, talk to them, take them walks, give them treats and so on; they're smart enough to know that a photograph, even one of their master, can't do those things.

A scientific study tries to eliminate all possible causes of bias in order to get at the truth. The study I described above still has some holes in it. You wouldn't want a person in the room at the same time as the dog - at least not a person who knew which was the 'correct' photograph: even if the tests showed that the dog COULD recognise the photos in that case, it might be that the dog was actually picking up cues from the person to guide it to the correct photo - so it would be safest not to have a person in the room at all, and observe the dog via a video camera link. And there are other subtle things - the person printing and placing the photographs might leave traces on the photos that the dog could smell - so you'd either want that person to not know the 'correct answer' either (this is called 'double blinding') or you'd need some other method of eliminating any such possible contamination of the photos that the dog might pick up in some unexpected (to humans) way.

I'm really just trying to educate you how a scientific study on the dogs might be done: if you can think about the best methods to use in this simple and non-contentious case, then it may help you to understand the thought processes of all those people who are arguing with you in these threads.

Vivisectus · #**20900** 10-28-2012, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Why? How does that work? The light carries no information, so why would it have to hit the "eyeball correctly?"

That is no answer at all.

Of course it's an answer, just one you don't like. Light is still a medium which is necessary to see anything, so if it's not striking the eye correctly, the brain can't use that light to see correctly. Duh! :doh:

It is not a matter of liking or not, it is just that you are not actually explaining anything. What would constitute "striking the eye correctly", and how does it make vision blurry?

I can explain the mechanics of this for actual optics. Explain the mechanics in efferent vision - how does it actually work? What happens? Just saying things like "it needs to strike the eye correctly" is like saying "it needs to strike it in such a way that makes it work in efferent vision"... it means nothing.

Still, no answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We still do not know how a camera, which works afferently and is just a light-detector (we built them that way) can show the same image as the eyes over large distances.

Because they work the same way as the eye does Vivisectus. If the object is in the camera's field of view, the image will show up. If the object is not within the camera's field of view, the object will not show up because the light from the object cannot be resolved.

It cannot work the same way - you say the eye works "efferently" while a camera just detects light.[/quote]

Their functions are similar. Light is necessary for both.[/QUOTE]

No, one merely recods light, the other "looks out"... whatever that means. You still are not providing any kind of answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The rest is meaningless: basically you are saying that if an object is roughly in front, it shows up, but not if it is not roughly in front... trivial. It explains nothing at all.

It's only the most important observation in this whole thing. It might not explain how the brain does this, but it is still a plausible model that needs to be taken seriously.

No, it is not a model at all. A model requires a mechanism. If what you are saying is a model, than me just saying "Fairies do it" is a model as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Finally, if it is "light from the object" that needs to be resolved, then there is a delay as the camera would have to wait for the light to arrive. We would not be able to photograph a new supernova, but we would be able to see it.

No, it would not have to wait for the light to arrive. The supernova would have to be large enough to be seen. If that is the case, then light would already be at the film, just as the light would already be at the retina. This is the great confusion. That's why he explained that you could see the sun turned on instantly, but it would take 8 minutes for you see someone next to you because the light has not arrived. All that is necessary is light to be surrounding the object, not necessarily that the light has to travel to Earth first.

The light from the supernova would not be at the film. It needs to travel all those lightyears. The light at the film would just be that of a starry sky - light that has already reached us. It will take years for the light from the supernova to arrive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is once again a non-answer. I wonder - do you even notice, or do you just select words that sound nice and sort of string them together?

I'm doing the best I can with some really hard headed people.

That might be the problem: you may actually be incapable of understanding what is being said to you.

Quote:

I didn't say there weren't, but that's not the only condition. He said there are no similar nerves that make direct contact.

...and they do. The retina is made of afferent nerves that make direct contact with light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We still have nu clue how televisions work: they just emit light, not images.

That's right, they emit light, and in HD we see a sharper image due to a higher resolution of pixels. But the television screen that is emitting this light is within our visual range.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

...and emits only light. If light did not contain information and is merely a requirement for sight, a TV should not work. There is no object to look at in the case of a TV.

Again you have no answer.

I never said light does not have information. It has information which the brain is using to look at the external world. It's just that the brain doesn't decode the light; it uses the light to see the actual object.[/QUOTE]

Quote:

I never said light does not have information.

That is not true - you have said that many times.

Quote:

It has information which the brain is using to look at the external world.

Then it needs to travel to reach the eye, and is not instant.

Quote:

It's just that the brain doesn't decode the light; it uses the light to see the actual object.

So there is information in the light, but the brain just doesn't decode it? :lolhog:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah, so then you do know, as the person who has studied this book the most? Then why are you unable to explain it? Again, evasion and no answer.

I'm not evading anything. If anything, I'm going overboard to explain things to people who don't deserve it because they haven't read the book. They want everything handed to them on a silver platter.

You still have not revealed this evidence, or reason to believe it. You keep trying to pretend you have some, but somehow it never seems to materialize. It is kind of important: the whole book after chapter 2 hinges on it.

Also, the claim that the whole book is a logical, undeniable progression hings on it. Unless there is something, the author was either too dim to notice it was missing or a liar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet you consistently blame any disagreement on a lack of understanding, bias or just malice.

There's a lot of that too, but that doesn't mean you don't have the capacity to learn if you would just open your mind and let the fresh air of undeniable reasoning in. :yup:

So your response is to claim that people are biased. *sigh*. This is your problem: you just cannot even imagine that the book could be wrong about anything. And you are not bright enough to realize that you just do not understand half the concepts you refer to. So any weird combination of half-understood terms will do for you, while whomever you are talking to actually has to abide by the rules of rational discourse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Congratulations! You have not actually answered any of it because you are unable to. And you do not even seem to realize it.

Again, I have answered and will continue to answer as long as I'm here, to the best of my ability. May the best man win! :wave:

No, you just do not realize that you yourself do not have the slightest clue about this book. You think that you do not understand it because it is mystical wisdom. But the truth is that you do not understand it because it is nonsense.

why should anyone believe conscience works that way?

What are the mechanics behind efferent sight?

You cannot answer these questions. But you seem unable to even realize it.