In fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a child that no
object is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because
nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any
number of sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate
reaction since the nerve endings are being struck by something
external.
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 sensory receptors are being struck by something external in all of the senses including photoreceptors being struck by light in the eyes. There is no fundamental difference between photoreceptors and the other sensory receptors. All are neurons (nerves) and all are afferent structures.
Lessans was just absolutely wrong in the above claims.*
Did Lessans even bother to read about anatomy or neurology before making these assertions? If not, why not?
Mechanoreceptors respond to physical force such as pressure (touch or blood pressure) and stretch.
Photoreceptors respond to light.
Thermoreceptors respond to temperature changes.
Chemoreceptors respond to dissolved chemicals during sensations of taste and smell and to changes in internal body chemistry such as variations of O2, CO2, or H+ in the blood.
Nociceptors respond to a variety of stimuli associated with tissue damage. The brain interprets the pain.
CliffsNotes.com. Sensory Receptors. 21 Oct 2012
*Now taking bets that peacegirl will suddenly remember that she wrote these parts
Fuck off LadyShea, you are so wrong it's a disgrace to the scientific community if there is anyone left who truly depends on the absolute truth of scientific inquiry.
LOL, what am I wrong about?
You weren't wrong offering the cliff notes. It doesn't change the dispute over how the eyes actually work. My reaction was overblown. I was just upset at that moment from all the negative posts, and I took it out on you. Sorry.
Hows about you respond to the content of the post?
In fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a child that no
object is capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because
nothing is impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any
number of sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate
reaction since the nerve endings are being struck by something
external.
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 sensory receptors are being struck by something external in all of the senses including photoreceptors being struck by light in the eyes. There is no fundamental difference between photoreceptors and the other sensory receptors. All are neurons (nerves) and all are afferent structures.
Lessans was just absolutely wrong in the above claims.*
Did Lessans even bother to read about anatomy or neurology before making these assertions? If not, why not?
Mechanoreceptors respond to physical force such as pressure (touch or blood pressure) and stretch.
Photoreceptors respond to light.
Thermoreceptors respond to temperature changes.
Chemoreceptors respond to dissolved chemicals during sensations of taste and smell and to changes in internal body chemistry such as variations of O2, CO2, or H+ in the blood.
Nociceptors respond to a variety of stimuli associated with tissue damage. The brain interprets the pain.
CliffsNotes.com. Sensory Receptors. 21 Oct 2012
<http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/topicArticleId-277792,articleId-277647.html>
*Now taking bets that peacegirl will suddenly remember that she wrote these parts
Fuck off LadyShea, you are so wrong it's a disgrace to the scientific community if there is anyone left who truly depends on the absolute truth of scientific inquiry.
LOL, what am I wrong about?
You weren't wrong offering the cliff notes. It doesn't change the dispute over how the eyes actually work. My reaction was overblown. I was just upset at that moment from all the negative posts, and I took it out on you. Sorry.
Hows about you respond to the content of the post?
I don't care that you told me to fuck off.
Well I do care what I said, and I wanted to let you know that I was sorry. Maybe my conscience was bothering me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
[INDENT]
Mechanoreceptors respond to physical force such as pressure (touch or blood pressure) and stretch.
Photoreceptors respond to light.
Thermoreceptors respond to temperature changes.
Chemoreceptors respond to dissolved chemicals during sensations of taste and smell and to changes in internal body chemistry such as variations of O2, CO2, or H+ in the blood.
Nociceptors respond to a variety of stimuli associated with tissue damage. The brain interprets the pain.
He never said that the eyes don't respond to light:
“But doesn’t light cause the pupils to dilate and contract
depending on the intensity?”
That is absolutely true, but this does not cause; it is a condition
of sight. We simply need light to see, just as other things are a
condition of hearing. If there was no light we could not see, and if
there was nothing to carry the sound waves to our ears, we could not
hear. The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums
whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of
light to impinge on our optic nerve.
That was not the content of my post, that was supporting information
Lessans said this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lessans
although any number of sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since the nerve endings are being struck by something external.
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.
I responded
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The sensory receptors are being struck by something external in all of the senses including photoreceptors being struck by light in the eyes. There is no fundamental difference between photoreceptors and the other sensory receptors. All are neurons (nerves) and all are afferent structures.
So, I refuted Lessans statements. I will break it down again
Quote:
1.sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since the nerve endings are being struck by something external
The nerve endings in the eyes, the photoreceptors, are also struck by something external, light. Where is the difference between vision and the other senses that Lessans seemed to think he was pointing out with this sentence?
Quote:
2.
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
Photoreceptors are in the eyes, and are afferent nerve endings. So again, this statement is just wrong
Quote:
If there was no light we could not see, and if there was nothing to carry the sound waves to our ears, we could not hear. The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of light to impinge on our optic nerve.
"Sound" is not carried to our eardrum. This is the same mistake he made about images traveling.
The receptors in our ears respond to air pressure differences, transduce this to signals sent to the brain, which then interprets the signals as sound. This is no different than vision at all. The receptors in our eyes respond to light, transduce this to signals sent to the brain, which then interprets the signals as images
He said there is no similar afferent nerve ending in the eye that MAKES DIRECT CONTACT WITH A RECEPTOR. I believe he is right.
He said nothing about nerves making contact with receptors...WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? You are weaseling by making inferences having nothing to do with what Lessans wrote. You are now claiming, in the sentence above, that he meant that no similar afferent nerve endings in the eye makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending in the eye.
I wasn't making inferences that have nothing to do with what he said. Look, instead of trying to catch me in an error, read this over again. His observations make a lot of sense. I don't think dissection gives scientists all the information they need in order to know conclusively that the eyes are afferent.
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 brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This
desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see
that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception —
in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike
the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Photoreceptors are afferent nerves
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
. Light (external stimuli) makes direct contact with photoreceptors.
How could he possibly be right?
Let's break his statement down
Quote:
The same holds true for anything that makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending
Anything=light
Afferent nerve ending=photoreceptors on the retina
Quote:
but this is far from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Yes, there is. Photoreceptors are afferent neurons
He was talking about the optic nerve. The following explanation is not a fact, it's a plausible theory. Why can't you accept the fact that science might have gotten this one wrong? This is how the process is said to occur, but can it be proven? I can observe the inside of a car and guess that certain wires do this and do that, but if I wasn't the manufacturer of this make of car, I might be wrong in my conclusions as to how it actually works.
All sensory systems provide for such differently sensitive receptor cells, which give rise to parallel pathways that carry the information to the higher centers where discrimination takes place. These pathways are gathered into nerve tracts that ascend through the lower parts of the brain to the highest centers. Thus, the optic nerves carry information in a highly ordered manner from the retina to a way station called the lateral geniculate body, in the thalamus, whence it is relayed to the primary visual receptive area of the neocortex.
Sound is interpreted from differences in pressure as they hit the receptors in the ear. Sound travels slower than light travels. That is why you can often see something before you can hear it. The light travels many times faster than the sound.
So if that's true then why can't we see an airplane before we hear the sound? Explain this to me LadyShea without weaseling as you are constantly accusing me of doing.
We can absolutely see a plane before we hear the sound if we are looking at the planes flight path at the moment it comes into view. If you know where and when to look, you will see it first, every time.
If we aren't looking at the sky or don't know exactly where to look, we would probably hear the sound first.
That is not true LadyShea. We hear planes before we ever see them, even if we know where to look. You are wrong.
That is just not true. If a plane is at medium height, you see them long before you hear them. I saw it all the time when I was a kid, and planes coming in to Schiphol would fly over.
Ah such delightful bumbling! So much to admire in just one paragraph!
Quote:
That is absolutely true, but this does not cause;
English please?
Quote:
it is a condition
of sight. We simply need light to see, just as other things are a
condition of hearing.
Ermmm... but he is arguing that there is a difference? Once again his delight in the sound of his own voice confuses things more than they explain. They sure confused him! This sentence seems to argue that sound and sight work in a similar way, while he is trying to argue they work in a different way.
Quote:
If there was no light we could not see,
Get away!
Quote:
and if
there was nothing to carry the sound waves to our ears, we could not
hear. The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums
That is not true. Sound is the interpreted result: there is no such thing as "sound" being carried to our eardrums. What happens is that vibrations in the air are converted into a signal. This signal is then interpreted by the brain as sound.
Speaking of "sound" as having some sort of separate existence is confusing and incorrect. It is the kind of thinking that led to the idea that there has to be an "Aether" for radio waves to travel in. It pops up again when he continues on about sight:
Quote:
whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of
light to impinge on our optic nerve.
Once again Seymour does not realize that he is the only person who thinks that everyone else believes this is what happens. He just did not understand what he was objecting to. Again, 10 minutes with a biology 101 textbook could have avoided this.
Unbeknownst to him, the actual conventional theory of sight is that light travels to the retina, which reacts to it, which in turn creates a signal which travels down the optic nerve and is then interpreted as an image. There are no images travelling.
Both he and you seem to have real difficulty shedding this misconception. You seem to think that an image has some sort of existence outside of the brain. It doesn't.
Also he managed to spell travelling wrong, adding some boo-boo sauce to go with the rest of this blunder-burger.
He said nerve endings in the eye, he meant the optic nerve
He said molecules of light, he meant photons
He said love is nothing more than sexual satisfaction, but what he meant is that sex is important to relationships
He said homosexuality would naturally decline when blame is removed from the environment, only he didn't really say that YOU said that, and what was meant was that if the blame environment caused homosexuality then it would decline. Again, you couldn't make it make sense so simply removed it.
He said
Quote:
If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual organs.
But what he meant was
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
he meant was that until words are removed that cause some people to never find what they are looking for, as far as what type of person that appeals to them, they will search for someone who will have them, because most important of all is having a loving, caring, sexual relationship with another human being, because that's what we all want.
Or perhaps he meant
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
What he was trying to say is that someone's appearance (especially when there will be no more criticism) is not as important as finding someone to love (which includes sexual love since sex is the basis of a romantic relationship), and when there is no more criticism because all criticism is coming to an end, it won't matter what a person's choice of a mate is.
Boy, Lessans never seems to mean what he said. Good thing you are here with your post hoc weaseling
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.
Au Contraire: it is positively stuffed with afferent nerves, which all have endings.
Quote:
The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation.
Which makes one wonder - what does a star taste, sound, or smell like? And yet we see them... how is this possible? What sounds, smells, or touches can anyone ever have recorded in relation to a star?
Quote:
This
desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see
that which exists
That is not what focusing is... it is not "turning on". He uses the word "Focus" in an entirely idiosyncratic way, because he conflates the optical meaning of the word with the psychological one and seems to think that the whole means "To look at".
Quote:
— completely independent of man’s perception —
Get away!
Quote:
in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike
the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen.
Again - here are the travelling images again, only he expresses himself so poorly that this is not clear: he seems to indicate that the observed objects themselves strike the optic nerve. The last sentence is especially wonderful because it boils down to "We can see things because they are visible". He sure had a taste for tautologies, did Seymour!
Yes, there is. Photoreceptors are afferent neurons
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
He was talking about the optic nerve. This is not fact, it's a theory.
He didn't say the optic nerve (which is also afferent), he said afferent nerve endings. That's what photoreceptors are.
You are moving the goalposts yet again.
And your statement
Quote:
He said there is no similar afferent nerve ending in the eye that MAKES DIRECT CONTACT WITH A RECEPTOR.
makes ZERO SENSE. You made a huge mistake. Receptors are afferent nerve endings, so your statement is equivalent to
Quote:
He said there is no similar afferent nerve ending in the eye that MAKES DIRECT CONTACT WITH AN AFFERENT NERVE ENDING
I'm not moving the goalposts. I am maintaining that the eyes are not a sense organ. There is a lot of conjecture going on, which is not scientific. I said that his knowledge did not come from the dissection of the eye; it came from a different source. There is a definite difference between the stimuli that cause the receptors in the nose, ear, skin, and mouth to react because there is direct contact. You believe the eyes work in the same exact way. Lessans had valid reasons for disputing this. I believe Lessans' observations were correct regardless of how wrong it may look to scientists. They did not create the eye and its intricacies; God did. We are in the rudimentary stages of learning about the brain. In this case the theory of how the eyes work is not allowing science to even hear what Lessans has to say. It's already been decided that the eyes are a sense organ and they won't listen to another explanation, or even consider it. That's what Lessans was up against when he was living, and that's what he is still up against 50 years later.
Yes, there is. Photoreceptors are afferent neurons
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
He was talking about the optic nerve. This is not fact, it's a theory.
He didn't say the optic nerve (which is also afferent), he said afferent nerve endings. That's what photoreceptors are.
You are moving the goalposts yet again.
And your statement
Quote:
He said there is no similar afferent nerve ending in the eye that MAKES DIRECT CONTACT WITH A RECEPTOR.
makes ZERO SENSE. You made a huge mistake. Receptors are afferent nerve endings, so your statement is equivalent to
Quote:
He said there is no similar afferent nerve ending in the eye that MAKES DIRECT CONTACT WITH AN AFFERENT NERVE ENDING
I'm not moving the goalposts. There is a lot of surmising going on. I said that his knowledge did not come from the dissection of the eye. Your telling me that because there are afferent nerve endings, that this proves the eyes are afferent.
You are moving the goalposts as fast as you can!
I am saying that he made a factually wrong statement about there being no afferent nerve endings in the eye because he didn't bother to look it up.
I am also saying he drew mistaken conclusions and made wrong comparisons trying to show that there are fundamental differences between the functions of the other senses and the eyes. All have receptors that receive stimuli from the outside world, yet he argued that this was not true of the eyes.
Do you plan to admit that specific statement was wrong?
Quote:
There is definitely a difference between the stimuli that cause the receptors in the nose, ear, skin, and mouth to cause a reaction, and light.
What differences other than the type of stimuli? If you are saying that light is different than chemical compounds, you'd be right. Chemical compounds are different than mechanical forces. Yes, the stimuli are different. The receptors are specialized to each different stimulus, but they all function identically. So are you saying none of them are sense organs because each is different than the other in the stimuli they respond to?
I believe Lessans' observations were right regardless of how wrong it looks to scientists.
That's called faith
Quote:
Scientists did not create the eye and its intricacies; God did.
Faith statement again
Quote:
We are in the rudimentary stages of learning about the brain. In this case the theory of how the eyes work is not allowing science to even hear what Lessans has to say. It's already been decided that the eyes are a sense organ and they won't listen to another explanation, or even consider it. That's what Lessans was up against when he was living, and that's what he is still up against 50 years later.
What does that have to do with his factually wrong statements and mistaken conclusions? Lessans failed to provide a testable hypothesis or even do any of his own research or testing, nor did he provide any data to analyze at all, when he wrote his ideas about sight. His explanations include flat out false statements...why should scientists consider it anything other than just some guy's musings?
You know the saddest part? The type of conditioning he believes takes place is far more easily explained and evidenced if images are created in our brains. Rather than projecting words on the outside world, we simply distort the incoming information in our own mind.
This is why eyewitness accounts of the same scene can differ so greatly...each person is seeing not only what is there, but what is in their own minds. Their expectations and biases and yes, conditioning, knowledge and experience is all right there and incorporated into the image. This also explains hallucinations and illusions.
You edited a statement I had already responded to, so will respond to your edit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is a definite difference between the stimuli that cause the receptors in the nose, ear, skin, and mouth to react because there is direct contact.
Direct contact between what and what?
What direct contact is involved in hearing or smelling that is not involved in sight?
I am guessing you mean direct contact between the receptor neurons and the stimuli. That exists in the eyes as well, there is direct contact between light (stimuli) and the photoreceptors.
One day, Ladyshea, your namecalling will come back to haunt you.
LOL, divine retribution? Karma? Just how exactly will I be punished...lightening bolts? What namecalling are you referring to, anyway? "Full of shit" is not a name.
Full of shit is nasty; it's demeaning; it's putting someone down; it's disrespectful. Is that enough, or do you need more?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are all cowards because you hide behind your anonymity and say whatever you feel like in any way you feel like, even if it's nasty as shit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Ad hom and tone argument....aka more ways in which you weasel.
I don't care how you label what I'm saying or doing, as if by giving my behavior a label disqualifies the truth of what I'm saying. You and everyone in here are hiding behind their anonymity. People would not say the disgusting things they say if they knew they would be identified. That's what I call cowardice.
So? Does being nasty or demeaning or even cowardly make my arguments less accurate? No.
Like millions of woo peddlers and evangelists before you, you are using ad homs and tone arguments and such as a way to evade responding to valid criticisms because you are a weasel.
I get you now. You have given, as you have done before, a total disservice to this knowledge. You think that by comparing and seeing similarities that you can attack me with; labels that have nothing to do with this knowledge, that this has somehow disproved Lessans' claims and makes you Queen Bee of the Atheist movement. There is really nothing I can do if people side with your terribly wrong conclusions.. I will not talk to you anymore unless you can alter some of your fallacious conclusions that are total lies. There are many threads you can go to other than this one. That's why I ask why are you here? I don't get it unless you aren't sure of your own worldview.
More weaseling and evasion. You're MO.
I've not lied at all. My conclusions are mine and are based on facts and evidence, and therefore valid unless shown to be incorrect with superior facts and evidence.
Oh really? I am not even going to touch that.
Yes, really. Why aren't you going to touch it? That's evasion. I thought you never evade?
YOU, LADYSHEA, are doing a disservice to mankind because YOU are claiming ownership of what you are not being privy to.
A) disservice to mankind
B) What am I claiming ownership to? As far as I can tell I took "ownership" of my own conclusions. Who else could possibly "own" my conclusions?
What does "not being privy to" mean, even? I am not privy to my own thoughts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Where in the world Lady do you come off being God?
Where and how am I "being God"? What?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm being serious.
You are serious that I am being God? You are serious that I am not being privy to my own conclusions? What?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Tell me Ladyshea where your scientific investigation usurps the claim that God is in charge
What does that even mean? Why was God brought into the discussion?
But, since you bring it up, define and describe God, and explain "in charge", and I will tell you my conclusions about the particular deity you define and describe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
or the claim that completely obliterates the proof that God does not exist (which He does), not in the usual sense but in the sense of there being a divine order to this world.
What claim are you talking about that obliterates what proof that God does not exist?
Did you think this sentence through? I do not believe in the divine or deities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Explain it to me, would you Lady, since you are the Queen of all truth?
Explain what? Your questions make no sense. Perhaps you were in a sputtering rage and that caused the word salad.
Care you rephrase your questions so I can explain whatever it is you want explained?
So tell me what they believe and how they are able to combine free will and determinism into a neat little package with a bow on top?
I did. I can repeat it for you, but first I need to to retract your false accusation that I "definitely 100%" contradicted myself. That was not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Again, you're lying Spacemonkey. You just can't stand that Lessans could be right, and that this not faith based on my part.
And now you're projecting again. Others are pointing out your blatant lies, so you figure the best way to defend yourself is to make the same accusation against others. Yet while we quote and document your lies, your accusations remain wholly unsupported and baseless. Many of us are genuinely concerned about your mental health, but you can't face up to the fact that your own behavior consistently and without exception convinces other people you are unwell, so you convince yourself that our concerns are not genuine. It is an obvious self defense mechanism, designed - like everything else you do - to allow you to cling on to your faith at all costs. I have not lied to you. You now owe me two apologies - one for wrongly saying I had contradicted myself, and one for calling me a liar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I will continue to skip over your posts unless the questions are pertinent and don't relate to my mental health.
My two questions were pertinent and did not relate to your mental health. Yet you skipped them anyway. You skipped them because you have no interest in answering the intelligent questions you keep asking for. You evaded the questions, then lied about never having done so, and now you are making post hoc excuses for your evasion and dishonesty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
What ludicrous views; that you're no Socrates?
No. That I am or ever thought I was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Until you treat me with respect, I will not answer anymore of your questions.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. If you want to be respected, then you need to stop lying and evading, and start answering the questions you are presented with. I gave you two sincere and intelligent questions relating to the book, and you purposefully evaded them instead of answering them. You still have not even tried to answer them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
My knowing that determinism is true has nothing to do with appeal to consequences. You haven't understood a word of this thread. Compatibilism might be better than the belief in free will, but it's still wrong.
You still haven't given me any reason to think that compatibilism is wrong. Your fallacious appeal to consequences was in your last post where you said: "This knowledge is the answer to world peace, so why are you so up in arms?". Stop projecting your lack of comprehension onto me, and try supporting your own claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Again, you are talking nonsense. You don't ask any direct questions without a dig somewhere in your post about my mental state or my lying. As long as you keep doing this, you'll get the same non-response.
All anyone gets from you is non-responses, no matter how they approach you. I'll stop accusing you of lying when you actually stop lying to me. Deliberately avoiding and evading questions, then claiming in the next post that you have never evaded anything is simply not honest. When you do this you are lying. I asked you why you do this, and you said it is because you don't like my style. That is a ridiculous excuse for lying to us. If you want people to think you are honest and sane, then a good start would be to directly and honestly answer the questions people ask of you. I gave you two sincere, relevant, and intelligent questions related to the book, yet you have still done nothing but evade them. You haven't even tried to answer these questions. All you can do is try to shift your responsibility by placing the blame on the attitude of those asking the questions.
Bump.
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
What support did Lessans provide for your claim that under his changed conditions, people will be unable to harm others without justification?
Weaseling Evasion #1:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That's because you have no clue as to what the two-sided equation is even about, yet you tell me you now more about this discovery than me, when I've been privy to it my entire life.
Question #2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
How could it be that NASA successfully uses delayed-time vision to calculate trajectories, when if Lessans were right about real-time seeing, they should then miss by thousands of miles?
Weaseling Evasion #2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I already said that I'm not getting into this because it is fueling the rage that is being directed at me. This is not airtight by any means, as far as I'm concerned. Only further testing will determine who is right.
You also owe me an apology for falsely accusing me of having "definitely 100%" contradicted myself, when the alleged contradiction (that we can have free will and no free will) is something that I have never once stated or implied.
I guess you must have overlooked this one too. You couldn't possibly have evaded, weaseled, or ignored it, right?
Bump.
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Exactly! It's almost staggering someone could make this claim! It is so dramatically and obviously wrong.
You are talking about the woman who thought she had everyone at IIDB stumped by pointing out that we can take a photograph of the moon at night without using a flash on the camera.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Boy, Lessans never seems to mean what he said.
Just like Peacegirl herself. If what he said was flat out wrong, then what he really meant was something else that was at least possibly right.
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
I'm not moving the goalposts. I am maintaining that the eyes are not a sense organ.
You are moving the goal posts because that is not what you are being asked about. You are being asked about Lessans' incorrect claim that there are no afferent nerve endings in the eye struck by anything external to the body. But instead of admitting that he was obviously wrong about this, you keep changing the topic to say that the physiology of the eye hasn't proven that the eye is a sense organ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I said that his knowledge did not come from the dissection of the eye; it came from a different source.
And yet he was foolish enough to make a direct claim about the physiology of the eye - one which is demonstrably false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is a definite difference between the stimuli that cause the receptors in the nose, ear, skin, and mouth to react because there is direct contact.
There is direct contact between light and the photoreceptors (afferent nerve endings) in the eye. You know this. And you know that Lessans claimed otherwise. You know he was wrong about this particular claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Lessans had valid reasons for disputing this.
No, he didn't. He had no valid reasons for any of his many unsupported claims. You merely have faith that he did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It's already been decided that the eyes are a sense organ and they won't listen to another explanation, or even consider it.
Not decided. It has been established on the basis of facts, evidence, and experimentation - all of which you refuse to address - that the eyes are a sense organ. And you don't have any other explanation to offer. Current scientific knowledge can explain exactly how vision works with respect to light and photons, whereas you have no mechanism or explanation at all. All you have is the claim that it somehow works efferently and in real time, despite having no idea how this could possibly work. That does not qualify as an alternative explanation.
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
You are talking about the woman who thought she had everyone at IIDB stumped by pointing out that we can take a photograph of the moon at night without using a flash on the camera.
Yeah I'm gonna need a little more detail on that, okay? That'd be great.
Re: A revolution in thought
disservice to mankind
Linear Mode
