A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Poor kitteh

It didn't look like the cat was in pain. If it was inhumane in any way, I wouldn't suggest replicating this experiment under any condition.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Yeah, you can't help but feel sorry for the poor kitty.

In the study davidm references, electrodes were implanted in cats' thalami. (The thalamus acts as a kind of "routing station" for the brain, routing incoming sensory data to the appropriate region of the cortex for processing and interpretation.)

Experiments in which electrodes are implanted directly into cats' visual cortexes to see how they interpret visual data and construct images have been done since the late 1950s. These studies have given us a fairly detailed understanding of how the visual cortex processes incoming visual data to construct images. Different banks of neurons in the visual cortex respond to different things, of course (some respond strongly to movement, for example), but one thing they tend to respond strongly to are lines. And different neurons respond to lines that are at different angles.

So, one important component to how the visual cortex interprets visual data and uses it to construct images is that it apparently breaks the incoming visual data down into a series of lines at different orientations to each other, and then uses these lines to reconstruct an image. It's quite a fascinating subject, really. Contrary to what peacegirl claims to believe, there have been quite a number of studies regarding how the brain processes visual data, and they've provided a fairly detailed description of how our brains use impulses from the optic nerve to reconstruct images.

Your explanation sounds very sketchy. From what I've gathered there is data that shows a series of lines. To make a leap and say that the brain uses these lines to reconstruct an image is saying nothing more than "the brain reconstructs an image". This still falls within the realm of theory.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The results of these studies are carefully hidden in things called scientific journals, which are themselves cleverly concealed in places called libraries.

Some studies are valid and some aren't. It all depends on the criteria used, which are not the same in all cases. Just because a study is in a scientific journal does not give it automatic credibility. I'm wondering why a scientific journal would include observation, description and analysis as part of their criteria, and no one here will give him a chance. Doesn't that tell you something?

Since all scientific research involves observation, description and analysis, points made in this article are applicable to historical and descriptive, as well as to experimental, research.

How to write a scholarly research report. Rudner, Lawrence M. & William D. Schafer

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was not a clear representation of the man. The guy even said he couldn't help but think the image looked catlike. It could be that the cat's skeleton was being scanned, not the man's face. Did they replicate this study to confirm their hunch? Did they perform the study on other animals?

That image was created by a computer that was detecting ONLY neural impulses in the cat's brain as coming from the optic nerve as per TLR's description (Bolded in blue above)

Scanning the cat's skeleton, WTF? You don't even understand how the experiment was set up, do you?

The team used an array of electrodes embedded in the thalamus (which integrates all of the brain’s sensory input) of sharp-eyed cats. Researchers targeted 177 brain cells in the thalamus lateral geniculate nucleus area, which decodes signals from the retina.

the researchers decoded the signals to generate movies of what the cats saw and were able to reconstruct recognizable scenes and moving objects

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

NA, from what we gathered previously, if your first group of 3 on line one is ABC then no other group of 3 on any line can use AB, AC, or BC together again

You are right. The first line begins:

ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO

There are six lines that follow and no letter is twice with the same letter. Thanks for clarifying this LadyShea.

[But]

Does "with the same letter" mean in the same group of three or adjacent and in the same group of three? Is, for example, AEC allowed in the second line?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by But

Does "with the same letter" mean in the same group of three or adjacent and in the same group of three? Is, for example, AEC allowed in the second line?

From my understanding the last time we tried to clarify the puzzle's rules, AC can never be used again in any group of 3 on any line. so AEC would not be allowed if ABC was already used

So if you had

ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO

as the first line, you can never use any of those letter combinations in a group of 3 again. So no AC, BC, or AB, no DE, DF, or EF etc. but you could use ADG once

[But]

And this equally divided thing probably means there has to be the same number of each letter, I guess?

[LadyShea]

Right, 7 of each letter, arranged in groups of 3. The puzzle states 7 lines of 5 groups, but this seems extraneous. If you have 35 groups of 3, with no repeated pairings, it doesn't matter how they're arranged.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That image was created by a computer that was detecting ONLY neural impulses in the cat's brain as coming from the optic nerve as per TLR's description (Bolded in blue above)

Scanning the cat's skeleton, WTF? You don't even understand how the experiment was set up, do you?

My answer was out of frustration because it did not look like the man. Even if it did, it still does not prove that the interpretation of the image was taking place within the cat's visual cortex. The function of the thalamus is not completely understood either, or they wouldn't say "it is believed that this is how it functions." So much of this is still in the theoretical stage which leaves room for error. I will, once again, compare this to a court of law. So many times the evidence against someone appears airtight until the defense gives another explanation. All this is is circumstantial evidence. If you think this is absolute proof that we have afferent vision, you're sadly mistaken.

The thalamus has multiple functions. It is generally believed to act as a relay between a variety of subcortical areas and the cerebral cortex. In particular, every sensory system (with the exception of the olfactory system) includes a thalamic nucleus that receives sensory signals and sends them to the associated primary cortical area. For the visual system, for example, inputs from the retina are sent to the lateral geniculate nucleus of the thalamus, which in turn projects to the primary visual cortex (area V1) in the occipital lobe. The thalamus is believed to both process sensory information as well as relay it—each of the primary sensory relay areas receives strong "back projections" from the cerebral cortex. Thalamus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The team used an array of electrodes embedded in the thalamus (which integrates all of the brain’s sensory input) of sharp-eyed cats.

How do you differentiate between a sharp-eyed cat and a dull-eyed cat?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Researchers targeted 177 brain cells in the thalamus lateral geniculate nucleus area, which decodes signals from the retina.

the researchers decoded the signals to generate movies of what the cats saw and were able to reconstruct recognizable scenes and moving objects

That sounds interesting. Could you link me to the actual experiment?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Right, 7 of each letter, arranged in groups of 3. The puzzle states 7 lines of 5 groups, but this seems extraneous. If you have 35 groups of 3, with no repeated pairings, it doesn't matter how they're arranged.

Sure, you could spread it out horizontally or any other way and still come up with the right answer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

From my understanding the last time we tried to clarify the puzzle's rules, AC can never be used again in any group of 3 on any line. so AEC would not be allowed if ABC was already used

So if you had

ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO

as the first line, you can never use any of those letter combinations in a group of 3 again. So no AC, BC, or AB, no DE, DF, or EF etc. but you could use ADG once

Exactly! I'm glad you are helping me to clarify this.

[LadyShea]

Even if it did, it still does not prove that the interpretation of the image was taking place within the cat's visual cortex.

They decoded impulses in the cat's brain and came up with a video that closely mimicked the video the cat was watching.

OMG I can't imagine any clearer evidence than that indicating that brains use impulses to create images.

As for absolute proof, how many times have we had to tell you that proof is not used in science nor is it something most of us science minded folks even consider possible let alone seek? Evidence, a preponderance of evidence, all current evidence, so far undisputed evidence, etc. are all acceptable terms.

That sounds interesting. Could you link me to the actual experiment?

That video was of the actual experiment and the copy I quoted was from the video description

Here is the citation, you would have to view the full experiment in the Journal, as with most published studies only the summary is available online for free. Wiki and other places refer to it.

"Reconstruction of natural scenes from ensemble responses in the lateral geniculate nucleus." Journal of Neuroscience 19 (18): 8036–42. PMID 10479703.

How do you differentiate between a sharp-eyed cat and a dull-eyed cat?

I think this term was merely descriptive of cats eye-sight in general, not differentiating between individual cats.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your explanation sounds very sketchy.

Do you really think I'm going to waste hours of time writing up a more detailed description that you won't even bother to read?

From what I've gathered there is data that shows a series of lines. To make a leap and say that the brain uses these lines to reconstruct an image is saying nothing more than "the brain reconstructs an image". This still falls within the realm of theory.

Well, you're displaying your ignorance again then. You could do something radical and go read the papers yourself. There are quite a lot of them, and they go back more than 50 years, and they do indeed provide a rather detailed description of how the visual cortex interprets impulses from the optic nerve.

Some studies are valid and some aren't. It all depends on the criteria used, which are not the same in all cases. Just because a study is in a scientific journal does not give it automatic credibility. I'm wondering why a scientific journal would include observation, description and analysis as part of their criteria, and no one here will give him a chance. Doesn't that tell you something?

Why yes it does. It tells me that you have no idea at all what you're talking about, but that you won't admit it.

That was not a clear representation of the man. The guy even said he couldn't help but think the image looked catlike.

They used only 177 electrodes. If you sampled only 177 pixels from your computer screen, you could probably get a crude idea of what the original display looked like, but it sure wouldn't be a very detailed picture. If the researchers had implanted more and smaller electrodes, they could have gotten a more detailed representation of what the cat was seeing.

It could be that the cat's skeleton was being scanned, not the man's face.

Okay, I really don't like to use smileys, but this demands one.

Did they replicate this study to confirm their hunch? Did they perform the study on other animals?

Did you miss the point where it was explained that these sorts of experiments have been conducted for over 50 years?

As an aside, somewhat similar experiments have been done with Barn Owls. What's interesting here is that the owls use their sense of hearing to build a "brain map" of their surroundings in very much the same way that cats and humans use their eyes to build brain maps of their surroundings. What's more, the owls actually use the optic tectum of the brain to create these brain maps -- from auditory data -- in much the same way that we use the optic tectum to build a brain map of the space around us with visual data.

In other words, the owls can use the visual centers of their brains to process auditory data and so build a brain map of their surroundings in much the same way that we use visual data to build brain maps. What's more, studies of neural processing in people who are blind strongly suggests that at least some humans can do the same thing -- that is, use the visual centers of their brains to process auditory data and build 3-dimensional maps of their surroundings in their brains.


And yes, when you monitor their brain activities, the appropriate neurons are activated when you see (or hear) something. That is to say, the brain literally maps out your surroundings on the cerebral cortex.

Is that neat, or what?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your explanation sounds very sketchy.

Oh, she finds it sketchy! Whatever can be done?

Hey, did you read this yet?

Oh, you didn't? Why not?

[davidm]

Hey, peacegirl, previously you admitted that the light has to be present in order to see, and that it takes a certain amount of time to arrive at the eye. This directly contradicts Daddy, when he said that if God turned on the sun at noon, people would see it instantaneously. How dare you contradict Daddy! Has your two-person cult become schismatic?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do you think the Hubble receives and records images? I mean, if cameras/telescopes etc. have to focus on "what is actually there"?

How do you explain the Deep Field photograph?

The Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (HUDF) is an image of a small region of space in the constellation Fornax, composited from Hubble Space Telescope data accumulated over a period from September 24, 2003, through to January 16, 2004. It is the deepest image of the universe ever taken,[1] looking back approximately 13 billion years (between 400 and 800 million years after the Big Bang), and it will be used to search for galaxies that existed at that time. The HUDF image was taken in a section of the sky with a low density of bright stars in the near-field, allowing much better viewing of dimmer, more distant objects. The image contains an estimated 10,000 galaxies. In August and September 2009, the Hubble's Deep Field was expanded using the infrared channel of the recently attached Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3). When combined with existing HUDF data, astronomers were able to identify a new list of potentially very distant galaxies.[2]

Please explain where this is relevant?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you understand how a charge coupled devise works?

This is what I found, but you'll have to explain where this is relevant.

A charge-coupled device (CCD) is a device for the movement of electrical charge, usually from within the device to an area where the charge can be manipulated, for example conversion into a digital value. This is achieved by "shifting" the signals between stages within the device one at a time. CCDs move charge between capacitive bins in the device, with the shift allowing for the transfer of charge between bins.
The CCD is a major technology for digital imaging. In a CCD image sensor, reverse-biased p–n junctions (essentially photodiodes) are used to absorb photons and produce charges representing sensed pixels; the CCD is used to read out these charges. Although CCDs are not the only technology to allow for light detection, CCD image sensors are widely used in professional, medical, and scientific applications where high-quality image data is required.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Right, 7 of each letter, arranged in groups of 3. The puzzle states 7 lines of 5 groups, but this seems extraneous. If you have 35 groups of 3, with no repeated pairings, it doesn't matter how they're arranged.

I don't think peacegirl understands this. But then again she never claimed to be a mathematician or a self taught scientist or much of anything other than an editor, publicist and supporter of Lessans.

And that is fine, but no matter how committed she is to Lessans I think if there is a matter she is not competent to speak on she should probably just admit that she personally doesn't know. She may say she accepts completely on the authority of Lessans his various claims but as to the details she can't say because she is neither scientist nor mathematician.

That would be a reasonable stance to take.

But I don't see her doing this, and I suspect it is a large part of what has so many people peeved. She has allowed her devotion to Lessans to cloud her ability to think critically and not pretend to be Lessans. Lessans is dead.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sure, you could spread it out horizontally or any other way and still come up with the right answer.

If you understand this then how is it that you don't understand the solution when you see it?

If you are not a mathematician you don't have to pretend you are just because you think Lessans was a mathematician.

[thedoc]

Most of the Galaxies in the deep field photos are very different from the configuration of the Galaxies we can observe close by, The explination is that these are very young Galaxies that have not had the time to stabalize into the forms we are more familiar with from close to us, and there-fore older in relation to the age of the universe. So the images we see from the Hubble are as the galaxies appeared billions of years ago, aprox.13 billion years ago, and not as they might appear now, if they still exist. Something we will not be able to see, if they still exist or not, for another few billion years or so.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (HUDF) is an image of a small region of space in the constellation Fornax, composited from Hubble Space Telescope data accumulated over a period from September 24, 2003, through to January 16, 2004. It is the deepest image of the universe ever taken,[1] looking back approximately 13 billion years (between 400 and 800 million years after the Big Bang), and it will be used to search for galaxies that existed at that time. The HUDF image was taken in a section of the sky with a low density of bright stars in the near-field, allowing much better viewing of dimmer, more distant objects. The image contains an estimated 10,000 galaxies. In August and September 2009, the Hubble's Deep Field was expanded using the infrared channel of the recently attached Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3). When combined with existing HUDF data, astronomers were able to identify a new list of potentially very distant galaxies.[2]

Please explain where this is relevant?

The looking back approximately 13 billion years part is relevant to your repeated claims that neither our eyes, nor our instruments see the past. The fact that the image was made from decoding photons gathered over 10 days is relevant to your repeated claims that cameras don't detect actual light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is what I found, but you'll have to explain where this is relevant.

A charge-coupled device (CCD) is a device for the movement of electrical charge, usually from within the device to an area where the charge can be manipulated, for example conversion into a digital value. This is achieved by "shifting" the signals between stages within the device one at a time. CCDs move charge between capacitive bins in the device, with the shift allowing for the transfer of charge between bins.
The CCD is a major technology for digital imaging. In a CCD image sensor, reverse-biased p–n junctions (essentially photodiodes) are used to absorb photons and produce charges representing sensed pixels; the CCD is used to read out these charges. Although CCDs are not the only technology to allow for light detection, CCD image sensors are widely used in professional, medical, and scientific applications where high-quality image data is required.

Again, relevant to your claims about how you think cameras and other instruments work. See Bolded

The CCD is the light detector/decoder on the Hubble.

So, what was Hubble's CCD doing, do you think, if not detecting and decoding billions year old light?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They decoded impulses in the cat's brain and came up with a video that closely mimicked the video the cat was watching.

OMG I can't imagine any clearer evidence than that indicating that brains use impulses to create images.

There is a definite pattern showing up from the impulses coming from the optic nerve. I can't dispute that.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As for absolute proof, how many times have we had to tell you that proof is not used in science nor is it something most of us science minded folks even consider possible let alone seek? Evidence, a preponderance of evidence, all current evidence, so far undisputed evidence, etc. are all acceptable terms.

And so is a preponderance of evidence in a court of law that often puts an innocent person in prison for life.

That sounds interesting. Could you link me to the actual experiment?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That video was of the actual experiment and the copy I quoted was from the video description

Okay.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here is the citation, you would have to view the full experiment in the Journal, as with most published studies only the summary is available online for free. Wiki and other places refer to it.

"Reconstruction of natural scenes from ensemble responses in the lateral geniculate nucleus." Journal of Neuroscience 19 (18): 8036–42. PMID 10479703.

So at this point there is no reason for me to refute what you believe offers "undisputed evidence" that the brain reconstructs an image from these neurons. I am not 100% convinced, but I will yield for now even though this does not put him out of the running since it does not show exactly how the brain performs this reconstruction.

How do you differentiate between a sharp-eyed cat and a dull-eyed cat?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think this term was merely descriptive of cats eye-sight in general, not differentiating between individual cats.

Fine.

[LadyShea]

And so is a preponderance of evidence in a court of law that often puts an innocent person in prison for life.

Yep, it's not perfect, but we can't have perfect because there are too many factors.

So at this point there is no reason for me to refute what you believe gives "undisputed evidence" that the brain reconstructs an image from the neurons that are coming from the optic nerve.

I didn't say undisputed evidence at all, I said "clear" evidence. I also posted a video made from a similar experiment on humans. Two very easy for anyone to see sets of findings that I find quite convincing, myself.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

From my understanding the last time we tried to clarify the puzzle's rules, AC can never be used again in any group of 3 on any line. so AEC would not be allowed if ABC was already used

So if you had

ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO

as the first line, you can never use any of those letter combinations in a group of 3 again. So no AC, BC, or AB, no DE, DF, or EF etc. but you could use ADG once

Peacegirl, is this the puzzle statement:

Arrange 7 identical groups of 15 unique letters in groups of 3 letters to produce 35 rows of three letters such that the first two letters in each row, irrespective of order, are not repeated in any other row of three.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said it did, although in all cases where a photograph is taken, the object or image of that photograph is present (the photograph is not taken from detecting light alone),

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are trying to say here. What is an "image of that photograph"? It sounds like a photo of a photo?

And if a "photograph is not taken from detecting light alone", then other than a lens forming an image, what else is involved?

even if the image is not completely in view such as the case when we see the image in a mirror.

This especially doesn't make any sense. We don't actually see an image in the mirror. We form an image with the lens in our eye that happens to include reflected light from a mirror if a mirror is present. But mirror or no, if our eye is not capable of forming an image, then we don't see one. Thus a reflected image of a featureless, no contrast area will not form an image whether we look at it directly or in a mirror. Not only do you not not see anything but you might actually think you are tilting or upside down. Pilots experience this whenever they fly in fogged or whiteout conditions and must be trained to ignore their senses and use instruments alone.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not defending a mathematical claim other than these principles, that have a mathematical (undeniable) basis. As far as this puzzle, I have the answer in front of me and you are way off.

So you are a mathematician now?