A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the afferent model because you refuse to start off the way efferent sight must start off, which is at the object. I'm so tired of going over this that I need a break. This discussion has gotten nowhere and it will continue to go nowhere until further empirical testing proves Lessans right or wrong, one way or another. This thread will never be able to prove him wrong, and therefore it's now gotten burdensome.

NO, THIS IS NOT THE AFFERENT MODEL.

I am only asking you about the photons that YOU JUST TOLD ME exist. I am asking if they also existed at the times mentioned. This has NOTHING to do with the afferent model.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, because there is a synapse between the receptor and the part of the cerebral cortex that receives the impulses means that "there are no afferent nerve endings" involved in vision? Guess what? The same is true for the sense of touch. And of smell. Etc. You couldn't come up with a more idiotic justification for your claim if you tried.

Once again, neither your nor Lessans' abject ignorance of the relative anatomy and physiology is evidence that Lessans was correct

.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

It's not idiotic at all Lone Ranger. But this is not how he came to his conclusions, so for you to use this as a way of determining whether he was right or not, is faulty.

What he is saying, Peacegirl, is that you have it backwards. Which is kind of funny, as you were assuming that other senses have a more direct relationship between stimulus and impulse, not because of anything you know about the nervous system, but because to your mind it would make your father a little less wrong.

So you assumed it must be so without even bothering to check, which is exactly what your father did when he claimed there are no afferent nerve endings in the eye.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And don't even get me started on all the stuff that lies between the stimulus and the receptors for your sense of hearing.

Oh please do get started, as long as it isn't too deep and technical. I, for one, find all this very interesting, as opposed to Peacegirl's posts that I find funny-sad.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

start off with the eyes seeing the object and work backward from there.

This is the whole basis of efferent vision, start with the conclusion and invent everything to support it, regardless of whether it fits reality or not. Plus throw in a lot of other nonsense just to confuse the issue and distract everyone from the main claims.

[Vivisectus]

But what happens after that? The light has to be transduced. Where does that occur in the other sense organs?

You never have to wait long before some classic Peacegirl comedy starts. Please tell me what you think happens when we feel a touch or when we hear something, and how it is different from sight.

[thedoc]

Notice! an incredibly incredible prediction based on extremely astute observation, and a lot of interestingly deep thought?

"Peacegirl will now claim that because the eyes have a much more direct connection to stimilui, (as opposed to the afore mentioned 'no connection') they are different and this proves efferent vision because the eyes are different from the other accepted (by Lessans) senses."

P.S. It really wasn't that big a deal after all.

[LadyShea]

start off with the eyes seeing the object and work backward from there.

We know how light works. We know its properties and the laws of physics it follows
We know how cameras work, they directly physically interact with light and only light.

If efferent vision is correct, and if it doesn't require changes to light physics (which includes photography) then it needs to explain what light is doing and where it is at any given point in time whether or not it is being seen by organisms with vision.

You are being asked to account for light and its interaction with an object and with camera film in a given scenario, you are not being asked about seeing anything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

NO, THIS IS NOT THE AFFERENT MODEL.

I am only asking you about the photons that YOU JUST TOLD ME exist. I am asking if they also existed at the times mentioned. This has NOTHING to do with the afferent model.

This has everything to do with the afferent model. The photons, I already told you, travel, but in order to understand real time vision, we have to start out with the eyes, not the light. As long as you talk about photons arriving, your reasoning is based on the very premise that is being disputed. That's why you will always come to the same conclusion that I am wrong and you are right.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light has to be transduced. Where does that occur in the other sense organs?

The stimulus is traduced into signals then sent to the brain for decoding in all sensory perception. Light is simply the stimulus with sight

To understand the senses of touch and pain, we must unravel peripheral mechanisms that encode tactile stimuli and discover how the brain interprets these signals to dictate behavior. The transduction of a physical force on the skin into an electrical signal is the first step in the encoding of tactile stimuli.
Probing mammalian touch transduction

The hair cells located in the organ of Corti transduce mechanical sound vibrations into nerve impulses.
human ear (anatomy) : Transduction of mechanical vibrations -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Olfactory transduction occurs when odorant molecules reach the olfactory mucosa and bind to the olfactory receptor proteins on the cilia of the olfactory receptor neurons.

When odorants bind to the receptor site, the receptor protein changes shape which in turn triggers the flow of ions across the receptor-cell membrane and an electrical response is triggered in the cilium.

Electrical responses in the cilia spread to the rest of the receptor cell, and from there are passed onto the olfactory bulb of the brain in the olfactory nerve.

There are about 1,000 different types of receptor proteins each sensitive to different odorants.

We have a total of about 10 million receptor neurons. Each receptor neuron has about 1,000 similar receptor proteins. Because there are 1,000 different receptor proteins, there are also 1,000 different receptor neurons.

Inputs from similar receptor neurons go to similar glomeruli (collections of cells within the olfactory bulb). Because there are 1,000 different types of receptor neurons, there are 1,000 different types of glomeruli.

From the olfactory bulb, mitral cells and tufted cells carry olfactory information to the olfactory cortex, and to the orbitofrontal cortex.

Taste, Smell, and Touch: Lecture Notes

Transduction mechanisms in a generic taste cell. The apical and basolateral surfaces of the cell are separated by tight junctions. The apical surface contains both channels and G-protein-coupled receptors that are activated by chemical stimuli. The basolateral surface contains voltage-gated Na+, K+, and Ca2+ channels, as well as all the machinery for synaptic transmission mediated by serotonin. Also shown are the relevant second messenger systems and intracellular compartments that store Ca2+. The increase in intracellular Ca2+ either by the activation of voltage-gated Ca2+ channels or via the release from intracellular stores causes synaptic vesicles to fuse and release their transmitter onto receptors on primary sensory neurons.

Figure 15.12. Transduction mechanisms in a generic... - Neuroscience - NCBI Bookshelf

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

.

What he is saying, Peacegirl, is that you have it backwards. Which is kind of funny, as you were assuming that other senses have a more direct relationship between stimulus and impulse, not because of anything you know about the nervous system, but because to your mind it would make your father a little less wrong.

So you assumed it must be so without even bothering to check, which is exactly what your father did when he claimed there are no afferent nerve endings in the eye.

But that's not even what he said, so your response is plain old Lessans bashing.

[LadyShea]

What do you mean "that's not what he said"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans said there are no afferent structures in the eye proper

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's not even what he said, so your response is plain old Lessans bashing.

Hahaha it is so cute when you get all bent out of shape when you get caught out like this.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you mean "that's not what he said"?

Little lie - big lie?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The stimulus is traduced into signals then sent to the brain for decoding in all sensory perception. Light is simply the stimulus with sight

We all know there is a connection between the stimulus and the central nervous system, and from all appearances the eyes work the same way as the other four; stimulus input, transduction, and interpretation. But Lessans didn't agree when it came to the eyes because of his understanding of how the brain works in relation to words. You can disagree to your heart's content; it doesn't change the accuracy of his observations.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We all know there is a connection between the stimulus and the central nervous system, and from all appearances the eyes work the same way as the other four; stimulus input, transduction, and interpretation. .

I answered your question from what I interpreted you to be asking. You seemed to be asking where transduction occurred with the other senses as if you thought no such transduction occurred in the other senses.

Did you mean something else? Can you explain your question then? What exactly were you asking when you asked "The light has to be transduced. Where does that occur in the other sense organs?"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you mean "that's not what he said"?

I clarified that. He said there was no direct contact with an afferent nerve ending in the visual system. I'm sure he could have been more clear but his observations did not come from dissecting the eye. His observations came indirectly.

[LadyShea]

He said there was no direct contact with an afferent nerve ending in sight.

His exact words were "There are no similar afferent structures in the eyes". That statement was wrong.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He said there was no direct contact with an afferent nerve ending in the visual system.

Which, of course, is not true.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I clarified that. He said there was no direct contact with an afferent nerve ending in the visual system. I'm sure he could have been more clear but his observations did not come from dissecting the eye. His observations came indirectly.

So his observations came indirectly? So, he "observed" stuff without actually observing it?

And, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, all his unobserved observations are wrong. His plain statements, when tested against reality, are wrong.

Don't let that stop you from peddling your pile of trash book, though. The nice thing is no one will ever buy it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has everything to do with the afferent model. The photons, I already told you, travel, but in order to understand real time vision, we have to start out with the eyes, not the light. As long as you talk about photons arriving, your reasoning is based on the very premise that is being disputed. That's why you will always come to the same conclusion that I am wrong and you are right.

Don't be ridiculous. We can't start out with the eyes because there are no eyes in the scenario I am asking you about. And I am not talking about photons arriving. I am only asking you about the photons you just told me exist as a part of your own account.

You said that ON YOUR ACCOUNT there are photons which hit an object but are not absorbed. I am asking you whether ON YOUR ACCOUNT these photons still exist ON YOUR ACCOUNT 0.0001sec after hitting the object. This is a simply Yes or No question ABOUT YOUR ACCOUNT that does not presuppose anything about afferent vision.

Likewise, you said that ON YOUR ACCOUNT there are photons at the camera film when the photograph is taken. I am asking you whether ON YOUR ACCOUNT these photons also existed ON YOUR ACCOUNT 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken. This also is a simple Yes or No question ABOUT YOUR ACCOUNT that does not presuppose anything about afferent vision.

When you weasel and evade this transparently you make it impossible for anyone else to view you as anything but either pathologically dishonest or undeniably mentally ill.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

My scenario has nothing to do with relative distances, so this has nothing to do with my scenario at all.

Saying that the "light is not traveling" certainly does remove the physics of light traveling. And there are no eyes and no vision in my scenario, so this also has nothing to do with what I asked you about.

You still aren't actually addressing my objection or answering my question. Telling me that it works the same way as something else that you can't explain doesn't help at all. A real-time photographic image requires red photons to be present at the camera film at the exact moment the ball turns red. How is that possible when at the immediately preceding moment the ball was blue and there were no red photons anywhere near the camera? This is the question that you need to answer instead of hand-waving away with vague claims about light being a condition rather than a cause, and things working the same as for vision. You need to explain things in terms of the position and motion of the RED PHOTONS. Can you do this?

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But Lessans didn't agree when it came to the eyes because of his understanding of how the brain works in relation to words. You can disagree to your heart's content; it doesn't change the accuracy of his observations.

That is very true, his non-observations were not accurate at all, and they continue to be innacurate.

[thedoc]

Can you believe it? 26,506 posts in 2 threads and the one person who needs to learn something refuses to do so.

Is it party time yet?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We all know there is a connection between the stimulus and the central nervous system, and from all appearances the eyes work the same way as the other four; stimulus input, transduction, and interpretation. But Lessans didn't agree when it came to the eyes because of his understanding of how the brain works in relation to words. You can disagree to your heart's content; it doesn't change the accuracy of his observations.

Yes, from all appearances the eyes work the same as the other senses.

You claim Lessans had some deep understanding about how the brain works, but there is no evidence supporting his position.

And there is plenty of evidence suggesting he was wrong.

So why are you fighting so hard for a position that looks wrong from every single angle except placing blind faith in Lessans?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You never have to wait long before some classic Peacegirl comedy starts. Please tell me what you think happens when we feel a touch or when we hear something, and how it is different from sight.

No matter what I say it's not going to matter to you or anyone else. You believe that the eyes work exactly like the other senses do. Looking at the eye it appears that light is the stimulus that leads to transduction that leads to interpretation. That's the present model. I still believe there's more to it.