A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Really? How about when you said that if someone invented a bionic eye, you'd concede that Lessans was wrong about how we see? When it was pointed out that we already have bionic eyes -- and that the newest models, allow their users to read -- you changed criteria and insisted that this wasn't "real" sight.

This would also include reading comprehension, or are you going to claim that comprehension is only possible in a natural eye, and cannot be in a bionic eye?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Without properly-conducted, controlled studies, there's no way to know. Despite Dr. Puder's enthusiasm for Omegaven, it's entirely possible that controlled studies will demonstrate that it's actually less effective than other treatments that could be used instead.

But Peacegirl know already, because she believes and has observed, which is based on faith, and has nothing to do with that unreliable emperical evidence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This would also include reading comprehension, or are you going to claim that comprehension is only possible in a natural eye, and cannot be in a bionic eye?

The only way to prove that we are interpreting signals after the light is transduced is to bypass the retina.

[The Lone Ranger]

Obviously, you haven't read the links.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Oh, and guess why each person has a unique body odor.

Hint: It has a lot to do with each person's unique bacterial flora.

In a "human body," there are ten bacterial cells for every one human cell. Every one of is is, in reality, a walking colony of bacteria, and anyone who thinks that you can wash yourself "clean" of them knows nothing at all about microbiology.

Interesting. So part of what distinguishes a person's odor includes the person's unique bacterial flora. Still, a dog knows the difference between a sock that has his owner's smell and the real person.

[The Lone Ranger]

Which, by your own logic, should not be the case -- if the nose is a sense organ, that is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Obviously, you haven't read the links.

If they can bypass the retina and create normal vision, then I would have to concede because that would prove that it's the signal coming from the optic nerve that is being interpreted by the brain.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...recognizing a trusted face which a dog should be able to do if photons are traveling to the eyes and being interpreted by the brain.

I still don't understand why you believe this.

Can you please explain why the efferent vision you believe in allows people to recognize faces but dogs not to recognize them?

Can you then go on to explain why the afferent vision that we believe in should make dogs able to recognize faces when (you claim) efferent vision does not.

Also, do you think that afferent vision would mean that other animals ought to be able to recognize faces too? What animals do you think would be able to do this. You could start with this small list, and based on your answers, I may wish to add extra animals to the list.

Chimpanzee
Domestic cat
Parrot
Goldfish
Rattlesnake
Honey bee

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Which, by your own logic, should not be the case -- if the nose is a sense organ, that is.

Why not? Don't you think a dog can tell between an odor and whether that odor is the real thing? You can rub a steak on a piece of paper and the dog will recognize the smell as steak (because the stimuli is being transduced through the olfactory nerve), but he won't eat the paper because he recognizes the difference. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Of course you aren't. We've already established that you cannot and/or will not understand anything that you don't want to.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

I still don't understand why you believe this.

Can you please explain why the efferent vision you believe in allows people to recognize faces but dogs not to recognize them?

I explained this already. Because it involves the use of language.

At a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste, touch
and smell, but photographs the objects involved which develops a
negative of the relation whereas the brain of a dog is incapable of this.

Originally Posted by Ceptimus

Can you then go on to explain why the afferent vision that we believe in should make dogs able to recognize faces when (you claim) efferent vision does not.

Because if the eyes are afferent, it wouldn't make sense that part of the brain (the optic part) wouldn't be able to recognize the stimuli if that stimuli was familiar to the animal, just like it can recognize it's master through smell and sound. Why wouldn't he be able to interpret his master's face? The reason is because it's a cognitive skill that requires language, which leads us to Lessans' observations.

Originally Posted by Ceptimus

Also, do you think that afferent vision would mean that other animals ought to be able to recognize faces too? What animals do you think would be able to do this. You could start with this small list, and based on your answers, I may wish to add extra animals to the list.

Chimpanzee
Domestic cat
Parrot
Goldfish
Rattlesnake
Honey bee

Not at all. None of these animals have the ability to identify through sight alone, therefore they have to use other sense experience to help them identify. Maybe some mammals have this ability to a limited degree, which only confirms that language [the cognitive aspect which helps them recognize] is involved.

The brain is a very complex piece of machinery that not only acts
as a tape recorder through our ears and the other three senses, and a
camera through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as
a movie projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded,
they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects
held in relation and photographed by the brain.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only way to prove that we are interpreting signals after the light is transduced is to bypass the retina.

If I understand it correctly, that is exactly what the bionic eye does, it connects to the optic nerve, bypassing or replacing the retnia, and transmitting signals to the brain, mimicing the natural signals from the eye.

So what is it now Peacegirl, what additional requirements will you make up? Or will you simply ignore or dismiss this data as invalid?

Oh I know, you will go into denial and claim that there are no natural signals, so there is nothing to mimic, so if the bionic eye works, there must be something else going on.

[ceptimus]

Do you think that a human baby, who has not yet learned to talk, can identify faces?

How about a human child born profoundly deaf, but with good eyesight? This child may not learn (sign) language as quickly as other normal hearing children learn spoken language.

In my experience, young children who have not yet learned language show every sign of being able to identify individual faces known to them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Of course you aren't. We've already established that you cannot and/or will not understand anything that you don't want to.

I just told you that if they could prove that impulses are being interpreted as normal vision by bypassing the retina, then I would have to concede. It's not that I cannot or will not understand (I'm doing my best to understand); it's that I don't think they've created a bionic eye that can do this, at least not yet.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Do you think that a human baby, who has not yet learned to talk, can identify faces?

How about a human child born profoundly deaf, but with good eyesight? This child may not learn (sign) language as quickly as other normal hearing children learn spoken language.

He could still learn the symbol through sign language. I don't think his being deaf has anything to do with the rate at which he learns sign language versus the hearing child. What matters is his cognitive ability to able to connect and photograph an object/word relationship.

Originally Posted by Ceptimus

In my experience, young children who have not yet learned language show every sign of being able to identify individual faces known to them.

It may appear that way but at a very early age they begin to connect the name of a person with a particular individual like mommy, daddy, etc, which then allows the baby to see these differences. That's why children may get a fox and a dog confused because they haven't separated these two animals by means of a different word symbol which allows them to see the difference.

But a baby, having already developed negatives of relations
that act as a slide in a movie projector, can recognize at a very early
age.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just told you that if they could prove that impulses are being interpreted as normal vision by bypassing the retina, then I would have to concede. It's not that I cannot or will not understand (I'm doing my best to understand); it's that I don't think they've created a bionic eye that can do this, at least not yet.

Then perhaps you should -- oh, I dunno -- learn something about how these bionic implants work. It's not as if it hasn't already been explained to you, by the way.

[ceptimus]

How does the child (or indeed any person) know which word label to project onto which face? Don't they have to be able to recognize the face first, so as to know which word/symbol they have to use?

Say the child suddenly sees mommy's or daddy's face looking in at them through a window. How does the child know whether to use the 'mommy' or 'daddy' symbol? Or perhaps it is a stranger's face in which case how does the child know to use neither 'mommy' nor 'daddy'?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because they are two different things, that's why. Dogs can see the shape and gait of another animal which gives them a general clue as to its species, but to be able to distinguish each animal as individuals is a whole different ballgame.

I just wanted to highlight this bit of insanity. Does can visually recognize some things, but not other things, because the eyes are not a sense organ.

The fact that she can state such idiocy in all seriousness is really the reason why I still read this thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This has only been stated without any supporting evidence, however there is much supporting evidence to show that dogs do recognize their masters by photo images alone.

Peacegirl, what are you going to do when you've run out of money, and your family won't support you. You have even thrown the validity of your child safety book into question if your research was of the same quality as your father's was for his book.

If I have no money to market then people will have to wait until they hear about the book some other way.

Helping children learn how to identify serious risks in their everyday lives so they can learn how to reduce those risks is not poor quality teaching.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Really? How about when you said that if someone invented a bionic eye, you'd concede that Lessans was wrong about how we see? When it was pointed out that we already have bionic eyes -- and that the newest models, while not quite up to Steve Austin's standards, allow their users to read -- you changed criteria and insisted that this wasn't "real" sight.

Read what? Read books with fine print? What do you mean by read? Even if a person could be helped by a bionic eye, it still would be difficult to prove the direction the brain is looking unless there was a direct connection between the impulse and the brain after the light had transduced.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Did you read it? Did you understand it? A rhetorical question, I know.

The problem, as has been repeatedly pointed out is that we don't know about the treatment's effectiveness. Sure, it looks promising. But looks can be very deceptive.

Suppose that we conduct a properly randomized trial and it turns out that Omegaven treatment is indeed more effective than standard treatments and has a lower incidence of liver damage. Sadly, those who got the standard treatment or placebo are less likely to survive. But we now have a more effective treatment than we did before. And if Omegaven is as effective as its more ardent supporters claim, then its effects will quickly be manifest, and hopefully, it will be possible to switch to the more effective treatment and so save lives.

It's not like this has never happened. Sometimes, a treatment has proven so clearly effective that patients in the Control Group were quickly taken off the placebo and given the treatment.

But -- and this is the point -- it's entirely possible that proper trials will reveal that Omegaven is no more effective than standard treatments. Indeed, it may well prove to be less effective and/or more likely to cause side effects. In that case, the patients who got the standard treatment would be the lucky ones, not the ones who got Omegaven.


Without properly-conducted, controlled studies, there's no way to know. Despite Dr. Puder's enthusiasm for Omegaven, it's entirely possible that controlled studies will demonstrate that it's actually less effective than other treatments that could be used instead.

As a mother, I want the option. This family was out of options. The baby was going to die. Why shouldn't I have the right to try to save my baby? Why should the government be involved in my business? There was enough anecdotal evidence that showed infants were brought back from deaths door. If it was your child, wouldn't you want this option or would you intellectualize like you're doing now?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

How does the child (or indeed any person) know which word label to project onto which face? Don't they have to be able to recognize the face first, so as to know which word/symbol they have to use?

Say the child suddenly sees mommy's or daddy's face looking in at them through a window. How does the child know whether to use the 'mommy' or 'daddy' symbol? Or perhaps it is a stranger's face in which case how does the child know to use neither 'mommy' nor 'daddy'?

Because the particular set of differences is a word slide that has already been photographed. All she has to do is to project the word when she sees these differences which allow her to know whether it's mommy or daddy or brother or sister.

My granddaughter can identify her mother
from hundreds and hundreds of photographs because the difference is
a negative that not only reveals who her mother is, but who she is not.
In other words, as she learns these names and words her brain takes a
picture of the objects symbolized and when she sees these differences
again she projects the word or name, but the brain will not take any
picture until a relation is formed. Consequently, these differences
that exist in the external world which are not identifiable through
taste, touch, smell, or sounds are identifiable only because they are
related to words, names or slides that we project for recognition. If we
would lose certain names or words we would have amnesia because
when we see these ordinarily familiar differences we are unable to
project the words or names necessary for recognition.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that he is making a distinction between seeing an object after 8 minutes has passed (the afferent account), or being able to see the object immediately (as long as the conditions for efferent sight are met) without the light having to traverse this distance. If the requirement is met (the object is bright enough and large enough to be within our field of view), then we would be able to see said object instantly because it would already be in optical range.

And what does any of this have to do with the problem you are still failing to even address? I'll explain it again: On your account the photons at the retina could not have been located at the Sun because there is no time at which they could have been located there. The photons cannot be located at the Sun at the very same time that these very same photons are also at the retina, and they cannot have been at the Sun before this time because the Sun was not ignited before then. Your claim that there will be photons instantaneously at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited is inconsistent with your claim that they came from the Sun. The problem has nothing at all to do with reflected or traveling images. It only concerns your impossible claims about where light can be at different points in time. If the light is instantly at the retina as soon as the newly ignited Sun ignites, then this light cannot possibly have come from the Sun.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You look foolish when you say this. I will repeat again that his observations were spot on. I gave an example where an observation cannot be proven by empirical testing but is spot on nevertheless. It is impossible to see this world through anyone's consciousness but your own. That is a correct observation Spacemonkey. Here's another one: We cannot undo what has already been done. That is also a correct observation. I'm sorry if you can't see these observations for yourself, but that does not make them untrue or equivalent to someone saying that Big Foot exists or that the earth is flat.

You look foolish every time you assert without any evidence or argument that his 'observations' were spot on. Once again all you are doing is begging us to share your irrational faith in your father's ability. If you want people to believe his 'observations' were correct then you will need to find someway to support them with either evidence or arguments. If you can't, then you lose.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're absolutely wrong here. First of all, these are not true premises because a premise is an assumption. These are not assumptions.

All reasoning involves premises. If your father had no premises then he cannot have used sound reasoning, or even any reasoning at all. A premise presented with no supporting evidence or argument need not be an assumption on the part of the author, but it will be an assumption for the reader in the context of the presented material. And any premise in his argument which he failed to support or argue for will be a presupposition in this latter sense. It is therefore a presupposition in this latter sense that conscience has some innate potential perfection that it would achieve in the absence of blame. It is a presupposition because his arguments require this to be true, and yet he did not argue for or support this claim in any way. Unlike you, I will not just accept that his claims or 'observations' are correct because he said so. You need to be able to support them if you expect anyone to believe them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It depends on what is being observed. You cannot prove everything that you see in an empirical fashion. Call it a necessary truth if you want, and don't tell me that it means nothing then.

No, I won't just call things whatever I want. I'll call them what they are after having made an effort to understand different epistemic categories. Tautologies such as those you list can indeed be self-evident and seen to be true just by considering them carefully. But nothing of interest can be proved from them. His presuppositions concerning conscience however, are not of this sort. They are not tautologies, and so they are not self-evident. If you expect people to accept them then you'll need to start supporting them. Lessans never bothered to, and that is why no-one finds his claims convincing. Whining over and over again that he made accurate observations isn't going to get you anywhere.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, you just told me in so many words that you think the book is worthless. I am not going to spend my money sending a book that you think is worthless. You told me that no universities would even touch this book because it doesn't meet scientific standards. I hope you will scroll back and find that post.

I hope you will scroll back and make some effort to support your claim that I said this. But we all know you won't, because it is complete bullshit that you just made up. I never said that at all. And of course I think the book is worthless. I've never hidden that or claimed anything different. Yet this has no bearing at all on the reason you had for sending me the book, which was not being sent for my benefit but to help you get it read by those in a position to validate it. If you have any integrity at all, you'll either send the book as per our agreement, or if you really can't financially afford to keep your word, just stop making up bogus excuses and say so.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the particular set of differences is a word slide that has already been photographed. All she has to do is to project the word when she sees these differences which allow her to know whether it's mommy or daddy or brother or sister.

But that doesn't answer my question. The recognition has to come BEFORE the word can be projected. Say a child looks at his sister, but projects the word, 'mommy' on to her. How would he know he's made a mistake? Would he even know? Maybe people are making these kind of mistakes all the time and never realizing?

Okay, that seems absurd - so let's assume that a child does know that he's projecting the correct word onto the correct people's faces - that makes the whole efferent recognition process pointless!

The child has to first recognize (maybe by using his eyes as a sense organ?) a person's face, and having done that he then knows the correct word/symbol/label to project onto that face so that he can recognize it!

Can't you see the absurdity of your explanation? It is a non-explanation! The purported method of recognition relies on recognition already happening before the recognition process proper has begun!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Read what? Read books with fine print? What do you mean by read? Even if a person could be helped by a bionic eye, it still would be difficult to prove the direction the brain is looking unless there was a direct connection between the impulse and the brain after the light had transduced.

L.O.L. what did I say, even when presented with the proof she requires, Peacegirl will try to equivocate, evade, weasel and deny, to avoid admiting that she and Lessans are totally wrong, and have nothing to offer but empty promises and a grab for money. Apparently she doesn't understand what 'read' means, and she is trying to draw a line on the eye chart to disprove the evidence. If the data is specified she will undoubledly move the line till the bionic eye can no longer preform as she demands.

Reading is just what it says, that a person can recognize letters and words on a page, and that fulfills the requirements, the size of the text is irrevelant. The bionic eyes are connected to the optic nerve which is a direct connection to the brain and the signals go from the eye to the brain. To even talk about the "direction the brain is looking" is an argument for an idiot with 0 education, which is apparently what Lessans was. Who tied your daddys shoes for him? and did you write the book down with a crayon or did mom?