A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

The connection between any external stimuli striking a nerve ending which then sends impulses to the brain for interpretation is the very definition of sense organ.

Light (external stimuli) strikes the rods and cones (afferent sensory neurons) and impulses are sent to the brain. Can you scientifically dispute this from a physiological standpoint?

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have explained it many times using different analogies.

Not in the posting where you stated that you wrote it there 'in black and white'.

So please give links. And science does not work just with analogies. But maybe it helps us to see what you think.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Instantaneous vision is impossible if the image (or the pattern of light) travels to the eye, which takes time. But he is not suggesting this.

I obviously must repeat it: Relativity theory says that instantaneous vision is impossible. Nobody said anything about light.

Another way to say it is as follows: information must travel, and the maximum speed possible, is the speed of light. There is no way that information can be at a remote point instantaneously without travelling. Got it? Do you see a contradiction now?

It does not help to say that there is nothing travelling in efferent vision, because relativity says that information must travel. Got it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no way you can prove this. Show me where a dog has to wait 8 minutes to see an image from a pinhole camera and a human doesn't.

You seem to confuse things. So I'll try to put it more orderly.
You say:

• Humans are capable of efferent vision.
• Dogs are not capable of efferent vision.
• Pinhole cameras have efferent vision (the image of the sun appears instantaneously).

Now I add:

• Dog's eyes work according the same principles as human eyes (they have a lens, a pupil and a retina with light sensitive afferent nerve endings).

Now explain what is different in dogs eyes that they are not capable of efferent vision. Especially, explain what a dog's eye is missing that a pinhole camera has.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was very clear when he distinguished between afferent and efferent which you should understand by now. The connection between any external stimuli striking a nerve ending which then sends impulses to the brain for interpretation is the very definition of sense organ. If the brain does not decode the pattern of light which is believed to be responsible for normal sight, then the eyes cannot be called a sense organ.

Weasel, you completely avoided the point.

He clearly said here were no similar afferent nerve endings in the eye. What do you think rods and cones are? How do you disqualify them as "similar afferent nerve endings"?

He seemed to be saying nothing makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending in the eyes when he said

The same holds true for anything that makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far from the case with the eyes.

What do you think is happening when light strikes the retina containing rods and cones?

When he said the eyes are windows for the brain, what did he actually mean if not that the brain looks out the eyes as if they were windows?

You said that afferent nerves aren't used to see, but rods and cones are used to see. What do you think rods and cones are?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by GdB

You seem to confuse things. So I'll try to put it more orderly.
You say:

• Humans are capable of efferent vision.
• Dogs are not capable of efferent vision.
• Pinhole cameras have efferent vision (the image of the sun appears instantaneously).

Now I add:

• Dog's eyes work according the same principles as human eyes (they have a lens, a pupil and a retina with light sensitive afferent nerve endings).

Now explain what is different in dogs eyes that they are not capable of efferent vision. Especially, explain what a dog's eye is missing that a pinhole camera has.

Her position is that dogs also have Lessans' efferent vision, and that dogs inability to recognize their masters from facial features alone is evidence against standard optics (which is often called afferent vision in this thread)and evidence for efferent vision.

Lessans thinking was that if the eyes are sense organs then dogs should be able to recognize their master by facial features. No reasoning is given for this, nor has peacegirl been able to answer why this should happen.

Lessans then asserts that dogs cannot recognize their masters without engaging their non-visual senses...so to him this proves that the eyes aren't a sense organ

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Her position is that dogs also have Lessans' efferent vision, and that dogs inability to recognize their masters from facial features alone is evidence against standard optics (which is often called afferent vision in this thread)and evidence for efferent vision.

Lessans thinking was that if the eyes are sense organs then dogs should be able to recognize their master by facial features. No reasoning is given for this, nor has peacegirl been able to answer why this should happen.

What are you saying LadyShea that no reasoning is given for this? He gave reasons, and very good ones.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans then asserts that dogs cannot recognize their masters without engaging their non-visual senses...so to him this proves that the eyes aren't a sense organ

He didn't say this alone proves that the eyes aren't a sense organ, but shouldn't it make people wonder? That makes absolute sense so why are you trying to trivialize it?

[LadyShea]

No valid reasoning was offered as to why dogs should be able to recognize individual human faces if standard optics is true and correct.

Standard optics doesn't address recognition, because it's a cognitive function. If the dogs can see by their eyes using light as a stimulus, then the eyes meet the definition of sense organ

So no, it doesn't make sense at all

[ceptimus]

And what makes it even more nonsensical is that most of us believe that dogs CAN recognize individual human faces.

We've even pointed peacegirl to studies that provide evidence for this (also for other animals like pigeons).

peacegirl isn't interested in any study that involves an animal having to press a mechanical device to indicate a choice - this is because if a dog is trained to press a "lever" then it somehow invalidates the whole efferent vision argument. If you want to convince peacegirl, you need to provide a study (or preferably just a YouTube video) where the dogs have not undergone any training but still unambiguously indicate that they've recognized a photograph of their master by prancing around on their hind legs or some such.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No valid reasoning was offered as to why dogs should be able to recognize individual human faces if standard optics is true and correct.

Standard optics doesn't address recognition, because it's a cognitive function. If the dogs can see by their eyes using light as a stimulus, then the eyes meet the definition of sense organ

So no, it doesn't make sense at all

No, what YOU just said makes no sense. You could then say every sense organ involves a cognitive function because the brain has to interpret it. When a dog recognizes his master's voice, should that not be considered a cognitive function too? What's the difference? When a dog recognizes the smell of his master, should that not be considered a cognitive function as well? Same for taste and touch. So why should they single out the eyes?

cog·ni·tion
ˌkäɡˈniSH(ə)n/
noun
the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

And what makes it even more nonsensical is that most of us believe that dogs CAN recognize individual human faces.

We've even pointed peacegirl to studies that provide evidence for this (also for other animals like pigeons).

peacegirl isn't interested in any study that involves an animal having to press a mechanical device to indicate a choice - this is because if a dog is trained to press a "lever" then it somehow invalidates the whole efferent vision argument. If you want to convince peacegirl, you need to provide a study (or preferably just a YouTube video) where the dogs have not undergone any training but still unambiguously indicate that they've recognized a photograph of their master by prancing around on their hind legs or some such.

Seriously Ceptimus, you think training a dog to recognize his master is a better indicator than a dog who has not seen his master in months and misses him? I would love to see how a dog reacts to a large photograph during that time period. Does he show any reaction that indicates recognition? Wagging a tail would count, so would whimpering or barking or circling. I would then like to see how the dog reacts when his master walks in the door. Does he show excitement, jumping up and down, etc. This would prove that the dog did, in fact, miss his owner very much.

[Cynthia of Syracuse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, what YOU just said makes no sense. You could then say every sense organ involves a cognitive function because the brain has to interpret it. When a dog recognizes his master's voice, should that not be considered a cognitive function too? What's the difference? When a dog recognizes the smell of his master, should that not be considered a cognitive function as well? Same for taste and touch. So why should they single out the eyes?

cog·ni·tion
ˌkäɡˈniSH(ə)n/
noun
the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.

They all do involve cognitive functions, you dolt. The dog
experiences a scent, and its brain associates it with something. It experiences a sound and the brain links it to something. Do you think drug- or bomb-sniffing dogs just know what to look for automatically?
Because they don't. They have to learn the smell of cocaine or Semtex and associate it with commands and determine appropriate actions. That's cognition. You've had dogs. Do you think they were born knowing that the sound of a can opener means food? Of course not. They learned through experience to make that association. That's cognition, as you would know if you spent a fraction of the time you do lying, making excuses for lying, claiming you haven't been lying, and running away screaming in terror from any bit of information that contradicts the infallible words of Saint Daddy, actually thinking about things.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, what YOU just said makes no sense. You could then say every sense organ involves a cognitive function because the brain has to interpret it. When a dog recognizes his master's voice, should that not be considered a cognitive function too? What's the difference? When a dog recognizes the smell of his master, should that not be considered a cognitive function as well? Same for taste and touch. So why should they single out the eyes?

cog·ni·tion
ˌkäɡˈniSH(ə)n/
noun
the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.

No-one is saying that these means of recognition are not cognitive functions, To suggest that someone is saying they are not, is just about the dumbest thing you have posted so far, and you've posted some pretty dumb shit. FYI, science does not single out the eyes for testing, there have been studies on dog's other senses as well, and human and other animals senses. You really need to get your nose out of your fathers book once in awhile. A little bit of research would clear this up, but you're to lazy to look at anything but your fathers book, which we've all seen was pretty dumb.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seriously Ceptimus, you think training a dog to recognize his master is a better indicator than a dog who has not seen his master in months and misses him?

Yes. Training removes the ambiguity of the reaction.

[LadyShea]

When a dog recognizes his master's voice, should that not be considered a cognitive function too?

Yes, of course. Recognition is a cognitive function with all senses. The ears don't recognize specific voices, the brain does. The ears receive the pressure waves and use that information to send signals to the brain, which is interpreted as sound, making them a sense organ. Recognizing that sound as familiar/known is cognition.

If a dog can hear and respond to sound, that means the ears are a sense organ. Recognizing specific sounds is not addressed when discussing hearing.

Nobody except you is singling out the eyes as different.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seriously Ceptimus, you think training a dog to recognize his master is a better indicator than a dog who has not seen his master in months and misses him? I would love to see how a dog reacts to a large photograph during that time period. Does he show any reaction that indicates recognition? Wagging a tail would count, so would whimpering or barking or circling. I would then like to see how the dog reacts when his master walks in the door. Does he show excitement, jumping up and down, etc. This would prove that the dog did, in fact, miss his owner very much.

The dog knows a photograph is not his actual master, why should he react in any specific way? Do you circle or vocalize or jump up and down when you see a photo of someone you love and miss?

[Angakuk]

She probably does.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is just a taste of what I've been through Vivisectus. I hope you can withstand the onslaught and don't retreat.

And yet here you are still encouraging and enabling this by responding, despite the fact that you know full well that it serves no purpose, and knowing that you could be doing something constructive in stead. Do you find it more satisfying to just deal with endless "no it isn't - yes it is!" nonsense? You must in a way, because you keep coming back to it.

Is it possible to find something that is bad for humanity more satisfying even though you know no-one would blame you if you did?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Cynthia of Syracuse

They all do involve cognitive functions, you dolt. The dog
experiences a scent, and its brain associates it with something. It experiences a sound and the brain links it to something. Do you think drug- or bomb-sniffing dogs just know what to look for automatically?
Because they don't. They have to learn the smell of cocaine or Semtex and associate it with commands and determine appropriate actions. That's cognition. You've had dogs. Do you think they were born knowing that the sound of a can opener means food? Of course not. They learned through experience to make that association. That's cognition, as you would know if you spent a fraction of the time you do lying, making excuses for lying, claiming you haven't been lying, and running away screaming in terror from any bit of information that contradicts the infallible words of Saint Daddy, actually thinking about things.

Cynthia, that was LadyShea's argument, not mine. Of course there is an association which involves cognitive function, so why should the eyes be singled out as involving a cognitive function ONLY, and therefore when a dog cannot associate his master with a picture, this shouldn't count because, according to LadyShea, it involves a cognitive function while the other senses don't? That doesn't make one bit of sense. I was trying to show her that all the senses involve some sort of cognition. Do you realize you just supported me?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet here you are still encouraging and enabling this by responding, despite the fact that you know full well that it serves no purpose, and knowing that you could be doing something constructive in stead. Do you find it more satisfying to just deal with endless "no it isn't - yes it is!" nonsense? You must in a way, because you keep coming back to it.

Is it possible to find something that is bad for humanity more satisfying even though you know no-one would blame you if you did?

I don't have other options right now. Either I don't discuss the book at all, or I talk to people who doubt me but at least I'm talking and keeping his book out there in some small way. You never know who may want to pass it on.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Cynthia, that was LadyShea's argument, not mine. Of course there is an association which involves cognitive function, so why should the eyes be singled out as involving a cognitive function ONLY, and therefore when a dog cannot associate his master with a picture, this shouldn't count because, according to LadyShea, it involves a cognitive function while the other senses don't? That doesn't make one bit of sense. I was trying to show her that all the senses involve some sort of cognition. Do you realize you just supported me?

You cannot read, apparently. I never said the eyes were singled out or different from the other senses. WTF??

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You cannot read, apparently. I never said the eyes were singled out or different from the other senses. WTF??

Of course you did LadyShea. Stop reneging now that are being questioned. The proof was in your words. Go back to sleep and come back when you wake up.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

OMG, of course you did LadyShea. Stop reneging now that you see your mistake. The proof was in your words. Go back to sleep and come back when you wake up.

Quote me then. I said nothing about the other senses. Put down the bottle and talk to me when you aren't hallucinating

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote me then. I said nothing about the other senses. Put down the bottle and talk to me when you aren't hallucinating

You tried to make the eyes different in that they involved cognitive function. According to Cynthia, all senses require cognitive function, so take it up with her. There is no bottle and there is no hallucination. The only thing there is are unchallenged refutations where you are trying desperately to make Lessans appear wrong. Can you bear these challenges out without making major blunders? So far, you're in the negative column.

[thedoc]

Well it seems that cognitive function is something that Peacegirl doesn't understand and doesn't do at all. Reading back over the thread, it was clearly Peacegirl who tried to single out the eyes as different from the other senses, in that she claimed that vision was not a sense, or the eyes were not sense organs. Peacegirl did try to imply that cognitive function was part of the process with the other senses, but that vision was different somehow.

BTW, science is testing all the senses of many different animals, it's just that the tests and experiments about dogs vision were relevant to the thread and Peacegirl mistakenly assumed that science was only testing the vision of dogs and not the other senses and other animals. It just proves that Peacegirl is completely unaware of anything other than her father's book, and whatever link she might have accidentally clicked on from this thread.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have other options right now. Either I don't discuss the book at all, or I talk to people who doubt me but at least I'm talking and keeping his book out there in some small way. You never know who may want to pass it on.

So while you are actually able to have a broader and more productive discussion the only options that you are aware of are bad ones, IE endlessly continuing this pointless arguing about sight?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So while you are actually able to have a broader and more productive discussion the only options that you are aware of are bad ones, IE endlessly continuing this pointless arguing about sight?

You're right; this discussion is absolutely pointless because people will not admit that there is something fishy about the way the eyes work. I would love to move on to a more productive discussion but no one cares about how moral responsibility is increased in a no blame environment, which they are now seeing in other countries on a smaller scale. Don't you understand that people here don't want Lessans to be right? So let's talk about moral responsibility even if no one else is interested. I'm as ready as I've ever been. I have other pressing demands that are going to preclude me from spending so much time here, especially when there has been no progress in over 3 years. So let's get down to grassroots and not waste any more time than is necessary?