A revolution in thought - Page 825

Vivisectus · #**20601** 10-22-2012, 07:02 PM

Quote:

There is no direct contact of images (or impulses) that connect with the receptors in the brain equivalent to what occurs with the other senses.

Direct contact of images or impulses with receptors in the brain? And this happens with the other senses? What the hell are you talking about? Have you had a small stroke or something?

And because of this, your father was not wrong when he said there were no afferent nerve endings in the eye?

Pure magic! We should contact universities everywhere and inform them of this breakthrough in neurological research!

You never disappoint Peacegirl. Marvellous!

The Lone Ranger · #**20602** 10-22-2012, 07:05 PM

By the way, just to clarify in case there was some question, there are no sensory receptors in the brain.

peacegirl · #**20603** 10-22-2012, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

By the way, just to clarify in case there was some question, there are no sensory receptors in the brain.

My mistake. What he did say is this: There is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ, so once again he claims that although light is present, the impulse is not decoded in the brain where normal vision would be possible.

peacegirl · #**20604** 10-22-2012, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

There is no direct contact of images (or impulses) that connect with the receptors in the brain equivalent to what occurs with the other senses.

Direct contact of images or impulses with receptors in the brain? And this happens with the other senses? What the hell are you talking about? Have you had a small stroke or something?

And because of this, your father was not wrong when he said there were no afferent nerve endings in the eye?

Pure magic! We should contact universities everywhere and inform them of this breakthrough in neurological research!

You never disappoint Peacegirl. Marvellous!

I never said there wasn't a connection between the optic nerve and the brain Vivisectus, but this doesn't mean that the brain is receiving information that can be decoded into an image.

The Lone Ranger · #**20605** 10-22-2012, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

By the way, just to clarify in case there was some question, there are no sensory receptors in the brain.

My mistake. What he did say is this: There is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ, so once again he claims that although light is present, the impulse is not decoded in the brain where normal vision would be possible.

The retina of the eye is practically nothing but afferent nerve endings. It's not like this is in any way a debated matter.

peacegirl · #**20606** 10-22-2012, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah, but evidence that shows Lessans was wrong needs to meet the special Peacegirl standard of evidence. Just like the fact that there are afferent nerve endings in the eye in no way means Lessans was wrong when he said there weren't any.

NO IT DOES NOT SHOW THAT THERE IS A DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN AFFERENT FIBERS AND INSTANT RECOGNITION. YOU ARE LOST VIVISECUS. I REFUSE TO TALK TO YOU ANYMORE UNLESS YOU GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BECAUSE IT'S NOT WORTH IT TO ME.

Instant recognition of what? Where did Lessans use the word recognition in the excerpt under discussion? He said the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lessans

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.

You are moving the goalposts, weasel.

The word "reaction" in place of "recognition" can be used and it doesn't change anything because an infant would not react to a mobile with bright visual stimuli inches away, but the baby would react to a loud sound in the room.

peacegirl · #**20607** 10-22-2012, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

By the way, just to clarify in case there was some question, there are no sensory receptors in the brain.

My mistake. What he did say is this: There is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ, so once again he claims that although light is present, the impulse is not decoded in the brain where normal vision would be possible.

The retina of the eye is practically nothing but afferent nerve endings. It's not like this is in any way a debated matter.

Impulses have to go from the optic nerve inward. There has to be a connection to the brain, but this still does not in anyway prove that the brain is receiving and decoding these impulses into a semblence of anything close to "normal" vision.

The Lone Ranger · #**20608** 10-22-2012, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

By the way, just to clarify in case there was some question, there are no sensory receptors in the brain.

My mistake. What he did say is this: There is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ, so once again he claims that although light is present, the impulse is not decoded in the brain where normal vision would be possible.

The retina of the eye is practically nothing but afferent nerve endings. It's not like this is in any way a debated matter.

Impulses have to go from the optic nerve inward. There has to be a connection to the brain, but this still does not in anyway prove that the brain is receiving and decoding these impulses into a semblence of anything close to "normal" vision.

Impulses have to go from the olfactory nerve inward. There has to be a connection to the brain, but this still does not in anyway prove that the brain is receiving and decoding these impulses into a semblence of anything close to "normal" smell.

Impulses have to go from the vestibulocochlear nerve inward. There has to be a connection to the brain, but this still does not in anyway prove that the brain is receiving and decoding these impulses into a semblence of anything close to "normal" hearing.

Impulses have to go from the gustatory nerves inward. There has to be a connection to the brain, but this still does not in anyway prove that the brain is receiving and decoding these impulses into a semblence of anything close to "normal" taste.

Impulses have to go from the tactile nerves inward. There has to be a connection to the brain, but this still does not in anyway prove that the brain is receiving and decoding these impulses into a semblence of anything close to "normal" touch.

See how stupid that sounds? There's absolutely no difference between how impulses are transmitted from sensory receptors to the brain for vision than for any other sense.

thedoc · #**20609** 10-22-2012, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

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

Far from it: babies mimic the expression of their mums, as long as the mothers face is the correct distance away from them. They are not unable to see: they are merely not able to focus yet. Again, this is something that has been tested.

Show me a newborn that is the exact distance from its mum that is purportedly supposed to allow for recognition, and I will concede. There's no such evidence.

I believe that it has been determined beyond doubt, to reasonable people, that a baby nursing is able to focus on it's mothers face, so that would be the aproximate distance that newborns can focus.

thedoc · #**20610** 10-22-2012, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

By the way, just to clarify in case there was some question, there are no sensory receptors in the brain.

Well that just can't be right, because according to Lessans the brain is looking out through the eyes. Please correct this obvious error of the scientific comunity.

thedoc · #**20611** 10-22-2012, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The word "reaction" in place of "recognition" can be used and it doesn't change anything because an infant would not react to a mobile with bright visual stimuli inches away, but the baby would react to a loud sound in the room.

Well then all my children and grandchildren must be abnormal because they all reacted to visual stimulation without auditory stimulation. Perhaps you just layed your child in a bed and didn't notice him looking for visual stimulation, it's called 'bad parenting'.

Vivisectus · #**20612** 10-22-2012, 09:56 PM

Let me try to get this right:

The book claims there are no afferent "nerve endings" (whatever that is supposed to mean) in the eyes.

However, this is not wrong, because the fact that there clearly are does not prove that signals are sent to the brain to be interpreted as images?

Amazing. Even if your holy book says something that is very obviously wrong, you still are not able to admit this. And yet you spend all your time claiming everyone else is biased.

The Lone Ranger · #**20613** 10-22-2012, 09:57 PM

By the way, part of the reason that we can be so sure that the brain receives and processes visual impulses in precisely the same way that it receives and processes auditory impulses is because of what happens when the system doesn't work properly.

The reason that the brain processes incoming sensory signals differently is because of a phenomenon known as the modality of the senses. The brain processes all incoming signals from a given nerve the same way -- regardless of what actually caused the sensory receptors to depolarize. For example, the brain interprets all incoming sensory impulses from the optic nerve as "light," even when light isn't what caused the photoreceptors in the retina to depolarize. This is why pressing against the eyeball can cause you to "see" splashes of light and color that don't actually exist. Similarly, impinging on the vestibulocochlear nerve will cause you to "hear" sounds that don't actually exist, and so forth.

What happens when incoming sensory impulses stimulate the wrong part of the cerebral cortex? Then you get the phenomenon of synesthesia. A person with synesthesia may see different pitches of sound as different colors. (The composer Franz Liszt, for example, famously saw different musical notes as different colors.)

There are lots of different forms that synesthesia takes, but what they have in common is that incoming sensory impulses are interpreted by the "wrong" part of the cerebral cortex, leading people to "see" the pitches of sounds as different colors, for example (and different loudnesses as differences in brightness). A particularly interesting form of synesthesia occurs when a person experiences different sounds as different tastes.

A particularly relevant example is a form of synesthesia in which a person hears sounds in response to changes within his or her visual field. In a related form of synesthesia, some people hear different colors as different-pitched sounds.

This phenomenon certainly wouldn't occur if the brain was somehow "looking out" in order for us to see. Unless you want to say that hearing, taste, and smell are also efferent in function.

What the phenomenon demonstrates -- as if there were any room for doubt -- is that visual impulses are received and processed by the brain in order to generate vision, not the other way 'round.

peacegirl · #**20614** 10-22-2012, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

By the way, just to clarify in case there was some question, there are no sensory receptors in the brain.

My mistake. What he did say is this: There is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ, so once again he claims that although light is present, the impulse is not decoded in the brain where normal vision would be possible.

The retina of the eye is practically nothing but afferent nerve endings. It's not like this is in any way a debated matter.

Impulses have to go from the optic nerve inward. There has to be a connection to the brain, but this still does not in anyway prove that the brain is receiving and decoding these impulses into a semblence of anything close to "normal" vision.

Impulses have to go from the olfactory nerve inward. There has to be a connection to the brain, but this still does not in anyway prove that the brain is receiving and decoding these impulses into a semblence of anything close to "normal" smell.

Impulses have to go from the vestibulocochlear nerve inward. There has to be a connection to the brain, but this still does not in anyway prove that the brain is receiving and decoding these impulses into a semblence of anything close to "normal" hearing.

Impulses have to go from the gustatory nerves inward. There has to be a connection to the brain, but this still does not in anyway prove that the brain is receiving and decoding these impulses into a semblence of anything close to "normal" taste.

Impulses have to go from the tactile nerves inward. There has to be a connection to the brain, but this still does not in anyway prove that the brain is receiving and decoding these impulses into a semblence of anything close to "normal" touch.

See how stupid that sounds? There's absolutely no difference between how impulses are transmitted from sensory receptors to the brain for vision than for any other sense.

That's why certain things defy common sense, or logic, like Dragar said. And that is also why dissecting the eye does not give us the total answer because the brain is involved in this function. To say you know positively that the eyes are afferent is jumping the gun. That is also why this knowledge came from outside of the fields of optics and physics.

peacegirl · #**20615** 10-22-2012, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

By the way, part of the reason that we can be so sure that the brain receives and processes visual impulses in precisely the same way that it receives and processes auditory impulses is because of what happens when the system doesn't work properly.

The reason that the brain processes incoming sensory signals differently is because of a phenomenon known as the modality of the senses. The brain processes all incoming signals from a given nerve the same way -- regardless of what actually caused the sensory receptors to depolarize. For example, the brain interprets all incoming sensory impulses from the optic nerve as "light," even when light isn't what caused the photoreceptors in the retina to depolarize. This is why pressing against the eyeball can cause you to "see" splashes of light and color that don't actually exist. Similarly, impinging on the vestibulocochlear nerve will cause you to "hear" sounds that don't actually exist, and so forth.

What happens when incoming sensory impulses stimulate the wrong part of the cerebral cortex? Then you get the phenomenon of synesthesia. A person with synesthesia may see different pitches of sound as different colors. (The composer Franz Liszt, for example, famously saw different musical notes as different colors.)

There are lots of different forms that synesthesia takes, but what they have in common is that incoming sensory impulses are interpreted by the "wrong" part of the cerebral cortex, leading people to "see" the pitches of sounds as different colors, for example (and different loudnesses as differences in brightness). A particularly interesting form of synesthesia occurs when a person experiences different sounds as different tastes.

A particularly relevant example is a form of synesthesia in which a person hears sounds in response to changes within his or her visual field. In a related form of synesthesia, some people hear different colors as different-pitched sounds.

This phenomenon certainly wouldn't occur if the brain was somehow "looking out" in order for us to see. Unless you want to say that hearing, taste, and smell are also efferent in function.

What the phenomenon demonstrates -- as if there were any room for doubt -- is that visual impulses are received and processed by the brain in order to generate vision, not the other way 'round.

I've thought about dyslexia or not recognizing faces, or a number of wiring problems, synesthesia being another one. All of these are because of problems within the brain. But again I don't think that this negates efferent vision. It just means that the brain cannot file what it sees correctly. In other words, it's putting what it sees into the wrong area of the brain, or, as you said, it's interpreted in the wrong part of the cerebral cortex. This makes sense. The brain and eyes are intertwined and I don't believe that the direction in which we see would affect the damaged area of the brain that does the interpreting, or filing.

LadyShea · #**20616** 10-22-2012, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

By the way, just to clarify in case there was some question, there are no sensory receptors in the brain.

My mistake. What he did say is this: There is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ,

Which was wrong. There are afferent nerve endings in the eye. Quit moving the golaposts onto impulses and decoding.

This claim, about afferent nerve endings in the eyes, was wrong.

Spacemonkey · #**20617** 10-23-2012, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't have free will and no free will Spacemonkey, and that's what the compatibilists believe. Since you're a compatibilist I say you are contradicting yourself.

I have never claimed that we have both free will and no free will. This is not what compatibilists believe. As I have repeatedly corrected you on this point, your continuing to make this claim is another lie. Stop lying, Peacegirl.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just pissed because you're wrong and you can't accept it. Don't play this game that you're genuinely concerned about me. It's such a bunch of crap, I could throw up. I just hope people see through you.

You prove my point yet again. 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I won't talk to you about the book if you don't stop the put downs.

What put downs? Everything I just said is entirely true. You went for months at a time deliberately and quite openly ignoring and evading my questions. I also just presented you with two sincere questions related to the book. Did you answer them? No! You weaseled and evaded them. As you always do. Stop lying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's good that you can admit you may be wrong about your reasoning ability when it comes to this topic. I just hope you continue to remain humble.

I have not admitted that I am wrong about my reasoning ability. I simply never made or held the ludicrous claims/views you attributed to me. Everyone but you has the reasoning ability to see the gaping flaws in your father's work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never purposely ignored your questions. I will ignore you if you accuse me of being insane, or you ask me one more time why am I still here?

There's another blatant lie. 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

That's right, you have drawn mistaken conclusions regarding the truth of compatibilism. I have identified the mistakes. Man does not have any free will, even though nothing can make him do anything against his will. He can choose, but his choices are not free. Compatibilism is wrong because free will and determinism are not compatible. It's either one or the other, and determinism wins. What are you so afraid of if man's will is not free? This knowledge is the answer to world peace, so why are you so up in arms?

Another fallacious appeal to consequences. And you haven't given me any reason for thinking that compatibilism is wrong. Saying that free will and determinism are not compatible is not to give a reason for rejecting compatibilism - it just is a rejection of compatibilism. At no point have you shown any mistaken conclusion on my part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How on Earth is it grasping at straws to show that you are lying about being willing to answer relevant and intelligent questions relating to the book? I gave you two sincere questions which you DID NOT answer, and which you DID just evade. Your response was to ignore and evade them, and then blatantly lie by claiming never to have ignored or evaded anything. Why do you do this?

Because I don't like your style, that's why...

You constantly lie in your replies because you don't like my style? What kind of ridiculous excuse is that? And if you want respect then you need to earn it. Not lying would be a good start.

Bump.

Bump for Peacegirl, who of course never ignores or evades anything.

Spacemonkey · #**20618** 10-23-2012, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Lie #1:

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not evaded, weaseled, or ignored anything.

Lie #2:

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never purposely ignored your questions.

Question #1:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

LadyShea · #**20619** 10-23-2012, 03:42 AM

Guess I will respond to this now

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

The Lone Ranger · #**20620** 10-23-2012, 03:59 AM

I refuse to believe that LadyShea is God.

If she'd designed the place, the Universe would make a lot more sense, and would be a much nicer and fairer place.

thedoc · #**20621** 10-23-2012, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I refuse to believe that LadyShea is God.

If she'd designed the place, the Universe would make a lot more sense, and would be a much nicer and fairer place.

But, would we have free will, or not?

FYI, that should be Goddess.

thedoc · #**20622** 10-23-2012, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Tell me Ladyshea where your scientific investigation usurps the claim that God is in charge, or the claim that completely obliterates the proof that God does not exist (which He does),

God is a HE? That is a rather biased view.

Spacemonkey · #**20623** 10-23-2012, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I refuse to believe that LadyShea is God.

If she'd designed the place, the Universe would make a lot more sense, and would be a much nicer and fairer place.

Or at least it would be until she decided to ruin it for everyone.

thedoc · #**20624** 10-23-2012, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I refuse to believe that LadyShea is God.

If she'd designed the place, the Universe would make a lot more sense, and would be a much nicer and fairer place.

Or at least it would be until she decided to ruin it for everyone.

I didn't know she was driving it too?

Vivisectus · #**20625** 10-23-2012, 12:23 PM

By the way, this is a particularly weak and annoying way of arguing.

"Sight has something to do with the brain. The brain is not fully understood. There for, my idea about sight is not implausible!"

Just because we do not know everything about a mountain does not mean that it is now plausible that giants live in it. It is the same annoying, weak, liver-lipped, mealy-mouthed, flabby, cringe-inducingly awful excuse for a rational argument that goes "Scientists don't know everything, there for *insert silly belief* is just as valid as your opinion!"

I am always surprised when people say that, because it means that any silly statement must be given equal weight: we never know, some evidence may surface! We don't know everything about anything yet, so I guess that must mean anything is equally possible now!

But these people who seem to treasure their ignorance so much they elevate it to the status of eternal truth do not mean that, of course. They feel it only applies to something they already believe. Few young earth creationists feel that this rationale applies equally strongly to the Hindu creation story, or that of the Mayans or the ancient Greeks. No, invariably the argument runs "We do not know everything, and one of the things we do not know yet is the reason to assume my belief is correct."

I hate it. Not just because it is irrational, but because it is such a lazy, defeatist statement. It wants to pretend that careful, rational enquiry into the nature of the world around us is essentially pointless, and that assuming something on the basis of no evidence whatever is the same as assuming something because after careful study the balance of evidence points that way. All of that because they are either too lazy to actually learn anything, too proud to admit they just don't understand something or worse, because they don't want to let go of a belief and will happily take a dump on five centuries of enlightenment to hold on to it.

People who, as a rule, are now better fed, in better health, have access to more knowledge, who can travel more and see more of the world, and generally have a far superior life because of people who did not think that way, and in stead worked very hard to learn just a little bit more about the world around us.

Just because there is a lot more to learn does not mean that anything goes. There is no excuse for such a feckless attitude.