Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
How many times do I have to say that most of optics is consistent with efferent vision except for the one aspect being disputed?
|
You can say it a million times and it still wouldn't demonstrate how and where efferent vision and optics are at all compatible. You've been unable to show this consistency, so you just keep asserting that they are compatible.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You can't narrow this down to optics alone because optics is following the reasoning that comes from the afferent model, so they are intertwined.
|
Optics
IS the afferent model. How many times do we need to tell you that?
opˇtics
[op-tiks]
noun ( used with a singular verb )
the branch of physical science that deals with the properties and phenomena of both visible and invisible light and with vision.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I'd really like to know where Lessans and you think optics predicts or states that dogs should be able to do this at all. Recognition is a cognitive thing, it's even right there in the word itself, and it's not at all limited to or by vision. I really don't understand why Lessans thought that dogs should be able to recognize their masters pictures if afferent vision were true. It's simply not part of the model.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
But it is LadyShea. Why else would scientists try to confirm that dogs can recognize their masters by just looking at a photograph?
|
|
It's not part of optics. Scientists want to know more about non-human cognition, so they test dogs for all manner of things including recognition. They aren't "trying to confirm" anything, they're trying to discover something.
None of the studies related to what dogs can and can't recognize have been done in the field of optics from what I've seen. If you have counter-evidence that this is in fact related to optics, and that some principle, law, or other tenet of optics states or implies that dogs
should be able to recognize facial features if afferent vision is true, let's see it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It's true that recognition involves cognition, but as in any sense recognition basically comes from a direct experience of incoming stimuli.
|
Recognition comes from the brain processing and utilizing incoming stimuli, not the "direct experience" of that same stimuli
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
People can take what they want from this thread. I am only presenting what I believe is absolutely true. If you don't like this model of sight, take it up with our creator, not me, because reality is not going to change just because you don't happen to like that science may have gotten it wrong.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
There is no creator.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You should know what I mean by now. I don't mean a fatherly figure up in heaven running the show, but there are mathematical laws that control our nature, which is what I call God. Can't you think in abstract terms LadyShea?
|
|
I don't think it's useful to tell me to argue with evolution. I also don't understand why you insist on using silly euphemisms rather than saying exactly what you mean.