A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Societal standards of human beauty differ regionally, are co-opted and mixed as populations mingle, and greatly change over time. China had that foot binding thing for like 1000 years.

What's your point?

My point is that beauty is not an objective reality. It is a conditioning based on culture that strives to meet that standard. We all strive to be accepted and wanted for this 'beauty' that doesn't really exist externally. I can see that you don't get it either.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

PS: I would like a citation about Chinese women having eye surgery to look more Western, please

Here is one of many that I found.

Double Eyelid Surgery for Asian Monolids

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My point is that beauty is not an objective reality. It is a conditioning based on culture that strives to meet that standard. We all strive to be accepted and wanted for this 'beauty' that doesn't really exist externally. I can see that you don't get it either.

I agree that beauty is a subjective mental concept. I don't think it is entirely conditioned though, as we subjectively perceive beauty in many things, like nature and art and music. What am I not getting?

Also, you are again emphasizing this acceptance by others thing and striving for it, as if nobody is exempt. That is simply not true for all.

Originally Posted by peacegilr

Here is one of many that I found.

Double Eyelid Surgery for Asian Monolids

You were so specific with the "Chinese" I assumed you meant women in China. Thanks.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see where an optical illusion due to the way the light is being reflected, negates anything the author is saying. Where does the idea that this confirms afferent vision?

You have asserted we are allowed to see objects only if they are big enough to be seen. These visual phenomena (NOT optical illusions) are not objects, yet can be seen.

So, do you wish to restate your idea as to how we see what we see and remove the condition of light "allowing us to see objects if they're big enough"?

Look, the author has posited an alternate theory of sight. For that theory to warrant further investigation it needs to be complete, it needs to explain everything coherently.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't. You won, okay? I want to move to Chapter Two.

You want to move to chapter 2, but your ideas are discredited before you get there. So what's the point?

This book seems to be a transcript of the street corner raving of a crank, like this ------>

[davidm]

Originally Posted by davidm

Please read this again:

As sense experiences become related or recorded, they are projected,
through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects held in relation and
photographed by the brain.

What does this mean, Peacegirl? Just this one sentence. I challenge you to explain what this word salad means. Explain to us, in your own words. I bet you won't be able to do it; indeed you won't even try.

Do you really believe that the above sentence contains a sensible meaning?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I agree that beauty is a subjective mental concept. I don't think it is entirely conditioned though, as we subjectively perceive beauty in many things, like nature and art and music. What am I not getting?

In other words, since a
value is not contained in external substance it cannot exist apart
from the individual who gives that something its value. It could be
that you like one girl better than another, but this is your personal
preference, not an external reality. By saying a girl is beautiful, it
implies by its opposite, that some girls are ugly. You are saying
she contains a value that other girls do not have and you have
placed other girls in a definite position of inferiority. There is a
world of difference between saying, “This girl appeals to me
because her nose is straight, her teeth together, her breasts pointed
and firm, her skin smooth and soft” — and saying, “I like her
because she is beautiful.”

Saying ‘this girl appeals to me’ makes
no one feel inferior because the expression does not create a
standard for everyone. Even to qualify it by saying ‘she is
beautiful to me’ does not rectify the inaccuracy of the description
because it is mathematically impossible for the word to describe
anything externally real. The sun is not beautiful although on
certain days I like it better than on others; it is simply a ball of fire.
Many people resenting the word ‘beautiful’ being applied to
physical characteristics they did not possess and yet wanting a
share of this value would parry with, ‘beauty of the soul, not of the
body.’ By defining it differently they derived a compensating
satisfaction, as if definition determines what exists.

Now if I draw
a picture of a dog and put the word dog right next to it no one will
say the symbol is inaccurate because it is not, but try to do the
same thing with the word education. Just as in the word beautiful,
it is projected upon this screen of differences and then when you
see these differences with your eyes it appears that this too exists
as part of the external world because it is circumscribed with the
word.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

What does this mean, Peacegirl? Just this one sentence. I challenge you to explain what this word salad means. Explain to us, in your own words. I bet you won't be able to do it; indeed you won't even try.

Do you really believe that the above sentence contains a sensible meaning?

All he is saying in this paragraph is that our senses become related to an experience. For example, if as a child I see another child get attacked by a vicious dog, that sense experience will be projected onto the word dog and photographed by the brain in memory so everytime the word dog comes up, that sense experience will be relived.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You want to move to chapter 2, but your ideas are discredited before you get there. So what's the point?

This book seems to be a transcript of the street corner raving of a crank, like this ------>

That's because you don't see the validity of his observations, just as you don't see the validity of his reasoning as to why man's will is not free, but THAT DOESN'T MAKE HIM WRONG.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have asserted we are allowed to see objects only if they are big enough to be seen. These visual phenomena (NOT optical illusions) are not objects, yet can be seen.

Optical illusions are tricks of the brain that make something appear real when it's only an illusion. Optical illusions are characterized by visually (or optically) perceived images that differ from objective reality. In other words, they can use color, light and patterns to create images that can be deceptive or misleading to our brains.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, do you wish to restate your idea as to how we see what we see and remove the condition of light "allowing us to see objects if they're big enough"?

Look, the author has posited an alternate theory of sight. For that theory to warrant further investigation it needs to be complete, it needs to explain everything coherently.

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

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Chaser, a border collie, can distinguish between 1000+ different objects (toys) by name. If you say "Fetch X" she gets the correct item from a pile 100% of the time.

When given a new object and name, she is able to quickly deduce that the new name and object is not one of her familiar ones, and bring the new object, thus adding to her vocabulary.

She was on NOVA Science now, and was written about by the NYT Dog Might Provide Clues on How Language Is Acquired - NYTimes.com and there are other videos of her

Thank you for sharing that. Obviously, Chaser has an uncanny ability to associate objects with words. But this has nothing to do with the FACT that dogs cannot recognize their masters by sight alone. They must use other sense experience (smell, sound, movement, etc.) to make a positive identification.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You are an idiot, and your father is a lunatic!

Of course you need an excuse not to answer my posts; you can't. Just like you can't deal with ceptimus's post or with erimir's.

I didn't see this post. I guess you're the second to go. It's your loss.

[The Lone Ranger]

Just a reminder:

[Emphasis mine]

Previously on our show:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You will see it happening right now, not 35 minutes later.

Later:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There has to be a delay in our seeing an object if the light has not gotten there yet. There is no argument that the delay is imposed by the finite speed of light.

So, which is it, and why?



Incidentally, I object to calling your notions a theory.

The word "theory" has a very specific meaning in the sciences. A theory is a well-tested explanation for observed phenomena that has (so far) survived the testing and critical scrutiny of the scientific community. Whatever these notions are, they most-definitely do not constitute an actual theory.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, Chaser has an uncanny ability to associate objects with words. But this has nothing to do with the FACT that dogs cannot recognize their masters by sight alone. They must use other sense experience (smell, sound, movement, etc.) to make a positive identification.

You've obviously never had much experience with sight hounds. Yes, many animals (including at least some dogs) most-definitely can recognize their masters by sight alone. [Some sheep-herding dogs, for instance, are trained to respond to visual cues only, and will respond to visual commands from their masters only.]

Go visit a dog-training school if you doubt that dogs can recognize their masters by sight alone. Or go to a boarding kennel and watch a sight-hound's reaction when his master appears after a separation -- even when his master has made no sound and the master is downwind and thus cannot be smelled.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

[My emphasis.]

You're changing your story. Earlier, you explicitly stated that there would be no delay between something happening on Jupiter and an observer on Earth seeing it. Now you're saying exactly the opposite.

Which is it?

I am not saying this experiment is wrong. I'm just wondering if there could be another explanation. I still would like to get more empirical evidence to confirm that only when light reaches us do we see an object. I know I'm upsetting everyone, so I'm going to end the discussion on sight.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You've obviously never had much experience with sight hounds. Yes, many animals (including at least some dogs) most-definitely can recognize their masters by sight alone. Go visit a dog-training school if you doubt it. Or go to a boarding kennel and watch a sight-hound's reaction when his master appears after a separation -- even when his master has made no sound and the master is downwind and thus cannot be smelled.

If that's the case, then he should be able to recognize his master from a picture, but I've never seen this. I'd like to do an experiment to see if a dog could pick his master out in a line up where everyone is dressed exactly the same and has the same build.

[The Lone Ranger]

What? Do you think that planets and moons maliciously speed up and slow down in their orbits as necessary, merely to fool us into thinking that there's a delay between something happening and our seeing it?

And you haven't addressed the fact that you've directly contradicted yourself. Are you conceding now that there is a delay imposed by the finite speed of light, or are you going back to denying it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Just a reminder:

[Emphasis mine]

Previously on our show:

Later:

So, which is it, and why?



Incidentally, I object to calling your notions a theory.

The word "theory" has a very specific meaning in the sciences. A theory is a well-tested explanation for observed phenomena that has (so far) survived the testing and critical scrutiny of the scientific community. Whatever these notions are, they most-definitely do not constitute an actual theory.

I used the word theory to make everyone happy. So I'll call it an assertion, but I know it's more than that. The observations he made regarding how we learn words are very accurate. The reason he felt that the eyes are not a sense organ is because of this ability to project words onto a screen which allows this conditioning to take place. In other words, how can words be projected as slides onto a screen of the outside world (which the brain then photographs and records), if the eyes are a sense organ? There is a discrepency here.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Optical illusions are tricks of the brain that make something appear real when it's only an illusion. Optical illusions are characterized by visually (or optically) perceived images that differ from objective reality. In other words, they can use color, light and patterns to create images that can be deceptive or misleading to our brains.

Rainbows, asterism and color change in gemstones are not optical illusions, they are objectively verifiable, and predictable phenomena based on the properties of light and how our eyes and brain work to allow sight.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

I am getting at your explanation does not coherently explain how we see things like rainbows. The theory is incomplete and incoherent. You believe it warrants further investigation. Can you defend the theory and the call for investigation?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You've obviously never had much experience with sight hounds.
.

When I was young my brother and I each had a dog. His was a Bench Legged Beagle named 'Nick', Mine was a Beagle mix named 'Brownie'. One day they were both chasing a rabbit thru an oat field and Nick, who was a scent hound, had gone ahead and you could see the oats moving as he went thru. Brownie, a sight hound, was following and would repetedly jump up to look ahead and see where Nick was so she could follow. Nick hunted with his nose to the ground and Brownie hunted by looking ahead.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But this has nothing to do with the FACT that dogs cannot recognize their masters by sight alone. They must use other sense experience (smell, sound, movement, etc.) to make a positive identification.

What makes you believe that is a fact?

Dogs eyes are different than ours, IIRC they detect colors differently. As we have heard about birds already, some animals can see parts of the spectrum we can't. I wouldn't be surprised if dogs do not see photographs as we do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

What? Do you think that planets and moons maliciously speed up and slow down in their orbits as necessary, merely to fool us into thinking that there's a delay between something happening and our seeing it?

And you haven't addressed the fact that you've directly contradicted yourself. Are you conceding now that there is a delay imposed by the finite speed of light, or are you going back to denying it?

I'm not thinking anything. I'm just wondering if there is another explanation, that's all. If there isn't, and the delay is due to the finite speed of light, so be it. I'm not here to defend Lessans unless there is proof that his observations are correct. I'm trying to reconcile the discrepency between his accurate findings regarding how the brain works when it comes to learning words, and the belief that the eyes are afferent.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What makes you believe that is a fact?

Dogs eyes are different than ours, IIRC they detect colors differently. As we have heard about birds already, some animals can see parts of the spectrum we can't. I wouldn't be surprised if dogs do not see photographs as we do.

Well at least we agree on this. By the same token, I maintain that a dog cannot identify his master in a line up just through facial features alone because this is similar to recognizing his master in a picture. The reason I believe dogs can't do this is because they are limited in their ability to establish relationships between objects and sounds which get photographed and recorded in the brain for retrieval. So when they are looking at the different people in a line up or a picture, they can't distinguish one from the other because they don't have that particular photograph stored in their memory.

[LadyShea]

I have not vetted this citation yet, but want to throw it out there for further investigation

A study released in November of 2007 busts that myth wide open. A research group led by Friederike Range, Dept. of Neurobiology and Cognition Research, University of Vienna, Austria, studied the ability of dogs to recognize computer images.

Here’s what they did: First, they taught four dogs to discriminate between photographs of dogs or photos of landscapes on a computer monitor, using 40 different pictures of each type. They rewarded the dogs with a food treat each time they selected a dog picture instead of a landscape. Then, they conducted a two-part experiment.

In part one, they asked the test dogs to choose between pictures of landscapes or dogs, but this time they used new photos, not the ones the dogs had been trained on. The dogs were able to correctly select the dog pictures, demonstrating that they recognized the category differences.

[The Lone Ranger]

You could easily do a little research to test your ideas, you know.

It has been experimentally verified that dogs can recognize and categorize objects in photographs. See, for instance, Kaminski, J., S. Templeman, J. Call and M. Tomasello. 2009. Domestic dogs comprehend human communication with iconic signs. Developmental Science, volume 12. pp. 831 - 837.


Similarly, it has been experimentally verified that dogs can recognize their masters' faces. See, for instance, Paolo Mongillo, Gabriele Bono, Lucia Regolin, and Lieta Marinelli. 2010. Selective attention to humans in companion dogs, Canis familiaris. Animal Behaviour. volume 80(6), pp. 1057 - 1063.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I used the word theory to make everyone happy. So I'll call it an assertion, but I know it's more than that. The observations he made regarding how we learn words are very accurate. The reason he felt that the eyes are not a sense organ is because of this ability to project words onto a screen which allows this conditioning to take place. In other words, how can words be projected as slides onto a screen of the outside world (which the brain then photographs and records), if the eyes are a sense organ? There is a discrepency here.

Where is the discrepancy?

Incidentally, Lessans may be passing this off as his personal observation and discovery, but we have been going round and round this merry-go-round since Berkeley.