A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Oh, now I remember from reading the book, he related a lot of conversations with fictional people to illustrate his points, all his friends that he talked to about his theory were imaginary. No wonder they couldn't see his errors.

Yeah, and one of his imaginary friends says: “Hey, I didn’t know you could reason and think like that; you almost sound like old Socrates himself. Boy, that was really
something to see."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Whatever the reason, people use Einstein as the gold standard of truth in science. They even named a baby product called Baby Einstein, which I'm sure you've heard of.

Many of his "observations" have been empirically tested. And found to be false. But by all means, don't let a few inconvenient facts deter you.

Please don't play this game with me. I am not dismissing a few inconvenient facts for the sake of appearances, which you really seem to believe.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

... it wouldn't be normal not to doubt, but you need to give him the benefit of that doubt. That is how science should work. When science is most skeptical is the time they need to contain that skepticism so that further investigation can take place.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Now, see, that's not how science is done. The way you do science is that if you have a claim, you provide the evidence to back it up. Others can then attempt to replicate your experiments to see if they get the same results.

I can't do more. I am hoping more experiments can be done, but I don't hold out much hope with you all.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You do not say, "I have this 'undeniable truth' which I expect you to accept uncritically, even though it contradicts very well-tested explanations for how the world works. Furthermore, I'm not going to do the hard work of demonstrating its veracity -- that's up to you."

I don't have the ability to execute an experiment with the right controls and everything else that would make the test reliable.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Indeed, what you're proposing is more or less the exact opposite of what science is and how it's done.

I never wanted to get into such depth with the eyes. I told people that the first two chapters were fundamental, but no, they had to do what they wanted. His assertion (are you all happy now?) was secondary, and now people will disregard the entire book. What ashame.

You can't throw out his observations because they have not been proven to be inaccurate. You can think they are inaccurate, guess they are inaccurate, believe they are inaccurate, but you cannot tell me that you proved they were inaccurate.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Many people have provided you with detailed demonstrations that Lessans' "observations" are indeed inaccurate. (And by "inaccurate," I'm being very, very charitable.) But you've demonstrated beyond any doubt that you will categorically refuse to accept any evidence which contradicts his "observations."

The only thing that really is changed is the direction of how we see. Why is this so horrible to contemplate, even if it were true? It doesn't disrupt science or technology or what we know about the absorption and reflection of light. So what's the problem? The resentment in here is palpable.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Which is why it's a waste of time to attempt to have a serious discussion with you. One might as well attempt to teach calculus to a butterfly.

If you can just consider the possibility (that's all I'm really asking) that Lessans' observations might hold some validity, instead of just rejecting him because he didn't give enough proof, that would be enough for me. No matter how airtight scientists feel they are, there is still room for science to have gotten it wrong in this case. Is there anything in science that is considered a fact, or does this just apply to mathematics?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was thinking about the eye muscles in regard to focussing. The neck muscles are voluntary muscles that do require a bit more strength for an infant to be able to lift his head. But the eyes muscles are more reflexive and involuntary. Even if the eye muscles that could cause strabismis were causing a problem with focussing, this is also an involuntary muscle. I don't think you can compare neck muscles with eye muscles Lone Ranger. Sorry.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Wait, you're actually serious, aren't you? Just when I thought you'd gotten a sense of humor.

I couldn't be more.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

First of all, what planet do you live on in which the extrinsic eye muscles and the ciliary muscles are not voluntary?

A ciliary muscle is a smooth muscle. It is involuntary. I live on planet earth, where do you live?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Second, what makes you think that involuntary muscles aren't strengthened with exercise and use?


Third, strabismus [it's spelled with a "u"] is usually not a problem with focusing, per se. That's because accommodation of the lens to focus light on the retina is done by the ciliary muscles; strabismus is a problem with the extrinsic eye muscles. Though if the two eyes are not able to converge onto the same nearby object, you'll have difficulty focusing on it. (This is called convergence insufficiency.)

There are actually several different forms of strabismus. Sometimes it's due to weakness in one or more of the 6 extrinsic eye muscles that move the eye in the eye socket. Sometimes it's due to damage to one of the nerves that innervates the extrinsic eye muscles.

In fairness, since the third cranial nerve (the oculomotor) controls some of the extrinsic eye muscles and it innervates the ciliary muscles, damage to the oculomotor nerve can cause both focusing difficulties and strabismus as well.


Fourth, just for fun, I'll point out that some forms of strabismus can be treated by having the patient do exercises to strengthen the weak muscle(s) that are the source of the problem.

People can strengthen a muscle so that it works more efficiently, but that does not translate to a voluntary muscle. I stick with my original post that you cannot compare neck muscles with ciliary muscles. And if this is the case, Lessans is still in the game because he claimed that it is not the muscles of the eye, in an infant, that are causing his inability to focus. It seems like the more I argue in Lessans' favor, the nastier everyone gets.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Chimpanzees can recognize each other by facial features alone. This is quite well documented in several different studies. Chimpanzees also recognize each other by the unique features of their buttocks.

This study doesn't count, because this doesn't show that chimpanzees can recognize a human face. I'm sorry you can't see the truth revealed by astute observations.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by davidm

Quantum nonlocality is not inconsistent with the special theory of relativity because SR's light-speed limit is a limit on the transference of information. Quantum non-locality cannot be used to send a message, for instance -- or to show the sun blowing up in real time.



There is no "real time," peacegirl, and hence no instantaneous seeing, unless in his delusions of grandueur Lessans also claimed to overturn Einstein.

Well, sure:

Originally Posted by davidm

From the very page to which Iacchus linked:

Note: Quantum nonlocality does not prove that "signals" travel "faster than light." Rather, it shows that at a deep level of reality the speed of light as a limiting factor is irrelevant because phenomena are instantaneously connected regardless of distance.

Okay so, maybe it doesn't prove it but, what do you think the implications are behind everything being "instantaneously connected?" The speed of light may in fact be limited but, whatever it is that operates behind it surely isn't. Right?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Goliath

Thanks for pointing out the reply.

Peacegirl, what kind of "difficult math problems" did your father solve?

I don't know if you would consider it a math problem in the introduction, but he did figure this puzzle out (if you want to call it that). Maybe you can too. It's challenging.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by SharonDee

Yeah, that's why I prefaced my little story with the "anecdotal" disclaimer. I just felt like sharing (and helping wildernesse without making post after post of smilies or jpgs).

Of all the members reading the thread, I am probably the dumbest one when it comes to understanding the science-y stuff. So I've appreciated your coming along and making me feel there's at one person around here who's even dumber.

(I'm going to be very disappointed if it's revealed that you were a troll all along. )

I'm glad I made you feel better.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't play this game with me. I am not dismissing a few inconvenient facts for the sake of appearances, which you really seem to believe.

No, of course not. You're dismissing a whole lot of inconvenient facts.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A ciliary muscle is a smooth muscle. It is involuntary. I live on planet earth, where do you live?

This will apparently come as a shock to you, but just because a muscle is smooth does not necessarily mean that we cannot exert voluntary control over it. Even though the ciliary muscles are innervated by sympathetic and parasympathetic fibers, we do have the ability to exert voluntary control over it.

Heck, you can easily verify this for yourself. Stand with two objects in your field of view -- one of them close to you and one far away. Now focus your eyes on the one close to you (to do this, you'll need to contract the ciliary muscles). After a few seconds, without shifting your gaze, relax the ciliary muscles and focus on the more distant object.

Now, was that so hard?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

From The Great Man's book:

David just can't let go of this one paragraph that was an afterthought. It's really interesting to see where people go. It tells you a lot about who they are.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't play this game with me. I am not dismissing a few inconvenient facts for the sake of appearances, which you really seem to believe.

You're right there. You're not dismissing a few inconvenient facts. You're dismissing a mountain of inconvenient facts.

I don't have the ability to execute an experiment with the right controls and everything else that would make the test reliable.

Describe, in detail, such an experiment. Hell, describe your theory. You have not even described a theory of how we see, and neither did Lessans. Saying stuff like "Light is condition of seeing, not a cause," and "we project onto screens of undeniable sustance" are not theories. Like Lessans, however, I'm sure you don't know what a theory in science is.

I never wanted to get into such depth with the eyes. I told people that the first two chapters were fundamental, but no, they had to do what they wanted. His assertion (are you all happy now?) was secondary, and now people will disregard the entire book. What ashame.

Oh, now it's secondary? But some pages back, you said that if Lessans were wrong about the way we see, his whole "knowledge" falls apart.

You can't throw out his observations because they have not been proven to be inaccurate. You can think they are inaccurate, guess they are inaccurate, believe they are inaccurate, but you cannot tell me that you proved they were inaccurate.

Of course we have, many times over.

The only thing that really is changed is the direction of how we see. Why is this so horrible to contemplate, even if it were true? It doesn't disrupt science or technology or what we know about the absorption and reflection of light. So what's the problem? The resentment in here is palpable.

The resentment is at your persistent galumphing display of willful ignorance. Nothing about what Lessans said is horrible to conteplate. It's just wrong, that's all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I really didn't mean people in here don't have the intellectual capacity, although I do believe they have not thoroughly read the two-sided equation, or could even tell me what it is except for Vivisectus, and I'm not even sure he can.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Well, sure:

Okay so, maybe it doesn't prove it but, what do you think the implications are behind everything being "instantaneously connected?" The speed of light may in fact be limited but, whatever it is that operates behind it surely isn't. Right?

Yes, we know. Everything is held together by Gawd.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David just can't let go of this one paragraph that was an afterthought. It's really interesting to see where people go. It tells you a lot about who they are.

An afterthought? This is central to his whole "concept" of seeing, which, you said some pages back, is a necessary premise for the conclusions that he draws later in the book!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

More from The Half Wit The Great Man:

See that, Lone Ranger? All that stuff you wrote about how the eye and light work, down to the atomic structure, were never things theoretically or empirically derived; they were just stuff that scientists made up after smoking some crack just because they assumed that Aristotle was correct.

I do believe there was an assumption that the eyes worked afferently because they were considered a sense organ. Everything else that followed easily fit into their model of sight without a thought that there could be any problems with it. God forbid somebody disputes an established theory. I think you all would actually tar and feather Lessans and me if you had the chance, in the name of justice and truth.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do believe there was an assumption that the eyes worked afferently because they were considered a sense organ. Everything else that followed easily fit into their model of sight without a thought that there could be any problems with it. God forbid somebody disputes an established theory. I think you all would actually tar and feather Lessans and me if you had the chance, in the name of justice and truth.

More bovine excrement.


Oh, and, just in case you'd forgotten: Paolo Mongilloa, Gabriele Bonoa, Lucia Regolinb, and Lieta Marinellia. 2010. Selective attention to humans in companion dogs, Canis familiaris. Animal Behaviour. Volume 80, Issue 6, December 2010, Pages 1057-1063.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Imagine if the discovery is wrong, peacegirl.

If it's wrong, nothing much is lost except some wasted time and energy. But if it is right, look what will be lost.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I should go through this thread and find all of the wonderful ways we've written to say "this is wrong".

Necessity is the mother of invention.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do believe there was an assumption that the eyes worked afferently because they were considered a sense organ. Everything else that followed easily fit into their model of sight without a thought that there could be any problems with it. God forbid somebody disputes an established theory. I think you all would actually tar and feather Lessans and me if you had the chance, in the name of justice and truth.

No, you idiot, what scientists actually did was look and see how eyes work. NOT assume.

Jesus fucking christ, every time someone goes to the eye doctor and gets a checkup for new glasses confirms the standard theory of vision and proves Lessans wrong!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Fine, I'll play along.

What about all of those studies (there have been many) which have demonstrated that some dogs (and some birds) can and do recognize individual humans by their facial features? I've even given you some direct citations so that you could read the papers for yourself.

I would like to see the actual experiments and what the controls were, not read the study.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Speaking of which, here's another interesting study. It's of particular interest because the study provides convincing evidence that dogs can recognize photographs of their masters.

But I'm sure you'll ignore this one, too.


Ikuma Adachi, Hiroko Kuwahata and Kazuo Fujita. 2007. Dogs recall their owner's face upon hearing the owner's voice. Animal Cognition. Volume 10, Number 1, 17-21.

Maybe that's possible, but that throws in a variable that would bias the whole experiment.

Ranger, are you telling me that no non-human animals can recognize humans by facial features alone? You mean all this time we've been in agreement?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

Darn, I guess it was wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

[ETA: Just for fun, I thought I'd point out that it has been demonstrated that Chimpanzees and Macaque Monkeys can recognize photographs of the faces of conspecifics. They even use the same regions of their brains to process the faces. They don't seem to do as well at identifying the faces of other primate species. But then, how many humans can recognize individual chimpanzees from photographs of their faces?]

I am not surprised only because they are closer to humans and can possibly take a photograph of the individual features of one of their own species and retrieve it when they see a picture. He made no mention of Chimpanzees or Macaque Monkeys, only dogs. I don't think anyone remembers what he was trying to prove, we've gotten so far off track.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not have to give specifics to state the obvious. You as well I know that people often use their titles to show authority, or to demand respect because of their title, or to disrespect anyone who opposes them by virtue of their title.

No, you don't have to give specifics to state the obvious. But when someone asks for specifics, it should be extremely easy to do so if it is so obvious.

I don't know, for example, if by title you mean "Ph.D" or "Professor" or "Department Chair" or the "Eugene P. Odom Chair in Ecology" or what. I don't know what you mean by titles, so I asked for clarification. I also wouldn't describe any of the scientists that I know as hiding behind their titles in order to refute stuff, so I wanted you to give an example of a scientist doing that in order to understand you. In my experience, they are just going to say things like "That's bullshit, because of [x], [y], and [z]." They'd say that if some intelligent, but uneducated person walked up, and at least half of them would probably say that if the Dean of their college said it too. Scientists, in my experience, are not always very diplomatic and most like to argue.

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

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by davidm

An afterthought? This is central to his whole "concept" of seeing, which, you said some pages back, is a necessary premise for the conclusions that he draws later in the book!

Actually, Lessans generously allows that it doesn't matter that he's right and all of science is wrong :

Frankly, it makes no difference to me that the eyes are not a sense organ, that our scientists got confused because of it [...]

I keep on harping on the tragic flaws of the book. Lessans is wrong about how sight works, but he really didn't need to make all his incorrect observations about sight to make his next observation:

One of the greatest forms of injustice still exists because we have never understood our true relationship with the external world which is related to what we think we see with our eyes. What is this injustice? It is to be judged an inferior production of the human race because of physiognomic differences, and this judgment takes place the moment we call one person beautiful and another one ugly, handsome and homely, good looking and bad looking.

He didn't need to come up with pages and pages of a BS theory to make this observation. Without evaluating the truth of the above statement, it is not even inconsistent with the scientific theory of sight. It this why Lessans is so generous to allow the scientists to be confused?

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Are we there yet?

Not yet. But unlike car trips, where your parent tells you that if you are quiet, you'll get there faster (maybe that was only my parents?), it is the opposite here!!



All aboard! We are going to have a major party on the 100th page, with lots of refreshments!!

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

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, you idiot, what scientists actually did was look and see how eyes work. NOT assume.

Jesus fucking christ, every time someone goes to the eye doctor and gets a checkup for new glasses confirms the standard theory of vision and proves Lessans wrong!

How does the saying go? "If the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything begins to look like a nail."

Because Lessans' "discoveries" were arrived at without the benefit of any actual experimentation (or, apparently, any knowledge of visual physiology or of special relativity), peacegirl seems to be laboring under the delusion that this is the standard method by which scientific knowledge is acquired. That would certainly explain an awful lot.


The irony is that she keeps insisting that she wants people to perform empirical tests of Lessans' notions, yet she pointedly ignores the fact that many, many such tests have already been done -- and that they flatly disprove Lessans' claims.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Am I dismissed after 100 pages?

We are going to celebrate getting to 100 pages. And then I am going to stop posting on this thread, perhaps others will as well. What you do, as always, is up to you.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe that's possible, but that throws in a variable that would bias the whole experiment.

Heh, heh. How did I know that you were going to say that?

Hint: They didn't conduct the experiment the way that you seem to think that they did. And as I expected, you didn't even make a minimal effort to find out how the study was done, what their conclusions were, or how they arrived at them.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it's wrong, nothing much is lost except some wasted time and energy. But if it is right, look what will be lost.

Pascal's Wager!