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

[peacegirl]

It's not just quantitative; it's qualitative. Dogs cannot connect a face with an individual because they don't have the conceptual ability that humans have.

How do you know this?

Because they don't have the ability of language. I already explained this.

 

[peacegirl]

His mistake there is completely understandable; When I grew up, photographic film and the facilities to develop it were completely ubiquitous and omnipresent. The idea that you could walk down a street in any town or city and not see a sign for "Kodak" or "Fuji Film" was unthinkable. Like most intelligent and inquisitive kids, I had a dark-room and developed film myself, and marvelled at the process of making a negative, and then 'printing' it onto photographic paper.

And now it has all gone. Like with airships, A tiny number of enthusiasts are the only people left who care.

Had he been writing a few decades earlier, would he have suggested that images are tethered to the human brain just as Zeppelins are tethered to their mooring masts, and that dogs are incapable of such tethering? It makes exactly as much sense as "At a very early age, our brain not only records sound, taste, touch, and smell but also photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation".

But that is exactly what happens,

Really? Images are tethered to the brain just as Zeppelins are tethered to their mooring masts??

The more you know...

and until you can prove him wrong (which you have not done),

STOP.

NO.

The burden of proof always lies with the claimant.

He is wrong, until and unless someone proves him to be right.

I will stick to his explanation because it makes much more sense than the present theory.

Zeppelin tethers!

Unfortunately, this theory of sight has caused lots of confusion as far as what we are actually seeing beyond our solar system.

Nobody seems to be even slightly confused here, except you.

You and your father have, however, contributed one thing of value to humanity - The phrase "Zeppelin tethers!", as an epithet synonymous with "balderdash!", will, I feel confident, become a useful addition to the English language.

 

[peacegirl]

His mistake there is completely understandable; When I grew up, photographic film and the facilities to develop it were completely ubiquitous and omnipresent. The idea that you could walk down a street in any town or city and not see a sign for "Kodak" or "Fuji Film" was unthinkable. Like most intelligent and inquisitive kids, I had a dark-room and developed film myself, and marvelled at the process of making a negative, and then 'printing' it onto photographic paper.

And now it has all gone. Like with airships, A tiny number of enthusiasts are the only people left who care.

Had he been writing a few decades earlier, would he have suggested that images are tethered to the human brain just as Zeppelins are tethered to their mooring masts, and that dogs are incapable of such tethering? It makes exactly as much sense as "At a very early age, our brain not only records sound, taste, touch, and smell but also photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation".

But that is exactly what happens,

Really? Images are tethered to the brain just as Zeppelins are tethered to their mooring masts??

The more you know...

and until you can prove him wrong (which you have not done),

STOP.

NO.

The burden of proof always lies with the claimant.

He is wrong, until and unless someone proves him to be right.

I will stick to his explanation because it makes much more sense than the present theory.

Zeppelin tethers!

Unfortunately, this theory of sight has caused lots of confusion as far as what we are actually seeing beyond our solar system.

Nobody seems to be even slightly confused here, except you.

You and your father have, however, contributed one thing of value to humanity - The phrase "Zeppelin tethers!", as an epithet synonymous with "balderdash!", will, I feel confident, become a useful addition to the English language.

I'm still waiting for you to show me that your dogs can recognize you on a computer screen or any unfamiliar place, so they aren't associating the place with you. And explain how culture creates a standard of facial beauty and ugliness if these values are not sent to us in the light. To just say it's culture is begging the question. How??? What is the mechanism?

 

[bilby]

It's not just quantitative; it's qualitative. Dogs cannot connect a face with an individual because they don't have the conceptual ability that humans have.

How do you know this?

Because they don't have the ability of language. I already explained this.

Dogs do have "the ability of language". They can understand speech pretty well, or sign language, or whistles and clicks; They can also communicate information back to humans in various ways.

They can't speak, but that's just a function of the shape of their larynx.

You need to learn the difference between "explained" and "asserted".

Though, to be fair, there are a VAST number of other things you need to learn too.

 

[peacegirl]

It's not just quantitative; it's qualitative. Dogs cannot connect a face with an individual because they don't have the conceptual ability that humans have.

How do you know this?

Because they don't have the ability of language. I already explained this.

Dogs do have "the ability of language". They can understand speech pretty well, or sign language, or whistles and clicks; They can also communicate information back to humans in various ways.

You’re being vague. Show me a conversation with a dog through sign language or any language that proves the dog understands what you’re saying.

They can't speak, but that's just a function of the shape of their larynx.

If that’s all it is. I wonder why their larynx doesn’t allow them to speak. That would be a pretty bad mismatch with their cognition if that were the case.

You need to learn the difference between "explained" and "asserted".

I know all about the difference.

Though, to be fair, there are a VAST number of other things you need to learn too.

And you too! It’s not one sided!!

 

[bilby]

It's not just quantitative; it's qualitative. Dogs cannot connect a face with an individual because they don't have the conceptual ability that humans have.

How do you know this?

Because they don't have the ability of language. I already explained this.

Dogs do have "the ability of language". They can understand speech pretty well, or sign language, or whistles and clicks; They can also communicate information back to humans in various ways.

You’re being vague. Show me a conversation with a dog through sign language or any language that proves the dog understands what you’re saying.

https://nationalsheepdogtrials.org.au/

Working dogs couldn't possibly do their jobs without understanding what they are being asked to do. Handlers use a whole range of communications techniques, including spoken words, whistles, sign language, and even posture.

Dogs trained to detect drugs or explosives need to communicate back to their handlers what they found, and where. In the case of explosives or cadaver detecting dogs, they need to do so without touching their find, as doing so could be highly dangerous and/or could destroy important evidence.

Dogs clearly understand their handlers, and can grasp quite complex instructions.

They can't speak, but that's just a function of the shape of their larynx.

If that’s all it is. I wonder why their larynx doesn’t allow them to speak. That would be a pretty bad mismatch with their cognition if that were the case.

Why? Evolution doesn't give a crap about your opinions of the value of speech.

You are making the same class of error as the colonial powers who held that African slavery was just fine, because the Africans couldn't be civilised, because they don't play cricket or read The Times.

Your biases and culture are not only not universal, but are also not the standard against which all things should be measured.

You need to learn the difference between "explained" and "asserted".

I know all about the difference.

Then stop abusing the word "explained", when you have explained exactly nothing.

Though, to be fair, there are a VAST number of other things you need to learn too.

And you too! It’s not one sided!!

Well, it's pretty one sided. Because one of the things you need to learn is how to learn stuff. Whereas I have known this for a long time.

I have a lot to learn, for sure. But you have all of that to learn, PLUS all the stuff I already learned. Because you wasted your educational opportunites, by embracing a failed epistemology that is founded on faith - in your case, faith in your father.

 

[pood]

I'm not angry. I'm frustrated. I have explained this many times, but you won't hear of it. These were observations. I'm not sure how he could have explained them any better. You don't have to believe him if you don't. Here it is again.

At a very early age, our brain not only records sound, taste, touch, and smell but also photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation, whereas a dog is incapable of this.

That's not only NOT an observation (it's an assertion, and it's a conjecture); It's also completely false in literally every respect.

The brain does not photograph objects.

Developing a negative is a complex chemical process specific to early photography. Not only do brains not do this, but nor do modern cameras.

A camera takes a picture of an object due to light. You cannot determine whether a camera is capturing the real object or an image of the object. Both would produce a picture.

What would it mean for a camera to “capture the real object”? Is the idea here that if I snap a photo of a building across the street, the building itself is somehow inside my camera?

There is no fundamental difference between dogs and humans; Both have similar eyes and similar brains, that work in the same way at the cellular level. The differences that do exist are quantitative, not qualitative.

It's not just quantitative; it's qualitative. Dogs cannot connect a face with an individual because they don't have the conceptual ability that humans have.

It has scientifically, repeatedly demonstrated that dogs and other animals can do exactly that. Sorry if that makes you angry.

Nothing that follows from the unevidenced and frankly stupid belief that the brain takes photographs can possibly be of any worth whatsoever.

Sorry you feel that way.

How does a brain take a photograph? How does it project anything through the optic nerve that is entirely afferent?

Before you can interest me in any of the remaining text, you must therefore explain both what exactly is meant by "photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation" (which from a plain English reading is just nonsense); And you must then show that this is an actual thing that actually happens.

All I can do is share his observations and what he believed was occurring. He did not believe the muscles of the eye of an infant are what allowed that baby to focus. I cannot give you more than what he wrote. If you don't think it's enough, then you're entitled to believe what you want. I am not invested in convincing you. Here is that excerpt again.

Spare us.

 

[pood]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation of sense experience, such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes are the windows of the brain, through which experience is gained, not by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience. If a lion roared in that room, a newborn baby would hear the sound and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then transmitted to the brain. 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 because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ.

The optic nerve is entirely afferent.

Your father was an idiot, and the above passage is gibberish.

 

[DBT]

In my view determinism and free will are basically the same thing. You cannot have the latter without the former.

That has been debated for centuries. Libertarians disagree, incompatibilists disagree.....who is right? Everyone thinks that they are right.

In the case of instant vision, projection and determinism as a means to world peace, there is no debate, it's just a bad idea.

DBT, you are mixing his discoveries up. Stick with his first discovery, which is why we can be prevented from striking a first blow.

There is no discovery. There is no real time/instant vision, no projection, and how some form of tweaked determinism is supposed to bring about world peace has not, despite numerous requests, been explained.

I am trying, as I said earlier, but this is not the way to discuss a book that has NOT been read. I must have been dreaming when I thought this could work, but there is no way it can. It's not the fault of the discovery, but how it's being delivered. There is no demonstration given in a step-by-step fashion. Look at what Pood is doing? He's doing the very same thing he did at FF. He's trying to yank sentences out of context and make them look ridiculous. I've learned my lesson. When I leave here, I'm not doing this again. Every bit of desire has been drained out of me.

I assume that you have read the book, that you should be familiar with the authors contentions, so it shouldn't be a problem to explain the link between his modified version of determinism and how that relates to world peace....plus how real time seeing relates to this claim.

Maybe give a definition of his modified form of determinism as a start. That would help.

I'm curious. Did you read the first three chapters that I posted or not? It begins on post 5473. The modified form of the definition is necessary because determinism, the way it is defined, talks about antecedent events CAUSING a chain of events that are determined without any possibility of it being any different. This is 100% true. But, according to Lessans, the past is nothing more than a memory; it cannot cause... because it doesn't exist. We make choices based on our current knowledge and use what we remember to guide our next decision in the direction that offers us greater satisfaction. The other side of this is that nothing can make us do what we make up our mind not to do. We have absolute control over this. I'm beginning to be concerned that no one understands the core of the discovery that are based on these two principles. Please go back to post 5473 and start reading if you haven't already. I cannot do this all alone. People have to meet me halfway if they are truly interested in following these principles, which will put an end to war. I am not getting into the senses again unless his first discovery is understood.

If the definition of determinism is modified to permit events that have not been determined, it's no longer determinism. The author is simply moving the goalposts. That is not a discovery.

WTF, this is not changing the goalposts. Are you serious DBT? Do you not understand the definition at all?

Determinism, by definition, does not permit alternate actions. If it does, it isn't Determinism.

As it happens that you said that the author modified Determinism in a way that permits his desired redult, world peace, that is no longer defined as determinism.

If determinism is true and world peace becomes a reality, it inevitably becomes a reality.

 

[pood]

It's not just quantitative; it's qualitative. Dogs cannot connect a face with an individual because they don't have the conceptual ability that humans have.

How do you know this?

Because they don't have the ability of language. I already explained this.

Actually, dogs do have the ability of language, though that is not required for recognizing faces by sight alone. Dogs are communicating with us in language via sound boards.

The above and the rest of your crap is just zeppelin tethers.

 

[DBT]

Here in Seattle pigeons and sea gulls are everywhere. No natural predators. Pigeons eat and crap all over. Sea gulls are nasty flying rats.

Seagulls, really just gulls, are not nasty flying rats. They are beautiful creatures. I believe it was Dawkins who stated that they are so well designed for flight that it could almost make him believe in a designer.

Gulls, who eat worms, are so smart that they have figured out how do a collective dance on sunny days that sounds like the patter of rain. This makes the worms come out, whom they then eat.

Pigeons are beautiful. They have five cones so they see tens of millions of colors that humans don’t. They are very intelligent, and recognize individual humans. Several years ago, I had a pigeon friend, Brownie, with whom I shared roast chicken on a park bench. He let me pet him and so have other pigeons.

Pigeons and gulls in cities absolutely do have predators: falcons, hawks, owls, racoons, cats, among others. I have seen a falcon in a park grab a pigeon and fly away with it.

Gills are flying rats. They steal from each other. Crap all over.

In Washington state, it is illegal to feed seagulls in all state park areas and in various cities where local ordinances prohibit the practice. While there is no universal statewide ban specifically for seagulls, new 2025 regulations from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) make it illegal to feed any wildlife if doing so causes deer, elk, or moose to congregate.

Enforcement: Penalties for seagull-feeding offenses can range from small fines to civil penalties of up to $750 depending on the severity and local code.

Environmental and Health Impact

Disease Spread: Feeding encourages gulls to crowd together, which promotes the spread of diseases among birds and potentially to humans.
Public Nuisance: Large congregations of fed gulls can cause defacement and deterioration of public and private property through droppings and litter.

Seagulls are highly opportunistic, omnivorous feeders that eat a wide range of foods, including fish, marine invertebrates (crabs, mussels), insects, eggs, rodents, and refuse. Their diets vary by location, shifting from natural marine prey to scavenging human trash, fast food, and agricultural waste.\

I watched them drop shellfish on rocks to crack the shell. When one gets food in the beak others chase it to take it away.

I watched gulls line up with diving birds and try to go underwater with them.

Observational Learning: Studies show that seagulls watch what people are eating and target those specific items. They are more likely to approach food if they see a human interacting with it first.
Recognizing People: Gulls can remember faces, particularly those of people who have fed them or, conversely, those who have acted aggressively towards them.

Sorry pood, you are just a meal ticket.

Crows can remember faces. I watched a University Washington study on it out on the open. If you piss off crows they will remember you. A guy wore a mask and harassed crows. When he waked past without it no reaction, reacted to the mask. It appeared it could be communicated to other crows.

Pigeons were once trained to spot international orange for open water aircraft search. They would peck on a device to indicate direction.

Pigeons were indeed used in aerial water searches, most notably in a U.S. Coast Guard program called
Project Sea Hunt during the late 1970s and early 1980s. In this program, trained pigeons were used as "pigeon-powered sensors" to spot survivors, life rafts, and debris in the open ocean.

These birds definitely have amazing skills, but they cannot recognize faces in a lineup (as far as I can tell) without other cues to help them. They may associate a mask with aggression if they were hurt by someone wearing one (that's no surprise), but this does not prove that the eyes are a sense organ.

For heavens sake, animals need to recognize objects in their environment in order to interact with it, find food, shelter, avoid danger. That is what sight enables. The eyes detect light and the brain generates sight.

I am not talking about light. I am talking about recognition. Where have you been whole this time?

Recognition follows from the eyes detecting light, acquiring and transmitting information to the brain, which processes that information and you see and recognize the things in your environment.

 

[pood]

It's not just quantitative; it's qualitative. Dogs cannot connect a face with an individual because they don't have the conceptual ability that humans have.

How do you know this?

Because they don't have the ability of language. I already explained this.

Dogs do have "the ability of language". They can understand speech pretty well, or sign language, or whistles and clicks; They can also communicate information back to humans in various ways.

You’re being vague. Show me a conversation with a dog through sign language or any language that proves the dog understands what you’re saying.

Dogs understand words from sound boards buttons, study reveals.

Why do you hate and fear dogs?

 

[pood]

Recent studies I have found suggest that some dogs can learn up to 250 words, but I’m betting it could be a lot more than that. As more dogs use sound boards we will find out more.

There was a famous dog, whose name I unfortunately forget, who appeared to be a dog genius and clearly understood words. There is a video of him with his human partner and Neil deGrasse Tyson. The dog could find stuffed animals by name hidden behind a couch, and would fetch them on command.

Tyson smuggled in a Charles Darwin doll that the dog had never seen. He threw it in with a bunch of other stuffed animals and dolls behind the couch that the dog already knew. Tyson told the dog to go find Charles Darwin. At first he was confused, and came back from behind the couch for more instruction. Tyson repeated the command to go find Charles Darwin.

The dog then came out with Charles Darwin in its mouth.

This shows that the dog employed the process of elimination, previously thought, wrongly, to be exclusive to humans. He knew the names of the other stuffed animals and dolls but had never seen Charles Darwin. So by process of elimination he figured the only candidate for Darwin was the doll he had never seen, and brought it out. Note that he did this by sight alone, since he had never had any contact with the Darwin doll.

All hail dogs, science, the eyes as sense organs, and evolution!

 

[steve_bank]

I knew some bees who when they saw me coming would hover and spell out 'hello Steve'.

From what I read bees can be conditioned to recognize pictures. not the same as 'recognizing'. Their brains are too small for that. Semantics.

Pavlov conditioned digs to salivate at the ring of a bell.

Pavlovian (classical) conditioning involves associating an involuntary reflex with a new stimulus, whereas operant conditioning (Skinner) associates voluntary behavior with consequences like rewards or punishments. Pavlov focused on involuntary responses (e.g., salivation), while operant conditioning

Operant conditioning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Operant conditioning originated with Edward Thorndike, whose law of effect theorised that behaviors arise as a result of consequences as satisfying or discomforting. In the 20th century, operant conditioning was studied by behavioral psychologists, who believed that much of mind and behaviour is explained through environmental conditioning. Reinforcements are environmental stimuli that increase behaviors, whereas punishments are stimuli that decrease behaviors. Both kinds of stimuli can be further categorised into positive and negative stimuli, which respectively involve the addition or removal of environmental stimuli.

 

[peacegirl]

It's not just quantitative; it's qualitative. Dogs cannot connect a face with an individual because they don't have the conceptual ability that humans have.

How do you know this?

Because they don't have the ability of language. I already explained this.

Dogs do have "the ability of language". They can understand speech pretty well, or sign language, or whistles and clicks; They can also communicate information back to humans in various ways.

You’re being vague. Show me a conversation with a dog through sign language or any language that proves the dog understands what you’re saying.

https://nationalsheepdogtrials.org.au/

Working dogs couldn't possibly do their jobs without understanding what they are being asked to do. Handlers use a whole range of communications techniques, including spoken words, whistles, sign language, and even posture.

I owned a sheepdog for 17 years. She had a herding instinct but in no way could she understand human language other than commands that most dogs can follow. Different gestures is different than communicating concepts that require reasoning ability.

Dogs trained to detect drugs or explosives need to communicate back to their handlers what they found, and where. In the case of explosives or cadaver detecting dogs, they need to do so without touching their find, as doing so could be highly dangerous and/or could destroy important evidence.

Dogs clearly understand their handlers, and can grasp quite complex instructions.

What do you call "complex" instructions? Do they understand a conversation and respond? They may feel your pain if you are distressed but they cannot understand a conversation that has "because" in it.

They can't speak, but that's just a function of the shape of their larynx.

If that’s all it is. I wonder why their larynx doesn’t allow them to speak. That would be a pretty bad mismatch with their cognition if that were the case.

Why? Evolution doesn't give a crap about your opinions of the value of speech.

That is true, but evolution evolves out of need. To say that a dog's larynx is the only reason why he can't speak is ludicrous because it would mean a mismatch between a dog's cognitive ability (language ability) and his ability to express himself.

You are making the same class of error as the colonial powers who held that African slavery was just fine, because the Africans couldn't be civilised, because they don't play cricket or read The Times.

Your biases and culture are not only not universal, but are also not the standard against which all things should be measured.

You are missing the entire point in that children learn very quickly what their culture values insofar as what they see as beautiful and what is ugly. This also supports the fact that what is considered beautiful and ugly universally doesn't exist, but it holds certain commonalities. IOW, the screen may change, but it doesn't change how children are conditioned due to words. For anyone who hasn't read this excerpt, here it is again. This is very hard because discussing a book of this importance that has not been read is a death sentence for this discovery to be given the respect it deserves. I am sure there will be other ways to prove he was right, but for now, this is enough.
------------------------------------------------------------

Once it is understood as an undeniable law that nothing impinges on the optic nerve, even though the pupils dilate and contract according to the intensity of light, it becomes possible to separate what exists in the external world from that which is only a negative or word in our heads. In the course of our children’s development, they learn other kinds of words that form inaccurate relations, not only because a judgment of personal value is given external reality by the symbol itself, but also because the logic of unconscious syllogistic reasoning confirms the apparent validity of inaccurate observations. Let me show you how this was accomplished.

From the time we were small children, our relatives, parents, friends, and acquaintances have expressed their personal likes and dislikes regarding people’s physiognomies. The words “beautiful,” “pretty,” “cute,” “adorable,” “handsome,” etc., heard over and over again with an enhancing inflection as to someone’s physical appearance, took a picture of the similarities between this type of physiognomy and developed negatives, which also contained the degree of feeling experienced. Similarly, an entire range of words heard repeatedly with a detracting inflection as to someone’s physical characteristics took a picture of the similarities between this type of physiognomy and developed negatives containing the degree of feeling experienced below this line of demarcation. As time went on, a standard of beauty was established. Not knowing what the brain was able to do, we were convinced that one group of similarities contained a lesser value than the opposite similarities. We were unaware that the brain had reversed the process by which these negatives were developed and then projected onto the screen of undeniable differences, a value that existed only in our heads. It would not be long before we would be conditioned to desire associating with one type while avoiding the other, and as we would get older, no one would be able to convince us that an ugly or beautiful person did not exist because we had witnessed these differences with our very eyes. In other words, when a word contains a judgment of value, a standard of perfection, then we are able to project this value directly onto substance, and then, because we see this with our very eyes, it was a simple thing to convince ourselves that beauty was a definite part of the real world. The confusion between what is real and what is not comes from the fact that these words not only describe real differences that exist in the world, but they also create external values when there are no such things. I will give you an example of this by using a movie projector.

Here is a smooth white wall in a dark room with nothing on it. I am dropping a negative plate or slide into the projector, flipping the switch, and just take a look — there is a picture of a girl on the wall. But go up and touch her. All you feel is the wall itself because the girl is not there. We have been doing the same thing with our brain regarding values. The differences in substance were not only divided up by the use of words like “man,” “woman,” “child,” etc., but became a screen upon which we were able to project this value. Drop a negative plate or word slide in your brain projector and flip the switch. Well, just take a look — there is now a beautiful girl, a homely man, an ugly duckling! Turn off the switch (remove the negative plate or word slide), and all you see are the differences in substance because the projected values have been removed. Since we were taught that the eyes receive and transmit sense experience on the waves of light, it was impossible to deny that this beautiful girl actually existed, and when we changed the standard hidden in the word, all we did was change the screen. By saying that this person may not be beautiful physically but has a beautiful soul, we were allowed to see ugly souls as if they, too, existed externally. Scientists, believing that the eyes were a sense organ, unconsciously confirmed what man saw with them because they were unaware that it was possible to project a fallacious relation realistically.

Consequently, everything in the external world will be distorted if the words through which man looks at what he calls reality are inaccurate symbols or if the relation that is photographed becomes, as in the five senses, an inaccurate negative that is then projected realistically upon undeniable substance. The word “beautiful” has absolutely no external reality, and yet, because it is learned in association with a particular physiognomy, a beautiful girl is created when no such person exists. Obviously, there is a difference between the shape and features of individuals, but to label one beautiful and another ugly only reveals that you are conscious of a fallacious difference that is projected through your eyes upon substance that cannot be denied, which makes the projection appear real. By having the words “beautiful,” “ugly,” “gorgeous,” etc., as slides in a movie projector through which the brain will look at the external world, a fallacious value is placed upon certain specific differences only because of the words, which are then confirmed as a part of the real world since man will swear that he sees beautiful women with his eyes. But in actual reality, all he sees are different shapes and different features. This beautiful girl is not striking his optic nerve, which then allows him to see her beauty, but instead he projects the word onto these differences and then photographs a fallacious relation. The brain records all relations, whether true or false, and since it was considered an indisputable fact that man had five senses which were connected in some way with the external world, and since four of these were accurately described as sense organs, that is, they receive and transmit external stimuli, it was very easy for Aristotle to get confused and put a closure on further investigation by including the eyes in the definition, which he did only because he never understood their true function.

iYou need to learn the difference between "explained" and "asserted".

I know all about the difference.

Then stop abusing the word "explained", when you have explained exactly nothing.

He explained the concepts very well. You just don't agree to make it reasonable for you to say he didn't explain well.

Though, to be fair, there are a VAST number of other things you need to learn too.

And you too! It’s not one sided!!

Well, it's pretty one sided. Because one of the things you need to learn is how to learn stuff. Whereas I have known this for a long time.

I have a lot to learn, for sure. But you have all of that to learn, PLUS all the stuff I already learned. Because you wasted your educational opportunites, by embracing a failed epistemology that is founded on faith - in your case, faith in your father.

You will be very contrite when this knowledge has nothing to do with faith in my father. This is prejudicial on your part.

Now stop and think about this for one moment. A discovery has been made that will go down in history as one that will change the entire world of human relations for the better. Yet, because it challenges a theory that is held by many world religions, there is a hostile reaction when it is questioned. This is a perfect example of how the preemptive authority of false knowledge, which is passed along from generation to generation by theology, government, and various other sources, does not even allow a person to open their mind to hear the explanation. The theologians I contacted, though they admit to praying to God for deliverance from evil, also believe it is impossible for man to accomplish this apparent miracle. In a sense, they are right because the law that was discovered is equivalent to the law that inheres in the solar system, over which we have no control. Any system of dogma that is based on a rigid framework, without the possibility of reform, needs to be reexamined so that the truth can be revealed. This is much easier said than done because the knowledge of what it means that man’s will is not free was buried deeper than atomic energy and presents problems that are almost insurmountable. Convincing a few people of this truth is one thing; convincing the entire world is something else. Suppose the very people whose understanding it is necessary to reach refuse to examine the facts on the grounds that the discovery could not be valid because it starts out with the premise that man’s will is not free. To show you how confused are those who have been guiding us, a rabbi was told that the author of the book “Decline and Fall of All Evil” has the permanent solution to every problem of human relations, and he replied, “How do we know that God wants us to remove all evil?” Now you tell me, if he is doubtful of this, why do all theologians ask God in the Lord’s Prayer to deliver us from evil? Another rabbi criticized me for not attending the synagogue, to which I replied, “Isn’t the reason you go to the temple due to your faith in God, your belief that one day He will reveal Himself to all mankind?” “That is true,” he answered. “Well, you see, Rabbi, the reason I don’t go to the synagogue is because I know for a fact that God is real. I don’t have faith or believe this; I know that 2+2=4; I don’t have faith or believe that this is true.”

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
That is true, but evolution evolves out of need. To say that a dog's larynx is the only reason why he can't speak is ludicrous because it would mean a mismatch between a dog's cognitive ability (language ability) and his ability to express himself.

Evolution is blind, no intent or purpose. No intelligence.

Just blind chemical reactions. Theory Of Evolution in total is more complex, but it is natural selection

An organism does not choose to mutate.

 

[steve_bank]

Still don't see the connection between dog vision and getting rid of war.

From a show on dog breeds. All sheep dogs do not have the instinct to herd.

Young sheep dogs are tested for it.

 

[peacegirl]

I'm not angry. I'm frustrated. I have explained this many times, but you won't hear of it. These were observations. I'm not sure how he could have explained them any better. You don't have to believe him if you don't. Here it is again.

At a very early age, our brain not only records sound, taste, touch, and smell but also photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation, whereas a dog is incapable of this.

That's not only NOT an observation (it's an assertion, and it's a conjecture); It's also completely false in literally every respect.

The brain does not photograph objects.

Developing a negative is a complex chemical process specific to early photography. Not only do brains not do this, but nor do modern cameras.

A camera takes a picture of an object due to light. You cannot determine whether a camera is capturing the real object or an image of the object. Both would produce a picture.

What would it mean for a camera to “capture the real object”? Is the idea here that if I snap a photo of a building across the street, the building itself is somehow inside my camera?

You are making lulz, as usual. I don't have time for this without proof. and it doesn't exist.

There is no fundamental difference between dogs and humans; Both have similar eyes and similar brains, that work in the same way at the cellular level. The differences that do exist are quantitative, not qualitative.

It's not just quantitative; it's qualitative. Dogs cannot connect a face with an individual because they don't have the conceptual ability that humans have.

It has scientifically, repeatedly demonstrated that dogs and other animals can do exactly that. Sorry if that makes you angry.

It has not been scientifically repeated. It repeats a narrative that has taken hold as the only possible way that reality exists.

Nothing that follows from the unevidenced and frankly stupid belief that the brain takes photographs can possibly be of any worth whatsoever.

Sorry you feel that way.

How does a brain take a photograph? How does it project anything through the optic nerve that is entirely afferent?

How does light turn into an image from an optic nerve that does not do what science says it does? There is something very different between how an infant can recognize objects and all the other senses that show an immediate reaction.

Before you can interest me in any of the remaining text, you must therefore explain both what exactly is meant by "photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation" (which from a plain English reading is just nonsense); And you must then show that this is an actual thing that actually happens.

All I can do is share his observations and what he believed was occurring. He did not believe the muscles of the eye of an infant are what allowed that baby to focus. I cannot give you more than what he wrote. If you don't think it's enough, then you're entitled to believe what you want. I am not invested in convincing you. Here is that excerpt again.

Spare us.

You are not Einstein, Pood. So stfu with your entitlement, as if you have it all figured out. YOU DON'T.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
A camera takes a picture of an object due to light. You cannot determine whether a camera is capturing the real object or an image of the object. Both would produce a picture.

I think there may be truth in that for once, but don't know what it is supposed to prove regarding war and crime. I can take a picture of a picture.

Light reflects off an object, light also reflects off a hard copy picture In both cases light is absorbed and reflected cantering patterns in the light, the image.

The only issue is what you mean bu image of of a real object.

You say light is required to see an object, bit the image is not conveyed by light. The image is already at the eye without delay, and I presume a camera.

I think there are still 35mm cameras that use film . Expose film to light reflecting off an object and chemical reactions between light and the film produce an image of the object.

How does real time or instant vision explain how that works?

Paint a piece of cardboard black and out a circularr hole in the middle. In a dark room sine a light behind the hole. How is the image of the hole you see formed and conveyed to the eye? There is no reflection.

 

[steve_bank]

I'm not angry. I'm frustrated. I have explained this many times, but you won't hear of it. These were observations. I'm not sure how he could have explained them any better. You don't have to believe him if you don't. Here it is again.

At a very early age, our brain not only records sound, taste, touch, and smell but also photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation, whereas a dog is incapable of this.

That's not only NOT an observation (it's an assertion, and it's a conjecture); It's also completely false in literally every respect.

The brain does not photograph objects.

Developing a negative is a complex chemical process specific to early photography. Not only do brains not do this, but nor do modern cameras.

A camera takes a picture of an object due to light. You cannot determine whether a camera is capturing the real object or an image of the object. Both would produce a picture.

What would it mean for a camera to “capture the real object”? Is the idea here that if I snap a photo of a building across the street, the building itself is somehow inside my camera?

You are making lulz, as usual. I don't have time for this without proof. and it doesn't exist.

There is no fundamental difference between dogs and humans; Both have similar eyes and similar brains, that work in the same way at the cellular level. The differences that do exist are quantitative, not qualitative.

It's not just quantitative; it's qualitative. Dogs cannot connect a face with an individual because they don't have the conceptual ability that humans have.

It has scientifically, repeatedly demonstrated that dogs and other animals can do exactly that. Sorry if that makes you angry.

It has not been scientifically repeated. It repeats a narrative that has taken hold as the only possible way that reality exists.

Nothing that follows from the unevidenced and frankly stupid belief that the brain takes photographs can possibly be of any worth whatsoever.

Sorry you feel that way.

How does a brain take a photograph? How does it project anything through the optic nerve that is entirely afferent?

How does light turn into an image from an optic nerve that does not do what science says it does? There is something very different between how an infant can recognize objects and all the other senses that show an immediate reaction.

Before you can interest me in any of the remaining text, you must therefore explain both what exactly is meant by "photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation" (which from a plain English reading is just nonsense); And you must then show that this is an actual thing that actually happens.

All I can do is share his observations and what he believed was occurring. He did not believe the muscles of the eye of an infant are what allowed that baby to focus. I cannot give you more than what he wrote. If you don't think it's enough, then you're entitled to believe what you want. I am not invested in convincing you. Here is that excerpt again.

Spare us.

You are not Einstein, Pood. So stfu with your entitlement, as if you have it all figured out. YOU DON'T.

I am not an Einstein either, but I know how the eye and light and iimage formation works.

Lessans from what is written knew nothing about science. He created fictional pseudoscience mumbo jumbo.

Whoever the people on the thread my actually be, they all appear to know a hell of a lot more than you do and your hero Lean did.

Realize it and get over it.