A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

If the negative plate on which the relation is formed is temporarily
disconnected — in man’s case the words or names, and in the dog’s
case the sounds and smells — both have a case of amnesia. This gives
conclusive evidence as to why an animal cannot identify too well with
his eyes.

As we have seen, if a vicious dog accustomed to attacking
any person who should open the fence at night were to have two
senses, hearing and smell, temporarily disconnected, he would actually
have amnesia and even though he saw with his eyes his master come
through the gate he would have no way of recognizing him and would
attack.

These don't connect. What conclusive evidence was presented? What evidence at all? Only assertions are offered. And WTF does "as we have seen" mean? Who has seen that?

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. Consequently, since
the eyes are the binoculars of the brain all words that are placed in
front of this telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of
relation, are projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world
and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses,
man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and
if words correctly describe then he will be made conscious of actual
differences and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for
those who do not know the words. To understand this better let us
observe my granddaughter learning words.

Is it a movie projector, slide projector, binoculars, or a telescope! What does "as with five senses" refer to?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Doesn't the sperm and egg carry the genetic traits that have been passed down from parent to child?

I am pretty sure every cell in the body contains genes. So yes, the sperm and egg also contain them.

This discussion came about because people were making fun of the term "germinal substance" which only means the substance contained in the male and female anatomy at puberty (spermatozoa and ovum) that allow fertilization to take place and the circle of life to continue on.

You decided it meant gametes only after positing a number of other substances, including protoplasm and "whatever holds the sperm and ova". Yu even said that it is "the substance that never dies" whatever that means. So, there is no "only" about it, you don't know for sure what Lessans meant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

These don't connect. What conclusive evidence was presented? What evidence at all? Only assertions are offered. And WTF does "as we have seen" mean? Who has seen that?

I wrote "as we have seen" because I mentioned it earlier. This wasn't to prove his claim, and that wasn't what thedoc was accusing him of. He said his writing didn't connect and gave this part as an example. Where don't his words connect?

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. Consequently, since
the eyes are the binoculars of the brain all words that are placed in
front of this telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of
relation, are projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world
and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses,
man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and
if words correctly describe then he will be made conscious of actual
differences and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for
those who do not know the words. To understand this better let us
observe my granddaughter learning words.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Is it a movie projector, slide projector, binoculars, or a telescope! What does "as with five senses" refer to?

It is all of them. It is the fact that a word can be projected onto a screen which becomes associated with an object but doesn't symbolize anything real. I thought you understood this part. You can't expect me to pull out one paragraph and explain his entire observation. Nobody does that when studying someone's work in depth. That's why after all these years, we're not any farther along than day one. The words "five senses" do not accurately symbolize what they appear to represent, if his observations are correct.

[LadyShea]

This is from July 2013


You stated the following about the germinal substance

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

All he meant by germinal substance is the substance that holds the potential for human life.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing metaphysical about "germinal substance"

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Germinal substance is that substance from which our individuality is derived. This germinal substance from which we all are born doesn't die, like individuals do, but is passed along from generation to generation when we procreate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what the germinal substance is; the potential of human consciousness.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's what allows the transference of DNA, or the germinal fluid [aka substance] that allows the next generation to be born

Originally Posted by peacegirl

(The Germinal Substance is) Sperm and ovum before they become united.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sperm and ovum can't get to each other without a medium. It is the testes that keeps the sperm alive, and the ovary that creates mature eggs during ovulation. This material where A and B are kept to form C (the individual) is what Lessans has coined "the germinal substance." It's what holds the DNA of all mankind so that the next generation can continue the circle of life.

This germinal substance has mass. It's not beyond the physical.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

all you need to know is the sperm and the ovum. You can replace germinal substance with that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The germinal substance is the substance that is carried along from generation to generation that is within each of us. That's what gives baby boys semen, and little girls ovum.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The germinal substance has mass and occupies space. This substance is the genetic material that holds the potential for consciousness.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is the substance that allows one sperm and one egg to meet.

"germinal substance" only means the substance contained in the male and female anatomy at puberty (spermatozoa and ovum) that allow fertilization to take place and the circle of life to continue on.

LOL, please try again to tell us what exactly the germinal substance is

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wrote "as we have seen"

How come every time I point out a problem or absurdity in the text it turns out you wrote it? You are dishonest by not naming yourself co-author.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am pretty sure every cell in the body contains genes. So yes, the sperm and egg also contain them.

But every cell in the body can't transfer genes to the next generation; that's what the sperm and egg do.

This discussion came about because people were making fun of the term "germinal substance" which only means the substance contained in the male and female anatomy at puberty (spermatozoa and ovum) that allow fertilization to take place and the circle of life to continue on.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You decided it meant gametes only after positing a number of other substances, including protoplasm and "whatever holds the sperm and ova". Yu even said that it is "the substance that never dies" whatever that means. So, there is no "only" about it, you don't know for sure what Lessans meant.

Let's get real LadyShea. This whole discussion started when people were making fun of me.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let's get real LadyShea. This whole discussion started when people were making fun of me.

We were making fun of germinal substance, and have been for some time. And your crazy attempts to define and explain it are derision worthy as well.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But every cell in the body can't transfer genes to the next generation; that's what the sperm and egg do.

So what, the sperm and ovum are not "carried down from generation to generation". Is the germinal substance now the genes rather than the sperm and ovum?

As TLR asked

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

If you mean to say that genes are passed from parent to offspring, then say so. That genes are passed from parents to offspring is a wholly uncontroversial statement.

[The Lone Ranger]

I'm still kinda flabbergasted that she seems to think that genetic exchange between parent and offspring occurs at puberty.

Okay, technically, that is possible. But most places have laws against that sort of thing ...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How come every time I point out a problem or absurdity in the text it turns out you wrote it? You are dishonest by not naming yourself co-author.

I didn't alter his writing. I wrote "as we have seen" because I mentioned the dog part twice. Big deal! I am not the co-author. I am the compiler; that's it. He made this discovery, not me, and I would never take credit for that.

[LadyShea]

I didn't alter his writing. I wrote "as we have seen" because I mentioned the dog part twice. am not the co-author. I am the compiler; that's it

Why did YOU mention anything twice if you did not write the book? If you didn't alter his writings, then you shouldn't have written or mentioned anything at all. Of course, you have your own definition of alter I guess. Also, mere compilers don't write and mention things in a book...they compile. You did more than that, so no that's not it.

You are so dishonest.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We were making fun of germinal substance, and have been for some time. And your crazy attempts to define and explain it are derision worthy as well.

In context, it makes sense. You didn't read the chapter so you have no basis in which to understand what this term means. Basically, germinal substance just means the stuff (we don't have to get technical because it's not necessary in the context it's being used) that creates life or the potential for life.

ger·mi·nal adjective \ˈjərm-nəl, ˈjer-mə-nəl\

Definition of GERMINAL

1
a : being in the earliest stage of development
b : creative, productive
2
: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a germ cell or early embryo
— ger·mi·nal·ly adverb

[LadyShea]

LOL, the stuff huh? Big discovery!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why did YOU mention anything twice if you did not write the book? If you didn't alter his writings, then you shouldn't have written or mentioned anything at all. Of course, you have your own definition of alter I guess. Also, mere compilers don't write and mention things in a book, as they compile. You did more than that, so no that's not it.

You are so dishonest.

I don't think you're correct. A person who owns the rights to a particular work can compile it in his own way with some creative license, as long as he doesn't change the basic concept. That's why copyrighting it would be redundant. This is not my definition. This is the definition used by the copyright office.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, the stuff huh? Big discovery!

I used that word on purpose. You are nitpicking again and you haven't even read the chapter.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't alter his writing. I wrote "as we have seen" because I mentioned the dog part twice. Big deal! I am not the co-author. I am the compiler; that's it. He made this discovery, not me, and I would never take credit for that.

"Plausible Deniability", it's what people do when they don't want to take the blame for their mistakes. Pity Lessans isn't here to deny writing the book. And didn't peacegirl admit to altering, adding to, and changing the wording of Lessans book, "molecules of light"?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How come every time I point out a problem or absurdity in the text it turns out you wrote it? You are dishonest by not naming yourself co-author.

Why did you bold this? My father wrote that.

This gives conclusive evidence as to why an animal cannot identify too well with his eyes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I'm still kinda flabbergasted that she seems to think that genetic exchange between parent and offspring occurs at puberty.

Okay, technically, that is possible. But most places have laws against that sort of thing ...

For the purposes of this conversation, the definition below is sufficient. The material within the male and female that allow fertilization to take place which guarantees the continuation of the species, is what Lessans coined "germinal substance".

Puberty is the process of physical changes by which a child's body matures into an adult body capable of sexual reproduction to enable fertilization. It is initiated by hormonal signals from the brain to the gonads: the ovaries in a girl, the testes in a boy.

Puberty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/S_LhwuN1c1U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Starts at about 1:46

That indicates that certain dogs can be trained to recognize shapes of letters which make up a command. I loved it! Thanks for sharing. Now show me proof that dogs can recognize their masters from a photograph or a computer screen without any other cues. I know that dogs can identify other dogs on a screen.

[thedoc]

If I may point out, the actual genes are not passed from one generation to several generations to come. The actual genetic material is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy etc. Only the genetic information is passed along several generations, not the physical genes. You don't have any physical genes from your grandparents, and no physical genetic material of yours is present in your grandchildren. It's all been copied many times over, so there is no direct physical connection except from one generation directly to the next, and that is only a very minute quantity that is copied many times to make a new person. I believe there are trillions of cells in your body and even the genes in those are being copied to make the new cells that replace the old worn out ones. The genes can in no way be this "Germinal substance" that you and Lessans speak of. Most likely there is no physical thing by that name, only an idea, and we know where Lessans got his ideas.

FYI I just looked it up

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic....-in-your-body/

And one of the comments stated the all the DNA in one human body, if stretched out, would reach beyond the orbit of Pluto, that's a lot of copies.


It just occurred to me to wonder how many times all the cells in a human body are replaced in one lifetime? Also how many times in one lifetime are the genes replicated and replaced?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight
distance away cannot identify his master. If the eyes were a sense; if
an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic
nerve then he would recognize his master instantly as he can from
sound and smell. In fact, if he was vicious and accustomed to
attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his sense
of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no way of
identifying his master’s face even if every feature was lit up like a
Christmas tree, and would attack. This is why he cannot recognize
his master from a picture or statue because nothing from the external
world is striking the optic nerve.

Lessans is stating that the eyes are not sense organs, and that the brain looks out through the eyes to see the external world, and somehow dogs, not being able to recognize it's master in a photo, proves this.

No thedoc, that's not what he was trying to prove from that one excerpt. You're wrong. He was trying to show that there is something that humans have that dogs don't, and why the reflected light bouncing off his master and striking the dog's retina wouldn't be enough for recognition. Then he continued with his explanation.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Lessans

if an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic nerve then he would recognize his master instantly as he can from sound and smell.

Since this is a strawman of the standard model of sight, then the whole paragraph is fallacious. Nobody thinks images travel on waves of light and strike the optic nerve. Not a single person...so why is that presented as the alternative to the eyes not being a sense organ?

Originally Posted by Lessans

This is why he cannot recognize his master from a picture or statue because nothing from the external world is striking the optic nerve.

Correct, however light, from the external world, does strike the photoreceptors in the eye...so why is he arguing against a position nobody holds?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For the purposes of this conversation, the definition below is sufficient. The material within the male and female that allow fertilization to take place which guarantees the continuation of the species, is what Lessans coined "germinal substance".

Puberty is the process of physical changes by which a child's body matures into an adult body capable of sexual reproduction to enable fertilization. It is initiated by hormonal signals from the brain to the gonads: the ovaries in a girl, the testes in a boy.

Puberty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You've simply moved it from "germinal substance" to an unspecified "material"! Why can't you name the actual material or substance you are referring to?

There are no substances or materials in the human body that have not been identified that I know of.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why did you bold this? My father wrote that.



This gives conclusive evidence as to why an animal cannot identify too well with his eyes.

I bolded that as not following from the previous sentence, so I wrote "These don't connect. What conclusive evidence was presented? What evidence at all? Only assertions are offered."

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That indicates that certain dogs can be trained to recognize shapes of letters which make up a command. I loved it! Thanks for sharing. Now show me proof that dogs can recognize their masters from a photograph or a computer screen without any other cues. I know that dogs can identify other dogs on a screen.

Yes, some dogs can recognize a word written on a tablet, some dogs can recognize their master in a photograph, but not all dogs. So what? Lessans claim was that no dog could do this, so if even one dog has that capability it proves Lessans wrong. If one demonstrates the ability, then all have the capability but lack the training to do so. Anyone can pick up a violin and make a sound from it, but only a few can play as well as Itzhak Perlman.

Itzhak Perlman Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto in D,Hollywood Bowl 9-13-12 - YouTube