DL's Book


Guyau

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 217
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But again, eye physiology is 'biology', which is not 'art history' or skill with brush and oil. That you've nothing concrete to say in this particular means simply that: you paint, therefore you rant. That you have a peanut galley of followers means nothing more than their ignorance in physiology is matched by their mediocrity in artistic taste.

I suppose that and Wikipedia shows Jonathan!

Shows us ignoramuses here on OL, too.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted, knowing how to paint gives one a bit of insight into the physiology of optics.

And what has given you insight into the physiology of optics? Cite your sources. Back up your claims with proof.

You, as a competent artiste, paint flat surfaces, with or without varnish which, btw is another word for 'gloss'.(Upon my use of 'gloss in a previous post, you pitched a hissyfit, but now you admit to its use in your own work!)

Let's revist my alleged "hissy fit."

You had claimed that "the sensation of depth and shimmer that Vermeer, et al, achieved was enhanced by glossing the surface."

My alleged "hissy fit" consisted of nothing but my asking for clarity on what you meant by "glossing the surface," and my asking you to explain how you had scientifically determined that "glossing the surface" resulted in the effects that you claimed, versus other possible explanations.

Here's what I asked you:

And what do you think you mean by the term "glossing the surface"? Do you mean varnishing a finished painting? Do you mean using the technique of glazing colors over others? How have you determined that "glossing the surface" is what achieves or enhances the sensation of depth? By what means have you eliminated other possible explanations?

See, the reason that I asked you to clarify your comment on "glossing the surface" is because there are different possible methods of achieving gloss effects. I was trying to determine if you were referring to a flood coat of varnish on a finished painting, or if you were referring to selective applications of other media in discrete areas, or something else.

It is amusing that you take someone's asking for clarity as a "hissy fit."

But again, eye physiology is 'biology', which is not 'art history' or skill with brush and oil.

You're not actually discussing physiology or biology as applied to the visual effects of varnish, but rather your own personal misinterpretation of physiology or biology as applied to the visual effects of varnish. Apparently you misread and misunderstood a textbook or wikipedia entry, and now you imagine that you're an expert on the subject.

That you've nothing concrete to say in this particular means simply that: you paint, therefore you rant.

What do you mean that I have nothing concrete to say? How did you miss my post #195?

In it, I offered something quite concrete in response to your pretend information about vision and the effects of varnish:

So, your contradictory position is that "depth and shimmer" occur on "rough surfaces," yet that Vermeer, and an unidentified "et al," achieved "depth and shimmer" by eliminating the "rough surfaces" of dried oil paintings by "glossing the surface"!!!!

How are you not understanding that "glossing the surface" doesn't result in "rough surfaces" that "shimmer"? Do you not know what the word "gloss" means?

Eva, the problem with your approach of pretending to know what you're talking about is that you overlook the fact that reality is much more nuanced and contextual than what your ignorant pronouncements allow for. The effects of gloss or matte finishes are different in different lighting scenarios, as well as when applied over different hues, values and levels of saturation. Depending on the context in which a painting is viewed, a matte finish might add to the effects of the illusion of depth, or it might subtract from it. The same is true of gloss finishes. It's not one-size-fits-all as you suggest.

I also offered the concrete challenge that you must support your claims by citing sources:

So, I think what you need to do is to cite the sources from which you imagine you're getting your information on "the physiology of optic depth-reception," and then maybe some of us can review it and help you resolve your misunderstandings, errors and contradictions.

You didn't respond. Where is the science to support your claims? Cite your sources. Let us review your research.

That you have a peanut galley of followers means nothing more than their ignorance in physiology is matched by their mediocrity in artistic taste.

Ah, so we have yet another Pigero in our midst, who has somehow acquired better artistic consumer tastes than everyone else? Heh. Is that your big achievement in life, Eva? You've somehow achieved the outstanding accomplishment of acquiring superior consumer tastes? How did you do it? By anointing yourself an expert on physiology you also somehow received the magical bonus of superior artistic taste? Heh.

But seriously, Eva, what have you accomplished in life? I mean, I think we all get it already: You look down your nose at everyone else's achievements and creations, and you seem to want to believe that you're so much smarter and better and more tasteful than everyone, but yet you don't seem to produce anything yourself.

It's as if you need to believe that negatively judging others' productivity or tastes will somehow make your lack of productivity virtuous.

It's obviously not working. Clearly you're not succeeding in fooling yourself or anyone else, because you keep coming back for more and more fixes for your addiction.

May I make a suggestion? Instead of trying to derive self-esteem from your consumer tastes and negative judgments of others' productivity, you should work to derive it from producing something of value yourself. Try to play in the leagues that you're currently jeering at from the cheap seats. Let's see how that goes.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted, knowing how to paint gives one a bit of insight into the physiology of optics.

And what has given you insight into the physiology of optics? Cite your sources. Back up your claims with proof.

You, as a competent artiste, paint flat surfaces, with or without varnish which, btw is another word for 'gloss'.(Upon my use of 'gloss in a previous post, you pitched a hissyfit, but now you admit to its use in your own work!)

Let's revist my alleged "hissy fit."

You had claimed that "the sensation of depth and shimmer that Vermeer, et al, achieved was enhanced by glossing the surface."

My alleged "hissy fit" consisted of nothing but my asking for clarity on what you meant by "glossing the surface," and my asking you to explain how you had scientifically determined that "glossing the surface" resulted in the effects that you claimed, versus other possible explanations.

Here's what I asked you:

And what do you think you mean by the term "glossing the surface"? Do you mean varnishing a finished painting? Do you mean using the technique of glazing colors over others? How have you determined that "glossing the surface" is what achieves or enhances the sensation of depth? By what means have you eliminated other possible explanations?

See, the reason that I asked you to clarify your comment on "glossing the surface" is because there are different possible methods of achieving gloss effects. I was trying to determine if you were referring to a flood coat of varnish on a finished painting, or if you were referring to selective applications of other media in discrete areas, or something else.

It is amusing that you take someone's asking for clarity as a "hissy fit."

But again, eye physiology is 'biology', which is not 'art history' or skill with brush and oil.

You're not actually discussing physiology or biology as applied to the visual effects of varnish, but rather your own personal misinterpretation of physiology or biology as applied to the visual effects of varnish. Apparently you misread and misunderstood a textbook or wikipedia entry, and now you imagine that you're an expert on the subject.

That you've nothing concrete to say in this particular means simply that: you paint, therefore you rant.

What do you mean that I have nothing concrete to say? How did you miss my post #195?

In it, I offered something quite concrete in response to your pretend information about vision and the effects of varnish:

So, your contradictory position is that "depth and shimmer" occur on "rough surfaces," yet that Vermeer, and an unidentified "et al," achieved "depth and shimmer" by eliminating the "rough surfaces" of dried oil paintings by "glossing the surface"!!!!

How are you not understanding that "glossing the surface" doesn't result in "rough surfaces" that "shimmer"? Do you not know what the word "gloss" means?

Eva, the problem with your approach of pretending to know what you're talking about is that you overlook the fact that reality is much more nuanced and contextual than what your ignorant pronouncements allow for. The effects of gloss or matte finishes are different in different lighting scenarios, as well as when applied over different hues, values and levels of saturation. Depending on the context in which a painting is viewed, a matte finish might add to the effects of the illusion of depth, or it might subtract from it. The same is true of gloss finishes. It's not one-size-fits-all as you suggest.

I also offered the concrete challenge that you must support your claims by citing sources:

So, I think what you need to do is to cite the sources from which you imagine you're getting your information on "the physiology of optic depth-reception," and then maybe some of us can review it and help you resolve your misunderstandings, errors and contradictions.

You didn't respond. Where is the science to support your claims? Cite your sources. Let us review your research.

That you have a peanut galley of followers means nothing more than their ignorance in physiology is matched by their mediocrity in artistic taste.

Ah, so we have yet another Pigero in our midst, who has somehow acquired better artistic consumer tastes than everyone else? Heh. Is that your big achievement in life, Eva? You've somehow achieved the outstanding accomplishment of acquiring superior consumer tastes? How did you do it? By anointing yourself an expert on physiology you also somehow received the magical bonus of superior artistic taste? Heh.

But seriously, Eva, what have you accomplished in life? I mean, I think we all get it already: You look down your nose at everyone else's achievements and creations, and you seem to want to believe that you're so much smarter and better and more tasteful than everyone, but yet you don't seem to produce anything yourself.

It's as if you need to believe that negatively judging others' productivity or tastes will somehow make your lack of productivity virtuous.

It's obviously not working. Clearly you're not succeeding in fooling yourself or anyone else, because you keep coming back for more and more fixes for your addiction.

May I make a suggestion? Instead of trying to derive self-esteem from your consumer tastes and negative judgments of others' productivity, you should work to derive it from producing something of value yourself. Try to play in the leagues that you're currently jeering at from the cheap seats. Let's see how that goes.

J

Actually, the best response to 'sources' is offered by the site's esteemed owner, Michael. It should all be on Wiki, for your convenience.

Your own problem, to return the complement, is pretending to be something more than a mediocre, draftsman-artiste of flat surfaces.

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the best response to 'sources' is offered by the site's esteemed owner, Michael. It should all be on Wiki, for your convenience.

It "should" be there? Heh. Go find evidence to support you claims and then post links to your sources. See, the way that the onus of proof works is that it's not your opponents' responsibility to go out and search for something that might support your argument. One would think that an expert on physiology would already know that!

Your own problem, to return the complement, is pretending to be something more than a mediocre, draftsman-artiste of flat surfaces.

That's just more of the same. You didn't answer my question about what you've accomplished in life.

Is that because the answer is "nothing"?

And I'm not pretending to be anything. If you think that my art is mediocre, that's fine with me. The question still remains, though: What have you produced that rises to that level of mediocrity?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus one poster can destroy a forum.

Good God, Brant.

You take this girl seriously?

Look at the reactions.

You may take her seriously, but nobody else does.

She's made herself into an easy target like the Monty Python black knight:

People engage her because they hope she's not like that, but as soon as they get tired of the lack of substance covered by name-dropping and find out she is like that, they laugh.

I agree that the spectacle of watching people cut off an arm and laugh about it is not all that inspiring, but come on.

Destroy a forum?

Jeez...

Give the people around here some credit.

:smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It never occurred to me until just now, but when I look at that beautiful lady archer, Jonathan was doing the Hunger Games before they were even created.

:smile:

Michael

Diana, the goddess of the hunt, has been around a lot longer than my lady archer or Katniss. :-)

J

I've thought of Diana, the goddess of the hunt, from the first time you posted the image.

Resolve.jpg

"Resolve" Oil on Board

© 2002 Jon.athan R. Smith

http://static.flickr...e8a3750bf_o.jpg

The curve of the bow is like old images of the crescent moon as Diana's bow, and the lighting on the figure looks to me like moonlight.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the best response to 'sources' is offered by the site's esteemed owner, Michael. It should all be on Wiki, for your convenience.

It "should" be there? Heh. Go find evidence to support you claims and then post links to your sources. See, the way that the onus of proof works is that it's not your opponents' responsibility to go out and search for something that might support your argument. One would think that an expert on physiology would already know that!

"One" might also think that an expert on perception could have answered these questions. Answering the second would only take naming a textbook.

A working definition of 'perception' can be fiound in any psy textbook from 101.

Then you should be able to quote such a definition.

What text did you use?

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael wrote:

Give the people around here some credit.

end quote

Thanks Michael.

If someone frequently ticks you off by negativism, has a potty mouth, is not readily understandable, or is generally distasteful, go to your profile preferences and block that person’s posts. It’s that simple. Of course you won’t see that person’s responses to YOU unless the responses are shown in someone else’s letters, but this option keeps your blood pressure lower, so the modest price is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel, in connection with your reflections concerning simultaneity on page 87:

One thing it would be good to get clear is the relation of measuring two quantities at a time in the case of the canonically conjugate quantities energy-time. Then too, fundamental to our physics is not only time and simultaneity figuring in quantum mechanics, but in relativity, starting with special relativity (SRR, §XI). “What transformations for locations and times will show a sphere expanding at the velocity c to be such in each of two material frames having between them the relative velocity v? . . .” Things simultaneous in one frame will be successive and have a definite interval of succession in another frame moving uniformly with respect to the frame in which the events occur simultaneously. This difference is physical, of course, and is there for us to discover, as thanks to Einstein, we have.

I think you will be pleased to know, if you do not know already, in connection with your thoughts on simultaneity and the initial singularity, that in classical general relativity (viz., without assimilation of quantum field theory to the initial singularity or to whatever most dense entity quantum circumstances may allow) there are three properties whose total value is conserved for the universe: mass-energy, angular momentum, and electric charge. We know for sure the mass-energy of the universe is a large finite value, and we know for pretty sure that value has remained constant and is therefore a definite nonzero amount of mass-energy possessed by the initial singularity. There is some evidence that the total angular momentum of the universe does not add to zero. Even if the total angular momentum and total electric charge are now zero, and therefore, by conservation, were zero for the initial singularity, we can say that the universe at singularity had the potential for spawning such fundamental things as angular momentum and electric charge. Therefore, it would seem right to say the singularity simultaneously possessed mass-energy and at least the potential for such things as nonzero angular momentum and electric charge within its successor, our world. I am thinking here of potential as something more physically founded than our free thinking of possibilities, so the simultaneity would have some substance even if total angular momentum and electric charge are zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen wrote:

Therefore, it would seem right to say the singularity simultaneously possessed mass-energy and at least the potential for such things as nonzero angular momentum and electric charge within its successor, our world.

end quote

Did you mean to say, “our universe?” “Our world” connotes the primitive Christian view of Genesis. The latest proofs of a universe at less than one trillionth of a “rippling” second is certainly interesting.

Amazon asked me for a review of Dan’s book but I lack the science to do a good job. I may still do it, from another angle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dlewis? I liked him in “Lincoln” and “My Left Foot.”

Evolition? Not a misspelling? dlewis (Dan Lewis) was quoted by Stephen Boydstun:

For example, doesn’t a corpse contain knowledge, with its reusable organs, post-sequential reflexes or signature biology? How about the “inanimate” DNA composing our biologies? Couldn’t some “non-biological” extra-terrestrial, new element, invention or anomaly—one that may alter our ideas of life and the universe—possess knowledge? What about the words on this page? If they hold no knowledge, then how is any meaning reaching your brain? Yes, knowledge seems to encompass a wider framework than it is normally granted, and it needs a much wider one to fully perform its axiomatic duties.

end quote

Low brow that I am, TV shows come to mind. “The X Files”: “The truth is out there.” Dan, I also see a tie-in to Forensic Anthropology as in the show, “Bones.” I think you have also gone a step past the plot of one of my favorite StarTrek episodes, “The Chase,” where the origins of humanoid life in our galaxy, is discovered. The premise of that show is a step behind the truly awe inspiring idea that the origins of DNA flow naturally from the nature of our galaxy. In fact, due to the nature of reality, the arise of DNA should be universal throughout the universe. Yet I would not mind humans seeding the galaxy with our DNA.

Peter Taylor

From Wikipedia, StarTrek TNG, “The Chase:”

Picard has always been a student of archeology, and in this episode he is contacted by his former mentor Professor Richard Galen (Norman Lloyd). The professor, who Picard said is "like the father who understood me", states that he has come across something in his travels which could be the most profound discovery of their time.

Galen, however, will not tell him about what he has found unless Picard agrees to go with him, which means leaving the Enterprise and his career in Starfleet behind. Picard ultimately refuses, although he is torn about disappointing his former mentor, who in anger remarked that Picard's job was like that of "A Roman centurion .... maintaining a dull and bloated empire". Shortly after angrily leaving the Enterprise, Galen's transport vessel is attacked and boarded.

When the Enterprise arrives, Galen is beamed to sickbay and has just enough energy before he dies to apologize for his earlier rude remarks, saying "Jean-Luc I was too harsh" with his dying breath. Picard is fueled by this event and decides to assume Professor Galen's research. An investigation of Galen's ship yields no results other than a series of seemingly random number blocks.

After studying the ambiguous number blocks for hours, the discovery is made that these fragments are compatible DNA strands which have been recovered from different worlds all over the galaxy. The crew eventually believe that they have discovered an embedded genetic pattern that is constant throughout many different species, and it is speculated that this was left by an early race that pre-dates all other known civilizations. This would ultimately explain why so many races are humanoid.

Picard resolves that the answer to the 'puzzle' will be revealed when the remaining DNA samples are obtained, and so the Enterprise travels to a remote, uninhabited planet that Galen had mentioned was his next destination. They encounter Klingon and Cardassian ships that appear to be on the same trail as themselves. These two groups believe, respectively, that the puzzle will yield the design of a formidable weapon and the secret of an unlimited power source.

The Enterprise hosts representatives from the Cardassians and the Klingons, and they all agree to combine the DNA samples that they have found so far, since all three parties have pieces of the puzzle that the others cannot find. Using the shared information, they determine a pattern in how several planets were aligned millions of years ago and extrapolate the position of a final planet.

The Cardassians warp off ahead of the others, firing at both ships to disable them. However, Picard had already learned of the Cardassians' attempt to sabotage the Enterprise's defenses; the ship is fully functional, and he takes the Klingon captain to the last planet.

Upon arrival, they discover that almost all life is extinct, but scans by the Enterprise detect residual lichens located on a fossilized seabed, and they beam down to investigate with their tricorders containing all previously known information. The Cardassians arrive, as well as an undetected Romulan force, creating a standoff. Reasoning that the seabed may not be completely fossilized (and thus still containing some DNA), Picard and Dr. Crusher scan the sea-bed with their tricorder while the other parties argue.

They locate the final DNA fragment, which completes and runs the program. The program reconfigures the tricorder's emitter to project a holographic message. The recorded image of an alien humanoid ( Salome Jens) is projected to the assembled company, and it explains that its race is responsible for the presence of life in the Alpha Quadrant.

When the alien race first explored the Alpha and Beta Quadrants there had been no humanoid-based life other than themselves, and so they seeded various planets with their DNA to create a legacy of their existence after they had gone. The alien ends its message by saying that it hopes that the knowledge of a common origin will help produce peace.

The Cardassians are outraged at this (considering themselves a superior race), as are the Klingons (who hate the Romulans and are disgusted to be related to those "without honor"). Only the Federation representatives seem optimistic. The episode ends with all parties diverging, but the Commander of the Romulan ship contacts Picard and hints that "One day..." [there may be peace].

According to Ursula Laguinn the Haimish are the originators of all the humanoid life forms in the local cluster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

By “our world,” I did indeed mean “our universe.” My contrast in saying “our world” means, in that context, our expanded universe as opposed to its initial singularity. The contrast was not with any supernatural world, a human error irrelevant within our scientific and more generally rational pursuit of the way is the only real world, the universe with its mass-energy, spacetime, and other wonders upon wonders.

Let us know if you write a review. That would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen,

Wow-- thanks for that link and your thoughts. Those articles in "Objectivity" are incredibly thorough-- I read some of Merlin Jetton's "Pursuing Similarity" as well as your own-- both of these articles would have simplified some of my understanding and research for the book--kicking myself! Although I wasn't sure whether the angular momentum and charge measurements were still more theorectically entwined (you're saying quantities for charge and angular mometum can be interchangable like for mass and energy?) , I was aware that scientists have measured a constant amount of mass-energy for our universe, though I very much believe this is just what we have measured within our cosmologic horizon, and that space actually extends on infinitely in some way, and while yes, I agree it is likely possible that matter-energy (probably as a single unit and not divided yet into masses with different intrinsic energies), or at least some kind of potential, existed with genesis singularity (as another way to further confirm simultaneity as a baisc physical principle), I think conceiving of a genesis singularity in terms of pure space-time, i.e. in terms of its geometry and directional motions, is probably more advantageous to linking our small and large scale "worlds" together (as I think is being attempted with string/M theories, though I don't understand their methodologies especially). Stephen, you mention at the end of your article you cited about trying to determine whether space-itme or matter-energy is more fundamental in another article-- did you write that article, and could you post a link? I think it is interesting in your book that you (I think) are starting with the idea that all things are physical "concretes"(am I correct in this, or did I read wrong somewhere?)-- is your "concretes" different than my thinking all things are "physical," yet some "metaphysical," my definition of metaphysical meaning enless/infinite in some way? If it is I'll be intested how you conceive of some of the "essences" I put forth in my book.

Peter,

I would love to hear your thoughts in a review! As I've said in the book (and will claim now), I'm not a trained scientist myself, so I wouldn't worry about criticisms to that extent-- i expect them. The science in the book is highly theoretical-- it is a philosophy book and could be reveiwed in any number of ways, too, so feel free to surprise if you choose to do it. I do find you to be a very thoughtful person so I'd appreciate what you'd have to say, postive or negative.

Just to prove some of my unfortunate lack of scientific vigor, I noticed a couple conceptual errors that I thought I should point out and need to change in chapter's 2 and 3-- they really don't affect the possible validity of my theory, but they nonetheless are amatuerish mistakes-- both my equation and description of Hooke's law on page 103 are not accurate-- Hooke's law equation is F=-kx (force equals constant stiffness [as of constant tension on a spring] times distance) NOT T=-kx (I used tension here instead of force, not understanding that k was actually a constant tension instead of tensile stress [which equals pressure and has different units]), so T=(tensile stress/pressure)x(distance), putting strain and stress in direct proportion. And on page 141, my "logical progression of d2=A, A2=V should oibviously be d, d2=A, d3=V. Sorry about these mistakes-- please fill me in if you find more. I've already corrected several gramatical errors throughout the book thanks to Derek (we proof-checked/commented on each other's books). EDITING--HOW CRUEL THOU ART!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan, when you say real things manifest at places and moments (9), you are using real things in the way I and others use concretes. In Rand’s system and mine, it is identity, not essence that most fundamentally is mold of concretes. Concrete with place and time (particular identity) is also of kind (specific identity). Particular and specific identity is concrete character in which repetitions, similarities, differences, and causal relations are given and which structure our concepts according to the explanatorily essential.

Concerning the physics: Charge and angular momentum are not convertible like mass and energy. I’d be wary of saying mass and energy are interchangeable. They remain different things, even though they can be converted into each other. In processes in the quantum regime, there does appear to be some as yet unfathomed sort of profound join of charge and angular momentum. Look at the units in the components in the fine structure constant. The planck constant h in there has the units of angular momentum.

I never wrote the article on general relativity that was to include taking up the issue of priority of spacetime vis-à-vis mass-energy. One might naturally suppose in classical GR, assuming the evidenced conditions leading us back by inference to the initial singularity, mass-energy must be there without spacetime. For the “big bang” was not an explosion into preexisting space, and with only the single point, there was no duration or extension, and without those spacetime was absent. But wait. I should think Einstein’s field equation would have to apply already at the initial singularity, and that includes on one side some curvature properties of spacetime (balanced by nonzero energy and pals on the other side of the equation), therefore something of spacetime. However it is correct to understand the classical situation, we cannot dispose of the issue, I’m pretty sure, until we have a settled quantum GR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now