A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Completely wrong. The reason he used death over life is because determinism over free will is the same concept. You cannot be dead and alive at the same time. These are exact opposites, but you have been so confused with words that you actually believe that you can have freedom of the will and no freedom of the will at the same time. It's impossible. The various definitions only contribute to your confusion and why I can't get through to you at all.

If you define dead as not alive and alive as not dead that is trivially true, but those aren't the definitions used by everyone all the time. There are various subjective meanings used.

So Lessans defining determinism and free will as opposites does not mean they are actually opposites in any kind of objective way as it does not account for all subjective understandings of the terms.

You never grasped why the law of greater satisfaction is not an assertion, so you keep accusing him of this as if you know what you're talking about.

You've never demonstrated that it is not an assertion, you simply assert that it isn't an assertion

You are making yourself look foolish. Listen up: If a definition does not represent reality, IT IS NOT USEFUL.

Yes, I know you believe that, but that doesn't work with immaterial concepts because there is no objective reality to point to and say "that is determinism" or "this is love"

Hello? Isn't that what I just said?

No, you said the opposite. You said definitions mean nothing and I said they mean everything when it comes to immaterial concepts.

[Vivisectus]

Then why can birds apparently recognize individual human faces from photographs?

NO THEY CAN'T. YOU'RE A DREAMER LADYSHEA.

Scientists who actually study birds disagree.

But hey, your father had no time for such petty details. He was busy making Important Discoveries, and he could not waste his time with such menial tasks as actually checking if he was correct.

Besides, there were probably levers involved in those tests. Those pesky levers and their science-confounding ways!

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If dogs were required to know language to recognize their master in a photo, the same would be true for a dog to recognize it's master through sight alone. Dogs do recognize their master or even someone they are familiar with when there are no other clues, such as looking through a window. My daughters dog recognizes me through a window when there are no other senses involved and my son's dog does as well. Just seeing me through a window and they are happy and ready to greet me.

There is no language involved in vision, that is just one of Lessans hair-brained ideas that has no basis in reality, only in his fevered imagination. There is no evidence anywhere, except in the book, that people or animals need to know language to recognize something. In dogs there are 2 catigories, (Probably several others) 'scent hounds', and 'sight hounds'. Obviouslly the scent hound hunts by detecting the scent of the prey, and we have has a few and they hunt with their nose to the ground. The sight hound hunts by watching for the prey and stalking by vision, and I have had a few of these and they can spot prey long before any other sense comes into play. A sight hound can spot prey, from up wind of that prey, where the scent hound would have no idea there was prey around. Many raptors hunt by vision alone, no scent involved, are you suggesting that sight hounds, birds of prey, and other animals that hunt by sight have language, but then you have said dogs can't recognize by sight, but that is wrong.

Hound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We covered that. The dog just recognizes your gait, which apparently does not require language, and we know that because he is definitely not recognizing your face because that would require language, which we know for a scientific fact because Lessans said it is.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, have you been taking a nap? I just said that hearing is considered more complex than seeing, so that rationalizaton doesn't add up at all. Secondly, recognizing anything from the external world through stimuli involves some sort of cognitive process. A dog smelling steak versus an onion would have to identify through a cognitive process what he is smelling in order to know which to choose. The same applies to sight. You are completely mistaken and you are just trying to dismiss anything I say on very strong grounds just because you don't want to have to deal with cognitive/dissonance, or have to think about the fact that science could have gotten it wrong.

My point has nothing to do with whether hearing is more complex than seeing, and I am not denying that all perception requires cognitive processing. I am saying that facial recognition is a complex and specialized cognitive mechanism that can be absent through either brain damage or not having evolved in the first place, even when vision is otherwise perfectly functional. There is therefore no reason at all to expect it to be present in dogs just because they see afferently, and there is also no reason at all to expect it to be absent if dogs see efferently.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No way. Again, you are trying to compare two things that are not comparable because you don't want to admit that you could be wrong. Echolocation is the ability to locate where something is because that is how blind creatures find their prey, and also know where something is located so they don't smash into it. Afferent vision, on the other hand, would expect a dog to recognize its master by his very familiar features, just like a dog can recognize his master through hearing because both types of stimuli would be entering the brain and going directly to the center of the brain where this recognition would take place.

All you've done here is repeat your claim that we should expect facial recognition given canine afferent vision. That simply isn't true. And I was comparing two things that are perfectly comparable. Facial recognition is to vision what echolocation is to hearing. Both are specialized cognitive capacities which may be absent even when the relevant sense (i.e. vision or hearing respectively) is perfectly well developed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well plenty isn't enough. It doesn't cut it. There can be mistakes with these type of tests especially when the expectation that the results should turn out a certain way are [possibly] skewing the results.

No amount of evidence is ever enough for you, because you don't care about evidence. Nonetheless, plenty-of-evidence beats no-evidence-at-all every time. Oh, and can photons ever have come from somewhere they were never located?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not attacking you at all. That's a ruse. I need an answer. Could you be wrong? JUST GIVE ME A YES OR NO. DON'T JUSTIFY YOUR ANSWER.

You are weaseling by refusing to address my points and instead attacking me by questioning my mindset and motivations. That's an ad hominem, you know.

I gave you an answer.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

NO THEY CAN'T. YOU'RE A DREAMER LADYSHEA.

Scientific evidence on the one hand or peacegirl's scientifically ignorant ALL CAPS HISTRIONICS on the other. Hmmm...which should I choose? It's a dilemma.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sound and smell identification are also a complex cognitive functions...identification, categorization, recognition, etc. all happen in the brain not the ears or nose or skin.

Tell me when when I said sound and smell or touch happen in the nose or ears or skin? Strawman.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Behaving like a child won't get you anywhere. Neither will fake-conceding.

What do you think a photon is?

Why are you bringing up red vs. blue photons?

Can photons come from somewhere they were never located?

Not respecting the fact that I want to take a break from the discussion on photons won't get you anywhere either.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, your condition is tragic. What you propose will never happen because people are considering the book when they make their very negative assessments of Lessans. And because you will never understand this, you keep digging a deeper and deeper hole.

I don't think the people who are meant to read this book will look at your comments and say to themselves, I don't want to read this book. They will want to see what the book is about before making a judgment. When they do read the book they will see what I went through and the disadvantage I was at. Also, more and more positive reviews will be posted on Amazon and others and that will cause interest. Finally, if I ever do my own forum or blog or whatever, those google searches that show these old threads will be long gone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where do you get "blind" from? Dolphins use echolocation and are not blind at all. In fact they have very good vision.

I was thinking of bats but obviously it's not just blind animals. This ability probably helps certain kinds of fish (dolphins for one) to survive in the depths of the ocean where these high frequency sounds help them to communicate with each other, find food, or escape from prey. This is a skill in the use of sound. They are able to interpret the sound which involves their brain. By the same token, dogs, having keen eyesight, should be able to identify individual facial features of their own masters, if vision is afferent. Why shouldn't they be able to use the information which is being sent directly to their brain through their eyes? Dolphins are using their brain to interpret what they hear through their ears. Even bats are using their brain to interpret the sound and where it's coming from, so why should vision be any different?

both types of stimuli would be entering the brain and going directly to the center of the brain where this recognition would take place.

Stimuli do not go directly to the "center of the brain where recognition takes place" and recognition involves many parts of the brain, not just one.

I stand corrected (I don't know why I said center), but this doesn't change anything. Just another distraction.

[Vivisectus]

certain kinds of fish (dolphins for one)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So birds can recognize faces, and recognizing faces can only be done through language. We know this because Peacegirl's dad said so, and he was a mega-brain boffin and he was never wrong. Because you see, he worked carefully on what he wrote. So if he wrote anything that was wrong, he would have noticed and he would have corrected it.

Okay, so let's be objective. Let's find proof of this not by a push of a lever which I don't believe is reliable, but by their behavior (i.e., more chirping, or movement to indicate excitement) that is different than their reaction when seeing a stranger. This would be difficult because they get stirred up by sound which may make it appear that there is visual recognition. Show me some experiments to prove conclusively that eyesight alone is all that is necessary. Birds may be able to recognize human shapes but still not be able to distinguish individual features.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So that must mean that birds can actually speak human language!!11! Why have they kept this a secret from us? They must be up to something!!!

You still can't get over the fact that this has nothing to do with my relationship with my father. Why are you so threatened by this claim? If the eyes are a sense organ, nothing changes, and if they aren't, nothing changes except our relationship with the external world and what we are actually seeing. You obviously can't help yourself, but it certainly doesn't add to the conversation.

[Vivisectus]

So tell me - if hearing is not efferent, then how come cats cannot recognize their masters faces from the echo's of their meowing bouncing off their masters faces?

If sound is just something impinging on the aural nerve, which results in information being sent to the brain, then they should be able to do this should they not?

A clear indication that the ear is not a sense organ.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1125942]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So birds can recognize faces, and recognizing faces can only be done through language. We know this because Peacegirl's dad said so, and he was a mega-brain boffin and he was never wrong. Because you see, he worked carefully on what he wrote. So if he wrote anything that was wrong, he would have noticed and he would have corrected it.

So that must mean that birds can actually speak human language!!11!

Okay, so let's be objective. Let's find proof of this where birds are not being trained to push a lever,

Those pesky levers again! They really are the bane of all behavioral and cognitive research, aren't they?

but recognize their owners by showing any sign of visual recognition.

The kind of coo-ing or clucking that would indicate recognition, you mean?



You are absolutely hilarious when you flail like this.

This would be difficult because they get stirred up by sound which may make it appear that there is visual recognition.

I can see that you have already built in an excuse for dismissing anything you might not like too! Even better.

Show me some experiments to prove conclusively that eyesight alone is all that is necessary.

The link posted by Shea previously was pretty conclusive. Pigeons were taught to recognize pictures of their trainers. They were then rewarded with food when they chose an image of their trainer rather than an image of a stranger. This worked with images of their trainer that the pigeons had not seen before, and that showed only their face.

Pretty conclusive evidence that in fact, they can recognize humans by facial features. To anyone who does not have a reason to not want them to be able to do that, of course.

You still can't get over the fact that this has nothing to do with my relationship with my father. Why are you so threatened by this claim? If the eyes are a sense organ, nothing changes, and if they aren't, nothing changes except our relationship with the external world and what we are actually seeing. You obviously can't help yourself, but it certainly doesn't add to the conversation.

Claims of bias are not very convincing when you are simply refusing to accept mountains of evidence against your position. In fact they are kind of funny when you realize that the only reason you dismiss that same evidence is because you desperately want your father to have been right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I was going to put mammal but wiki used the word fish. They should fix that.

Yes there are, in fact there are several fish that use echolocation such as dolphins, river dolphins, killer whales, and sperm whales; in addition, it's also used by ...

Do any fish use echolocation

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So birds can recognize faces, and recognizing faces can only be done through language. We know this because Peacegirl's dad said so, and he was a mega-brain boffin and he was never wrong. Because you see, he worked carefully on what he wrote. So if he wrote anything that was wrong, he would have noticed and he would have corrected it.

So that must mean that birds can actually speak human language!!11!

Okay, so let's be objective. Let's find proof of this where birds are not being trained to push a lever,

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Those pesky levers again! They really are the bane of all behavioral and cognitive research, aren't they?

Why should a bird have to be taught to identify his trainer? It's different when an animal is being trained to do a trick, but I question the reliability of this testing when it comes to visual identification.

but recognize their owners by showing any sign of visual recognition.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The kind of coo-ing or clucking that would indicate recognition, you mean?

Actually yes. An expression through their bird body language (haha) that there is a noticeable change in their behavior which indicates recognition. It certainly beats clicking a lever.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are absolutely hilarious when you flail like this.

I'm not flailing. I'm trying to be objective and so far I don't see the proof.

This would be difficult because they get stirred up by sound which may make it appear that there is visual recognition.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I can see that you have already built in an excuse for dismissing anything you might not like too! Even better.

It's not an excuse; I know that birds get rialed up when they hear someone come in the house, even if it's a stranger, so in order for a test to be reliable it has to exclude sound.

Show me some experiments to prove conclusively that eyesight alone is all that is necessary.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The link posted by Shea previously was pretty conclusive. Pigeons were taught to recognize pictures of their trainers. They were then rewarded with food when they chose an image of their trainer rather than an image of a stranger. This worked with images of their trainer that the pigeons had not seen before, and that showed only their face.Pretty conclusive evidence that in fact, they can recognize humans by facial features. To anyone who does not have a reason to not want them to be able to do that, of course.

Can you get me the link again? I'd like to know how the test was set up, what made it statistically significant, and how many times it was replicated. It would seem to me that if a pigeon knew his trainer, he would show some kind of recognition without having to get rewarded for it. This is not conclusive in my opinion unless, of course, the person has a reason to want them to be able to do that.

You still can't get over the fact that this has nothing to do with my relationship with my father. Why are you so threatened by this claim? If the eyes are a sense organ, nothing changes, and if they aren't, nothing changes except our relationship with the external world and what we are actually seeing. You obviously can't help yourself, but it certainly doesn't add to the conversation.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Claims of bias are not very convincing when you are simply refusing to accept mountains of evidence against your position. In fact they are kind of funny when you realize that the only reason you dismiss that same evidence is because you desperately want your father to have been right.

Where is the evidence? Show me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, that would be you doing that. You are displaying total ignorance and offering strawman arguments. Stimuli does not go directly to the brain. That is not how the senses work. Not all animals that use echolocation are blind, yet you made the statement indicating you think that is the case. Where did I grasp at straws?

No, I am not wrong in this instance. Stimuli does not enter the brain or go directly to any specific center of the brain, yet you said it does. Is it another one of your "you know what I means" or do you seriously not understand the sensory process? Echolocation is not limited to blind animals yet you stated that blindness is the reason the ability exists. Why did you say that?

Once again attacking me instead of responding to relevant points

That's because I don't like your confrontational style. You still didn't answer yes or no, because you can't admit that you could be wrong.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was going to put mammal but wiki used the word fish. They should fix that.

The Internet Checkers certainly screwed the pooch on that one.

show spoiler

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If dogs were required to know language to recognize their master in a photo, the same would be true for a dog to recognize it's master through sight alone.

That's true, but it's harder to set up an experiment where other factors don't come into play such as smell or gait or sound or even the timing of when the owner is expected home so the anticipation begins to grow.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Dogs do recognize their master or even someone they are familiar with when there are no other clues, such as looking through a window. My daughters dog recognizes me through a window when there are no other senses involved and my son's dog does as well. Just seeing me through a window and they are happy and ready to greet me.

This is not proof that the dog knows you by your features. There are clues here such as the fact that you probably come over quite a bit and the dog is familiar with your gait possibly, or maybe he sees a person walking toward the house and gets excited in general because someone is coming to visit. This doesn't mean he recognizes you as YOU.

Originally Posted by thedoc

There is no language involved in vision, that is just one of Lessans hair-brained ideas that has no basis in reality, only in his fevered imagination. There is no evidence anywhere, except in the book, that people or animals need to know language to recognize something. In dogs there are 2 catigories, (Probably several others) 'scent hounds', and 'sight hounds'. Obviouslly the scent hound hunts by detecting the scent of the prey, and we have has a few and they hunt with their nose to the ground. The sight hound hunts by watching for the prey and stalking by vision, and I have had a few of these and they can spot prey long before any other sense comes into play. A sight hound can spot prey, from up wind of that prey, where the scent hound would have no idea there was prey around. Many raptors hunt by vision alone, no scent involved, are you suggesting that sight hounds, birds of prey, and other animals that hunt by sight have language, but then you have said dogs can't recognize by sight, but that is wrong.

Hound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You still don't even understand what the claim is. He didn't say animals can't see movement, which stimulates their desire to catch their prey. He is only referring to identifying individuals from one another. I don't think that a sight hound or a bird of prey can do that, even though they have superb vision.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was going to put mammal but wiki used the word fish. They should fix that.

Yes there are, in fact there are several fish that use echolocation such as dolphins, river dolphins, killer whales, and sperm whales; in addition, it's also used by ...

Do any fish use echolocation

That wasn't Wiki. Peacegirl, you don't even know where your wrong answers are comeing from.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still don't even understand what the claim is. He didn't say animals can't see movement, which stimulates their desire to catch their prey. He is only referring to identifying individuals from one another. I don't think that a sight hound or a bird of prey can do that, even though they have superb vision.

Sight hounds do not just respond to movment, each dog will respond and pursue a particular prey, and will not chase any animal indiscriminatly. they can recognize a particular animal as prey and others as something to be ignored, and they may ignore other humans but not their master by sight alone. Birds of prey can be trained to hunt a particular animal, and in the wild will prefer some prey over others. This requires the recognition of features on the same level as facial recognition, but recognizing prey is necessary for survival.

[Vivisectus]

Why should a bird have to be taught to identify his trainer? It's different when an animal is being trained to do a trick, but I question the reliability of this testing when it comes to visual identification.

They are taught to select a picture of their trainer. Do try to keep up.

Actually yes. An expression through their bird body language (haha) that there is a noticeable change in their behavior which indicates recognition. It certainly beats clicking a lever.

But you yourself are admitting you are asking for the impossible: you type (haha) after bird body language. And indeed it is ludicrous: that does not happen outside of disney cartoons. We cannot interpret bird body language in an unambiguous, clear way.

That is why your demands for "The kind of baa-ing or bleating that would indicate recognition" is so stupid. My seven year old knows better than that.

I'm not flailing. I'm trying to be objective and so far I don't see the proof.

Perhaps if you took your head out of the sand it would be easier. It certainly is there.

Can you get me the link again? I'd like to know how the test was set up, what made it statistically significant, and how many times it was replicated.

It was a few posts ago. On that link you can find a link to the extract of the study that will give you the data.

The problem is that I doubt you have the capacity to understand it, but hey you might come up with something to top the non-traveling non-absorbed light being the other side of the coin of the reflection mumbo-jumbo. You never cease to surprise me: every time I think you could not possibly say something more preposterous, you reach down deep and find something even more insane.

It would seem to me that if a pigeon knew his trainer, he would show some kind of recognition without having to get rewarded for it.

This is not conclusive in my opinion unless, of course, the person has a reason to want them to be able to do that. [/QUOTE]

I am sure they do show some sort of recognition - many pigeon fanciers say they do. However, in order to test if they do in a scientific manner you need to make sure they exhibit unambiguous behavior that leaves no room for alternate interpretation, so some training is required.

You seem unable (or more likely, unwilling. No-one is THAT dense.) to grasp that.

But please, do refrain from getting it this time as well. If you stop saying deeply ignorant things, I lose a major source of entertainment.

Where is the evidence? Show me.

[/QUOTE]

You have been shown tons. At considerable length.

Are you sure you went to college? I saw you claim that you had a Bachelor of Science in special education but I really do not see how you could have managed even that if you do not understand such basic concepts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This just shows me how inaccurate your reasoning actually is. Why don't you try to understand why free will can never ever ever be proven true instead of telling me bullshit. We can state our opinion that we have free will, but there can be no absolute proof because this requires going back in time. I haven't seen anyone lately that can do that.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I know free will can be neither proven nor disproven, and neither can determinism. They aren't testable in any way. I have been saying that to you for over a year.

I don't care what you have been saying LadyShea for over a year. You don't get the last word on this topic. Have you ever considered that you might not know as much as you think you know? How arrogant you are. It amazes me every time you open your mouth.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So what was your point? Do you think either determinism or free will can be proven or disproven?

Free will cannot be proven for the reasons that were given. That does not mean determinism cannot be proven true. Obviously, you either didn't read this part, or you failed to grasp its significance.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Determinism cannot be proven or disproven because it is a concept with various meanings and definitions.

Completely wrong. The reason he used death over life is because determinism over free will is the same concept. You cannot be dead and alive at the same time. These are exact opposites, but you have been so confused with words that you actually believe that you can have freedom of the will and no freedom of the will at the same time. It's impossible. The various definitions only contribute to your confusion and why I can't get through to you at all.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you define dead as not alive and alive as not dead that is trivially true, but those aren't the definitions used by everyone all the time. There are various subjective meanings used.

No, it is nontrivial. In fact, it's a perfect analogy. If you're dead you're not alive; and if you're alive you're not dead. This is an objective observation. If your will is free, it cannot be unfree. And if it is unfree, it cannot be free. It's impossible to be a determined being some of the time, and then when it's convenient say that these two positions are compatible.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So Lessans defining determinism and free will as opposites does not mean they are actually opposites in any kind of objective way as it does not account for all subjective understandings of the terms.

You're just going in circles because you do not understand why this observation is anything but subjective. You keep trying to put his observations into a category where they don't belong. This is where you've gotten off the beaten path.

You never grasped why the law of greater satisfaction is not an assertion, so you keep accusing him of this as if you know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've never demonstrated that it is not an assertion, you simply assert that it isn't an assertion

Like I said in the other thread, he showed where we are compelled to move in a direction that [we believe] is better for ourselves (and when I say better for ourselves, I mean that it gives us greater satisfaction, for one reason or another), even if what we choose may appear to others as the worse possible alternative. That is because the observer doesn't know all of the reasons that cause or compel someone to prefer the alternative that he chooses.

You are making yourself look foolish. Listen up: If a definition does not represent reality, IT IS NOT USEFUL.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, I know you believe that, but that doesn't work with immaterial concepts because there is no objective reality to point to and say "that is determinism" or "this is love"

I know your position LadyShea. You said this way back when, but it's not correct. You cannot point to something and say this is determinism but you can see how it works indirectly through careful observation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Proving determinism false would not prove free will true...they are concepts with many possible understandings and definitions.

There could be many possible understandings and definitions, but remember, definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. You can define something any way you want, but that doesn't mean it reflects anything real, therefore it will have no usefulness.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When words represent concepts rather than concrete things definitions mean everything. You can't demonstrate or display or hold or touch free will or determinism. They are not concrete things. They aren't "real" to use your language. In this case you can only explain what you mean using words. If you have a different definition for words than the people you are talking to, then you are not conveying your meaning at all. That's not useful

Hello? Isn't that what I just said?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, you said the opposite. You said definitions mean nothing and I said they mean everything when it comes to immaterial concepts.

No, I said definitions mean nothing WHERE REALITY IS CONCERNED LADYSHEA. Why did you conveniently leave out the most important part of my sentence?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

My point has nothing to do with whether hearing is more complex than seeing, and I am not denying that all perception requires cognitive processing. I am saying that facial recognition is a complex and specialized cognitive mechanism that can be absent through either brain damage or not having evolved in the first place, even when vision is otherwise perfectly functional. There is therefore no reason at all to expect it to be present in dogs just because they see afferently, and there is also no reason at all to expect it to be absent if dogs see efferently.

All you've done here is repeat your claim that we should expect facial recognition given canine afferent vision. That simply isn't true. And I was comparing two things that are perfectly comparable. Facial recognition is to vision what echolocation is to hearing. Both are specialized cognitive capacities which may be absent even when the relevant sense (i.e. vision or hearing respectively) is perfectly well developed.

No amount of evidence is ever enough for you, because you don't care about evidence. Nonetheless, plenty-of-evidence beats no-evidence-at-all every time. Oh, and can photons ever have come from somewhere they were never located?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.