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

[peacegirl]

He never denied that sight was not only possible but commonplace among animals.

I don't care what he didn't claim; I do care that his claim requires us all to disregard reality.

They may not need the same sense experience to focus.

Or they may. Given that there is no difference in form, or apparent function, between human eyes and those of other mammals (and indeed most vertebrates), the very suggestion that these other animals may differ from humans in the way their eyes function is a radical and extraordinary claim, that requires detailed and compelling evidence.

"May not" is a vague handwave; It is the very antithesis of the detailed and compelling evidence that is required.

It's not a radical and extraordinary claim when you realize that I'm only talking about brain function in relation to the eyes. Animals don't have the cognitive abilities to reason. It does not mean they can't see things; they just can't identify differences by sight alone because this involves words. Some dogs have the ability to recognize a word in relation to an object, but they are limited in their language ability. This is why they need their sense of smell or sound to confirm what it is they are seeing. No one is disputing that light at the eye is necessary for sight. Whether they see in real time or delayed time is the only thing in question. The retina and optic nerve work in the same way.

We know that light has to be at the eye in order to see. No one is disputing this, as Pood tried to make it appear.

I am not arguing with Pood, and none of what I say has anything to do with his comments; I am addressing only what you are posting.

Thank you! I know Pood is trying very hard to make a fool out of this author. I'm glad you're not paying attention to him.

And yes, we are in agreement that "light has to be at the eye in order to see".

It wouldn't make sense if light wasn't at the eye. It would be some kind of teleportation, which is not what the author was saying.

Once again, animals are not human which means that their sight may have nothing to do with their focusing ability. We have to stick with human sight and go from there.

Again with the "may have" handwave, in a place where a successful argument would demand detailed evidence for the radical departure from the obvious.

I did not mean to handwave anything away. I was thinking in terms of eyeless animals who perceive light but differently than animals with eyes. And animals with eyes may need other sense experiences (sound, smell, touch, and taste) in order to focus. I believe his observations were correct, but I have no problem with people questioning. That's how we find out the truth. If his observations do not match reality, I'll concede, but not until his knowledge is thoroughly studied from beginning to end, which no one has done.

The definition of epistemology is the theory or science of the method and grounds of knowledge, especially with reference to its limits and validity. For the modern empiricist, the only way knowledge becomes 'stamped’ onto the human conscience is through internal and external sensations, or through sense experience. But there is surprising evidence that the eyes are not a sense organ. The idea that man has five senses originated with Aristotle, and it has never been challenged. He did this just as naturally as we would name anything to identify it. But he made an assumption that the eyes functioned like the other senses, so he included them in the definition. This is equivalent to calling an apple, pear, peach, orange, and potato five fruits. The names given to these foods describe differences in substance that exist in the real world, but we certainly could not call them five fruits since this word excludes the potato, which is not grown in the same manner as is described by the word fruit. Believe it or not, the eyes, similar to the potato in the above example, were classified in a category to which they did not belong. We cannot name the organs with which we communicate with the outside world — the five senses—when they do not function alike. Aristotle, however, didn’t know this. His logic and renown delayed an immediate investigation of his theory because no one dared oppose the genius of this individual without appearing ridiculous for such audacity, which brought about almost unanimous agreement. To disagree was so presumptuous that nobody dared to voice their disagreement because this would only incur disdainful criticism. Everyone believed that such a brilliant individual, such a genius, had to know whereof he spoke. This is not a criticism of Aristotle or of anyone. But even today, we are still in agreement regarding a fallacious observation about the brain and its relation to the eyes. Those who will consider the possibility that you might have a discovery reveal their confusion by trying to nullify any value to it with this comment, as was made to me, “What difference does it make what we call them as a group, this isn’t going to change who we are. Whether we call them five senses or four senses and a pair of eyes, is certainly not going to change them in any way.” However, if man doesn’t really have five senses, isn’t it obvious that just as long as we think otherwise, we will be prevented from discovering those things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery? Consequently, it does make a difference what we call them. Just as my first discovery was not that man’s will is not free but the knowledge revealed by opening that door for a thorough investigation, so likewise, my second discovery is not that man does not have five senses but what significant knowledge lies hidden behind this door. Many years later, we have an additional problem that is more difficult to overcome because this fallacious observation has graduated dogmatically into what is considered genuine knowledge, for it is actually taught in school as an absolute fact, and our professors, doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms, so to speak, against anyone who would dare oppose what they have come to believe is the truth without even hearing or wanting to hear any evidence to the contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful, the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth. However, it appears that they will not be given the opportunity because the very moment the will of God is perceived and understood, man is given no alternative as to what direction he must travel, which is away from condemning someone who has uncovered a falsehood. The real truth is that there are thousands upon thousands of differences existing in the external world, but when words do not describe these differences accurately, we are then seeing a distorted version of what exists — as with free will.

This is such a blatant case of ad-hoc reasoning that it astonishes me that you have the gall to post it in a rationalist forum.

If you want others to accept that human sight is different from that of other mammals in any important and significant way, then you need to demonstrate that it is.

I didn't say that at all. I was thinking about invertebrates that only use light as a stimulus. Animals are different in what they can do, but they all use light to see. He used dogs as an example to show that they cannot recognize their masters through sight alone when all other cues are removed. The reason is they don't have the capacity since they don't have language, which is necessary for recognition. You haven't heard the rest of the chapter. I'm not telling you to agree if you don't, but why is it so difficult giving him half a chance to demonstrate his findings? If you listen to his observations before throwing them out, they do make sense. P.S. He was the most rational person you would ever want to meet, so this is the right place, not a religious forum, especially when he says that religion will soon be coming to an end.

 

[bilby]

He used dogs as an example to show that they cannot recognize their masters through sight alone.

Yeah, that's an excellent example, if only because I know for a fact that it is wrong, and anyone can demonstrate its falsity fairly easily.

All you need is a dog, and a closed car, room, or building, with windows the dog can see out of.

I own all of those things, so I can be 100% certain, from direct personal experience, that this is simply untrue.

 

[pood]

He never denied that sight was not only possible but commonplace among animals.

I don't care what he didn't claim; I do care that his claim requires us all to disregard reality.

They may not need the same sense experience to focus.

Or they may. Given that there is no difference in form, or apparent function, between human eyes and those of other mammals (and indeed most vertebrates), the very suggestion that these other animals may differ from humans in the way their eyes function is a radical and extraordinary claim, that requires detailed and compelling evidence.

"May not" is a vague handwave; It is the very antithesis of the detailed and compelling evidence that is required.

It's not a radical and extraordinary claim when you realize that I'm only talking about brain function in relation to the eyes. Animals don't have the cognitive abilities to reason, which makes a difference.

False. A great many animals can and do reason, and some may even have language.

It does not mean they can't see things; they just can't identify slight differences by sight alone because this involves words, which they don't have.

They can’t, huh? Apparently you are blissfully unaware that humans have some of the weakest eyes in the animal kingdom. The eyes of all birds, for example, are vastly more perceptive than our own, their vision vastly sharper, and I believe all birds have more cones than we have — pigeons have five — which allows them to see vastly more colors than we can see. How do you think an eagle hunts? With its eyes! As to dogs, they have two cones, which means they see fewer colors than we do, but they have more rods, which means their night vision is better than ours.

Thank you! I know Pood is trying very hard to make a fool out of this author. I'm glad you're not paying attention to him.

I think you read too much into what Bilby said.

And yes, we are in agreement that "light has to be at the eye in order to see".

It wouldn't make sense if light wasn't at the eye. That would some kind of teleportation? That is not what the author was saying.

OK. Then what is he (or is it YOU) saying?

The claim is that if God turns on the sun at noon, people on earth would see it immediately. But since it takes light from the sun 8.5 minutes to reach the eye, it’s impossible to see the sun immediately when it is turned on, because the light is not at the eye!

Once again, animals are not human which means that their sight may have nothing to do with their focusing ability. We have to stick with human sight and go from there.

Again with the "may have" handwave, in a place where a successful argument would demand detailed evidence for the radical departure from the obvious.

I am not saying "maybe have." I believe his observations tell a different story where the eyes are concerned. If his observations do not match reality, I'll concede, but not until his knowledge is thoroughly studied from beginning to end, which no one has done.

Countless studies over centuries throughly debunk such claims.

This is such a blatant case of ad-hoc reasoning that it astonishes me that you have the gall to post it in a rationalist forum.

If you want others to accept that human sight is different from that of other mammals in any important and significant way, then you need to demonstrate that it is.

I didn't say that at all. I was thinking about invertebrates that only use light as a stimulus. Animals are different in what they can do, but they all use light in which to see. He used dogs as an example to show that they cannot recognize their masters through sight alone.

But they can. And, as we showed you at FF, they can also recognize them in photos and on videos, with no sense of smell at all to help them.

Why is that if the image is traveling to their eyes and brain?

Images do not travel to the eye or brain. Light travels. This was explained to you by me and others at FF, including a biologist and two astrophysicists.

Because they don't have the capacity since they don't have the language, which is necessary for recognition.

Language is not necessary for recognition. Many animals can recognize their own reflections in mirrors, including as it turns out, rather astoundingly, ants.

You haven't heard the rest of the chapter. I'm not telling you to agree if you don't, but what's so hard about giving him half a chance to demonstrate his findings? If you listen to his observations before throwing them out, they do make sense. P.S. He was the most rational person you would ever want to meet, so this is the right place to be in this regard, not a religious forum, especially when he says that religion will soon be coming to an end.

So will “homo-sexuality,” as he styles it, according to him.

 

[bilby]

they don't have the capacity since they don't have the language, which is necessary for recognition.

Even if that were true, it would be equally true of recognition using senses other than sight.

Language is demonstrably not necessary for recognition, as is obvious to anybody who is capable of joined up thinking.

 

[bilby]

I know Pood is trying very hard to make a fool out of this author. I'm glad you're not paying attention to him.

I said that I wasn't arguing with him.

 

[pood]

I might add that birds, who have vastly superior vision to us, recognize individual humans without any language to help them.

 

[pood]

Dogs not only have better night vision than we do, they are better at detecting motion.

 

[pood]

I’ll correct myself after doing a little research to note that human eyes rank pretty high in the animal kingdom, but still are distinctly below that of birds and a number of others. But how one ranks visual acuity depends on what one asks. To return to dogs, they tend to be nearsighted, and are red-green color-blind, but they have better night vision than we do and are better at detecting motion.

 

[peacegirl]

He used dogs as an example to show that they cannot recognize their masters through sight alone.

Yeah, that's an excellent example, if only because I know for a fact that it is wrong, and anyone can demonstrate its falsity fairly easily.

All you need is a dog, and a closed car, room, or building, with windows the dog can see out of.

I own all of those things, so I can be 100% certain, from direct personal experience, that this is simply untrue.

I know Pood is trying very hard to make a fool out of this author. I'm glad you're not paying attention to him.

I said that I wasn't arguing with him.

Good.

 

[peacegirl]

they don't have the capacity since they don't have the language, which is necessary for recognition.

Even if that were true, it would be equally true of recognition using senses other than sight.

It would if they worked alike, but they don't. Smell and sound ARE sense organs, which impinge on nerve endings that allow for recognition.

Language is demonstrably not necessary for recognition, as is obvious to anybody who is capable of joined up thinking.

Joined up thinking? Language is necessary for recognition.

Let us continue our discussion to observe how our brain operates.”

At a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste, touch, and smell but photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation, whereas a dog is incapable of this. When he sees the features of his master without any accompanying sound or smell, he cannot identify them because no photograph was taken. A dog identifies through his sense of sound and smell and what he sees in relation to these sense experiences, just as we identify most of the differences that exist through words and names. If the negative plate on which the relation is formed is temporarily disconnected — in man’s case the words and names and in a dog’s case the sounds and smells — both would have a case of amnesia. This gives conclusive evidence as to why an animal cannot identify too well with his eyes. As we have seen, if a vicious dog accustomed to attacking any person who should open the fence at night were to have two senses, hearing and smell, temporarily disconnected, and assuming that no relation was developed as to the way in which an individual walked, he would actually have amnesia, and even though he saw with his eyes his master come through the gate, he would have no way of recognizing him and would attack. But a baby, having already developed negatives of relations that act as a slide in a movie projector, can recognize at a very early age. The brain is a very complex piece of machinery that not only acts as a tape recorder through our ears and the other three senses and a camera through our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as a movie projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded, they are projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects held in relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, 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. To understand this better, let us observe my granddaughter learning words.

It is obvious that this baby looks out through her eyes and sees various animals and people in motion, but she is not conscious of differences. She may be drawn to play with one animal in preference to another, or she may prefer to play with one toy over another, but as far as she is concerned, all she sees are a bunch of objects. By constantly hearing certain sounds in relation to specific objects, she soon knows that apple, orange, doll, dress, sun, moon, dog, cat, couch, chair, etc. mean the very things she sees with her eyes. These bits of substance are a definite part of the real world, and she knows this even before learning the words. She has experienced most of these with her four senses, and even though this cannot be done where the sun and moon are concerned, she still sees that something is there. Remember, however, that nothing from the external world strikes her optic nerve to allow her to see these various objects. She simply sees these things because she looks at them. A dog also sees these objects because he looks at them. He tastes, smells, and hears various things, but since nothing strikes his optic nerve, he must confirm what he is doubtful of with his sense of smell.

“But doesn’t the brain take a picture through the eyes of the differences that exist? I can see them through my eyes, why can’t a dog see them through his?”

Because he knows nothing of differences. He enjoys certain objects better than others. He likes his master and dislikes strangers. He likes to eat certain things, and he is drawn to certain females, but there is no way his brain can perceive differences because this involves words. Let us continue.

As my granddaughter’s eyes are focused on one of our canine friends, I shall repeat the word ‘dog’ rapidly in her ear. When she turns away, I stop. This will be continued until she looks for him when hearing the word, which indicates that a relation between this particular sound and object has been established and a photograph taken. Soon this relation is formed which makes her conscious of a particular difference that exists in the external world. As she learns more and more words such as cat, horse, bird, sun, moon, etc., she becomes conscious of these differences, which no one can deny because they are seen through words or slides that circumscribe accurately these various bits of substance. This is exactly how we learn words, only I am speeding up the process. Before long she learns house, tree, car, chair, door, kitchen, television, airplane, moon, stars, nose, teeth, eyes, hair, girl, boy, and so on. She soon learns that these bits of substance are different, and that is why they have different names. Until she learns the word cat she could very easily point to a dog when hearing that word because a negative of the difference has not yet been developed, just as a fox cannot be differentiated from a dog until a photograph of the difference has been developed. She also learns the names of individuals: Mommy, Daddy, Linda, Janis, Marc, David, Elan, Justin, Shoshana, Adam, Jennifer, Meredith, etc. If a picture of her mother was flashed on a screen, she would automatically say mommy. She is able to identify her mother because the word is a picture that was taken when the relation was formed and exists in her mind, through which she looks at the differences that exist in substance. My granddaughter can identify her mother from hundreds and hundreds of photographs because the difference is a negative that not only reveals who her mother is, but who she is not. In other words, as she learns these names and words, her brain takes a picture of the objects symbolized, and when she sees these differences again, she projects the word or name, but the brain will not take any picture until a relation is formed. Consequently, these differences that exist in the external world which are not identifiable through taste, touch, smell, or sounds are identifiable only because they are related to words, names, or slides that we project for recognition. If we lose certain names or words, we will have amnesia because, when we see these ordinarily familiar differences, we are unable to project the words or names necessary for recognition.

By the same reasoning, the word Chinese develops not only a negative of differences but of similarities; consequently, when someone is not acquainted with the differences that exist among this race, he only sees that they resemble each other. But if we lived among this group and separated them by their individual names, we would soon see their differences and not their similarities.

 

[peacegirl]

He used dogs as an example to show that they cannot recognize their masters through sight alone.

Yeah, that's an excellent example, if only because I know for a fact that it is wrong, and anyone can demonstrate its falsity fairly easily.

No they can't, not unless they train a dog with levers (poorly designed experiment) to get him to go to his master in a lineup.

All you need is a dog, and a closed car, room, or building, with windows the dog can see out of.

This doesn't prove what you think it does. He knows the sounds of his master's car, the time his master gets home, his master's gait, and finally anticipates seeing his master walk up to the house. Of course he's excited. My dog was always excited when I got home but still needed confirmation through smell that it was actually me. There are many examples. They said it was because the dog's owner lost weight in the hospital (which is why he couldn't recognize him at first), but it's more than that.

I own all of those things, so I can be 100% certain, from direct personal experience, that this is simply untrue.

You're not removing the cues that give the dog the ability to anticipate your arrival.

Dogs Really Do Smell You More Than They See or Hear You

Dog owners know that smell plays a big part in how their canine friends function. New research shows just how important sense of smell is in their lives.

www.psychologytoday.com

I know Pood is trying very hard to make a fool out of this author. I'm glad you're not paying attention to him.

I said that I wasn't arguing with him.

Good.

 

[pood]

they don't have the capacity since they don't have the language, which is necessary for recognition.

Even if that were true, it would be equally true of recognition using senses other than sight.

It would if they worked alike, but they don't. Smell and sound ARE sense organs, which impinge on nerve endings that allow for recognition.

Eyes are sense organs, too, and work on the same principle as the other sense organs. You can even get inputs and outputs mixed up, producing the phenomenon of synesthesia, in which some people can hear colors or see sounds.

Language is demonstrably not necessary for recognition, as is obvious to anybody who is capable of joined up thinking.

Joined up thinking? Language is necessary for recognition.

That is demonstrably untrue. Pigeons and crows, among other birds, can recognize individual humans. Bees can, too. And dogs certainly can, with ease.

Let us continue our discussion to observe how our brain operates.”

Oh, good, more copypasta.

 

[pood]

He used dogs as an example to show that they cannot recognize their masters through sight alone.

Yeah, that's an excellent example, if only because I know for a fact that it is wrong, and anyone can demonstrate its falsity fairly easily.

No they can't, not unless they train a dog with levers (poorly designed experiment) to get him to go to his master in a lineup.

Back to the levers!

All you need is a dog, and a closed car, room, or building, with windows the dog can see out of.

This doesn't prove what you think it does. He knows the sounds of his master's car, the time his master gets home, his master's gait, and finally anticipates seeing his master walk up to the house. Of course he's excited. My dog was always excited when I got home but still needed confirmation through smell that it was actually me.

Dogs recognize their human partners by photos and video. At FF, we pointed you to a number of scientific studies demonstrating this.

 

[pood]

The discussion of whether dogs can recognize their humans by sight alone (they can) is really superfluous, though, because even if it were true they cannot do that, to conclude from this that the eye is not a sense organ is just bafflingly weird and a non sequitur the size of Godzilla, a Godzilla thrashing through a metaphorical Tokyo of reason and rationality, and reducing facts to rubble.

 

[bilby]

they don't have the capacity since they don't have the language, which is necessary for recognition.

Even if that were true, it would be equally true of recognition using senses other than sight.

It would if they worked alike, but they don't.

[citation needed]

Smell and sound ARE sense organs,

No, they aren't; They are senses.

Noses and ears are sense organs, and so are eyes.

which impinge on nerve endings that allow for recognition.

...just like eyes do.

Language is demonstrably not necessary for recognition, as is obvious to anybody who is capable of joined up thinking.

Joined up thinking? Language is necessary for recognition.

No, it's not. If it were, dogs would be incapable of recognising their masters in any way, lacking (as they do) language.

Let us continue our discussion to observe how our brain operates.”

Yes, let's.

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

OK, so instead of observing anything, we are going to make an analogy with something very different. That's probably a poor strategy.

It becomes a far worse strategy, when the already over-stretched analogy demands that the reader is intimately familiar with a now outdated technology, and (like the author) falsely assumes that this technology is relevant and unavoidable, where it is in fact neither.

Not only does the brain not "photograph" anything, but these days even cameras do not "develop a negative".

It was a bad analogy when it was true that cameras required a developing process that generated a negative from which prints could then be made; It's far worse now that cameras no longer do any such thing (and ironically, are now rather more analogous to the way eyes work than they were back in the day).

 

[bilby]

As we have seen, if a vicious dog accustomed to attacking any person who should open the fence at night were to have two senses, hearing and smell, temporarily disconnected, and assuming that no relation was developed as to the way in which an individual walked, he would actually have amnesia, and even though he saw with his eyes his master come through the gate, he would have no way of recognizing him and would attack.

Point of order: If you start a paragraph with "As we have seen...", and follow up with an assertion you have made without giving any actual evidence, your audience are justified in believing you to be a fraud.

We have NOT seen any such thing, and have zero reason to believe it to be true. It's not evidence; It's an anecdote - and a purely hypothetical anecdote to boot.

 

[bilby]

This doesn't prove what you think it does. He knows the sounds of his master's car, the time his master gets home, his master's gait, and finally anticipates seeing his master walk up to the house.

Literally none of these are factors in the experiment I was suggesting.

My dogs recognise me by sight. If they are in the car while I nip in to the service station to pay for fuel, they respond to me as soon as I come back into view. They can't hear me, smell me, touch me, or taste me. They recognise me by sight.

 

[pood]

I’m going to hazard a guess here and say that the author was reaching for something along the lines of, if dotty old Uncle Harry comes to Thanksgiving dinner and makes everyone’s life miserable by yammering about how Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are eating pet cats and dogs, unless one has language, one can’t identify the yammering old dipshit at the dinner table AS Uncle Harry. And, for that matter, a non-language bearing entity couldn’t understand all the stupid things he was saying, either. So you could say that the entity in question is the family dog, hiding under the table while Uncle Harry yammers on. It does not follow, however, that the dog fails to understand that this is a particular (unpleasant) person, by sight alone.

 

[peacegirl]

A statement is necessarily true if the statement is true in all possible worlds.

Right.

It can be said, therefore, that in all possible worlds, everyone moves in the direction of what they prefer more from moment to moment, not what they prefer less.

Wrong.

Where is it anymore wrong than saying in all possible worlds, you could do otherwise?

As I’ve mentioned several times, there is a straightforward test to distinguish contingent propositions from necessary ones.

You imagine that something true in this world, is false in a different world. If you can imagine such a different world without bringing about a logical contradiction, then the truth is contingent — it could be otherwise.

If you CANNOT imagine a different world without bringing about a logical contradiction, then the proposition is necessary.

I cannot imagine a world with four-sided triangles without bringing about a logical contradiction.

I can imagine a world where people move in the direction of greater dissatisfaction, without bringing about a logical contradiction.

Show me where you could move in this direction and I’ll show you you’re wrong. Imagination means nothing when it comes to proof.

I can imagine that in another logical world it is possible to do otherwise; yes, in another time and place, but not here, not now. This modal logic is way off. It is a tautological necessary truth that in all possible worlds, I can only move in the direction of greater preference, not less. This is true under all conditions which make it necessary.

 

[pood]

I can imagine that in another logical world it is possible to do otherwise; yes, in another time and place, but not here, not now. This modal logic is way off. It is a tautological necessary truth that in all possible worlds, I can only move in the direction of greater preference, not less. This is true under all conditions which make it necessary.

No, it is not. I can also imagine a world in which things fall up without invoking a logical contradiction, which makes gravity, which is universal, a contingent truth about the world.