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 also photographs the objects involved, which develops a negative of the relation,
What.
Please show the research that describes human brains taking a photograph and creating a negative.
You may be interested to know that some humans, when hearing a word, think of an image of that object in their brain. Other humans, do not. It’s an interesting area of study, especially around what different people do when they are readin. I imagine the entire scene; image in 3d color, sounds, smells, feelings. A friend of mine just… reads words. We talk about this in book club a lot. And there is research on it.
No idea what you mean by a negative.
whereas a dog is incapable of this.
How do you know this. What study have you done to claim that you have proof that dogs do not, er, “take a photograph and create a negative.”
When he sees the features of his master
“Master” is an ugly word, and you should consider replacing it with “human”
without any accompanying sound or smell, he cannot identify them because no photograph was taken.
Except you have been shown studies where they demonstrate this very thing.
A dog identifies through his sense of sound and smell, and what he sees in relation to these sense experiences,
And you have been shown studies where sight was also important. Where dogs who could not see their human’s faces have much lower interest in and identification with their smell and gait.
just as we identify most of the differences that exist through words and names.
Eh?
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.
So many things in my memory have no words or names. They are smells, sensations, feelings, temperatures.
“Plate disconnected”? Do you mean brain damage? I do not have plates in my head.
The places where memories are stored are, moreover, very plastic. They can be changed and re-emphasized in different ways by the brain upon attempted recall.
This gives conclusive evidence as to why an animal cannot identify too well with his eyes.
Nope. Not conclusive. No evidence was shown, only an assertion. You need to show evidence that dogs cannot identify. You can’t just sit on a throne and call other people’s evidence wrong while presenting none of your own. You are not the default truth. You have to prove yourself.
This is the major flaw in Lessans’ writing. He thinks he can have a philosophical idea and call it “proven” without ever conducting any verifying or confirming studies. It’s very low quality thinking.
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.
“We” have not “seen” this. Lessans’ told a little story and subsequently called it a fact.
It is not a fact. it is his hypothesis, and it is untested, unconfirmed.
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.
There are no negatives, no slide projector shooting beams of light from an infant’s eyes. None of this has ever been shown by any example nor confirmed by any experiment.
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,
It does not.
We DO know, through scientific studies with evidence, that memory of all sensations are not perfect and are not immutable. They can change over time and even become unreliable.
It is completely unlike a recording, which has fidelity to its first playing no matter how many times you play it.
Therefore this analogy is misleading and non useful.
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.
There is absolutely no evidence produced for this. No studies, no mechanism proposed, not physics that allow it.
Your concept stops cold right here until you explain how this could even be possible, physically.
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,
Cute. Like, we subtitle our world as we view it?
Except how often do we hear someone say, “oh, what’s that thing called,” and “you know, the thingamajiggy”
So those words are not, infact “projected onto the outside world,” and instead the person is seeing the outside world (afferently) and trying to match it to words that are only vaguely remembered.
and if these words do not accurately symbolize, as with five senses, man will actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence;
What.
“the thingamajiggy” makes me disassociate?
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.
People make up words when they don’t have words for things. New inventions get new names.
Kids are conscious of differences even when they can’t name the things they see.
To understand this better, let us observe my granddaughter learning words.
You forgot to post something here.
But yes, I watched kids learn words, too.
And your description of the process is preposterous.
Let’s start with my son reading new books as a child. He would frequently read books that contained new and novel words. And without ever having seen anything, nor making any “photographic negative slides” on his brain, he would conclude, from context, what words conveyed. For example, when he was 6 and picked up “Jurassic Park” to read, he knew that “shit,” “fuck” and “asshole” meant “oh no!,” “Really really oh no,” and “mean person,” without ever having seen—well, he had seen poop, but, without ever having seen sex or his own or anyone else’s anus.
Sometimes he would ask me things like, “mama, what does ‘dimorphic’ mean?” And it had no relation to any visualization of any object he had ever seen.
Words projected onto slides in the screen of the outside world. This is such a clumsy depiction of reality and it makes zero sense knowing the physics of the world around us or even the way brains work.
This is how it works - you bring an idea, we all test it and bring the results. You say “no!” And we look at the test results and it harms your credibility that you did not address the tests in a meaningful way.
This is your choice, of course, but it does not prevent the proof from having been presented.
And your father having been to shown to have
1. Made a claim
2. Had that claim tested
3. Had everyone to see that the claim did not survive the test
Can't you see what's going on here?
The claim cannot be tested this way.
Sure, fine.
Then you can’t call it undeniable, let alone mathematic or scientific.
Periodt.
What good is explaining a mechanism that looks correct from all appearances, but is not?
Oh. You don’t know this? Sorry, I assumed you did.
The good is in knowing the mechanism is the context necessary for determining the confirming test.
If I don’t know that an action is happening hydraulically, I might think that a volt meter will be a good instrument to test. And I’d be so wrong I wouldn’t learn anything.
In order to prove it NOT correct, you need to know what you’re proving.
Before the mechanism is understood, the claim has to be confirmed valid and sound.
Nope, nope, nope. That is not how discovery works.
You cannot confirm without having at least a hypothesis about the mechanism. You cannot
possibly confirm a claim without using valid measurements and controls. And if you have no idea of the mechanism you cannot design a test that is relevant, reliable and repeatable.
This is THE major flaw in your presumption that you can call something “undeniable” or “mathematic” or “scientific.”
You can propose this theory. That’s fine. And great for discussion and exploration. But you can’t call it “undeniable” just because you think it makes sense. You have to explain it and confirm it.
OMG if any of my engineers tried to tell me they wanted to install a pump whose mechanism they did not understand… that’s their last day of work. People die from knowledge gaps like that.
Can you appreciate how hard this was for him when it was already established that the eyes are a sense organ since the days of Aristotle?
Dude, Aristotle had a hard time of it, too….
And yes, I can appreciate how hard it is to present an idea against the status quo. I am a woman in engineering. So, more than your father, actually.
But that difficulty doesn’t mean I can present without evidence. Which is what your father tried to do and why his path was made difficult by his own hand.
Just stop saying science, math and undeniable, and the burden is set down. So easy.
This claim goes against everything that science declares is true, and people are angry.
We are not angry.
We are unconvinced.
There is a really big difference.
The anger (of others, I’m not angry) comes from his hubris, not his idea.
Which… I gotta say is not very convincing of you. I’d be bad at my job of understanding mechanisms if I did that. I’d fire someone who did that, actually. It’s not productive or illuminating.
What about those studies is flawed?
The fact that they used pictures to see if dogs could identify their humans without smell or sound? Just as you claimed could not be done?
I haven't seen that. Could you post it again?
When an experimenter’s expectations, behavior, or subtle cues unintentionally affect the outcome of an experiment, it is most commonly called
experimenter bias (also known as
observer-expectancy effect,
observer bias, or
experimenter effect)
Wikipedia+1.
Yes, I understand experimenter bias. I know how to design experiments with randomization and double blind execution to avoid it.
But you have to point to the part of the experiment that contained experimenter bias if you want to claim that flaw. You don’t get to credibly just say “experimenter bias exists!” And have that be the reason to refuse to understand that your father’s claim was proved wrong.
That’s not how this works.
Name the part of the experiment where it occurred, in order to be honest in your dismissal.
I didn't say there was experimenter bias, but there could be.
Are you saying that without proof we should dismiss claims out of hand without discussion?
Because, I gotta say, that would shorten this thread significantly.
But at least in these cases the experiment was done and could be examined. Unlike your father’s….
I just didn't see the proof that dogs could identify their humans without the need to smell or hear them. I'm not even sure at this point which study is being referred to.
Then you can stop at the point it is presented and ask, “Do you have a link to the protocol?”
Instead of dodging and weaving for two pages like you are not actually interested in understanding the study.
Training dogs does not prove what you think it does. It can't be that hard to get a video that goes along with the written study. I'm sure that these dogs get videotaped, especially when an experiment is carried out by an accredited research establishment and is going to be published in scientific journals.
Did you click on any of the links?
www.hannegrice.com
