A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by erimir

Oh god.

Do you even think about what you're saying?

If you're showing your dogs the photographs, you will be right there already. And your dog won't care about the photograph, because it'll be paying more attention to you.

If you get someone else to present the photograph, that will ALSO be the case.

I don't know how these studies were designed, but I'm gonna make a wild guess and say that you would have no idea how to design an experiment to eliminate those confounding factors.

Erimir, I will answer you but I am giving you a warning to contain your anger, or your posts will continue to get ignored.

I'm sure I could design an experiment with my own dogs, but from just my own informal observations, I have seen time and again that my dog does not recognize me from sight alone. She thinks it's me when I walk in the door, but she is not sure so she walks toward me cautiously until she hears my voice or she smells me.

[LadyShea]

Chapter 4 starts out with a discussion as to why we believe we have 5 senses when we don't, and how people are so afraid to question authorities and learned people our society has been passing down dogma rather than correct knowledge since Aristotle. This discussion culminates with this butthurt:

Are you beginning to recognize how difficult it has been for me to bring this knowledge to light when it is utterly impossible for our leading authorities to get greater satisfaction listening to any explanation of new knowledge that must reveal their unconscious ignorance that they never knew the truth, only thought they knew?

Then this indulgence in narcissism, yet again, despite your continued denial that the book is full of self aggrandizement

I, however, know the truth and know that I know the truth, and one day as Gregor Mendel declared when he didn’t bring his discovery to light, “My time will come.”

PhDs and Professors are accused of passing on learned and adhered to ideas only, there is no mention of the original research they routinely engage in.

He then mentions a guy that he was able to convince at a science expo in Canada that the eyes are not a sensory organ, and claims this man became very involved in his work (and that the man was also ridiculed by learned persons). Does this man still live and is he still involved, peacegirl? If so, where can we read his thoughts? What was the scope of his involvement? He further goes into the idea that most criticism of his ideas are basically ad homs.

Then he starts in on the sight stuff

because nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

I have to stop here for a minute. peacegirl what from the external world, other than soundwaves, strikes the ears and how is hearing so vastly different than sight in this regard?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If I had seen even a single indication from you that you have at least considered the possibility that Lessans might have been wrong, I wouldn't label you a True Believer. Fact is you apparently won't entertain the possibility long enough to research the arguments or evidence against it to help you address it.

The argument is clear as to what he believes, it is just completely lacking in evidence to analyze or debate.

Maybe if you and he would stop presenting it as scientific and mathematical and undeniable fact, and instead called it what it is, a philosophical set of beliefs, people would debate it differently.

It could help to leave mathematical out (for the time being) in that people may be more open to his knowledge without feeling challenged. BTW, you keep saying that he is lacking evidence. You never shared with me what you understood of Chapter Four. I don't think you understood everything he explained which is understandable considering it was the first time you read it. As a result, you don't see his evidence.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He is using the association of an object with a word. The only way a dog could recognize his master in the same way Chaser did would be to associate his master's name with his master's features so that a photograph is taken and recorded in his memory.

Okay, so it's apparently not problematic for a dog to recognize an inanimate object, and for example differentiate between two plushies, or two differently colored balls (which wouldn't have different smells), so why would a dog not be able to recognize his master by sight alone?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Chapter 4 starts out with a discussion as to why we believe we have 5 senses when we don't, and how people are so afraid to question authorities and learned people our society has been passing down dogma rather than correct knowledge since Aristotle. This discussion culminates with this butthurt:

Then this indulgence in narcissism, yet again, despite your continued denial that the book is full of self aggrandizement.

This was not narcissism or self-aggrandizement. He believed that people would not dare question someone of such stature or we would be condemned. We, as a society, put intellectuals on such pedestals that even if they got something wrong, it wouldn't dare be questioned. Maybe it's changing these days, but in his day, that's what he felt.

I, however, know the truth and know that I know the truth, and one day as Gregor Mendel declared when he didn’t bring his discovery to light, “My time will come.”

Originally Posted by LadyShea

PhDs and Professors are accused of passing on learned and adhered to ideas only, there is no mention of the original research they routinely engage in.

Much of what we learn we take at face value, at least when we're in school. We take what we learn from our professors and accept that what is in the textbooks is true. I can see that you question everything LadyShea, which is a good thing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He then mentions a guy that he was able to convince at a science expo in Canada that the eyes are not a sensory organ, and claims this man became very involved in his work (and that the man was also ridiculed by learned persons). Does this man still live and is he still involved, peacegirl? If so, where can we read his thoughts? What was the scope of his involvement? He further goes into the idea that most criticism of his ideas are basically ad homs.

No, this guy isn't around anymore. His name was Dave.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then he starts in on the sight stuff

because nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

I have to stop here for a minute. peacegirl what from the external world, other than soundwaves, strikes the ears and how is hearing so vastly different than sight in this regard?

In the case of hearing, a nerve ending is being stimulated by frequencies and wavelengths and is then interpreted by the brain, whereas in the case of sight, there is nothing in the light that sends signals to the brain to be interpreted. It seems logical, but it doesn't work that way according to Lessans' observations. Again, I don't want people to get defensive. If we can't resolve this issue, we should move on and come back when everyone is cooled off.

[LadyShea]

He doesn't present evidence anywhere that I can tell. He simply asserts what he believes to be true based on his observations. Much like your anecdote about your dog.

Your pet is not the same as a dog who has been trained to respond to certain stimuli a certain way to facilitate experimentation.

My dogs have not been trained to detect drugs, and would simply ignore a whole truckload of cocaine because they don't care and don't know to care, that doesn't indicate that dogs can't detect drugs. They can do so very well, they have to be worked with though. Because my dogs don't do it doesn't mean I assume no dog can do it.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sure I could design an experiment with my own dogs, but from just my own informal observations, I have seen time and again that my dog does not recognize me from sight alone. She thinks it's me when I walk in the door, but she is not sure so she walks toward me cautiously until she hears my voice or she smells me.

I'm not at all being mean or unfair, but I very much doubt that you could design and conduct a proper experiment. Do you know what a control is and why it's important? Do you know what confounding variables are and how to control for them? Do you understand the necessity of replication and the danger of pseudoreplication? Do you know what double blinding is? Designing a proper experiment is a lot more difficult than you might think.

And by the way, a sample size of 1 is not significant.

Let's say you do your experiment and that your dog shows no signs of being able to recognize you by sight alone. So what? First of all, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, some dogs are much more dependent on senses other than sight than are others -- heck some dogs are all but blind. (Indeed, some dogs are blind; so are some people, of course.)

Second, it has already been demonstrated that at least some dogs can recognize their masters by visual cues alone. Read the studies for yourself.

[LadyShea]

You used the incorrect paragraph. Here is how that part of the post should be read.

Then this indulgence in narcissism, yet again, despite your continued denial that the book is full of self aggrandizement
Quote:
I, however, know the truth and know that I know the truth, and one day as Gregor Mendel declared when he didn’t bring his discovery to light, “My time will come.”

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Okay, so it's apparently not problematic for a dog to recognize an inanimate object, and for example differentiate between two plushies, or two differently colored balls (which wouldn't have different smells), so why would a dog not be able to recognize his master by sight alone?

He could recognize an object, but only if the word was associated with it. Then when the word is mentioned, he would be able to associate the word with the object and find the correct object. To differentiate colors, he would have to know the word blue and be able to see that this color is different from pink or any other color.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You used the incorrect paragraph. Here is how that part of the post should be read.

He knew that one day his time would come meaning that this discovery would be brought to light sooner or later. Knowing this gave him comfort even though he also knew he wouldn't be here to see the fruits of his labor.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We, as a society, put intellectuals on such pedestals that even if they got something wrong, it wouldn't dare be questioned.

I call complete and utter BS. Indeed, I think that one can easily make the case that the shockingly-common belief in this society that sincere belief trumps mere logic and evidence (up to and including evidence which conclusively disproves the belief in question) is one of the most dangerous and pernicious things imaginable.

Tens of thousands have suffered and died unnecessarily because of people placing beliefs above evidence. Consider the denial of the link between HIV and AIDS, for instance, or the insistence that vaccines cause autism.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Much of what we learn we take at face value, at least when we're in school. We take what we learn from our professors and accept that what is in the textbooks is true.

I think textbooks are the poorest tool used in education, actually. Also, I do not have a college degree in case you are wondering if I adhere to some dogma that education=truth. I have many threads regarding education and schools and such in the Study Hall if you're interested.

I can see that you question everything LadyShea, which is a good thing.

I was raised by hippies.

No, this guy isn't around anymore. His name was Dave.

And what was the scope of his involvement? Did he do any writings or explanations?

In the case of hearing, a nerve ending is being stimulated by frequencies and wavelengths and is then interpreted by the brain, whereas in the case of sight, there is nothing in the light that sends signals to the brain to be interpreted.

So light frequencies and wavelengths are not in the light? But sound frequencies and wavelengths are in the sound?

You are aware that light is electromagnetic radiation, correct? You are aware the brain is an electromagnetic system, correct?

It seems logical, but it doesn't work that way according to Lessans' observations. Again, I don't want people to get defensive. If we can't resolve this issue, we should move on and come back when everyone is cooled off.

I am not defensive nor do I need to cool off. I am trying to understand why you believe Lessans is correct

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He could recognize an object, but only if the word was associated with it. Then when the word is mentioned, he would be able to associate the word with the object and find the correct object. To differentiate colors, he would have to know the word blue and be able to see that this color is different from pink or any other color.

So are you now considering that it is possible for a dog to recognize his master (or any person) by sight, provided the dog is taught a name to associate with the person's face?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the case of hearing, a nerve ending is being stimulated by frequencies and wavelengths and is then interpreted by the brain, whereas in the case of sight, there is nothing in the light that sends signals to the brain to be interpreted.

And yet, it remains an observed fact that photoreceptors in the retina depolarize when struck by photons of light, and that the impulses are then relayed by the optic nerve to the brain. That's not just an inconvenient fact.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Lessans

to include the eyes as one of the senses when this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a potato, a fruit.

Photons make contact with the optic nerve. Again, how does the quote above make sense?

Have you looked at any new research or modern experiments to see if Lessans ideas are compatible with new findings in biology and physics? Not nearly as much was known 30 years ago.

Are you simply dismissing all scientific findings if they aren't compatible? What evidence do you think would make you consider that Lessans may have been mistaken, or even understandably limited by the technology of his day?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He doesn't present evidence anywhere that I can tell. He simply asserts what he believes to be true based on his observations. Much like your anecdote about your dog.

Astute observations are evidence. My anecdote with my dog gives me clues, but I would never call it valid evidence.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your pet is not the same as a dog who has been trained to respond to certain stimuli a certain way to facilitate experimentation.

My dogs have not been trained to detect drugs, and would simply ignore a whole truckload of cocaine because they don't care and don't know to care, that doesn't indicate that dogs can't detect drugs. They can do so very well, they have to be worked with though. Because my dogs don't do it doesn't mean I assume no dog can do it.

You're absolutely right.

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;932798]

Originally Posted by Lessans

to include the eyes as one of the senses when this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a potato, a fruit.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Photons make contact with the optic nerve. Again, how does the quote above make sense?

He was trying to show that the eye did not meet the definition of sense, just as you can't put a potato in the same category as fruit because it doesn't meet the definition. Yes, photons make contact with the optic nerve. They are a condition of sight. We cannot see without light being present.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Have you looked at any new research or modern experiments to see if Lessans ideas are compatible with new findings in biology and physics? Not nearly as much was known 30 years ago.

The only research that could prove him wrong is if he was describing what goes on with the brain and words incorrectly, which would then bring into question whether his understanding of the senses was accurate.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you simply dismissing all scientific findings if they aren't compatible? What evidence do you think would make you consider that Lessans may have been mistaken, or even understandably limited by the technology of his day?

No, I'm not dismissing anything, but at the same time I won't dismiss his findings either unless there is proof to the contrary. I don't think he was limited by the technology because it wasn't the technology that afforded him the ability to make this discovery. If something is an invariable law, it doesn't change through time. Does one plus one equals two ever change over time? Of course not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And yet, it remains an observed fact that photoreceptors in the retina depolarize when struck by photons of light, and that the impulses are then relayed by the optic nerve to the brain. That's not just an inconvenient fact.

I never said this wasn't true. There is a definite correlation between light, the optic nerve, and the brain. The question I am still left with is how we see? Just because I cannot explain the exact mechanism by which the brain is able to do what it does, doesn't mean his observations are inaccurate. Sure, it would be nice if his observations were even more complete, but this gives scientists something to work with.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I call complete and utter BS.

Well, of course you would write that; your are one of Them[Tm.--Ed.].









Are you also Jewish?

--J.D.

[LadyShea]

He was trying to show that the eye did not meet the definition of sense, just as you can't put a potato in the same category as fruit because it doesn't meet the definition. Yes, photons make contact with the optic nerve. They are a condition of sight. We cannot see without light being present.

Yes, I understand the potato and fruit analogy, what I don't understand is why he thought that. He asserts that with the senses are "stimuli from the outside world making contact with a nerve ending"

So in the case of sight, stimuli (light photons) from the outside world make contact with a nerve (the optic nerve). That perfectly fits with Lessan's definition of sense, correct? So why is sight not a sense?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The question I am still left with is how we see?

How we see has been explained here, it is more thoroughly explained elsewhere. You are either dismissing the evidence in favor of learned dogma or you don't understand the evidence.

Just because I cannot explain the exact mechanism by which the brain is able to do what it does, doesn't mean his observations are inaccurate.

No, the hard evidence demonstrates that his observations are inaccurate

Sure, it would be nice if his observations were even more complete, but this gives scientists something to work with.

Scientists have done extensive and exhaustive work regarding sight and nothing really seems compatible with Lessans assertions. Have you examined the available literature and research into sight thoroughly? If so, what do you think is missing or needs further "working with"?

[LadyShea]

The only research that could prove him wrong is if he was describing what goes on with the brain and words incorrectly

I see, and have you studied all the findings of neuroscience with regards to language to see if his description is compatible with the new evidence gained by technologies unavailable to him?

All he would have had to really work with, at the time, is psychology, and that field has also been greatly changed by the findings of neuroscience.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I'm not at all being mean or unfair, but I very much doubt that you could design and conduct a proper experiment. Do you know what a control is and why it's important? Do you know what confounding variables are and how to control for them? Do you understand the necessity of replication and the danger of pseudoreplication? Do you know what double blinding is? Designing a proper experiment is a lot more difficult than you might think.

I'm not sure what a confounding variable or double blinding is. I realize how important it is for an experiment to be reliable.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And by the way, a sample size of 1 is not significant.

I realize that.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Let's say you do your experiment and that your dog shows no signs of being able to recognize you by sight alone. So what? First of all, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, some dogs are much more dependent on senses other than sight than are others -- heck some dogs are all but blind. (Indeed, some dogs are blind; so are some people, of course.)

True, but what I'm saying is that in order for a dog to recognize his master's features, the dog has to be able to discriminate his master from other people. The way children distinguish their mothers from others is because the word mother not only tells a child who her mother is by her unique features, but who she is not. If a dog can photograph the word master with his master's features, then he could identify him through sight. I don't know how a dog could identify his master otherwise, that is, unless the chemical signals were going straight into the dog's brain to be decoded into an image. That's what Lessans is refuting.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Second, it has already been demonstrated that at least some dogs can recognize their masters by visual cues alone. Read the studies for yourself.

Okay.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

This has been very interesting to me, because I think I have more of an understanding about how people who strenuously disagree with my religious beliefs feel toward those beliefs and believers. Food for thought.

It's good to see someone getting something useful out of this.

[peacegirl]

The only research that could prove him wrong is if he was describing what goes on with the brain and words incorrectly

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I see, and have you studied all the findings of neuroscience with regards to language to see if his description is compatible with the new evidence gained by technologies unavailable to him?

If his observations as far as sight are accurate, then new technologies won't change anything. The eyes are either a sense or they aren't. There is no in between. It is true that some evidence is contingent on new technologies, but this doesn't fall into that category.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All he would have had to really work with, at the time, is psychology, and that field has also been greatly changed by the findings of neuroscience.

I'm sure. That's why they are beginning to recognize that man's will is not free.