Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1201  
Old 04-04-2011, 12:25 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He is using the association of an object with a word. The only way a dog could recognize his master in the same way Chaser did would be to associate his master's name with his master's features so that a photograph is taken and recorded in his memory.
Chaser must be an extrodinary dog, because now it seems that you are suggesting that he can read words. I assume that is in English. I'd like to know what his favorite book is.
Reply With Quote
  #1202  
Old 04-04-2011, 12:28 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only words my dog knows are "sit", "where's your toy," and of course her name. I would be in shock if I went out and my friend showed my dog a picture of me, and she started jumping all around in recognition.

It's possable your dog just needs a bit more training, but if you're not arround all the time it may be difficult.
Reply With Quote
  #1203  
Old 04-04-2011, 12:33 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The question I am still left with is how we see?
How we see has been explained here, it is more thoroughly explained elsewhere. You are either dismissing the evidence in favor of learned dogma or you don't understand the evidence.
Couldn't that be what you're doing? I believe people are dismissing his evidence.

Quote:
Just because I cannot explain the exact mechanism by which the brain is able to do what it does, doesn't mean his observations are inaccurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
No, the hard evidence demonstrates that his observations are inaccurate
His observations as to how we learn words are not inaccurate. The question is whether this description would necessarily be incompatible with the eyes being a sense organ. That's the million dollar question.

Quote:
Sure, it would be nice if his observations were even more complete, but this gives scientists something to work with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Scientists have done extensive and exhaustive work regarding sight and nothing really seems compatible with Lessans assertions. Have you examined the available literature and research into sight thoroughly? If so, what do you think is missing or needs further "working with"?
The available literature regarding the eyes hasn't changed because it is believed to be a fact that the eyes are a sense organ. There is no further discussion on the topic. It is believed by all scientists that light is converted by the brain into an image. Therefore, either Lessans was wrong or they were wrong. I can understand the backlash that this debate has caused, but I can't disregard the possibility that Lessans might be right.
Reply With Quote
  #1204  
Old 04-04-2011, 12:38 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only words my dog knows are "sit", "where's your toy," and of course her name. I would be in shock if I went out and my friend showed my dog a picture of me, and she started jumping all around in recognition.

It's possable your dog just needs a bit more training, but if you're not arround all the time it may be difficult.
It's amazing how dogs can be trained to do all sorts of things. My dog is getting too old to learn new tricks. :(
Reply With Quote
  #1205  
Old 04-04-2011, 12:39 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

:chin:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He is using the association of an object with a word. The only way a dog could recognize his master in the same way Chaser did would be to associate his master's name with his master's features so that a photograph is taken and recorded in his memory.
Chaser must be an extrodinary dog, because now it seems that you are suggesting that he can read words. I assume that is in English. I'd like to know what his favorite book is.
That's not what I'm saying doc. I hope you're joking. :chin:
Reply With Quote
  #1206  
Old 04-04-2011, 12:56 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
:
That's not what I'm saying doc. I hope you're joking. :chin:
Yeh, I hope you're laughing. But still do you ever read out-loud around your dog, and does the dog react? You might never have thought of reading to your dog but it might be fun to try. I have read to my children and now my grandchildren, but never considered my dogs. It would really be interesting to note if they could differentiate between stories, but that would take a lot of time and effort. You could try childrens books with different pictures on the cover and see if they can pick between them.
Reply With Quote
  #1207  
Old 04-04-2011, 01:13 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The question I am still left with is how we see?
How we see has been explained here, it is more thoroughly explained elsewhere. You are either dismissing the evidence in favor of learned dogma or you don't understand the evidence.
Couldn't that be what you're doing? I believe people are dismissing his evidence.
His definition of the word sense is applicable to sight, as I demonstrated in a previous post. So there is no evidence for his view of sight, only his assertion that sight is not a sense.


Quote:
His observations as to how we learn words are not inaccurate. The question is whether this description would necessarily be incompatible with the eyes being a sense organ. That's the million dollar question.
As I said, his own definition of the word sense is applicable to sight.

Quote:
The available literature regarding the eyes hasn't changed because it is believed to be a fact that the eyes are a sense organ.
Because the eyes are sense organs, by definition...both the accepted definition, and, from what I can tell, Lessan's definition
Quote:
Originally Posted by standard definition
A specialized organ or structure where sensory neurons are concentrated and that functions as a receptor. Also called sensor.
Quote:
There is no further discussion on the topic. It is believed by all scientists that light is converted by the brain into an image. Therefore, either Lessans was wrong or they were wrong. I can understand the backlash that this debate has caused, but I can't disregard the possibility that Lessans might be right.
Based on what reasons might he have been right? Without experimentation or various technologies, how would he at all know how the nerves and receptors function? How did he determine the properties of light?
Reply With Quote
  #1208  
Old 04-04-2011, 01:21 AM
wildernesse's Avatar
wildernesse wildernesse is offline
The cat that will listen
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Valley of the Sun
Gender: Female
Posts: MMMDCCCXLIX
Blog Entries: 6
Images: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
PS you do not evangelize that I am aware of, the above only really matters for those who do
It is probably more accurate to say that I don't evangelize using logical arguments, since I don't find them convincing myself. Also, having once stood as a True Believer, I can understand that it is almost impossible to accept criticism without feeling attacked and becoming defensive. I don't hold out hope for any revelations for peacegirl here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This thread could definitely be used to study feelings and attitudes that don't jive with one's own worldview.
That is not quite what I mean, although I think that what you said is true as well. It is more that I have learned more about reactions of people who disagree with me.

As I have mentioned in passing before, I have a minority viewpoint here on :ff:. On other boards, and infrequently here, I have discussed my beliefs with people who are hostile to indifferent to those beliefs. Sometimes it was easy for me to dismiss those people who I felt were hostile to me as people who were reacting to bad experiences with religion, or who were just immature individuals, or were holding on to their own version of religion, etc. And perhaps there is a grain of truth in some of that.

But, I have had no prior bad experience with your crackpottery, am much less like an emo teenager than I have been at other times in my life, nothing in my religious beliefs is really affected by your ideas, and yet I feel myself responding to your posts (both on the forum and just by reading) with intense frustration and incredulity that an adult could believe what you do. It is mildly entertaining to play with you, just like it is mildly entertaining to hold my cat over the bathtub filled with water and watch her reaction. (Not that this is very nice, especially to you who seem to have no real defenses.) I also feel sorry for you, because you seem to be wasting your time on nonsense and on interacting here. You have no interest in even attempting to conform your beliefs with factual information, and make no arguments to support your beliefs.** So, I feel I have a better understanding of people who have reacted to me in ways that I have interpreted as hostile. And I have had the chance to think about what kind of communication I am able to hear in those conversations--and, generally, it is not the way I have been responding to you. More food for thought.

** It is here where I am stopped a bit short. Because I don't make those arguments either. I am uninterested in conforming my beliefs with factual information in many cases, and find most attempts to do so ludicrous (see Jesus riding a dinosaur).

ETA:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
It's good to see someone getting something useful out of this.
Actually, because of this thread I also read a lot about free will and determinism on wiki and clarified my understanding of what is conventionally meant when those terms are used, as well as clarified a bit what I thought on the subject.

Last edited by wildernesse; 04-04-2011 at 01:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-04-2011)
  #1209  
Old 04-04-2011, 02:21 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
PS you do not evangelize that I am aware of, the above only really matters for those who do
It is probably more accurate to say that I don't evangelize using logical arguments, since I don't find them convincing myself. Also, having once stood as a True Believer, I can understand that it is almost impossible to accept criticism without feeling attacked and becoming defensive. I don't hold out hope for any revelations for peacegirl here.
Yeh I probably should have used "you do not practice apologetics" rather than " you do not evangelize". There are many ways to evangelize that aren't apologetics.

Presenting whatever as "I believe this is true..." or "In my view this" is one thing because what's to argue..."No you don't believe that!" or "No you do not hold that view!"*. That is not apologetics, and that is not presenting your beliefs as Truth For All!

*Of course that opens discussion such as the basis for your belief or view
Reply With Quote
  #1210  
Old 04-04-2011, 02:27 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He could recognize an object, but only if the word was associated with it. Then when the word is mentioned, he would be able to associate the word with the object and find the correct object. To differentiate colors, he would have to know the word blue and be able to see that this color is different from pink or any other color.
Why would the words need to be known?
Reply With Quote
  #1211  
Old 04-04-2011, 02:53 AM
wildernesse's Avatar
wildernesse wildernesse is offline
The cat that will listen
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Valley of the Sun
Gender: Female
Posts: MMMDCCCXLIX
Blog Entries: 6
Images: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Also, how do deaf people see (and acquire language) according to your ideas, peacegirl? Would a deaf person who does not speak out loud be able to train a dog?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
erimir (04-04-2011), LadyShea (04-04-2011)
  #1212  
Old 04-04-2011, 03:42 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMDCCCVI
Images: 11
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I already pointed that out.

Predictably, she does not care that her dad's ideas don't have any explanation for that.

And peacegirl, I was suggesting that if you had a stranger present your photograph to your dog, your dog wouldn't react to the photograph because it would be more concerned with the person holding the photograph.

You have to take into account the way the photograph is presented, and also the fact that dogs normally ignore photographs. You need to eliminate the master's smell and sound, and at the same time, not introduce extraneous smells or sounds (for example, you can't have a stranger presenting the pictures, because the dog will react to the stranger's presence).

Which is why the fact that you think you can test this by simply presenting a photograph to your dog is so naïve.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
wildernesse (04-04-2011)
  #1213  
Old 04-04-2011, 06:17 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by angukuk
You do realize, don't you, that the ability to recognize an outline or a gait is sight dependant?
Of course I realize that, but that wasn't the point I was making. Animals cannot identify their master from sight alone. Gait is movement which could help identify, as well as smell or sound.
I agree that gait is movement. Assuming that neither smell or sound are involved, what sense, other than sight, is the dog using to recognize his master by his movement/gait?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angukuk
With regard to the whole eyes/sight/light/brain discussion, I have question for you.

When you take a picture with a film camera (do they still make those?), how does the image get put on the film?
A snapshot of a particular moment is taken and, through a chemical process a negative is developed which then is developed into a picture. Light is what allows a particular moment to be captured.
So, what do you think is being captured? How does the information about the external object make its way into the camera in order to be encoded on the negative. If the only thing entering the camera is light, then it must be the light that is carrying the information about the external image that is then encoded on the negative. Thus, light must be capable of containing and transmitting information.


Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
With regard to the larger issue in Chapter 4, it seems to me that Lessans is arguing that we use mental constructs to interpret (i.e., give meaning and assign value to) what we see. Further, he seems to be arguing that these meanings and values have no external reality or existence. That they are, in short, simply mental constructs and prejudices. If this is indeed his proposition, I feel compelled to point out that it is hardly original with him nor nor does it depend upon his novel theories regarding the nature of sight. I doubt that there are very many thoughtful and intelligent people who, in comparing pictures of a youthful Elizabeth Taylor and an aged Mother Theresa would make the claim that Elizabeth Taylor was objectively more beautiful than Mother Theresa. I think that most would likely agree that Elizabeth Taylor's physical appearance more closely conforms to the commonly accepted (and largely socially constructed) standard of feminine beauty than does that of Mother Theresa.
Right, but the word beautiful is not an accurate symbol. There are differences between people, that is true, but one is not more beautiful than another. Because of this conditionining that occurs when we project this word onto substance, we have come to believe that beauty actually exists externally. This conditioning has been the source of a major injustice, especially for women.
Who, besides the strawman in Lessans' book, actually believes that beauty has an independant objective existence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
That having been said, there are studies demonstrating that there is an objective basis for attractiveness that is rooted in an apparently innate human preference for symmetry in physical appearance. A preference that may well have an evolutionary basis related to reproductive fitness.
Until these words are removed and there is no criticism of one's choice of partners, we really don't know who someone may be attracted to. Instead of the most beautiful getting first grabs, attraction will be much more equally proportioned and the chances that people will find someone to love and be loved will be much greater when these words are removed. And you're still missing the point. Even if 99% of the people like a certain type of face because of its symmetry, this does not mean it's a beautiful face. It's a face that personally appeals to you. The word beautiful is a misnomer.
The word 'beautiful' is nothing more than a label that we attach to that which we find attractive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angukuk
Quote:
Babies spend more time staring at pictures of symmetric individuals than they do at photos of asymmetric ones. Moreover, when several faces are averaged to create a composite -- thus covering up the asymmetries that any one individual may have -- a panel of judges deemed the composite more attractive than the individual pictures.
That experiment does not at all prove that beauty exists externally even if all the babies chose the face that was more symmetrical. You can't then say the person is more beautiful. You still don't get it, but you think you do. :doh:
I never said it did, or even that it proved anything. What these studies do suggest is that there are measurable objective characteristics that influence attraction, apart from any values that are imparted through the acquisition of language.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angukuk
Scientists say that the preference for symmetry is a highly evolved trait seen in many different animals. Female swallows, for example, prefer males with longer and more symmetric tails, while female zebra finches mate with males with symmetrically colored leg bands.

The rationale behind symmetry preference in both humans and animals is that symmetric individuals have a higher mate-value; scientists believe that this symmetry is equated with a strong immune system. Thus, beauty is indicative of more robust genes, improving the likelihood that an individual's offspring will survive. This evolutionary theory is supported by research showing that standards of attractiveness are similar across cultures.
It's difficult to separate the variables between cultures to make the experiment reliable. Many cultures are influenced by the Western standard of beauty, which is very sad to me. Women in China are getting their eyelids made larger because of this standard of beauty that has spread throughout the world. All traces of ethnicity is being removed in order to have this cookie cutter appearance. This also has a lot to do with how we are conditioned through advertising so that these companies can get you to buy their products.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angukuk
Despite numerous studies, there is no universal consensus on the nature of beauty. I suspect that the truth lies in between the social construct theory and the reproductive fitness theory. That is, some elements of physical attraction probably do have an evolutionary basis and some elements are almost exclusively a matter of social construction.

Please note though that there are real scientists doing real studies and accumulating real empirical data on the subject. Something that appears to be decidedly lacking in Lessans' "observations".
You are wrong. You did not read this chapter at all. Whether there is a universal consensus of beauty or not, it is still a projected value onto a screen of undeniable substance. It does not remove the unreality of the word itself.
What am I wrong about, in what way am I wrong about it and why do you think that? I have read everything that you have posted here from Chapter 4. That I may disagree with something that Lessans' has written in no way constitutes evidence that I am wrong. Unless, that is, you think that the mere fact of disagreeing with Lessens' is necessarily the equivalent of being wrong. Do you really believe that everything Lessans has written is infallible and inerrant? Or, at the very least, that Lessans being right ought to be the default position?

BTW, the name is Angakuk, not Angukuk.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
John Carter (04-04-2011), LadyShea (04-04-2011)
  #1214  
Old 04-04-2011, 07:15 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It's a face that personally appeals to you. The word beautiful is a misnomer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
The word 'beautiful' is nothing more than a label that we attach to that which we find attractive.
Exactly. The definition of the word beautiful is "pleasing to the mind or senses", it is simply one of the choices of words one can use to describe the personal appeal and is not limited to use with other humans by any means. How on Earth is it a "misnomer"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Until these words are removed
Do you want to remove all words from the language that describe subjective experiences rather that externally existent objects?
Reply With Quote
  #1215  
Old 04-04-2011, 07:25 AM
Demimonde's Avatar
Demimonde Demimonde is offline
an angry unicorn or a non-murdering leprechaun
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Edge of Society
Gender: Female
Posts: VMMCDLXI
Blog Entries: 5
Images: 28
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Shit that is both a frightening suggestion and an interesting creative writing challenge. A world without subjective qualifiers? Such a world would be boring stifling awful a world.
__________________
:boobkicker:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-04-2011)
  #1216  
Old 04-04-2011, 07:29 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Hello Demi. Did you have a productive day today?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Demimonde (04-04-2011)
  #1217  
Old 04-04-2011, 07:37 AM
Demimonde's Avatar
Demimonde Demimonde is offline
an angry unicorn or a non-murdering leprechaun
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Edge of Society
Gender: Female
Posts: VMMCDLXI
Blog Entries: 5
Images: 28
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Greetings Shea. My function resulted in eight work units out of twenty four possible. Did you meet your quota today?
__________________
:boobkicker:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-05-2011)
  #1218  
Old 04-04-2011, 08:00 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
beautiful sunset?
LS, you must realize that by calling a sunset beautiful you are doing hurt to all the other sunsets that you do not consider to be as beautiful as that sunset.

Why do you hate all those other sunsets?
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
John Carter (04-04-2011)
  #1219  
Old 04-04-2011, 11:02 AM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I think what is happening is that Lessans is observing the difference between the image a camera might record and what our brains present us with, and he is then jumping to a conclusion that is not warranted by those observations - just like Berkeley did. He must have been aware of Berkeley, too, being aware of good old Spinoza, although he does not seem to mention him (so far anyway)

Berkeley drew the conclusion that God must be what is actually supplying the information, as the information actually imparted by the light does not account for the image that forms in our mind.

Both Lessans and Berkeley miss the mark in my opinion, as they confuse the information we gather from the light striking our retinas with the model that our brain presents to us. Both seem to think the difference between the images and the model constitutes proof of some sort of idealism - in Berkeleys case, one driven by God, and in Lessans case an idealism driven, somehow, by words. I assume that when he says words in this context what he strictly means is conceptions.

To jump to a kind of idealism - which the idea that the eye is not in fact a sense organ is - is not warranted, however. We have a theory to explain the observed differences that does not require such a leap.

Lessans idea fails to explain why we can see out of a window in a soundproofed room that we were transported to blindfolded. We have no preconceived idea if what we should be seeing out there, nor are we told by our other senses what to expect. In this case, there is a garden out there.

What do our eyes do in this case? If Lessans were correct, either we have no "photograph" to project and see nothing, or our brains produce a composite of photographs of preconceptions based on what the eyes pick up. This already means a slight bending of what Lessans is saying, as he states that the eyes do not take in information, but somehow project it. Nevertheless the theory still does not stand up, as the totally unexpected picture we see does not match any of the "photographs" we have!

I can look at a Hyacinth, and recognize it as one, even if it does not look like any hyacinth I have ever seen before. That is because it is not a picture of the concept "hyacinth" that is projected against the screen of my brain, but in stead I see a shape which has features that, when seen together in a plant, I label as Hyacinth.

If it worked the other way around, and the concept "hyacinth" triggered an imagine, than once I decided it was a Hyacinth, it would look like an ideal hyacinth, not an actual one.

In Lessans world, what we see in the hypothetical garden is a collection of standardized images pasted together into a composite. This would leave us unable to distinguish between multiple instances of the same concept.

There is something to his observation - our brains do provide a lot of extra data, more than the actual light provides. Some of it is previously observed information that persists to suggest a whole image when in fact we only directly see a small area of it, other bits can indeed be filled in based on our preconceptions. But these observations do not warrant the enormous leaps Lessans makes regarding how animals see and process information or the way the human eye works. Both are purely speculative ideas that are being passed on as facts, a flaw that is persistent throughout the book.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ceptimus (11-07-2012)
  #1220  
Old 04-04-2011, 12:15 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
:
That's not what I'm saying doc. I hope you're joking. :chin:
Yeh, I hope you're laughing. But still do you ever read out-loud around your dog, and does the dog react? You might never have thought of reading to your dog but it might be fun to try. I have read to my children and now my grandchildren, but never considered my dogs. It would really be interesting to note if they could differentiate between stories, but that would take a lot of time and effort. You could try childrens books with different pictures on the cover and see if they can pick between them.
I think I'll stick to reading to my grandchildren. My dogs won't mind a bit. :yup:
Reply With Quote
  #1221  
Old 04-04-2011, 12:30 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The question I am still left with is how we see?
How we see has been explained here, it is more thoroughly explained elsewhere. You are either dismissing the evidence in favor of learned dogma or you don't understand the evidence.
Quote:
Couldn't that be what you're doing? I believe people are dismissing his evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
His definition of the word sense is applicable to sight, as I demonstrated in a previous post. So there is no evidence for his view of sight, only his assertion that sight is not a sense.
No LadyShea. The present model of sight is based on what appears to be solid evidence. Lessans' model of sight is based on what appears to be solid evidence. Of course, scientists are going to be up in arms (as they are in here) that someone would dare challenge this accepted fact. Why do you think he said, "I am very aware if I'm not careful the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth."


Quote:
His observations as to how we learn words are not inaccurate. The question is whether this description would necessarily be incompatible with the eyes being a sense organ. That's the million dollar question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
As I said, his own definition of the word sense is applicable to sight.
No it isn't because if it was, then the brain could not do what he is describing; project words (whether true or false) onto a screen of undeniable substance.

Quote:
The available literature regarding the eyes hasn't changed because it is believed to be a fact that the eyes are a sense organ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Because the eyes are sense organs, by definition...both the accepted definition, and, from what I can tell, Lessan's definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by standard definition
A specialized organ or structure where sensory neurons are concentrated and that functions as a receptor. Also called sensor.
Right. But he makes a valid claim that the eyes work differently. That's what this investigation is all about.

Quote:
There is no further discussion on the topic. It is believed by all scientists that light is converted by the brain into an image. Therefore, either Lessans was wrong or they were wrong. I can understand the backlash that this debate has caused, but I can't disregard the possibility that Lessans might be right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Based on what reasons might he have been right? Without experimentation or various technologies, how would he at all know how the nerves and receptors function? How did he determine the properties of light?
It was not his experimentation with light that confirmed his observations; it was his observations as to how the brain functions in relation to the eyes. I wanted to also say that without our new technologies, this new world could not become a reality. Everything that is happening in today's world is leading up to our ability to actually get this new world off the ground. The entire economic system is based on computer technology, a network of computer systems connecting the world, just as is happening today. Computers were not part of the mainstream when he wrote this. He was way ahead of his time even here.
Reply With Quote
  #1222  
Old 04-04-2011, 12:41 PM
Doctor X Doctor X is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: XMVCCCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Lessans' model of sight is based on what appears to be solid evidence.
Not when posters can so easily demonstrate the evidence is false :pat:

--J.D.
Reply With Quote
  #1223  
Old 04-04-2011, 12:45 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
PS you do not evangelize that I am aware of, the above only really matters for those who do
It is probably more accurate to say that I don't evangelize using logical arguments, since I don't find them convincing myself. Also, having once stood as a True Believer, I can understand that it is almost impossible to accept criticism without feeling attacked and becoming defensive. I don't hold out hope for any revelations for peacegirl here.
It what I am presenting has no solid evidence, that's a different story, but it's way too premature. This presentation is not just faith based. Just because people can't get me to come to their side of things does not mean I can't if I find I am wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This thread could definitely be used to study feelings and attitudes that don't jive with one's own worldview.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
That is not quite what I mean, although I think that what you said is true as well. It is more that I have learned more about reactions of people who disagree with me.
I knew what you meant which is why you have insight into how people are reacting to me. The only difference is that what I'm presenting is not just based on faith. BTW, there is nothing wrong with being a believer. We might not be able to always figure things out, but we can still be right in the end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
As I have mentioned in passing before, I have a minority viewpoint here on :ff:. On other boards, and infrequently here, I have discussed my beliefs with people who are hostile to indifferent to those beliefs. Sometimes it was easy for me to dismiss those people who I felt were hostile to me as people who were reacting to bad experiences with religion, or who were just immature individuals, or were holding on to their own version of religion, etc. And perhaps there is a grain of truth in some of that.
There is an emotional aspect to our beliefs; whether faith based or scientific, which causes a problem when sharing them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
But, I have had no prior bad experience with your crackpottery, am much less like an emo teenager than I have been at other times in my life, nothing in my religious beliefs is really affected by your ideas, and yet I feel myself responding to your posts (both on the forum and just by reading) with intense frustration and incredulity that an adult could believe what you do. It is mildly entertaining to play with you, just like it is mildly entertaining to hold my cat over the bathtub filled with water and watch her reaction. (Not that this is very nice, especially to you who seem to have no real defenses.) I also feel sorry for you, because you seem to be wasting your time on nonsense and on interacting here. You have no interest in even attempting to conform your beliefs with factual information, and make no arguments to support your beliefs.** So, I feel I have a better understanding of people who have reacted to me in ways that I have interpreted as hostile. And I have had the chance to think about what kind of communication I am able to hear in those conversations--and, generally, it is not the way I have been responding to you. More food for thought



** It is here where I am stopped a bit short. Because I don't make those arguments either. I am uninterested in conforming my beliefs with factual information in many cases, and find most attempts to do so ludicrous (see Jesus riding a dinosaur).
ETA:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
It's good to see someone getting something useful out of this.
I think I understand why you are having this reaction. I only hope you will continue to give this man the benefit of the doubt. I also believe the emotional reactions of everyone in here is because I am not discussing a safe topic such as whether God is real or not (anyone can take sides and not feel threatened); I am challenging science itself; which makes me suspect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse
Actually, because of this thread I also read a lot about free will and determinism on wiki and clarified my understanding of what is conventionally meant when those terms are used, as well as clarified a bit what I thought on the subject.
I'm glad that the conversation has created an interest to further your understanding of this debate, as well as clarify the different definitions that have been mentioned. This will help to put everyone on the same footing, so to speak.
Reply With Quote
  #1224  
Old 04-04-2011, 01:29 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildernesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
PS you do not evangelize that I am aware of, the above only really matters for those who do
It is probably more accurate to say that I don't evangelize using logical arguments, since I don't find them convincing myself. Also, having once stood as a True Believer, I can understand that it is almost impossible to accept criticism without feeling attacked and becoming defensive. I don't hold out hope for any revelations for peacegirl here.
Yeh I probably should have used "you do not practice apologetics" rather than " you do not evangelize". There are many ways to evangelize that aren't apologetics.
There is no evangelizing here, although he is bringing good news. In other words, just because he is bringing good news does not turn him into an evangelist. That would mean that anybody who discovers anything and tries to share it, would fit this definition. That would make all discoverers evangelists. :) Definition from Wiki:

The word "evangelism" comes from the Greek word "euangelizomai," which literally means "to bring Good News."

To evangelize is to share the "good news" or the Gospel which is that God loves us so much that He gave His only begotten Son, Jesus, to pay the price of our sin which is condemnation unto death. But one must turn to the LORD and cry out trusting in Jesus whole heartedly for salvation. With this comes a regenerative work of the Holy Spirit of God making alive what once was dead in a person. Evidence of this True conversion is an ongoing relationship of a person with God and chastisement when he/she steps off the path of righteousness followed by continued repentance and faith with a result of "good fruit". Simply saying "I believe in Jesus" and living a life filled with sin and no conviction is more evidence of what Jesus said about lost people who profess Christ but will still go to hell.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Presenting whatever as "I believe this is true..." or "In my view this" is one thing because what's to argue..."No you don't believe that!" or "No you do not hold that view!"*. That is not apologetics, and that is not presenting your beliefs as Truth For All!

*Of course that opens discussion such as the basis for your belief or view
Could you explain this in another way?
Reply With Quote
  #1225  
Old 04-04-2011, 01:35 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
I already pointed that out.

Predictably, she does not care that her dad's ideas don't have any explanation for that.

And peacegirl, I was suggesting that if you had a stranger present your photograph to your dog, your dog wouldn't react to the photograph because it would be more concerned with the person holding the photograph.

You have to take into account the way the photograph is presented, and also the fact that dogs normally ignore photographs. You need to eliminate the master's smell and sound, and at the same time, not introduce extraneous smells or sounds (for example, you can't have a stranger presenting the pictures, because the dog will react to the stranger's presence).

Which is why the fact that you think you can test this by simply presenting a photograph to your dog is so naïve.
You are right. The test would not be reliable at all unless all these variables were controlled.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 6 (0 members and 6 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.34949 seconds with 14 queries