A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[

Time will tell if he was incorrect. We need to do more specific testing, but should that discount all that he has written because you are not sure of this particular claim?

specious_reasons did say "not sure of this particular claim." Rather, the words were that the claim was egregioiusly incorrect. We know how the eye and vision work. Lessans was wrong.

First of all, you don't know yet whether this is a tragic flaw or not. How can you say the book is tarnished because of his claim that the eyes are not a sense organ, until we get further proof one way or another? Even Einstein was wrong on one of his theories. He said it was the worst mistake of his career, but you don't give up on Einstein because of that one mistake, do you?

We know that the author was wrong about light and vision.

Einstein's "worst mistake," he said, was positing the cosmological constant. And then lo and behold, later, it turns out that there is a cosmological constant, so Einstein was right after all. Actually, Einstein's worst mistake was opposing the quantum theory that he helped create. (Quantum theory, by the way, also disproves Lessan's claims about photons.)

But the Einstein allusion is misplaced (in lots of ways! Lessans is not Socrates and he sure ain't Einstein).

Einstein's theory of relativity did not depend on whether or not there was a cosmological constant. But so far as I am able to tell, Lessan's whole body of "thought" that follows depends on his claims about vision and light. But his claims about vision and light are proven to be wrong. Therefore, if the conclusion of his argument follows from a faulty premise, the argument is formally unsound, which means his whole body of thought is wrong.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yup, this phrase gets lost in the translation unless clarified, yet everyone thinks they know what he means.

Those who actually bother to study the texts and languages do.

People unlike Lessans. . . .

--J.D.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, if we're in the dark and the lights are suddenly turned on, the pupils are going to have a delay in closing quick enough. But I was talking about whether the pupils could still react to light that is being reflected off of a distant object, and whether the property of light would cause a reaction in the pupils even if it wasn't directly impinging.

If your eyes are dark-adapted and you then step out into bright light, the main reason you're partially blinded for several moments is due to the photoreceptors of the retina. The pupillary response takes less than a second. But it takes quite a bit longer for dark-adapted photoreceptors to adjust to bright light.

The pupillary response, by the way, depends on having at least partially-intact optic nerves. As impulses are relayed via the optic nerve to the brain, some of those impulses are relayed to the reflex centers in the brain that regulate contraction of the iris diaphragm muscles in the eye. Nerves other than the optic nerves relay impulses from the brain reflex centers to the iris diaphragm (but not to the retina, by the way); the impulses relayed by these efferent nerve fibers regulate contraction and relaxation of the iris muscles, and thus pupil diameter.

The pupil is not a physical thing, per se; it's the opening in the iris that allows light to pass into the posterior portion of the eye -- to the lens, through the vitreous humor, and ultimately to the retina. That's why contraction/relaxation of the iris muscles affects the size of the pupil, and thus how much light passes into the posterior portion of the eye.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I do, and all you had to say is that I misinterpreted what you meant instead of going into this ongoing harangue that I am being dishonest.

I'm trying to.

I understand that people are trying to convince me that there is no possibility that an alternate claim regarding the eyes could be correct. I get that, but I'm still not convinced. Why can't you wait until further testing is completed? I feel like I'm a broken record.

You told me I am a liar and I'm dishonest on more than one occasion. Don't tell me now that you didn't say this. On top of it you are on the verge of calling me dumb, an idiot, and stupid. That's not the way to have a discussion.

Your logic doesn't follow that my presentation supports the idea that I have these characteristics. You know these names are hurtful, therefore your conscience must have a justification to call me these names.

I clarified how Lessans was using the word scientific way back in this thread. I know what the scientific method is. I know what empirical data is. At this point it's all semantics.

I don't remember anyone giving me a question such as: "If Lessans' ideas are correct, how do you explain [x]? The entire book is to show how this knowledge extends into every area of human relation (I would call that 'new situations', wouldn't you?) So I really have no idea what you mean when you say I am not using higher order thinking. How can I answer someone whose questions indicate to me that they don't even understand the two-sided equation which is necessary for further understanding. But everyone will tell me that people do understand, they just don't agree.

You are trying very hard to make me look like I am not a capable thinker (or capable of higher order thinking, as you put it), so my presentation is unsupportable. That comment is unsupportable.

I can feel your frustration but I will say, once again, that I can't move forward unless people can go along [at least temporarily] as if his premises are correct. I have bent over backwards to help people grasp these principles.

I can't change the word scientific if that's what you are referring to. But I have learned many of the terms in philosophy and I will keep learning. I have no problem with that.

I realize that. I didn't come on this thread to be put down and mocked. I came to share something whether people believe it's true, or not. If they want to look at me as a nut case, I really don't care at this point, but I do care when people mock Lessans or name call. Those people know who they are, and they just will be ignored for the rest of the time I'm here.

I've stated this already. It was more his understanding of how the brain uses words than it was his study of light that allowed him to come to these conclusions. It was coming in the back door, so to speak. It was an indirect finding.

* wildernesse doing her part to get this thread to 100 pages.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The pupillary response, by the way, depends on having at least partially-intact optic nerves.

I was just about to [Pontificate--Ed.] on how stimulation and impairment of the reflex at different points along the arc--rather interesting pathway fun to whack creationists with . . . not that you really want to whack off crea[Get on with it!--Ed.]--merely underscores light stimulation of the retina as the "starting point" of the reflex.

But peacegirl is not reading any of this anyways, so why bother

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Why don't you address the substance of the post I linked to -- that you were inviting people to send you money to change the contents of Daddy's book!

Because they were telling me to change certain things, and I said give me the money just like I said to the people in here who said I should take certain things out, and rearrange things. People have no idea how much it costs to make changes. I don't have the link in front of me, but I know that's what I meant. Of course, you twist everything and make it look like my whole purpose is to make money.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not saying this about you personally Lone Ranger. I didn't mean to insult you at all. Actually, you are being more fair to me than many others. I also want to thank you for posting that detailed explanation as to how sight works. I will try to get through it little by little.

It isn't about me personally; it's about your false claims regarding the scientific community. The reason that people immediately suspect that someone's a crackpot the moment he or she starts saying things like "the 'mainstream scientific community' is too close-minded to accept these new findings" is because this is the first and loudest excuse that virtually every crackpot utilizes for why his or her "revolutionary" claims aren't being accepted by the scientific community.

But it's a false claim and it reveals complete ignorance (very likely willful ignorance) of how science works.

First, as has already been pointed out, the modern scientific community has proved itself very wiling to accept new and even truly revolutionary concepts. The one stipulation is that the presenter(s) of these new concepts must provide convincing evidence for those concepts.

Second, the surest way to gain respect and admiration in the scientific community is to discover something previously unknown -- by showing that something that we thought was true is actually false, for instance. Far from being some sort of close-minded automaton who refuses to accept new concepts, pretty-much every working scientist is someone who lives for the dream of making some sort of ground-breaking, paradigm-shattering discovery.

But, as has been repeatedly pointed out, before your peers in the scientific community will accept your findings, you must provide convincing evidence for them. And ideally, others must be able to replicate your studies and confirm your findings for themselves.


[ETA: Sorry, Doctor X!]

[specious_reasons]

My oldest dog is 15 and he's stone deaf. Sometimes, when we're driving home, we'll see him looking out the side window of our front door. When we go inside the house, he'll be waiting for us at the garage door. He must smell us from the car.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

[ETA: Sorry, Doctor X!]

--J.D.

P.S. People interested in this sort of thing would do well to enjoy Gardner's Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, and Robert Park's Voodoo Science. Both demonstrate what happens when you cease applying proper scientific methods. As I have often [Blathered--Ed.], "SCIENCE!," "critical thinking," "skepticism," all of that are processes and not attributes. One either does science, or one does not. A "scientist" who does not follow proper scientific methods is not doing science. Period.

Heck, might as well post Park's identifiers of Voodoo Science.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

If your eyes are dark-adapted and you then step out into bright light, the main reason you're partially blinded for several moments is due to the photoreceptors of the retina. The pupillary response takes less than a second. But it takes quite a bit longer for dark-adapted photoreceptors to adjust to bright light.

The pupillary response, by the way, depends on having at least partially-intact optic nerves. As impulses are relayed via the optic nerve to the brain, some of those impulses are relayed to the reflex centers in the brain that regulate contraction of the iris diaphragm muscles in the eye. Nerves other than the optic nerves relay impulses from the brain reflex centers to the iris diaphragm (but not to the retina, by the way); the impulses relayed by these efferent nerve fibers regulate contraction and relaxation of the iris muscles, and thus pupil diameter.

The pupil is not a physical thing, per se; it's the opening in the iris that allows light to pass into the posterior portion of the eye -- to the lens, through the vitreous humor, and ultimately to the retina. That's why contraction/relaxation of the iris muscles affects the size of the pupil, and thus how much light passes into the posterior portion of the eye.

I read what you just wrote, and it makes a lot of sense. I didn't know that the pulillary response needs a partially intact optic nerve in order to contract and dilate. This is a real education for me as well. I don't want to give anyone the impression that I am conveniently ignoring evidence that proves light has to impinge on the optic nerve for certain responses to occur within the eye. I can see how that would make people very angry. I still maintain that this does not negate the possibility that the eyes are efferent. I know you say there are no efferent fibers in the optic nerve for this to even occur. I don't know how to answer that because I don't know the mechanism as to how the brain focusses the eyes in order to see (if Lessans is right). Until more empirical testing is done, this issue will not be resolved to my satisfaction. But for now, I think this discussion on the eyes has run its course. I'm sure you feel the same way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

My oldest dog is 15 and he's stone deaf. Sometimes, when we're driving home, we'll see him looking out the side window of our front door. When we go inside the house, he'll be waiting for us at the garage door. He must smell us from the car.

I don't know how dogs can do that (and I don't claim to know ), but I've seen my son's dog get excited when my son is 4 blocks away. The dog seems to know that he is on his way home. So interesting.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It isn't about me personally; it's about your false claims regarding the scientific community. The reason that people immediately suspect that someone's a crackpot the moment he or she starts saying things like "the 'mainstream scientific community' is too close-minded to accept these new findings" is because this is the first and loudest excuse that virtually every crackpot utilizes for why his or her "revolutionary" claims aren't being accepted by the scientific community.

But it's a false claim and it reveals complete ignorance (very likely willful ignorance) of how science works.

First, as has already been pointed out, the modern scientific community has proved itself very wiling to accept new and even truly revolutionary concepts. The one stipulation is that the presenter(s) of these new concepts must provide convincing evidence for those concepts.

Second, the surest way to gain respect and admiration in the scientific community is to discover something previously unknown -- by showing that something that we thought was true is actually false, for instance. Far from being some sort of close-minded automaton who refuses to accept new concepts, pretty-much every working scientist is someone who lives for the dream of making some sort of ground-breaking, paradigm-shattering discovery.

But, as has been repeatedly pointed out, before your peers in the scientific community will accept your findings, you must provide convincing evidence for them. And ideally, others must be able to replicate your studies and confirm your findings for themselves.


[ETA: Sorry, Doctor X!]

I agree wholeheartedly. But unfortunately Lessans findings were not done through the scientific method meaning that he did not form a hypothesis first, and then confirm it through empirical testing. That's the problem in a nutshell. His findings came strictly from observation and reasoning, and I know that unless his observations were correct, and unless his reasoning was perfectly sound, there would be room for error. I am not sure how to get over this hump. I want there to be more testing where it's possible to do so because I know that he was right about man's will and the role of conscience. As far as the eyes, I would love to find out whether he was right about how babies begin to focus. The problem is that people claim the muscles in the eyes are not developed, but Lessans said that was not the reason. These claims are not easy to test, but not impossible either.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to.

Saying so doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that people are trying to convince me that there is no possibility that an alternate claim regarding the eyes could be correct. I get that, but I'm still not convinced. Why can't you wait until further testing is completed? I feel like I'm a broken record.

We are convinced that the current state of knowledge is complete to a point that the alternative you present is unworkable. You have not provided any reason that the current state of knowledge has gaps, or that your alternative better explains what we already know.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You told me I am a liar and I'm dishonest on more than one occasion. Don't tell me now that you didn't say this. On top of it you are on the verge of calling me dumb, an idiot, and stupid. That's not the way to have a discussion.

Yes, I have said you were lying and being dishonest. I have not said [you are lying and dishonest, therefore you are not presenting anything of value]. What is inside the brackets is an entire idea, which is relevant to the topic of whether I am using an ad hom attack.

If I did express the idea within the brackets, it might be an ad hom attack. You said I was being dishonest, which I disputed. I thought you might be implying that I was using an ad hom attack (otherwise the only way I was being dishonest is if I agree with your idea, but don't want other people to know this and therefore call you names--this is not the case), but I do not believe I am using an ad hom either. You have not shown that I am either dishonest or using an ad hom attack.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your logic doesn't follow that my presentation supports the idea that I have these characteristics. You know these names are hurtful, therefore your conscience must have a justification to call me these names.

Saying so doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by peacegir

lI clarified how Lessans was using the word scientific way back in this thread. I know what the scientific method is. I know what empirical data is. At this point it's all semantics.

Saying so doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't remember anyone giving me a question such as: "If Lessans' ideas are correct, how do you explain [x]?

In just the last few posts, specious_reasons has asked how you think a camera works according to Lessans' ideas about light. Every example provided that shows how the current understanding of sight and light has generally been matched with an invitation for you to show how it would work if Lessans' ideas are true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The entire book is to show how this knowledge extends into every area of human relation (I would call that 'new situations', wouldn't you?)

Well, saying so doesn't make it so. It may purport to do so, but it does not necessarily provide any reasons why. And even if it did, this would not support YOU having higher order thinking skills. In order for YOU to have higher order thinking skills, you would need to apply what you have learned to new situations and examples. You have not done so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are trying very hard to make me look like I am not a capable thinker (or capable of higher order thinking, as you put it), so my presentation is unsupportable. That comment is unsupportable.

My point in using the first grader as an example was to show that even a person not capable of those skills WOULD be able to present valuable information. Therefore, I was not saying that the book's information was unsupportable because of your characteristics and your claim that I was making an ad hom attack was not supported.

Instead, you concluded nearly the exact opposite of what I wrote. You were unable to understand my example, which is evidence that you may not have strong higher order thinking skills. In other words, the idea [peacegirl does not have higher order thinking skills] is supported by your interpretation (or lack thereof) of my example and you are wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can feel your frustration but I will say, once again, that I can't move forward unless people can go along [at least temporarily] as if his premises are correct. I have bent over backwards to help people grasp these principles.

Other people in this thread, such as LadyShea, have been able to agree to certain of the principles you wish to discuss. You still have not been able to make progress.

Others have provided examples of how you could move forward with your presentation, but have chosen not to. Instead, you blame us for your inability.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize that. I didn't come on this thread to be put down and mocked. I came to share something whether people believe it's true, or not. If they want to look at me as a nut case, I really don't care at this point, but I do care when people mock Lessans or name call. Those people know who they are, and they just will be ignored for the rest of the time I'm here.

You are able to share the information and no one is stopping you from doing that. Your past behavior has also not shown that you will ignore anyone. You haven't ignored me and you are still responding to davidm after making similar threats.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've stated this already. It was more his understanding of how the brain uses words than it was his study of light that allowed him to come to these conclusions. It was coming in the back door, so to speak. It was an indirect finding.

This is almost entirely nonresponsive to what I wrote, which is pretty funny. Do you believe that it is possible for Lessans to have not realized he was wrong? That is a yes or no question!

* wildernesse doing her part to get this thread to 100 pages.

[Doctor X]

Taken from his essay posted on the equally wonderful QuackWatch:

Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.

The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists.

One notorious example is the claim made in 1989 by two chemists from the University of Utah, B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, that they had discovered cold fusion—a way to produce nuclear fusion without expensive equipment. Scientists did not learn of the claim until they read reports of a news conference. Moreover, the announcement dealt largely with the economic potential of the discovery and was devoid of the sort of details that might have enabled other scientists to judge the strength of the claim or to repeat the experiment. . . .

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.

. . . Claims that the oil companies are frustrating the invention of an automobile that runs on water, for instance, are a sure sign that the idea of such a car is baloney. In the case of cold fusion, Pons and Fleischmann blamed their cold reception on physicists who were protecting their own research in hot fusion.

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.

Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster. All scientific measurements must contend with some level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect is probably not real and the work is not science.

Thousands of published papers in para-psychology, for example, claim to report verified instances of telepathy, psychokinesis, or precognition. But those effects show up only in tortured analyses of statistics. The researchers can find no way to boost the signal, which suggests that it isn't really there.

4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.

If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence. . . . Contrary to the saying, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote."

5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.

There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed "alternative medicine" is part of that myth. . . .

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.

The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists.

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.

Linkypoo

"Let us review the catechism!" How does peacegirl's "discovery" fair with the Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science [Available on Blue Ray!--Ed.]

• 1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. CHECK!
  
  Hence self-published books, spaming fora with threads lauding the "discovery." Nothing published in peer-reviewed literature.
  
  
  2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. CHECK!
  
  
  3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection. CHECK!
  
  Cannot find evidence of that "efferent" optic nerve!
  
  
  4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal. Not Applicable--she presented NO evidence.
  
  
  5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries. She misses this one since it is "new"
  
  
  6. The discoverer has worked in isolation. CHECK!
  
  
  7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation. CHECK! CHECK! CHECK!
  
  She has to propose new laws of basic physics, change neuroanatomy and physiology, change behavior, et cetera.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree wholeheartedly. But unfortunately Lessans findings were not done through the scientific method meaning that he did not form a hypothesis first, and then confirm it through empirical testing.

That is a clear indication they are bogus.

. . . and I know that unless his observations were correct, and unless his reasoning was perfectly sound, there would be room for error.

They were not and it was not.

I want there to be more testing. . . .

Do not need to: we already know the fundamentals of vision and have known that claims like his were wrong for over a hundred years.

. . . because I know that he was right about man's will and the role of conscience.

No, you do not

--J.D.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is assuming that the information is coming into the brain. Don't you see this interpretation could be based on a falsity? I am ready to give up, and it's so sad to me because I do like everyone here and I believe they are sincere and trying to decipher fraud from truth. But I am just at a loss how to continue.

I already showed you why the information cannot come from the brain - we would not be able to see different individuals, but ideal projections in stead. Also we need to figure out where the initial "photograph" comes from - what is being recorded without information coming into the brain through the eyes?

Nor would we be able to see out of a window that is sound and smell proofed where we do not know what to expect - while in fact, if a sound-and smellproof situation where we see nothing at first because it is dark (outside! Not inside! Plenty of light in here with us to enable us to see!) and then flood a garden outside the window with light, we can see individual plants.

This is impossible without information coming into the brain through the eyes! All we have done is flood the garden outside with light - we have changed nothing else. This experiment happens every nigh in my house when my automatic floodlight get triggered. Sometimes there is a fox there - sometimes there is not.

How does this happen without information traveling up the good ole optic nerve? How do we see individuals? Where do the original "photographs" come from? Not only is this part of the theory unsupported, it is internally inconsistent. Even if you assume it is correct, it does not work.

[davidm]

As I pointed out to Peacegirl many pages ago, if Lessan's claims were correct, no one could participate on a message board. How could anyone see what anyone else is writing?

For Lessans' claim seems to be that the other four senses build up a picture in the mind, which then is "projected" (somehow!) on a "screen" (which unfortunately doesn't exist.)

So, Peacegirl, how is the picture of the other posts people write, as well as the graphical interface of the message board, being built in the mind, if light is carrying no information? If you require the other senses to carry the information to build the "picture" that is then "projected," you are out of luck. You can't hear this message board. You can't taste it. You can't feel it. You can't smell it. So, ergo, if Lessans were right, the whole Intertubes wouldn't work! No one could see (project!) a damned thing.

But, as it happens, Lessans is wrong, and the way that eyes and brains see has been explained to you. Q.E.D.

[Vivisectus]

Also, amusingly - if Lessans theory of sight is correct, we would see the sun explode before it happens, since the information will travel towards us at a speed that is faster than light

But hang on - that means time travel is possible, and we can go back and check if will is free...

[Doctor X]

You know . . . you astrology-types could post what happens during a Solar eclipse. . . .

--J.D.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But those are the variables that have to be isolated in order to know the truth.

Why does one variable have a relevance to whether the dog's vision is a sense, and the other one does not?

You have simply stated that they are different, but given no justification for why one works and not the other.

I suspect the reason is that saying that one of them doesn't work allows you to squirm your way out of admitting that that video alone proves you wrong (of course, the scientific studies that The Lone Ranger posted also prove you wrong, but reading science is hard!)

No they are not.

And why is that?

Maybe I wasn't clear. I admit I might have confused people, but now I'm saying that it was the facial features, without any interference, that would allow us to know what is going on.

Pathetic.

I know all about rounding out the test results so that some get A's when they don't understand a thing about their answers. That's not what is going on here erimir.

You didn't even understand my analogy.

The point was that it was all math. Claiming that the test is invalid because it has negative answers on it is idiotic, because those are still math questions!

Just like you're trying to claim that because he was wearing a hat, that means that the dog recognizing him didn't use sight! It's idiotic! It's still using the sense of sight.

I am not eliminating the variables that have direct input. I am just eliminating the variables that would ruin the experiment. Don't you see the difference?

The hat was still distinguished by sight.

Unless you're claiming that the dog ignored the actual scent of his master (you know, coming from his body odor) and instead only paid attention to the scent of his hat. Which would be stupid.

They are different, sorry. An image that is seen as a simple outline is not the same as something as difficult as features of an owner. We need to determine whether a dog could identify his owner without any other sense experience. What is so difficult about this?

Because an outline is still seen by the sense of sight. And you have given no reason to think otherwise.

Evidence has been given to you. You have chosen to ignore it (in the case of the studies The Lone Ranger posted) or to flail about making arbitrary and irrelevant changes to your arguments in an attempt to invalidate the evidence.

Meanwhile, you have given NO evidence, yet you steadfastly believe that your dad's view is correct. You have given NO evidence, yet you think we should all accept your dad's view, or pretend it has any plausibility given that all the evidence is against him.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

specious_reasons did say "not sure of this particular claim." Rather, the words were that the claim was egregioiusly incorrect. We know how the eye and vision work. Lessans was wrong.

We know that the author was wrong about light and vision.

Einstein's "worst mistake," he said, was positing the cosmological constant. And then lo and behold, later, it turns out that there is a cosmological constant, so Einstein was right after all. Actually, Einstein's worst mistake was opposing the quantum theory that he helped create. (Quantum theory, by the way, also disproves Lessan's claims about photons.)

But the Einstein allusion is misplaced (in lots of ways! Lessans is not Socrates and he sure ain't Einstein).

Einstein's theory of relativity did not depend on whether or not there was a cosmological constant. But so far as I am able to tell, Lessan's whole body of "thought" that follows depends on his claims about vision and light. But his claims about vision and light are proven to be wrong. Therefore, if the conclusion of his argument follows from a faulty premise, the argument is formally unsound, which means his whole body of thought is wrong.

That's exactly right. That is why it's not even worth talking unless his premise is found to be correct. The only way to even consider that there is something to his claim is if empirical testing supports it.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

You know . . . you astrology-types could post what happens during a Solar eclipse. . . .

--J.D.

Fucking shadows, how do they work?

[peacegirl]

[quote=erimir;936483]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But those are the variables that have to be isolated in order to know the truth.

Why does one variable have a relevance to whether the dog's vision is a sense, and the other one does not?

You have simply stated that they are different, but given no justification for why one works and not the other.

I suspect the reason is that saying that one of them doesn't work allows you to squirm your way out of admitting that that video alone proves you wrong (of course, the scientific studies that The Lone Ranger posted also prove you wrong, but reading science is hard!)

Originally Posted by erimir

There is no reason. They are both distinguishing by sight.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No they are not.

Originally Posted by erimir

And why is that?

Maybe I wasn't clear. I admit I might have confused people, but now I'm saying that it was the facial features, without any interference, that would allow us to know what is going on.

Originally Posted by erimir

Pathetic.

I know all about rounding out the test results so that some get A's when they don't understand a thing about their answers. That's not what is going on here erimir.

Originally Posted by erimir

You didn't even understand my analogy.

The point was that it was all math. Claiming that the test is invalid because it has negative answers on it is idiotic, because those are still math questions!

Just like you're trying to claim that because he was wearing a hat, that means that the dog recognizing him didn't use sight! It's idiotic! It's still using the sense of sight.

I am not eliminating the variables that have direct input. I am just eliminating the variables that would ruin the experiment. Don't you see the difference?

Originally Posted by erimir

The hat was still distinguished by sight.

Animals can notice shapes, colors, and movement. They can even identify objects when someone calls out the name of the object. That was shown in here. But that does not mean the detailed features of a dog's owner can be identified through sight alone. Lessans explained why.

At a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste,
touch and smell, but photographs the objects involved which
develops a negative of the relation whereas the brain of a dog is
incapable of this. When he sees the features of his master without
any accompanying sound or smell he cannot identify because no
photograph was taken. A dog identifies predominantly through his
sense of sound and smell and what he sees is in relation to these
sense experiences, just as we identify most of the differences that
exist through words and names. If the negative plate on which the
relation is formed is temporarily disconnected — in man’s case the
words or names, and in the dog’s case the sounds and smells —
both have a case of amnesia. This gives conclusive evidence as to
why an animal cannot identify too well with his eyes.

Originally Posted by erimir

Unless you're claiming that the dog ignored the actual scent of his master (you know, coming from his body odor) and instead only paid attention to the scent of his hat. Which would be stupid.

They are different, sorry. An image that is seen as a simple outline is not the same as something as difficult as features of an owner. We need to determine whether a dog could identify his owner without any other sense experience. What is so difficult about this?

Originally Posted by erimir

Because an outline is still seen by the sense of sight. And you have given no reason to think otherwise.

Evidence has been given to you. You have chosen to ignore it (in the case of the studies The Lone Ranger posted) or to flail about making arbitrary and irrelevant changes to your arguments in an attempt to invalidate the evidence.

Meanwhile, you have given NO evidence, yet you steadfastly believe that your dad's view is correct. You have given NO evidence, yet you think we should all accept your dad's view, or pretend it has any plausibility given that all the evidence is against him.

It does have plausibility but to prove it I must supply more empirical evidence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, amusingly - if Lessans theory of sight is correct, we would see the sun explode before it happens, since the information will travel towards us at a speed that is faster than light

But hang on - that means time travel is possible, and we can go back and check if will is free...

Vivisectus, please don't be like david and twist everything. IF his premise was correct, there would be no information in the light. There would only be information from the light's reflection off of the object that is seen directly. We would be seeing the sun explode as it happens, not before and not after.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's exactly right. That is why it's not even worth talking unless his premise is found to be correct.

And since it was found to be incorrect . . .

--J.D.