“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[peacegirl]

M dear Peacegirl. you are nailing yourself to your own cross which you created for yourself.

Are you having fun yet?

No. I'm not looking for a party.

As I said, if you want respect and attention you will have to make your cases as I outlined.

Nothing like this topic, what I outlined is the kind of detail I would have to do with my work. I speak from experience. I was just a regular engineer, and that kind of detail was always required.

Cognitive and experimental psychology are well developed disciplines. Have you made a search for any related previous experimental wok in these areas?.

And there is genetics and neuscience.

This book is detailed enough if you take the time to read it. All of these fields have made contributions. This is not a competition.

You have a warm fuzzy feeling in your head about why you think you are right and tetsed with a dog(?). Tu8rng that into a convincing detailed argument is annotate tn g entirely. It takes work.

When questioned here you never really engage, you refer to the book and say it is prtven.

There has been no real proof that dogs can identify individual faces because they need words to do this. Everyone says people should be able to test for themselves. So test it. There are many ways to do this accurately, but you can't give the dog cues (whether it's your gait or your car coming around the corner). And for god's sake, please don't use levers. Private joke.

That is most likely why in your life you have not gotten anywhere with your ideas.


Something I learned through hard knocks an a little pain. When making an argument to other people think how many ways what you are saying can be challenged, and be ready with responses.

I think I've responded pretty well considering I'm one person against many.

 

[peacegirl]

A lot of well meaning people try to change the world for the better, and their work may be worthwhile, indispensable even, yet here we are in a world in crisis, needless suffering, inequality, war, ecosystems in decline.....

Lots of people think they had the solution, but this one can prevent needless suffering, inequality, war, which will open up the ability to stop the environmental destruction. This one really is the gem, not because he was my father but because of extending the principles. Understandably, people are skeptical and will continue to be skeptical until they understand why man's will is not free and why the eyes are not a sense organ. He did describe how we are conditioned to seeing what really isn't imbedded in light. No light is traveling with beauty and ugliness in them, yet this conditioning makes it appear that beauty and ugliness are part of the real world. We become conditioned due to words that lie to us, and there's no escape from this unless the words that are attached to certain features that condition us to seeing with our very eyes that some people are more beautiful or ugly than others, are removed from our dictionaries. Scientists and philosophers don't want to hear an outsider debating the creme de la creme in their particular field. They resent him highly. I'm only asking people to take the time to study the book and not compare it to others who meant well but didn't have the answer. We are in a crisis on many fronts. This should at least give people a pause before they jump to premature conclusions.

The issue of how we view the world, our attitude and how we respond has nothing to do with the speed of light or how our eyes work, but a host of other factors such as life experience and social conditioning, where what may have been good and moral for an ancient Roman or Aztec is not acceptable in this day and age

He was talking about one thing only; how we become conditioned with words that make us believe that what we are seeing is a part of reality when it is the word that is making it appear this way.

"Social conditioning is the sociological process of training individuals in a society to respond in a manner generally approved by the society in general and peer groups within society.

The concept is stronger than that of socialization, which is the process of inheriting norms, customs and ideologies.

Manifestations of social conditioning are vast, but they are generally categorized as social patterns and social structures including nationalism, education, employment, entertainment, popular culture, religion, spirituality and family life. The social structure in which an individual finds him or herself influences and can determine their social actions and responses."

Social conditioning

Social conditioning is the sociological process of training individuals in a society to respond in a manner generally approved by the society in general and peer groups within society. The concept is stronger than that of socialization, which is the process of inheriting norms, customs and...

dbpedia.org

It is true we are conditioned by the society we live to act in certain ways that are considered appropriate, but this is not what he's talking about. He is talking strictly about how we are conditioned to liking certain features not because those features are more beautiful in reality but because we've been conditioned to seeing certain faces as beautiful by the inflection of pleasure heard over and over again. Before long, we have become conditioned to seeing people who are more beautiful than others who do not get this inflection. Without the word, what we are really seeing are differences. This beauty is not traveling on the waves of light and hitting their retina. It is due to the word that is projected onto the outside world that gives the impression that this beautiful person exists, and you can't tell someone that this person is not beautiful because he swears he sees this beauty with his very eyes.

A baby not recognising objects in the world around them is not the same as literally not seeing these things.

How can a baby recognize objects in the world around him when he cannot focus his eyes after birth? Light is present but nothing is traveling in the light to allow the baby to recognize anything. That's what makes the eyes different from the other senses because their other senses are in full working order at birth.

The distinction is between seeing and recognising. You may see something but not recognise what you are seeing.

That is true. That is why he wrote this: Since the eyes are the binoculars of the brain, all words that are placed in front of this telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of relation, are projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world, and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses, man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and if words correctly describe, then he will be made conscious of actual differences and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for those who do not know the words.

The brain and senses of a baby are gathering information about the world and learning to make sense of it.

True.

 

[peacegirl]

Change in society won't come from believing that 'light is at the eye,' but an understanding of our own make-up, what drives us and the decisions we make. Basically, self examination and questioning.

Then you really don't understand what this conditioning has caused, especially for women. This isn't the only thing that will cause a change for the better in society, but it will allow people to see themselves for who they really are not by some false standard that they have come to believe is true. The "beautiful people" won't like this, but the ones that are handicapped by being seen as ugly will be brought up to an equality they never were given. I'm repeating some of these excerpts because it may take a while to sink in.

The belief in the eyes being a sense organ has allowed innumerable words to come into existence, which has caused people to be judged as an inferior production of the human race. Can you imagine what would happen if we lived in a world where all such words were removed, where nobody, including ourselves, would be judged in terms of ugliness, homeliness, prettiness, and so forth. Remember, however, that when these negatives of external value are removed, this doesn’t stop us from seeing differences that appeal to us more, but instead of saying, “She is the most beautiful girl I have ever seen,” which places other girls in a stratified layer of lesser value, we are compelled to say, “She appeals to me more than any girl I have ever seen,” which makes it obvious that the value we see exists only for us. The first expression requires that ugly girls exist because certain type features are considered superior, while the second expression only observes that other girls appeal to us less, which makes everybody equal in value except to particular individuals. By removing all the synonyms that describe people as good looking, nobody is hurt, but by removing all the antonyms that have been judging half the human race as bad looking, this entire group is brought up to a level of complete equality and respect. However, it is mathematically impossible to expect you to give up that which is also a source of satisfaction, although the change does not depend on those who are happy in their pride and self-importance, which includes everyone to a degree, but on those who are seriously hurt and who are shown how they, too, can become happy. And are we given a choice when to continue using these words after we have learned the truth only reveals our ignorance, for which we will never be blamed? How is it possible to criticize people for believing the earth is flat, man’s will is free, and his eyes a sense organ when we know for an absolute fact that they have never learned the truth?

 

[peacegirl]

What false premises did he start off with?

That the eye is not a sense organ.

You're not even hearing his reasoning. You are assuming his premise is wrong because you believe science got it right. What happened to science never being settled?

He hadn't even explained anything. He was just making an analogy to chess. IOW, just as there are rules to the game of chess, there are rules to the game of reasoning.

That is so; And he demonstrates is incomprehension of those rules with great skill and frequency.

You're just making assertions with nothing to back up what you are saying.

There was nothing wrong with what he said.

Apart from almost all of it being wrong.

It's strange to me that as objective as you think you are, you are anything but objective when it comes to the careful analysis necessary to judge this work.

 

[peacegirl]

I never heard that professors are already aware that man doesn't have five senses.

That there are many things of which you have never heard may come as a surprise to you, but it really shouldn't.

Can you point me to any information you can find? According to what people are taught, we have five senses. It would be nice to know that he was not alone.

There is a HUGE list on Wikipedia of things that are widely believed, and that people are taught, that are well known by "professors" (ie by people who have studied those things rather than just believe the folk wisdom about them) to be false.

Lessans said he was not referring to a sixth sense or any other sense. He was clear about this. He was just talking about the eyes in particular and why they should not be considered a sense organ. Why is this so difficult?

Amongst these is:

Humans have more than the commonly cited five senses. The number of senses in various categorizations ranges from 5 to more than 20. In addition to sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing, which were the senses identified by Aristotle, humans can sense balance and acceleration (equilibrioception), pain (nociception), body and limb position (proprioception or kinesthetic sense), and relative temperature (thermoception). Other senses sometimes identified are the sense of time, echolocation, itching, pressure, hunger, thirst, fullness of the stomach, need to urinate, need to defecate, blood carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, and electric field sensation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions

"What people are taught" is a dreadful guide to what is true, hence the requirement for the scientific method, and for people to discard the habit of taking other people's word for things.

No one is asking you to take anyone's word for it.

When it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion, government, education and all others want, which include the means as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial? This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition, and your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge what has not even been revealed to you yet.

 

[bilby]

If it is just light, then what do light wavelengths mean?

Colours. Different wavelengths of light are different colours.

That's all.

 

[bilby]

I believe in science bilby, so stop telling me I'm someone who I'm not.

But that's exactly what I am telling you.

You believe in science. So you are doing it wrong.

Belief in things is the antithesis of science.

But you genuinely think of science as just another of the many possible religions you might believe in; And you feel (as all believers do) smugly confident that, having chosen the correct belief, your conclusions are superior to those of the fools who believe in other religions.

That's not how science works.

 

[bilby]

You're not even hearing his reasoning. You are assuming his premise is wrong because you believe science got it right.

No, I am assuming that his premise is wrong because of the overwhelming evidence that his premise is wrong.

I don't believe that science got it right; Science isn't even a thing that can get things right. It's a tool for determining what is wrong.

Science takes claims and sorts them into two categories: Proven to be wrong; and Not yet proven to be wrong.

If your worldview includes a "Proven to be right" category, then you are not doing science.

 

[DBT]

Change in society won't come from believing that 'light is at the eye,' but an understanding of our own make-up, what drives us and the decisions we make. Basically, self examination and questioning.

Then you really don't understand what this conditioning has caused, especially for women. This isn't the only thing that will cause a change for the better in society, but it will allow people to see themselves for who they really are not by some false standard that they have come to believe is true. The "beautiful people" won't like this, but the ones that are handicapped by being seen as ugly will be brought up to an equality they never were given. I'm repeating some of these excerpts because it may take a while to sink in.

The belief in the eyes being a sense organ has allowed innumerable words to come into existence, which has caused people to be judged as an inferior production of the human race. Can you imagine what would happen if we lived in a world where all such words were removed, where nobody, including ourselves, would be judged in terms of ugliness, homeliness, prettiness, and so forth. Remember, however, that when these negatives of external value are removed, this doesn’t stop us from seeing differences that appeal to us more, but instead of saying, “She is the most beautiful girl I have ever seen,” which places other girls in a stratified layer of lesser value, we are compelled to say, “She appeals to me more than any girl I have ever seen,” which makes it obvious that the value we see exists only for us. The first expression requires that ugly girls exist because certain type features are considered superior, while the second expression only observes that other girls appeal to us less, which makes everybody equal in value except to particular individuals. By removing all the synonyms that describe people as good looking, nobody is hurt, but by removing all the antonyms that have been judging half the human race as bad looking, this entire group is brought up to a level of complete equality and respect. However, it is mathematically impossible to expect you to give up that which is also a source of satisfaction, although the change does not depend on those who are happy in their pride and self-importance, which includes everyone to a degree, but on those who are seriously hurt and who are shown how they, too, can become happy. And are we given a choice when to continue using these words after we have learned the truth only reveals our ignorance, for which we will never be blamed? How is it possible to criticize people for believing the earth is flat, man’s will is free, and his eyes a sense organ when we know for an absolute fact that they have never learned the truth?

Observing and questioning assumptions, especially one's own, and not just accepting social values because that's just how things are done, brings about change.

That should be the focus, not that light is somehow, inexplicably, at the eye and we see things instantly.

It is claims like that only serve to discredit the book.

 

[peacegirl]

That's not good enough. Not doubting is like saying it sounds possible. What happened to the evidence? Did it just fly out the window?

Not doubting is EXACTLY saying that it sounds possible.

Again, you fundamentally misunderstand how the scientific method works.

Science does not prove anything to be true; It either proves claims to be false, or leaves them in the "possible" basket.

If an idea has no evidence against it being true, then it is possible.

If an idea has any evidence against it being true, then either it is wrong, or the evidence is misleading.

If an idea has been ruthlessly and frequently tested for a long time by determined people, and still has no evidence that it is false, then we can, as a shorthand, consider it to be true; But in fact it is merely possible, and can never be more certain than that - because tomorrow we may find evidence that it was, after all, false.

So, according to science, because delayed vision has been tested frequently and for a long time by determined people, real time vision is ruled out? Or does it mean that because tomorrow they may find evidence that something was, after all, false, where does this knowledge fall into according to science? Is there no point to get into this subject because it's off limits since scientists did the hard work and real time vision is ruled out? Or could his claim still be in the "possible" basket? IOW, does this author have a chance to explain his findings (as he has done; it was not an assertion) or is his claim deemed impossible, according to scientists, because they say (without understanding his explanation) that real time vision was ruled out 300 years ago, therefore his claims have been shown to be false? If that is true, then there's no point in me talking about this subject anymore. No one will even hear his explanation. Is that what you and others want? I don't want to waste my time if people are just humoring me.

One does not use evidence to test for truth; One uses evidence to test for falsehood. It is impossible to prove things true, outside of mathematics.

Science is the process of pruning the false ideas from the tree of possibility, so that what remains is more and more possible.

I understand. You explained this very well. Thanks bilby.

 

[peacegirl]

View attachment 48516

...and yet, here you are 1,700 posts into the thread, still trying to explain the unexplainable.

"I feel that if a person has problems communicating, the very least that he could do is shut up" - Tom Lehrer

When someone has something of extreme value to offer, they will scream it from the mountaintops!

Sure. But that will also happen if they have nonsense to offer, but have convinced themselves that it is valuable.

So, we need other means to determine what is true than the mere persistence of evangelists.

Just because he knew he had made a discovery and he also knew it could change our world for the better did not make him an evangelist, although it is good news, just not the good news of Christianity.

Christians like to claim monopolies on things, but the fact is that "evangelism" doesn't imply Christianity nor even religion. "Evangelist" has come to mean any person who enthusiastically and energetically supports a particular claim or product.

See for example: https://www.svpg.com/product-evangelism/

Lessans (and you yourself) absolutely is an evangelist under this definition of the word.

You have him pegged all wrong.

 

[peacegirl]

Any solution that requires everyone else to understand d something is no solution at all

It doesn't require everyone else to understand it but it does require understanding from the scientific community. The idea that we see in delayed time may never be corrected. It's not like it changes anything other than this one claim of delayed vision. But...his knowledge that we see in the present does have value in terms of understanding our relationship to the real world and how words have hurt millions.

 

[peacegirl]

The basics:


View attachment 48569



"First, light passes through the cornea (the clear front layer of the eye). The cornea is shaped like a dome and bends light to help the eye focus.

Some of this light enters the eye through an opening called the pupil (PYOO-pul). The iris (the colored part of the eye) controls how much light the pupil lets in.

Next, light passes through the lens (a clear inner part of the eye). The lens works together with the cornea to focus light correctly on the retina.

When light hits the retina (a light-sensitive layer of tissue at the back of the eye), special cells called photoreceptors turn the light into electrical signals.

These electrical signals travel from the retina through the optic nerve to the brain. Then the brain turns the signals into the images you see."

How the Eyes Work | National Eye Institute

All the different part of your eyes work together to help you see. Learn the jobs of the cornea, pupil, lens, retina, and optic nerve and how they work together.

www.nei.nih.gov

None of how vision works changes. Light is still at the eye and transduction still applies. The only difference is that the brain looks through the eyes to see the external world. The external world doesn't travel to the eye in delayed time.

 

[peacegirl]

Damn it, no page 100 party.

We do tend to see the world through the lense of our beliefs, where some see signs wonders in what others consider to be mundane events, where one man's pastor, prophet or saviour may be seen by others as either mistaken/conditioned or fraudulent.

That is true. We see the world based on our experiences that form our beliefs. This is also why we develop associations with certain sounds, smells or sights that trigger an emotional response, but none of this negates his claim of real time vision. If anything, it supports it.

How exactly does it support real time vision? A description of the means would help.

For example, the word dog makes us conscious that this something is not a cat or a cow, and it allows us to see this difference between existing bits of substance because the word used to describe this particular animal is different from words used to describe other animals, which is why we give it a different name. Consequently, the actual word contains the consciousness of a difference that exists in the external or internal world. Remember, there is absolutely nothing that travels from the dog to the optic nerve, although the bark does strike the ears, and this sound is a slide in itself which then permits the brain to look at this bit of living substance through the many relations that become associated with the sound. As stimuli enter through the four senses and get combined in various relations, they are then projected onto the screen of substance through the eyes, which see everything in relation to what is on the slide. If a child gets frightened by the barking of a dog, this fear is recorded on the slide and photographed in relation to it, and when a dog is seen the fear is projected.

Among human relations, there are a tremendous number of differences between word slides that each of us stores in our brains because we are all different to some degree; consequently, what you experience in your world depends on the slides through which you see your experiences. The words that you learned while growing up and reading many books are the particular slides through which you experienced in context — in relation to certain things — which means that you will use and look through them as these experiences project the relation. These word slides represent your consciousness of something you know exists because these things are seen with your eyes (after the relation has been made and a photograph taken), and here is the true source of all the confusion, for although the experiences are real and cannot be denied, your understanding of them is fallacious since your brain never photographed an accurate mathematical relation, and as a result, you see a faulty version of reality.

 

[peacegirl]

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Confirmation bias (also confirmatory bias, myside bias,[a] or congeniality bias[2]) is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.[3] People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

Biased search for information, biased interpretation of this information, and biased memory recall, have been invoked to explain four specific effects:

attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence)
belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false)
the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series)
illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of psychological experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another proposal is that people show confirmation bias because they are pragmatically assessing the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Flawed decisions due to confirmation bias have been found in a wide range of political, organizational, financial and scientific contexts. These biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. For example, confirmation bias produces systematic errors in scientific research based on inductive reasoning (the gradual accumulation of supportive evidence). Similarly, a police detective may identify a suspect early in an investigation, but then may only seek confirming rather than disconfirming evidence. A medical practitioner may prematurely focus on a particular disorder early in a diagnostic session, and then seek only confirming evidence. In social media, confirmation bias is amplified by the use of filter bubbles, or "algorithmic editing", which display to individuals only information they are likely to agree with, while excluding opposing views.

Confirmation bias is not an easy thing to overcome. It's especially dangerous when the safety and efficacy of a particular drug may be skewed in favor of the drug by not giving a full disclosure of the risks. These studies are often done by pharmaceutical companies themselves who have a vested interest in showing only the benefits and downplaying the dangers.

Christians will look at the world and say it is obvious the bible is true and god exists.

Peacegirl says it is obviously true, it is written in my book.

I hope you know by now that this is the furthest thing from what I'm saying.

 

[peacegirl]

Your sense of humor isn't working Pood. You just can't stand his claim regarding the eyes, and you can't stand that compatibilist free will is nonexistent. As a result, you're doing whatever you can to turn this knowledge into a spoof.

Ad hom. If you resort to ad hom one more time, I am going to report this and all the others.

The thing is, though, I don’t think you even know what ad hom is. Just like you don’t know that the eye is a sense organ and that we don’t see in real time. All very sad and pathetic.

And yes, my sense of humor is working quite nicely.

Take a chill pill.

No, you.

If this was an NFL football game and I was a referee I'd call offsetting personal fouls on Pood and Peacegirl, unnecessary roughness and unsportsman like conduct. Replay the down....the clock will start on my whistle.

Sorry, I haven’t committed any personal fouls. When peacegirl writes, “You just can’t stand his claim regarding the eyes,” etc., as opposed to addressing the arguments and evidence I have offered, that is classic argumentum ad hominem, which is against the rules here, in case you had not noticed. So you can call her for unsportsmanlike conduct, not me. Thus far I have refrained from reporting her ad hom posts, including one in which she used ad hom six separate times in the same post.

What about you accusing Lessans of saying military force would be used if people didn't line up (what a joke) and taking every darn thing out of context? Okay, so it wasn't called an ad hominem, but it was much worse. As far as using ad homs, I'm trying not to use them but don't act like you're this innocent person who didn't play a huge part in hurting Lessans' reputation.

 

[peacegirl]

Yo0u are all over the place.

A dog's eye works pretty much as humans. Light hits the retina, photons are converted to electrons.,and the image is transmitted to brain via nerves.

It will not mean anything to you, in modern tech parlance the wave front incident on the retina digitized. An array of discrete rods and cones convert points on the wave front to signals to the brain.

Recognition is done inn the brain and has nothing to do with delayed light or real time vision.

I assume you can tell the difference between a a picture of somebody and the person. Yo0u know a picture is not a real person from experience.

Why not the same with a dog?

It shouldn't matter whether the image was in human form or from a representation. The wavelength is still there. Children can pick out their parents from pictures. Why can't dogs do the same thing?

A credible experiment would have to be such that it excludes alternate explanations other than one you prefer.
I have seen dogs react to animals on TV.

Dogs can definitely identify animals on TV, especially when there is movement. My friend's Rottweiler barked nonstop when he saw a pack of animals running on the tv screen.

I was baby sitting for a couples rug rat. I had her in the back yard. She crawled towards a rack about 2 feet high. She stopped periodically putting a had out feeling for the rock. When she got there she patted the rock.

She was learning to gauge distance and an object.

Infants hear, smell, taste, and feel touch the minute they are born without any experience. Infants don't see the minute they are born. They need the other sense experience to help them focus. There are competing theories as to why, but there is no doubt that the eyes are not in full working order at birth.

SMELL: Your baby's sense of smell develops in the womb, and by the time they're born babies can smell about as well as adults. Because the sense of smell is closely related to taste, it influences what your baby does and doesn't like to eat. Familiar smells, including your scent and the aroma of their favorite places, are comforting to your baby and play a role in bonding with you and other caregivers. Also, natural smells such as lavender can help to soothe and calm your baby.

How and when your baby's sense of smell develops

Find out how your baby's sense of smell develops and how you can nurture it.

www.babycenter.com

TOUCH: Did you know that when your baby is born its’ sense of touch is one of its best developed senses? Of course it isn’t fully developed at birth, but the newborn can certainly feel touch better than what they can hear, see or taste! Many years of scientific research has supported the importance of touch to a child’s development. Dr Lise Eliot explains that “Touch experience is essential not only for the development of touch sensitivity but for general cognitive development as well.”

Sensory Development and the Importance of Touch - Gooeybrains

Touch is important to your baby’s physical growth, emotional well-being, cognitive function and overall health.

gooeybrains.com

TASTE: Baby’s sense of taste development starts from the time when they are in their mother’s womb. By the end of 9 weeks of pregnancy, the baby’s tongue and mouth are formed along with taste buds. This means they can taste what their mother is eating through amniotic fluid. Infants are born with a complete sense of taste, but breast milk is the first taste they experience.

Baby's Sense of Taste Development - Timelines And What to Expect - Being The Parent

Did you know that baby's taste develops fully by the time they are born? Read to know more on baby's sense of taste development after birth.

www.beingtheparent.com

HEARING: Our newborn has been hearing sounds since way back in the womb. Mother's heartbeat, the gurgles of her digestive system, and even the sounds of her voice and the voices of other family members are part of a baby's world before birth. Once your baby is born, the sounds of the outside world come in loud and clear. Your baby may startle at the unexpected bark of a dog nearby or seem soothed by the gentle whirring of the clothes dryer or the hum of the vacuum cleaner. Notice how your newborn responds to your voice. Human voices, especially mom's and dad's, are a baby's favorite "music." Your baby already knows that this is where food, warmth, and touch come from. If your baby is crying in the bassinet, see how quickly your approaching voice quiets him or her down. See how closely your baby listens when you are talking or singing in loving tones.

Your Newborn's Hearing, Vision, and Other Senses (for Parents)

Your newborn is taking in first sights, sounds, and smells while learning to explore the world through the senses. What are your baby's responses to light, noise, and touch?

kidshealth.org

VISION: A baby is born with poor eyesight, but as they grow and develop, so does their vision.

When Can Babies See Color? – NVISION

Explore the fascinating progression of infant vision development, starting from when babies can see color and other key vision milestones.

www.nvisioncenters.com

A newborn's eyes are a little more than half the size of an adult's eyes. They grow the most in the first year, then slowly grow until puberty. Most Caucasian babies have light gray or blue eye color, but this often changes by 6 months of age. Over the first few months, babies may have uncoordinated eye movements and may even appear cross-eyed. Babies are born with the ability to focus only at close range--about 8 to 10 inches or the distance between a mother's face to the baby in her arms. Babies are able to follow or track an object in the first few weeks. Focus improves over the first 2 to 3 years of life to a normal 20/20 vision. Newborns can detect light and dark but cannot see all colors. This is why many baby books and infant stimulation toys have distinct black and white patterns.

Newborn-Senses

Babies are born with the ability to focus only at close range—about eight to 10 inches, or the distance between a mother's face to the baby in her arms.

www.chop.edu

You know the difference between a picture and a person from experience,. As we grow our neural net brain wires itself from experience. Non of us are born with prior knowledge of interacting with reality.

NO, but if the eyes work like the other senses, the infant would see just like all the other senses when he is born. This has nothing to do with experience that we gain as we grow.

Unless trained somehow a dog may not have a context to make a judgement. Again it has nothing to do with delayed light or real time bison.

There is no context needed for a dog to identify his master through smell or sound. Why not with sight? For you to say it has nothing to do with delayed or real time vision indicates to me that you don't understand why this matters.

For me running experiments was often part of the job. What I did always had to deal with peer scrutiny.

I am scrutinizing your claims no different than I would have done on somebody else's work when I was working.

Peer review doesn't mean a whole lot if the peers are unfamiliar with the topic and have their own confirmation biases. It's like picking a juror where he is familiar with the case and believes the person is guilty before the trial even starts.

If this is the best you can do, god help us!

See, Steve? How’s that for a response to your evidence and argument?

Is that better Pood?

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl says it is obviously true, it is written in my book.

Absolutely false!

Absolutely true. If it were not true, it would be simple to prove. All you need to do is explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, the two-sided equation, why a dog cannot recognize its master by sight alone, why the light both is, and is not, at the eye at the same time, and why the eye is not a sense organ.

I'm not sure what you mean by the light is, and is not, at the eye at the same time. If an object cannot be seen, no light would be at the eye. If an object can be seen, light would be at the eye. I have explained the two-sided equation. You should know it by now if you read the book. A dog cannot recognize its master from a picture. Lessans explained why this is so. Do you remember?

You NEVER do that. Instead, you just point us to the book, where no explanation is to be found, either. Yours is entirely an argument to authority — your father’s alleged authority — and you have even said that if your father had been wrong, he would have said so; he never said so, so he must be right.

I have done this so many times (in my own words as well as the author's), I have come to terms that it is never going to be good enough.

 

[peacegirl]

Yo0u are all over the place.

A dog's eye works pretty much as humans. Light hits the retina, photons are converted to electrons.,and the image is transmitted to brain via nerves.

It will not mean anything to you, in modern tech parlance the wave front incident on the retina digitized. An array of discrete rods and cones convert points on the wave front to signals to the brain.

Recognition is done inn the brain and has nothing to do with delayed light or real time vision.

I assume you can tell the difference between a a picture of somebody and the person. Yo0u know a picture is not a real person from experience.

Why not the same with a dog?

A credible experiment would have to be such that it excludes alternate explanations other than one you prefer.
I have seen dogs react to animals on TV.

I was baby sitting for a couples rug rat. I had her in the back yard. She crawled towards a rack about 2 feet high. She stopped periodically putting a had out feeling for the rock. When she got there she patted the rock.

She was learning to gauge distance and an object.

You know the difference between a picture and a person from experience,. As we grow our neural net brain wires itself from experience. Non of us are born with prior knowledge of interacting with reality.

Unless trained somehow a dog may not have a context to make a judgement. Again it has nothing to do with delayed light or real time bison.

For me running experiments was often part of the job. What I did always had to deal with peer scrutiny.

I am scrutinizing your claims no different than I would have done on somebody else's work when I was working.

If this is the best you can do, god help us!

Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance..

I kw it is true because what is n the book is true. If you read the nook you will see it is true. I checked it out with a dog and I conformed it is true.

As to cognitive dominance you rfuse to engage and acknowledge the textbook science you are presented with and keep repeating the same claims that are fruited.

A joke a physicist I worked with told.

Einstein is in the audience listening to a speaker.

At the end the speaker said 'Therefore this must be true.'
Einstein asked 'But why must it be true?'.
The speaker replied 'Because it is written'.
'Written where?' asked Einstein.

The speaker relied angrily pounding his fist on the podium 'Because it is written in my book!!!'.

You claim you arr true because it is written in your book. It can not be challenged.

I added to that post, but just to hear this joke, it was worth it. It gave me a real chuckle. If you think that I'm saying it must be true because it is written in my book, you must have been sleeping this whole time.

 

[bilby]

That's not good enough. Not doubting is like saying it sounds possible. What happened to the evidence? Did it just fly out the window?

Not doubting is EXACTLY saying that it sounds possible.

Again, you fundamentally misunderstand how the scientific method works.

Science does not prove anything to be true; It either proves claims to be false, or leaves them in the "possible" basket.

If an idea has no evidence against it being true, then it is possible.

If an idea has any evidence against it being true, then either it is wrong, or the evidence is misleading.

If an idea has been ruthlessly and frequently tested for a long time by determined people, and still has no evidence that it is false, then we can, as a shorthand, consider it to be true; But in fact it is merely possible, and can never be more certain than that - because tomorrow we may find evidence that it was, after all, false.

So, according to science, because delayed vision has been tested frequently and for a long time by determined people, real time vision is ruled out? Or does it mean that because tomorrow they may find evidence that something was, after all, false, where does this knowledge fall into according to science? Is there no point to get into this subject because it's off limits since scientists did the hard work and real time vision is ruled out? Or could his claim still be in the "possible" basket? IOW, does this author have a chance to explain his findings (as he has done; it was not an assertion) or is his claim deemed impossible, according to scientists, because they say (without understanding his explanation) that real time vision was ruled out 300 years ago, therefore his claims have been shown to be false? If that is true, then there's no point in me talking about this subject anymore. No one will even hear his explanation. Is that what you and others want? I don't want to waste my time if people are just humoring me.

One does not use evidence to test for truth; One uses evidence to test for falsehood. It is impossible to prove things true, outside of mathematics.

Science is the process of pruning the false ideas from the tree of possibility, so that what remains is more and more possible.

I understand. You explained this very well. Thanks bilby.

OK, well there's another thing we can do to test for falsity; We can use logic.

It cannot tell us which ideas are false, but it can tell us that one of any two must be.

We can look at "possible" idea A, and use logic to show that if A is true, B must be false, and vice-versa. Note that it is only possible to show that things are false; Just because two ideas cannot logically both be right, that doesn't imply that they can't both be wrong.

It's like looking for your friend's pet. He might be in the loungeroom; He might be in the bedroom. Logically, he cannot be in both. But he could be in neither.

Now, that doesn't tell is which is false, so it's not very helpful; But if there's another idea, C, which has the same logical relationship with A, then we can start to get an idea of which way to bet - we want to assign ideas to that "false" category, the help to prune the tree of "possible".

If our idea is that maybe your friend has a cat in her bedroom, then finding her pet in the loungeroom would falsify that idea; As would finding her dog in her bedroom (after we have already established that she has only one animal).

So, if A implies that B is false, and C (which has nothing to do with A - which room a pet is in tells us nothing about whether it is a dog or a cat) implies also that B is false, we would be more likely to be right if we bet that B is the false claim out of these three.

If A and C are both very well tested, and we have put huge effort over long periods of time by our best and brightest into trying to falsify them, and have failed to do so; And if B is a new idea that has yet to be thorougly tested, it is an even better bet that B is the idea that will turn out to be false.

Now, if not only A, and the independent idea C are logically incompatible with B, but so is D, which is yet another unrelated and well tested "possible", it starts to look a bit foolish to bet on B.

And if E through Z (all independent of each other) also all contradicted B, one would be a total fool to bet on B being right, and all the rest of the alphabet being wrong - even though we have not yet been able to falsify any of the alphabet.

Of course, long shots do occasionally pay off, and it is possible that the vast majority of what we think we know is, in fact, wrong.

But that's not the smart bet. Particularly when the idea B, that is the challenger for that huge body of well-tested ideas, has not itself been very well tested.