A revolution in thought

[Awareness]

A solution for war or crime is bull shit, then I would find the Jehovah witnesses more peacefull in their manner.
When it comes to bringing piece between countries, or in your own country, then is communicating the only solution, you keep calling till you drop dead.

Having a solution for war or crime sounds so corny, it would make the Amish way the only way.

A solution for war and crime denies "evolution" of different "identities" being together.

[SharonDee]

I don't know if parakeets are considered birds with excellent vision but I remember one that never forgot me.

When my friend enlisted my help in driving across the country when she got out of the Air Force, her parakeet was one of the things we packed. He got pulled out of his cage and put into a box in her truck's front seat for each day of the trip. This had never happened to him before so he associated all the new unpleasantness in his life to my arrival on the scene.

For years after that move, that bird would get visibly upset whenever I entered her home--all I had to do was walk in the door; no talk, no touch, no eye contact [tm Cesar Milan]--and he hated me until the day he died.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you see what you're doing Doc?

I see you squirming.

You are setting up a syllogism that because I've been online for 8 years, that he must have been wrong.

Ipse dixit, but incorrect, with a dash of cowardly argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam: you are the unabashed liar again.

I have simply observed that you have FAIL'd, for years, to account for the criticisms raised against this codswallop. We cannot excuse your lies, your tantrums, with mere ignorance. No, you have been shown all of this before, willfully ignored it, then moved on trying to sell it to some other group. You are an Amway saleswoman reacting to the observation, "but it is all just a pyramid scam."

--J.D.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

They haven't considered that purple people eaters are really creating holograms and beaming that into our minds whenever we see Butterfinger candy bars either. Guess why?

That's because PPEs all work for Hershey's and not Nestle's. They really don't want people thinking about Butterfingers, under any circumstances. What a stunning display of ignorance on your part, Wildernesse.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by SharonDee

I don't know if parakeets are considered birds with excellent vision but I remember one that never forgot me.

When my friend enlisted my help in driving across the country when she got out of the Air Force, her parakeet was one of the things we packed. He got pulled out of his cage and put into a box in her truck's front seat for each day of the trip. This had never happened to him before so he associated all the new unpleasantness in his life to my arrival on the scene.

For years after that move, that bird would get visibly upset whenever I entered her home--all I had to do was walk in the door; no talk, no touch, no eye contact [tm Cesar Milan]--and he hated me until the day he died.

It might appear that the parakeet recognized you by your features alone, but it could have been the sound of your entrance (e.g., the way in which you opened the door.) or the colors of your outfit that he was not familiar with. There are still other cues that you might not have considered as a dead giveaway that you were not his owners. In other words, you might not have isolated all of the variables to prove that it was his your face that was responsible for his recognition.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Angakuk, that is not the criteria that I am using to determine whether Lessans was a true mathematician. If I use all of your definitions, then of course he would be crushed. But I'm using a definition that would give him the honor of being able to manipulate numbers whether you call it mathematician or not. You are all caught up in definitions, which mean absolutely NOTHING unless those definitions correspond with reality.

I was not proposing any criteria or imposing any particular definition. I was merely asking you what you meant when you said he was a mathematician and referencing some common notions about what it means to be a mathematician. I am not caught up in definitions, but I am interested in what definitions you are using.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to be kidding. Do you think that a few sentences that you are allowed is going to give his entire life story? I'm shocked by this question as if it indicates something that you can use to discount his knowledge. It's absolute beyond ridiculous.

I have some experience with obituaries and newspapers. In my experience you can have just as many lines in the obit as you are willing to pay for. Your outrage at my questions is part and parcel of your inability to distinguish between attacks and critiques. It appears that you even have trouble distinquishing between questions and declarative sentences.

For the record, I don't need to resort to any sleight-of-hand to discount Lessans' knowledge. He does that all on his own quite nicely.

So, to be clear here, what you are saying is that Lessans was not, by any definition, a professional mathematician. Rather, he was an avocational mathematician. Would it have been all that difficult for you to just answer the question without the outrage?

[The Lone Ranger]

I will repeat.

There have been many carefully-controlled empirical studies which have documented that birds of at least some species can recognize individual humans based upon facial features alone. Field ornithologists often have to take this fact into account when doing their studies.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It might appear that the parakeet recognized you by your features alone, but it could have been the sound of your entrance (e.g., the way in which you opened the door.) or the colors of your outfit that he was not familiar with. There are still other cues that you might not have considered as a dead giveaway that you were not his owners. In other words, you might not have isolated all of the variables to prove that it was his your face that was responsible for his recognition.

Sharon Dee has made an astute observation here. Why do you insist on challenging the mathematical truth that some birds can recognize individual features?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I will repeat.

There have been many carefully-controlled empirical studies which have documented that birds of at least some species can recognize individual humans based upon facial features alone. Field ornithologists often have to take this fact into account when doing their studies.

By "carefully-controlled" and "empirical" I take it that you really mean "sketchy".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Jesus, I just ... I mean .. words fail!

What the fuck are you talking about?

What does that even mean? What does connected mean, in the above sentence. Connected how?

You mean, if I take a photo of a tree, the tree physically uproots itself, enters the camera lens and presses itself upon the film? Is that what you mean?

If that's not what you mean, then what the fuck do you mean?

An outline of the object? What does that mean?

Really? Well, if the tree isn't there, the film sure as shit isn't going to develop an image of a tree. Does that mean it will develop nothing at all? Oh, well, I don't think so. I'm pretty Goddamned sure that it will develop an image of a landscape without that particular tree.

That is what is implied when science says light alone would allow one to see an event. So if you were on Rigel, Columbus would just be entering America on the waves of light. It is saying the image of this past occurrence is in the light no matter how long ago the event occurred. There is no proof of this.

Originally Posted by davidm

Everything you say, and everything that Lessans says, when you go into detail, is total gibberish.

That's your opinion.

Originally Posted by davidm

Is this why you aren't making replies in the thread by The Lone Ranger in which he explains how we see? Because you know that you can't reply to his (correct) description of how we see?

Is this why you won't asnwer Kael's post, and my posts, asking you to expalin, in detail, what Lessans means by his cockamamie "screens of undeniable substance" and other bullshit that he himself refuses to define?

I already told you what it means numerous times.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I will repeat.

There have been many carefully-controlled empirical studies which have documented that birds of at least some species can recognize individual humans based upon facial features alone. Field ornithologists often have to take this fact into account when doing their studies.

. . . because peacegirl has this "issue" with reading responses responsibly responsible.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's your opinion.

No, it is a valid observation. Unlike you, davidm, TLR, My Humble MagNIfIcence, and others--and many, many others on many, many pages you have spammed this--have backed up the observation.

Originally Posted by davidm

Is this why you won't asnwer Kael's post, and my posts, asking you to expalin, in detail, what Lessans means by his cockamamie "screens of undeniable substance" and other bullshit that he himself refuses to define?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you what it means numerous times.

No, you have not.

FAIL.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Will you please stop saying such things?

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, that's not how science works! It's dishonest to keep saying that it is.

I was making a joke. I guess I wasn't being clear.

[peacegirl]

[quote=The Lone Ranger;936939]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reason their vision isn’t clear can be answered by the second question, which asks about babies' ability to see detail, or their visual acuity. Visual acuity is dependent on the optical components of the eye (like the lens), but more importantly it is dependent on the functioning of the retina and the brain. This means that even thought the optics of the eye are mature, infants still can’t see as well as adults because brain areas responsible for vision are still immature. To use the camera analogy, the reason that infants' vision is blurry is because of the "film", not the lens. The retina (the film of the eye), in addition to other visual parts of the brain, is incompletely developed in infants.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

This hardly helps Lessans' case. First, it's well-understood and not the least bit controversial that a properly-developed brain is necessary for vision. Who on Earth contests that? What Lessans does not provide is a single scrap of evidence that the brain in any way "projects" information to the retina, or that the optic nerve contains any efferent fibers at all.

An interesting observation is that if a baby's brain is perfectly developed to receive stimuli from all of his other senses, why is his vision any different?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I should also point out that it is a demonstrated fact that newborns can see, and can even recognize faces. That it takes a while for them to fine-tune the mechanism so that they can see well is beside the point.

They can see, but their eyes cannot focus. The question is why. The current belief is that the muscles are not strong enough to coordinate eye movement. Lessans contests this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just googled this but I have to register to read the article, which I'm not going to do right now. If anyone wants to, let me know what it says. Maybe they're just talking about efferent motor nerves.

The basic anatomy of the optic nerve and visual ...
ity to be Homo sapiens. This has become increasingly true in recent centuries, ... the axons of the optic nerve. The nerve fiber layer con- ..... vision does not reside only in the eyes. I hope it is ... al system is a very complicated network of afferent and efferent connections spread through several regions of ...

iospress.metapress.com/index/RW1646264741L86L.pdf

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The author is describing the nature of the retina and of the visual pathway. He also describes how the muscles that move the eyes and that control the pupillary response are innervated.

Lessans is arguing that weakened muscles are not the reason why the infant cannot focus. An interesting observation (which is not irrelevant) is that all the other senses are in full working order when a baby is born.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As he repeatedly points out in the article, the optic nerve is made of the axons of the ganglion cells in the retina -- that is, it is made of afferent nerve fibers.

I can't argue with that. Is that proof enough that the eyes are a sense organ and what Lessans is claiming is absolutely impossible? If anyone can find a picture of an afferent versus an efferent fiber, I would love to see that. Is it easy to make the distinction? If it is, I really don't know the mechanism that would allow someone to see afferently, but I never said I did. That is why we need more empirical testing. If any of his observations turn out to be inconclusive or true (which would involve strict control over variables), then we would need to rethink the light/sight model. If his observations prove false, science wins. Afterall, isn't empirical testing the gold standard of scientific inquiry?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't argue with that. Is that proof enough that the eyes are a sense organ and what Lessans is claiming is absolutely impossible?

YES.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

An interesting observation is that if a baby's brain is perfectly developed to receive stimuli from all of his other senses, why is his vision any different?

It's not difficult at all to understand.

Could you stand right after you were born? Could you lift your head? No and no.

That's because the muscles that allow you to do so had not yet been sufficiently exercised. Neural connections are still being sorted out in a newborn, and it's the strengthening and reinforcement of these connections that allows efficient muscle contraction. Between that and the fact that muscles become stronger as they're used, a newborn is extremely uncoordinated. That is, its muscles are weak and don't work too well.

The ability to focus the eyes depends on muscles. Hearing, touch, taste, smell, proprioception, and equilibrium [there are more than 5 senses, by the way] don't. So it's hardly surprising that it takes some time for the muscles of the eye to become sufficiently connected and strengthened for a newborn to be able to focus -- just as it takes time for a newborn to be able to lift its head.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't argue with that. Is that proof enough that the eyes are a sense organ and what Lessans is claiming is absolutely impossible? If anyone can find a picture of an afferent versus an efferent fiber, I would love to see that. Is it easy to make the distinction? If it is, I really don't know the mechanism that would allow someone to see afferently, but I never said I did. That is why we need more empirical testing. If any of his observations turn out to be inconclusive or true (which would involve strict control over variables), then we would need to rethink the light/sight model. If his observations prove false, science wins. Afterall, isn't empirical testing the gold standard of scientific inquiry?

If you'd read my essay on vision with any care, you'd know that it is not difficult to distinguish axons from dendrites. All you need to do is locate the cell body of a neuron and see which end the dendrites are coming in from and which end the axon is going going out of. Admittedly, it's not as immediately obvious with a bipolar neuron, but it's still a simple-enough process to distinguish between axons and dendrites -- and thus to tell whether the neural fiber in question is efferent or afferent.

It's not as if people haven't done this with respect to the neurons of the retina.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agreed with The Lone Ranger that light gives us information about the object that the light is a reflection of, but the light apart from the object will give no information at all. It was logical to think this was happening, but due to Lessans' observations, it is not what is happening. Try to take a picture with a camera that is directly in line with an object but slightly in front of it, and see if you get any information about said object. You should get some information if it's in the light, correct? That would be a valid experiment.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The entire point that people have been trying to make to you with respect to how sight works is that the eye (or a camera) can form an image (and relay it to the brain) only if it is receiving light that was either reflected from or emitted by the object in question.

I know what people are saying. What I'm saying is that a camera takes a picture of the object; with light as a necessary condition. You are saying that it is the light that is central, not the object.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So if you place a camera such that the lens of the camera is not receiving light that is reflected from the object, it can't form an image of the object -- it doesn't matter how much light is bathing the object in question.

Granted, the lens is what gathers and focuses the light onto the film.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So of course you can't take a picture of an object if the camera is facing away from the object and can't receive light reflected from or emitted by it. This is the same reason why you can't see anything behind you -- it doesn't matter how much light the object is emitting or reflecting, if the light can't enter your eye, then you can't see it.

I understand. If you found out I was your student, I hope you wouldn't quit.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's the entire point of what everyone has been trying to tell you about how vision works. You can't see anything unless light that is reflected from or emitted by the object in question is entering your eye. That light is then transduced by the retinal cells into neural impulses that are relayed by the optic nerve to the brain for interpretation.

The lens is an important factor in sight, that is a fact. But the entire explanation of how sight works does not exclude the possibility (I didn't say probability) of an alternate sight/light model.

[Awareness]

You can see the soul or if you want the inner side of someone else.

And indeed the eyes are sometimes efferent when you look ino his or her eyes.

So a good actor is for myself a deep fantasizer, and a bad one a dead eyed doll that talks.

Papa TRON was indeed "dead eyed".

There is indeed a lot more to see, but glasses is not the solution.
Another brain maybe.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Could you name [a top scientist who everyone listened to]? It would be great if you could, and if you could tell us what research they have done which is relevant to everyone. A person who is currently living, of course, otherwise they aren't going to be much help to you and the book anyway.

I have met, spoken with, and have half a clue about the research of a handful of members of the National Academy of Science, but I don't think that any of them could be described as someone whom everyone listened to, as if they are making pronouncements on how the world works as a whole. Maybe everyone in their discipline listens to them, or thinks their work is foundational, but that doesn't mean it is especially relevant to other disciplines. Most of them probably aren't even known outside their discipline, even if what they do is pretty neat. I'm not some special individual with access to the great halls of science, either--I went to a state university. I'm the wife of a research scientist and attend social events with my husband. I was a secretary in an academic department at a state university.

Also, your statement only highlights your ignorance of the scientific community and the scientific methods used to illuminate scientific facts. It supports my earlier comments, which you huffily denied. Science does not work the way that you describe in this comment, and if that is all you know, then you clearly do not know anything about it at all.

* wildernesse doing her part to get this thread to 100 pages.

I wish I could take back that statement. That was supposed to be funny because this girl (I forgot her name) was telling me that I was not giving Awareness credit for his intelligence. At least that is what I took from her post. I was actually making a joke that she must be his girlfriend. So much for my humor. The one thing that he did say that caused me to respond: "Go back to your cave," was the following:

We have been taught from the day we were born how to see things, and some body is investigating HIS own bullshit.

Reality is right peacegirl, so really start looking around you real carefully.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It's not difficult at all to understand.

Could you stand right after you were born? Could you lift your head? No and no.

That's because the muscles that allow you to do so had not yet been sufficiently exercised. Neural connections are still being sorted out in a newborn, and it's the strengthening and reinforcement of these connections that allows efficient muscle contraction. Between that and the fact that muscles become stronger as they're used, a newborn is extremely uncoordinated. That is, its muscles are weak and don't work too well.

The ability to focus the eyes depends on muscles. Hearing, touch, taste, smell, proprioception, and equilibrium [there are more than 5 senses, by the way] don't. So it's hardly surprising that it takes some time for the muscles of the eye to become sufficiently connected and strengthened for a newborn to be able to focus -- just as it takes time for a newborn to be able to lift its head.

That is today's theory, and it's very plausible sounding. Whether it's true is the question. For you to say it's true and that's the end of it, is as bad as me saying it's not the muscles at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't argue with that. Is that proof enough that the eyes are a sense organ and what Lessans is claiming is absolutely impossible? If anyone can find a picture of an afferent versus an efferent fiber, I would love to see that. Is it easy to make the distinction? If it is, I really don't know the mechanism that would allow someone to see afferently, but I never said I did. That is why we need more empirical testing. If any of his observations turn out to be inconclusive or true (which would involve strict control over variables), then we would need to rethink the light/sight model. If his observations prove false, science wins. Afterall, isn't empirical testing the gold standard of scientific inquiry?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

If you'd read my essay on vision with any care, you'd know that it is not difficult to distinguish axons from dendrites. All you need to do is locate the cell body of a neuron and see which end the dendrites are coming in from and which end the axon is going going out of. Admittedly, it's not as immediately obvious with a bipolar neuron, but it's still a simple-enough process to distinguish between axons and dendrites -- and thus to tell whether the neural fiber in question is efferent or afferent

It's not as if people haven't done this with respect to the neurons of the retina.

That's fair enough. So what you are saying is that if the optic nerve is completely afferent (based on fact) there is no possible way for the eyes to be efferent? But what would happen if the empirical studies (that were without bias) showed that a baby needed other sense experience in order to focus. Would that throw a wedge into any of the discussion? Would it prompt you to take a second look at what Lessans is saying? I'm not being obstinate; I'm just asking.

[The Lone Ranger]

Well, if it were to be shown that pretty-much everything we think we knew about the anatomy and physiology of sight is wrong. And also if it turns out that the centuries of observational data we've gathered which demonstrate the differences between afferent and efferent fibers are all wrong. And if it turns out that everything we thought we knew about the physics of the interactions between light and pigment molecules is wrong. And if it turns out that general relativity theory is proved to be wrong. And if special relativity theory is disproved, too.

In that case, I'll happily concede that maybe Lessans was onto something after all.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Wanna bet? [Please, bet a lot.] There are plenty of animal species that are much better at recognizing and distinguishing "individual features" than are humans. Most birds, for example.

Yes, I pointed this out to the little idiot many pages ago. It was duly ignored.

Here's a question for The Lone Ranger that can salvage some measure of knowledge from this train wreck of a thread. Can dogs watch TV? I've seen diametrically opposite claims on this: No, they can't, because the number of images-per-second that are displayed are attuned to human eyes, not dog eyes; and, yes they can watch TV. I have no idea who is right.

[The Lone Ranger]

Dogs have many fewer cones in their eyes than do humans. The cones detect colors and give sharper vision. On the other hand, they have relatively more rods, which detect intensity of light and are particularly responsive to movement.

It certainly seems to be the case that dogs can see and recognize movement on a television screen, but it seems unlikely that they recognize specific images. Given how movement-sensitive a dog's eyes are, it's likely that dogs see television screens as a series of quickly-changing still images, rather than as true movement. Between that and their generally less-sharp vision, it seems doubtful that dogs see images on the television per se. I've certainly seen dogs respond to sudden flashes of light or other "surprising" things happening on a television screen, but they probably don't really see television as clearly-defined, moving images the way that we do.

I don't know that anyone has done it, but I think it'd be interesting to see what would happen if you put a dog in front of a high-definition, fast-refreshing television screen.


Cheers,

Michael

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is what is implied when science says light alone would allow one to see an event. So if you were on Rigel, Columbus would just be entering America on the waves of light. It is saying the image of this past occurrence is in the light no matter how long ago the event occurred. There is no proof of this.

What would the observer see on Rigel, you little fool? Earth in "real time?" There is no fucking real time. There is only proper time as measured in inertial frames. This is the point of the train thought experiment first mooted by Einstein in his original introduction to the special theory of relativity. But then, some posts back, you stated words to the effect that you don't need to know about the theory of relativity, nyuck nyuck nyuck! No, all you need to do is watch Three Stooges re-runs, take a hit on the crack pipe and dream up garbage to post on the Internet.

That's your opinion.

No, it's a well confirmed fact.

I already told you what it means numerous times.

Oh have you? So how does the camera take a picture of the tree? Does the tree crawl into the camera? Is that what you mean when you say the camera takes a picture of the object (in this case, the tree) itself? How does a camera take a picture of the tree, peacegirl? We're all ears!

[The Lone Ranger]

Here's an interesting study. It wasn't television, but the researchers found that dogs could correctly respond to life-sized, moving images of a human projected onto a wall by a video projector. They thus conclusively demonstrated that dogs could recognize and respond to commands based upon visual cues only.

First, the experimenter trained the dogs to go to a bowl with food in it by pointing to the correct bowl. Unsurprisingly, the dogs quickly learned to go to whichever bowl the experimenter pointed at.

Then the experimenter projected an image of himself on the wall, pointing to a bowl. The dogs did just as well in this case as they did when the experimenter was actually in the room with them and pointing at the correct bowl.


Péter Pongrácz, Ádám Miklósi, Antal Dóka, Vilmos Csányi. 2003. Successful Application of Video-Projected Human Images for Signalling to Dogs. Ethology. Volume 109, Issue 10, pages 809–821, October 2003.