Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[Abaddon_ire]

And what did you professor think about your position on evolution?

Well no, they never talked to my professor that I know of, it was just a threat of sorts. And to be clear, my issue is with having some kind of privacy issue, not the evolution topic. I don't need my professors getting emails from bitters strangers in a forum, and spamming them with comments about it. Its unprofessional, and ruins any opportunity for references and the like.

That being said, I don't know any of my professors personal beliefs on evolution. Professionally they all seem to treat it the same as everything else in science. Keep in mind most classes hardly touch on evolution. We're concerned with how the mind and brain work, not how it came to be. I have talked to some, casually, about issues with evolutionary psychology specifically and there seemed to be agreement on those issues.

---

You can disagree if you like, I’m sure you’re capable of disagreeing with -anything-.

That’s an ability conferred to you by your baller brain.....but it remains a fact that the human eye isn’t the ultimate representative of its class.  There are better eyes, often attached to shittier brains.  Just as often as superior brains can be attached to shitty eyes.

Why do you go down these rabbit hole rants whenever I ask you to substantiate anything? Isn't it easier to just give the example so we can keep going?

So you refuse to identify the college, the professor (hint: you would have had more than one if you had been there), your subject, your specialty, your ....well anything. Go fuck yourself and your make believe. This is utter bollox.

[John 6IX Breezy]

You can learn.  Also conferred by your baller brain.  That you have shit for eyes isn’t an issue there.

This speaks directly to your contentions and line of questioning.....but how?

My best attempt at making sense of what you're saying is this. You made an unannounced jump from comparisons within an organism, to comparisons between organism. So when you expounded on the claim that the nervous system can exceed the limits of the eye, by saying we have great brains and poor eyes, you weren't comparing what eyes can output with what the brain can process, for example. On that basis I disagreed. Instead you're saying our eyes are bad because they're not as good as some other species, and our brains are good because they're better than another organism's.

[The Grand Nudger]

I merely stated a fact. Our brains are capable of processing information, even otherwise “visual” information far in excess of what our actual eyes can actually see.

This is an example of there being no parity between what visual cues we can contemplate and process, and what visual cues our eyes provide.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I merely stated a fact.  Our brains are capable of processing information, even otherwise “visual” information far in excess of what our actual eyes can actually see.

This is an example of there being no parity between what visual cues we can contemplate and process, and what visual cues our eyes provide.

Ok so we're clear that we're comparing the components within an organism. We're not making cross-species comparisons.

Now, and hopefully this doesn't instigate another rabbit hole rant, but I'm going to ask you for evidence. The reason being, is that it seems difficult to measure how much visual information the brain can handle, without a way to present that visual information to the brain. At least not through the eyes since your claim is that they are insufficient to present it.

Maybe I lack the creativity to come up with a way to make such a measurement, so please show me how it was done.

[brewer]

I merely stated a fact.  Our brains are capable of processing information, even otherwise “visual” information far in excess of what our actual eyes can actually see.

This is an example of there being no parity between what visual cues we can contemplate and process, and what visual cues our eyes provide.

Ok so we're clear that we're comparing the components within an organism. We're not making cross-species comparisons.

Now, and hopefully this doesn't instigate another rabbit hole rant, but I'm going to ask you for evidence. The reason being, is that it seems difficult to measure how much visual information the brain can handle, without a way to present that visual information to the brain. At least not through the eyes since your claim is that they are insufficient to present it.

Maybe I lack the creativity to come up with a way to make such a measurement, so please show me how it was done.

Don't be dense. We have developed many ways of seeing outside the human visual spectrum and out brains handle that information just fine.

For fucks sake, can you not think for yourself?

[The Grand Nudger]

He can, but the same baller brain that confers that ability also produces the ticks that predict that he won’t....even if the facts in evidence actually are available to his shit eyes.

[GrandizerII]

I merely stated a fact.  Our brains are capable of processing information, even otherwise “visual” information far in excess of what our actual eyes can actually see.

This is an example of there being no parity between what visual cues we can contemplate and process, and what visual cues our eyes provide.

Ok so we're clear that we're comparing the components within an organism. We're not making cross-species comparisons.

Now, and hopefully this doesn't instigate another rabbit hole rant, but I'm going to ask you for evidence. The reason being, is that it seems difficult to measure how much visual information the brain can handle, without a way to present that visual information to the brain. At least not through the eyes since your claim is that they are insufficient to present it.

Maybe I lack the creativity to come up with a way to make such a measurement, so please show me how it was done.

The brain makes sense of and "corrects" what is presented to it through the optic nerves. The eye is shit btw, you know what with the inversion of the image and all.

[brewer]

He can, but the same baller brain that confers that ability also produces the ticks that predict that he won’t....even if the facts in evidence actually are available to his shit eyes.

I think his University needs to keep taking his money but in the end withhold any degree based on probable future embarrassment.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Don't be dense. We have developed many ways of seeing outside the human visual spectrum and out brains handle that information just fine.

For fucks sake, can you not think for yourself?

What ways are those? I can think for myself, but I can't read your mind. Although, I did predict that asking for evidence would cause a commotion, so maybe I can read minds lol.

[The Grand Nudger]

Can you see in infrared? Can you make sense of infrared camera data provided to you?

- now for the fun one....

Can you see my posts, can you make sense of the data provided to you by my posts?

---

I say this in complete honesty, keep pursuing that cog sci degree. It will provide you with the tools to understand what data you do see, and conceptualize what data you can’t.