A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which experiments, principles, and/or laws in the standard model of optics and vision has had to be stretched, bent, squeezed or otherwise modified to "fit the premise". Name any empirical observation that remains unexplained by this robust model, or one that required "lengths" being gone to fit "the premise".

The fact that it has taken time for me to show that this model is not inconsistent or implausible, does not mean that I'm bending, squeezing or otherwise modifying anything to make the model work. My effort here is to show that there is another way of looking at how the brain and eyes work, thus changing the reality of what we're actually seeing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're getting backlash because you are positing an incoherent non working model, that explains nothing actually observed in reality, as competition for a robust model that works every time, and expecting people to accept yours for no reason.

You keep calling this a robust model because it appears to work. Without understanding the way the brain works, it was very easy for science to have made this mistake since everything seemed to fit. But...you can easily see how unreliable the empirical proof actually is if you care to look. For example, dogs cannot recognize their masters from pictures alone, no matter how you bend the results and make it appear as if this data is statistically significant. People can take what they want from this thread. I am only presenting what I believe is absolutely true. If you don't like this model of sight, take it up with our creator, not me, because reality is not going to change just because you don't happen to like that science may have gotten it wrong.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that it has taken time for me to show that this model is not inconsistent or implausible, does not mean that I'm bending, squeezing or otherwise modifying anything to make the model work.

I was asking you to expand on and explain your claim that people will go to great lengths to make the accepted theory fit. See your quote there that I quoted for you so you would know what I was referring to? That claim.

You seem to think that optics requires bending, squeezing or stretching things to fit.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're getting backlash because you are positing an incoherent non working model, that explains nothing actually observed in reality, as competition for a robust model that works every time, and expecting people to accept yours for no reason.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep calling this a robust model because it appears to work.

Not appears to work, it does work. Every time. Can you point out any instance where optics is unable to explain an empirical observation? Can you offer any prediction optics makes about what we should see and when we should see it that is wrong?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Without understanding the way the brain works, it was very easy for science to have made this mistake since everything seemed to fit. But...you can easily see how unreliable the empirical proof actually is if you care to look. For example, dogs cannot recognize their masters from pictures alone

LOL we're back to dogs now? Which really has nothing to do with optics or what I am asking you about, and is therefore a weasel.

I'd really like to know where Lessans and you think optics predicts or states that dogs should be able to do this at all. Recognition is a cognitive thing, it's even right there in the word itself, and it's not at all limited to or by vision. I really don't understand why Lessans thought that dogs should be able to recognize their masters pictures if afferent vision were true. It's simply not part of the model.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People can take what they want from this thread. I am only presenting what I believe is absolutely true. If you don't like this model of sight, take it up with our creator, not me, because reality is not going to change just because you don't happen to like that science may have gotten it wrong.

There is no creator.

And science gets things wrong, I've got no issue with that whatsoever. Testing hypotheses is part of the process, and disproving hypotheses increases knowledge just as supporting hypotheses does....so getting things wrong adds data, and is another step on the path to understanding reality.

You're the only one here emotionally attached to how sight works, the rest of us just follow the evidence. Reality is not going to change because you believe Lessans was absolutely right, either. That sword cuts both ways.

[The Lone Ranger]

The interesting thing is that my "aliens" hypothesis has exactly as much support as does Lessans' "model."


And unlike Lessans' "model," it doesn't require us to throw the laws of physics out the window.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by davidm

Don't know why that link doesn't work. I copied it exactly from Onion.com.

Oh, well! Just go to onion.com and search for the story, "Intelligent, condescending life found in distant galaxy."

You ended up with a [url/ on the end.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

I never said there wasn't a time delay. I said there might be some other cause for it. If you believe science got it right, that's fine with me. If you don't think there's a possibility that Lessans' claims could be right, then you have every right to reject them.

So there is a time delay, but this is caused by something that does not contradict the idea that there is no time delay?

That is stretching rationality even for your standards. TLR's omnipotent and inexplicably interested aliens are far more plausible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I was asking you to expand on and explain your claim that people will go to great lengths to make the accepted theory fit. See your quote there that I quoted for you so you would know what I was referring to? That claim.

You seem to think that optics requires bending, squeezing or stretching things to fit.

No it doesn't. How many times do I have to say that most of optics is consistent with efferent vision except for the one aspect being disputed? The only thing that is being bent, squeezed or stretched is the denial that the afferent model of sight could possibly be wrong, and therefore should not even be questioned.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're getting backlash because you are positing an incoherent non working model, that explains nothing actually observed in reality, as competition for a robust model that works every time, and expecting people to accept yours for no reason.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep calling this a robust model because it appears to work.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Not appears to work, it does work. Every time. Can you point out any instance where optics is unable to explain an empirical observation? Can you offer any prediction optics makes about what we should see and when we should see it that is wrong?

Optics can explain an empirical observation, but it can be misleading, especially when we're talking about the workings of the brain and eyes in relation to light. It has not been proven conclusively that normal vision comes from the interpretation of images that are decoded in the brain.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Without understanding the way the brain works, it was very easy for science to have made this mistake since everything seemed to fit. But...you can easily see how unreliable the empirical proof actually is if you care to look. For example, dogs cannot recognize their masters from pictures alone

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL we're back to dogs now? Which really has nothing to do with optics or what I am asking you about, and is therefore a weasel.

You can't narrow this down to optics alone because optics is following the reasoning that comes from the afferent model, so they are intertwined.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I'd really like to know where Lessans and you think optics predicts or states that dogs should be able to do this at all. Recognition is a cognitive thing, it's even right there in the word itself, and it's not at all limited to or by vision. I really don't understand why Lessans thought that dogs should be able to recognize their masters pictures if afferent vision were true. It's simply not part of the model.

But it is LadyShea. Why else would scientists try to confirm that dogs can recognize their masters by just looking at a photograph? It's true that recognition involves cognition, but as in any sense recognition basically comes from a direct experience of incoming stimuli.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People can take what they want from this thread. I am only presenting what I believe is absolutely true. If you don't like this model of sight, take it up with our creator, not me, because reality is not going to change just because you don't happen to like that science may have gotten it wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no creator.

You should know what I mean by now. I don't mean a fatherly figure up in heaven running the show, but there are mathematical laws that control our nature, which is what I call God. Can't you think in abstract terms LadyShea?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And science gets things wrong, I've got no issue with that whatsoever. Testing hypotheses is part of the process, and disproving hypotheses increases knowledge just as supporting hypotheses does....so getting things wrong adds data, and is another step on the path to understanding reality.

You're the only one here emotionally attached to how sight works, the rest of us just follow the evidence. Reality is not going to change because you believe Lessans was absolutely right, either. That sword cuts both ways.

True. May the best man win however long it takes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The interesting thing is that my "aliens" hypothesis has exactly as much support as does Lessans' "model."


And unlike Lessans' "model," it doesn't require us to throw the laws of physics out the window.

You keep saying that the laws of physics are being thrown out. That is so far from the truth TLR that I am dumbfounded.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to say that most of optics is consistent with efferent vision except for the one aspect being disputed?

You can say it a million times and it still wouldn't demonstrate how and where efferent vision and optics are at all compatible. You've been unable to show this consistency, so you just keep asserting that they are compatible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't narrow this down to optics alone because optics is following the reasoning that comes from the afferent model, so they are intertwined.

Optics IS the afferent model. How many times do we need to tell you that?

op·tics
   [op-tiks]
noun ( used with a singular verb )
the branch of physical science that deals with the properties and phenomena of both visible and invisible light and with vision.

It's not part of optics. Scientists want to know more about non-human cognition, so they test dogs for all manner of things including recognition. They aren't "trying to confirm" anything, they're trying to discover something.

None of the studies related to what dogs can and can't recognize have been done in the field of optics from what I've seen. If you have counter-evidence that this is in fact related to optics, and that some principle, law, or other tenet of optics states or implies that dogs should be able to recognize facial features if afferent vision is true, let's see it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's true that recognition involves cognition, but as in any sense recognition basically comes from a direct experience of incoming stimuli.

Recognition comes from the brain processing and utilizing incoming stimuli, not the "direct experience" of that same stimuli

I don't think it's useful to tell me to argue with evolution. I also don't understand why you insist on using silly euphemisms rather than saying exactly what you mean.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it doesn't. How many times do I have to say that most of optics is consistent with efferent vision except for the one aspect being disputed?

Which is? What is that one aspect?

The only thing that is being bent, squeezed or stretched is the denial that the afferent model of sight could possibly be wrong, and therefore should not even be questioned.

Strawman.

Optics can explain an empirical observation, but it can be misleading, especially when we're talking about the workings of the brain and eyes in relation to light.

No, not an observation, all of them.

It has not been proven conclusively that normal vision comes from the interpretation of images that are decoded in the brain.

Yes it has.

You can't narrow this down to optics alone

Oh the irony. That's exactly what you're trying to do. Yes, everything is intertwined, that's why you run into all of these impossibilities when trying to shoehorn this nonsense into physics.

because optics is following the reasoning that comes from the afferent model, so they are intertwined.

Nonsense again, I have right here a book that explains in minute detail how light and optics work. It starts with electric charges and their fields. Nowhere does it say anything about "afferent vision" or anything.

But it is LadyShea. Why else would scientists try to confirm that dogs can recognize their masters by just looking at a photograph? It's true that recognition involves cognition, but as in any sense recognition basically comes from a direct experience of incoming stimuli.

Duh. Because it might be an interesting question? It has almost nothing to do with physics or optics. That's a completely different level of abstraction and explanation.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep saying that the laws of physics are being thrown out. That is so far from the truth TLR that I am dumbfounded.

Well, since you have yet to provide an explaination of how your "model" could possibly work that doesn't violate the laws of physics, you don't have much of a leg to stand upon.

Here's a hint: you can say that your "model" doesn't violate the laws of physics all you want; that doesn't make it true. Of course, the fact that you're deliberately ignorant of the relevant science doesn't help in the slightest.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to say that most of optics is consistent with efferent vision except for the one aspect being disputed?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can say it a million times and it still wouldn't demonstrate how and where efferent vision and optics are at all compatible. You've been unable to show this consistency, so you just keep asserting that they are compatible.

Other than the obvious discrepancy in whether we see the actual object or interpret the image from the light, optics works exactly the same way including focal length, focal point, interference, diffraction, inverse square law, scattering, concave, convex and compound lenses, full spectrum light, resolving power, angle of incidence, etc.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't narrow this down to optics alone because optics is following the reasoning that comes from the afferent model, so they are intertwined.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Optics IS the afferent model. How many times do we need to tell you that?

op·tics
   [op-tiks]
noun ( used with a singular verb )
the branch of physical science that deals with the properties and phenomena of both visible and invisible light and with vision.

Optics posits the afferent model of sight as a basic premise which is taken for granted, or presupposed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I'd really like to know where Lessans and you think optics predicts or states that dogs should be able to do this at all. Recognition is a cognitive thing, it's even right there in the word itself, and it's not at all limited to or by vision. I really don't understand why Lessans thought that dogs should be able to recognize their masters pictures if afferent vision were true. It's simply not part of the model.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it is LadyShea. Why else would scientists try to confirm that dogs can recognize their masters by just looking at a photograph?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not part of optics. Scientists want to know more about non-human cognition, so they test dogs for all manner of things including recognition. They aren't "trying to confirm" anything, they're trying to discover something.

Oh really? It's obvious that the goal of these experiments is to confirm what has already been established as true. It's very easy to be fooled by data when there is BIAS toward a particular conclusion being right.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

None of the studies related to what dogs can and can't recognize have been done in the field of optics from what I've seen. If you have counter-evidence that this is in fact related to optics, and that some principle, law, or other tenet of optics states or implies that dogs should be able to recognize facial features if afferent vision is true, let's see it.

If an experiment is related to vision (or how we see), by your own admission, it is dealing in optics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's true that recognition involves cognition, but as in any sense recognition basically comes from a direct experience of incoming stimuli.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Recognition comes from the brain processing and utilizing incoming stimuli, not the "direct experience" of that same stimuli

I was referring to brain processing and the utilization of incoming stimuli as a direct experience. It certainly isn't an indirect experience.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People can take what they want from this thread. I am only presenting what I believe is absolutely true. If you don't like this model of sight, take it up with our creator, not me, because reality is not going to change just because you don't happen to like that science may have gotten it wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no creator.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You should know what I mean by now. I don't mean a fatherly figure up in heaven running the show, but there are mathematical laws that control our nature, which is what I call God. Can't you think in abstract terms LadyShea?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't think it's useful to tell me to argue with evolution. I also don't understand why you insist on using silly euphemisms rather than saying exactly what you mean.

Because I like the word God (or Creator). I don't think there's anything wrong with using these terms to describe the intelligence that governs our universe; especially when you understand what is meant by them in the context they are being used.

[LadyShea]

Optics assumes the afferent model of sight as a basic premise which is taken for granted, or presupposed

One more time, optics is the model for the standard understanding of vision. There is no secondary or separate "afferent model of sight". The model, optics, was created from centuries of empirical observation and millions of experimental results. Nothing was presupposed.

Lessans didn't know this, so you don't know it. You can't even be bothered to learn about what you are trying to dispute.

[LadyShea]

No, that's not obvious at all. The experiments I read were testing dog's cognitive functions and abilities, by testing a hypothesis (that's how the scientific method works you know). They weren't out to confirm anything.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

None of the studies related to what dogs can and can't recognize have been done in the field of optics from what I've seen. If you have counter-evidence that this is in fact related to optics, and that some principle, law, or other tenet of optics states or implies that dogs should be able to recognize facial features if afferent vision is true, let's see it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If an experiment is related to vision (or how we see), by your own admission, it is dealing in optics.

The experiments were all published in animal behavior and animal neuroscience/cognition journals. They were not published in optics journals.

Also, you've never answered my real question, weasel. What principle, law, or other tenet of optics states or implies that dogs should be able to recognize facial features if afferent vision is true? Why did Lessans believe that dogs recognizing faces from pictures was related to whether they see efferently or afferently?

I was referring to brain processing and the utilization of incoming stimuli as a direct experience. It certainly isn't an indirect experience.

A direct experience, to me, would mean no processing or interpreting needed at all. Sort of like Lessans "We look we see", that is a direct experience.

"We receive stimuli, then process and interpret it including making connections with other stimuli and memories and thoughts and then utilize it" is indirect.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People can take what they want from this thread. I am only presenting what I believe is absolutely true. If you don't like this model of sight, take it up with our creator, not me, because reality is not going to change just because you don't happen to like that science may have gotten it wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no creator.

I don't think it's useful to tell me to argue with evolution. I also don't understand why you insist on using silly euphemisms rather than saying exactly what you mean.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I like the word God (or Creator). I don't think there's anything wrong with using these terms to describe the intelligence that governs our universe; especially when you understand what is meant by them in the context they are being used.

There's nothing wrong with believing there is an "intelligence" governing our universe. It's a faith statement though, and not related to science, so why use it in a discussion of supposedly scientific discoveries?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Well, since you have yet to provide an explaination of how your "model" could possibly work that doesn't violate the laws of physics, you don't have much of a leg to stand upon.

Here's a hint: you can say that your "model" doesn't violate the laws of physics all you want; that doesn't make it true. Of course, the fact that you're deliberately ignorant of the relevant science doesn't help in the slightest.

Just because we see efferently does not violate the laws of physics. It doesn't change anything except for one thing: That we see in the present; not the past. It might change the theoretical structure of what we believe is possible given this new knowledge, but absolutely no successful technology would be rendered invalid because of this alternate model.

[The Lone Ranger]

It has been explained to you in great detail how and why many successful technologies could not function if your "model" of sight were correct. It has also been explained to you in great detail how and why your "model" necessarily violates quite a lot of physical laws.

You cannot claim ignorance. That you cannot (or more to the point, will not) understand is no excuse.

You're basically acting like a three-year-old; you're metaphorically sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Does not! Does not! Does not!".


This is why people keep calling you a liar.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because we see efferently does not violate the laws of physics. It doesn't change anything except for one thing: That we see in the present; not the past.

Wrong. As it has been explained to you over and over again, exactly that is another contradiction to the known laws of physics. There is no present that is the same for everyone and even if everyone saw "their own" present, that would collide head on with Einstein's theory of relativity.

It might change the theoretical structure of what we believe is possible given this new knowledge, but absolutely no successful technology would be rendered invalid because of this alternate model.

Well duh, of course no kind of gadget would suddenly stop working because some new fact about nature is discovered.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not making up anything. I was using P light at Spacemonkey's suggestion in order to try to distinguish white light that travels through space and time and light that is a condition of sight due to efferent vision, which is a perfectly plausible model.

Not true on either count. Your 'model' is still perfectly contradictory. And I have never suggested that you use (P)light - on the contrary, I've repeatedly told you not you not to do so. The only distinction I recommended was between (P)&(N)reflection.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Which part of what I said was false, and why do you think it is false?

You've completely missed my entire point. The white sunlight hitting the ball consists of two parts: the blue light and the non-blue light. Nothing else. If the non-blue part of that sunlight is absorbed, then that part doesn't bounce off. If the blue part of it turns up at the distant film, then that part doesn't bounce off either. So if neither part of the sunlight hitting the ball bounces off, then how can white sunlight still be bouncing off the ball?

If the blue part of the spectrum is not bouncing off, then what is bouncing off cannot be the full spectrum. The blue part will be missing.

This doesn't show that what I said was wrong at all. If the blue-wavelength photons are not bouncing off the ball, but are instead at the distant film immediately after hitting it, then they have instantaneously relocated themselves. That means they have teleported.

The blue light existed before it ever got to the ball. It was a part of the sunlight traveling towards that ball. The full spectrum cannot bounce off the ball if the non-blue part of that spectrum has been absorbed by the ball. What has been absorbed cannot still bounce off, and white light minus the non-blue part does not still equal a full spectrum. And the blue-wavelength photons cannot 'disperse' unless they are traveling. Only traveling light can disperse.

So what bounces off the ball cannot be full spectrum white sunlight, can it?

I didn't ask what happens to them. I asked you: Where are they? You haven't answered the question.

Coming into existence means that they didn't exist previously, and therefore cannot be the same (P)reflected photons that were previously at the object. And you previously rejected the answer that the photons at the film are newly existing photons. So you still haven't answered the question: Where were these photons just before the photograph was taken? Are they newly existing, magically popping into existence from nowhere at the film? Or were they at the object just immediately before the photograph was taken? Or were they somewhere else?

Then nothing is left to bounce off the object, unless you think some light can be both absorbed and still bouncing off, or (P)reflected and still bouncing off?

Make up your mind and stop contradicting yourself.

Then none of them bounce off the object, do they? And the blue photon just teleported from the object to the retina.

Bzzzzzzzzt! The white light just is all seven photons. And you just told me none of them are bouncing off the object. Therefore white light cannot be bouncing off the object.

Obviously you didn't.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not part of optics. Scientists want to know more about non-human cognition, so they test dogs for all manner of things including recognition. They aren't "trying to confirm" anything, they're trying to discover something.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? It's obvious that the goal of these experiments is to confirm what has already been established as true. It's very easy to be fooled by data when there is BIAS toward a particular conclusion being right.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, that's not obvious at all. The experiments I read were testing dog's cognitive functions and abilities, by testing a hypothesis (that's how the scientific method works you know). They weren't out to confirm anything.

There is an unconscious expectation of how things will turn out, especially because of the belief that the eyes are a sense organ. You can't tell me that these experiments are unbiased.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

None of the studies related to what dogs can and can't recognize have been done in the field of optics from what I've seen. If you have counter-evidence that this is in fact related to optics, and that some principle, law, or other tenet of optics states or implies that dogs should be able to recognize facial features if afferent vision is true, let's see it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If an experiment is related to vision (or how we see), by your own admission, it is dealing in optics.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The experiments were all published in animal behavior and animal neuroscience/cognition journals. They were not published in optics journals.

Doesn't matter, the underlying presupposition that light carries the image to the dog's eye, cannot be overlooked. We're still dealing in optics even though it was in an animal behavior cognition journal. Fields intersect; they are not isolated entities.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, you've never answered my real question, weasel. What principle, law, or other tenet of optics states or implies that dogs should be able to recognize facial features if afferent vision is true? Why did Lessans believe that dogs recognizing faces from pictures was related to whether they see efferently or afferently?

I'm not going to answer anymore questions if you keep calling me a weasel. I will repeat that the underlying belief that the eyes are a sense organ is an accepted "fact', so the underlying bias (although subconscious) has already been established.

I was referring to brain processing and the utilization of incoming stimuli as a direct experience. It certainly isn't an indirect experience.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A direct experience, to me, would mean no processing or interpreting needed at all. Sort of like Lessans "We look we see", that is a direct experience.

A direct experience to me would be receiving stimuli that the brain recognizes as a pleasurable or painful sensation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"We receive stimuli, then process and interpret it including making connections with other stimuli and memories and thoughts and then utilize it" is indirect.

Before one can interpret and make connections with previous experiences, memories and thoughts, the receptor must respond to the incoming electrical signals. That's what I mean by direct.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People can take what they want from this thread. I am only presenting what I believe is absolutely true. If you don't like this model of sight, take it up with our creator, not me, because reality is not going to change just because you don't happen to like that science may have gotten it wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no creator.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't think it's useful to tell me to argue with evolution. I also don't understand why you insist on using silly euphemisms rather than saying exactly what you mean.

To me, it's not silly. The laws of our nature are not euphemisms. Something created the laws (they didn't just come about by chance in my humble opinion), so I am using the term correctly for the purposes of this discussion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I like the word God (or Creator). I don't think there's anything wrong with using these terms to describe the intelligence that governs our universe; especially when you understand what is meant by them in the context they are being used.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There's nothing wrong with believing there is an "intelligence" governing our universe. It's a faith statement though, and not related to science, so why use it in a discussion of supposedly scientific discoveries?

To say that there is an intelligence governing our universe, or laws that govern our universe, is not a faith statement. The more you understand how these laws control behavior, you will see that these observations are scientific, not faith based. Lessans uses the word God in reference to these laws, therefore I don't believe this term has to be used in a religious context only.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Voila we see!

Seriously what else could possibly explain a delay that exactly matches the time it takes light to traverse the difference?

Bump

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

PFM.

[Vivisectus]

To say that there is an intelligence governing our universe, or laws that govern our universe, is not a faith statement.

Then please provide the proof to support this statement. If you have none, it remains a faith statement.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To say that there is an intelligence governing our universe, or laws that govern our universe, is not a faith statement.

Um yes it is a faith statement since "an intelligence" means an intelligent being, or deity.


Natural laws are not intelligent, nor can they be referred to as "an intelligence"

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will repeat that the underlying belief that the eyes are a sense organ is an accepted "fact', so the underlying bias (although subconscious) has already been established.

Hmm, I looked that up in my physics textbook I mentioned before, and in the last third there are actually 4 pages about the eye! However, it doesn't say it's a sense organ, it says it's an adaptive optical instrument.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, you've never answered my real question, weasel. What principle, law, or other tenet of optics states or implies that dogs should be able to recognize facial features if afferent vision is true? Why did Lessans believe that dogs recognizing faces from pictures was related to whether they see efferently or afferently?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to answer anymore questions if you keep calling me a weasel.

Quit weaseling and I'll stop calling you on it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will repeat that the underlying belief that the eyes are a sense organ is an accepted "fact', so the underlying bias (although subconscious) has already been established.

And what part of "the eyes are a sense organ" implies, states, or predicts "dogs should be able to recognize human faces from pictures". You are avoiding answering the question...that's weaseling.

I asked you this before and you have always avoided it. But, if the eyes are not a sense organ, and we see efferently, why can some mammals recognize humans from pictures and others can't? How does your model explain the difference?

The standard model explains differences like this on the processing and interpretation of the visual signals in the brain, as well as sensory preference and priority differences between species. There is nothing weird or unexplained here and it doesn't matter one whit to the standard model of vision whether dogs can or can't recognize their masters from pictures.