Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2576  
Old 04-25-2011, 01:11 AM
Doctor X Doctor X is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: XMVCCCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
2570 posts of endless repetition and you are apologizing for 1 double post? L.O.L This whole thread has been a series of double posts, your minor, almost unoticeable, error is easily overlooked, and more easily forgiven. :wink:
Then you win a repeat NBL!



--J. "A RIVER to My People!" D.
Reply With Quote
  #2577  
Old 04-25-2011, 01:18 AM
Doctor X Doctor X is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: XMVCCCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
. . . then I challenge you to explain your father's reasoning in the following quote from his book.
I am beginning to suspect that Lessans tried to explain the embarrassing contradiction in the P Creation Myth--the Sun seems to have been created twice. This is not reading both the P and J Myths: P has a general "light" in the beginning, but then specifically creates a separate light and darkness on the fourth day along with, specifically, the Sun, Moon, and stars.

All after plants have been around, of course :derp:

So, perhaps, he is trying to claim the first "light' is that "star" everyone sees then the second light is what everyone sees 8 minutes later :chin: Of course, that means the days are only about three minutes long, that plants arose in six minutes without sunlight . . . oh and the Earth is still flat.

Or he was just a dumbass.

--J.D.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stephen Maturin (04-25-2011)
  #2578  
Old 04-25-2011, 01:29 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXCI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor X View Post
Or he was just a dumbass.

--J.D.
Occam's Razor.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Doctor X (04-25-2011)
  #2579  
Old 04-25-2011, 01:51 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

NBL - National Baseball League

I'm not really into sports, so

NBL - Not Bloody Likely

but if thats not it?

NBL - Never Been Laid

I don't think I can be much help with personal problems.

NBL - North British Locomotive

this has somewhat more interest.

NBL - Nile Breweries Limited

this has some definite interest.
Reply With Quote
  #2580  
Old 04-25-2011, 01:53 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor X View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
2570 posts of endless repetition and you are apologizing for 1 double post? L.O.L This whole thread has been a series of double posts, your minor, almost unoticeable, error is easily overlooked, and more easily forgiven. :wink:
Then you win a repeat NBL!



--J. "A RIVER to My People!" D.

I think I need to check her gears for proper mesh.
Reply With Quote
  #2581  
Old 04-25-2011, 02:12 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Flyover Hillbilly
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: MXDCCII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The intelligensia [sic], which you all claim to be, are now becoming the stumbling blocks to a better world, because you are too sure of yourselves.
The Search This Thread function reveals that the only person claiming that "you all" are the intelligentsia is you. One would expect a person so practiced in the art of deceit to be much better at it.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
  #2582  
Old 04-25-2011, 02:18 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Flyover Hillbilly
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: MXDCCII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Also, someone else stuck his dick in the mashed potatoes. (You know who you are. :glare: )
Partying like a 20-year-old just ain't fittin' for a man of my advanced age.

__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
davidm (04-25-2011)
  #2583  
Old 04-25-2011, 02:18 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO
ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO
ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO
ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO
ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO
ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO
ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-25-2011)
  #2584  
Old 04-25-2011, 02:20 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXCI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
NBL - National Baseball League

I'm not really into sports, so

NBL - Not Bloody Likely

but if thats not it?

NBL - Never Been Laid

I don't think I can be much help with personal problems.

NBL - North British Locomotive

this has somewhat more interest.

NBL - Nile Breweries Limited

this has some definite interest.
Keep guessing. :wave:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Doctor X (04-25-2011)
  #2585  
Old 04-25-2011, 02:40 AM
Doctor X Doctor X is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: XMVCCCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
I think I need to check her gears for proper mesh.
I already put my spigot in her box and lubricated the mechanism. . . .

--J.D.
Reply With Quote
  #2586  
Old 04-25-2011, 02:41 AM
Doctor X Doctor X is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: XMVCCCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
NBL - National Baseball League

I'm not really into sports, so

NBL - Not Bloody Likely

but if thats not it?

NBL - Never Been Laid

I don't think I can be much help with personal problems.

NBL - North British Locomotive

this has somewhat more interest.

NBL - Nile Breweries Limited

this has some definite interest.
Keep guessing. :wave:
One might think he has never had a NBL.

One might think that, I could not possibly comment. . . .

-J. "Why Must I be EVERYBODY's Daddy?" D.
Reply With Quote
  #2587  
Old 04-25-2011, 02:50 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor X View Post
One might think he has never had a NBL.

One might think that, I could not possibly comment. . . .

-J. "Why Must I be EVERYBODY's Daddy?" D.
I'm just a D.O.M. and a B.O.F. and I haven't got a fuckin' clue!
Reply With Quote
  #2588  
Old 04-25-2011, 02:59 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You're right. You cannot have AAB because that's twice with the same letter. I'm sorry for the mix up. Here it is again:

The author asks that you arrange 105 alphabetical blocks divided equally between A and O in groups of 3 and in 7 lines, so that no letter is ever twice with the same letter.

Is ABA alowed since the A is not next to the other A ?
Wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #2589  
Old 04-25-2011, 03:01 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor X View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
I think I need to check her gears for proper mesh.
I already put my spigot in her box and lubricated the mechanism. . . .

--J.D.

I was going to say something, but my wife says I'm not allowed, , ,
yea, , , I know, ,
Reply With Quote
  #2590  
Old 04-25-2011, 03:07 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You know what this reminds me of? There was a old wives tale that passed along from generation to generation that said a roast of a certain size had to have the end cut off before cooking. It became a deeply held belief, and because people just accepted what they were told, they never questioned the reason for this. They just believed that anyone who would even think of not cutting the end of the roast off was defying what was held to be sacred and not to be tampered with. Then one day a family member found an old trunk, and in that trunk she found the real reason the end of the roast off was cut off all these centuries ago. What was the reason? The grandmother's pot was too small for her roast, so she cut the end off to make it fit. What's the moral of the story? People often do what a previous generation did, or believe what has been handed down to them without really knowing the truth. :wink:

That's such an arrogant and aggressively-stupid thing to say that it makes me ashamed for my species.
It was a true story. Take it as you will.
It's either an old wive's tale or it's true; it can't be both.


Quote:
I thought it was funny. Sometimes people can be fallible. I don't care what you think of me Lone Ranger. You're not god either. I respect your knowledge,
No you don't, so you might as well be honest and admit it. What you have been absolutely consistent about is your utter contempt for every bit of knowledge, no matter how thoroughly-tested -- that contradicts your father's claims.

Quote:
... but you need to respect mine
The moment you demonstrate some, I will happily do so.

Quote:
and if there is disagreement, it needs to be investigated, not shot down as if I'm an ignorant person.
You are an ignorant person -- profoundly so.

But that's not why I object to you. I object to your willful ignorance, and to your arrogance. And to your dishonesty.

As a scientist and an educator, I am duty-bound to oppose your promotion of willful ignorance, irrationalism, anti-science attitudes, and outright lies.
I appreciate your presentation, but I am neither arrogant or a liar just because I'm trying to understand whether it is possible that Lessans could be right. You are not duty bound to name call no matter how much I irk you. You are duty bound to teach what you know, not to put down someone who thinks differently than you. I'm sure you'd fail me if I was your student because I would not regurgitate what you want to hear. I am not denying that the model of sight, for the most part, is correct, because I have no reason not to agree. But I cannot say in all honesty that I believe everything about the model of sight is flawless. You would burn me at the stake alive if you could, based on your total out of character reaction. I am not going to be the brunt of your anger. To say that you are ashamed of your species because of my effort to understand sight belies your intention in here. That is not what a caring teacher says to anyone. You have a responsibility to stay calm, and not be defensive. Actually, I have no idea why you're here because, according to you, I'm not educable. So why are you here? Obviously, it's either your way or the highway. Your reaction tops the cake as one of the most outrageous comments I've heard in all my time on these forums. You need to chill out or we can't talk anymore. I will continue to research the ciliary muscle to see if there was any validity to what was posted.

Last edited by peacegirl; 04-25-2011 at 03:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2591  
Old 04-25-2011, 03:12 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCMVI
Images: 11
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You should all be reading this book as if this world depends on it; which it does.
Hey peacegirl, I think that the fate of the world depends on people adopting Islam as their religion. Would you please give Mohammed the benefit of the doubt and read the entire Qur'an and then get back me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It might be well-developed, BUT PARTS OF IT ARE INCONCLUSIVE (I used that word instead of 'wrong' so people dont' go nuts in here)!!!
Which parts? You have given no evidence except for your daddy's assertions. Others have given peer-reviewed scientific studies and detailed explanations of how sight works.

Your response is to simply say "Nuh-uh!"

You keep asking for the benefit of the doubt, but you haven't shown the slightest bit of respect for the evidence that others have presented, meanwhile you haven't shown any actual evidence.
Quote:
THE BRAIN DOES NOT CONSTRUCT AN IMAGE. THE BRAIN SEES THE PICTURE BASED ON THE LIGHT'S WAVELENGTHS. The brain is able to see the picture as a whole, because the pixels are close together. I have no idea where you got the idea that I believed the photon contains the image of the whole object. Now this is really nutty. :yup:
You said that the light doesn't contain the image, as if this is what people were claiming.

Each ray of light only gives you information about the color composition of a single point (a pixel, basically, but much more high resolution than a TV, obviously), your retina receives all these points of color which enter the pupil at differing angles depending on where the light was reflected from (this is a simplification since there can be other things that affect the light, but the light is basically arranged according to how the objects you're looking at are arranged). Your brain is thus able to assemble these "pixels" into a coherent image.

This is all very well understood, and I don't see why you have an objection.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir
Your questioning of the fact that sight is a sense is equivalent to suggesting that we don't really need oxygen to breathe. Nobody is going to "admit" that there's something off with that theory either, and the fact that we're all in agreement is not because there's anything cult-like or hive-mind-like going on. It's just that it's correct.
If you believe that, then you need to take psychology 101.
Unlike you, I actually have taken science courses, including psychology (and in particular, social psychology).

The fact that an entire group agrees is in no way evidence that there's any kind of disordered thinking going on. We all agree that the tides go in, the tides go out (never a miscommunication) but this doesn't mean we're a moon cult, it's simply the truth.
Quote:
This is very cult-like, and it's taught me a lot. As much as you all think you have the gift of discernment, you don't, not in this case because it threatens the heart of how you believe true knowledge is attained.
You are adding condescending cunt to your list of negative qualities, you know that, right?

People have been incredibly patient with you and given you detailed explanations, yet you dismiss all their efforts with "That's sketchy!" "You expect me to believe this based on READING rather than seeing the studies being performed? Ridiculous! Now READ my daddy's book and believe it!" "It's inconclusive for an unspecified reason that I can't explain or due to irrelevant or insulting assumptions I've decided to make about the authors of those studies!" "OMG why won't you just believe me, it's like you're a cult or something!"
Quote:
This is turning out to be a joke on you, not me.
In that you're probably a troll, I suppose so :troll:
Quote:
The tables have turned because now I see, after giving everyone very substantial evidence in Lessans' favor, no one has said a word.
You haven't given any evidence. You've given assertions. You have no experimental data which supports your daddy's crackpot theories.
Quote:
The least they could have said is that more research needs to be done.
That's giving your idiotic ideas more respect than they deserve. The research is not inconclusive, you have been proven wrong and you refuse to admit it. You have given no good reason to dismiss the multitude of studies that demonstrate you are wrong.
Quote:
You can't do that; it's a threat to your entire worldview. Oh my goddd, science may have gotten it wrong. So it's easier for everyone to call me dogmatic and dishonest, and Lessans a crackpot.
Science has gotten many things wrong, and I'm sure The Lone Ranger or someone else would be willing to give you a long list of things scientists have accepted as true that turned out to be wrong (one example I know is that they used to think outer space was full of a substance called ether).

The difference is that when they're presented with evidence that disproves their theories, scientists abandon them, or modify them to take into account the new information. Your response is to call the evidence sketchy or accuse the people presenting the evidence of being in a cult.

So go away you dishonest dogmatic cunt.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
SharonDee (04-25-2011)
  #2592  
Old 04-25-2011, 03:19 AM
Doctor X Doctor X is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: XMVCCCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
I was going to say something, but my wife says I'm not allowed, , ,
yea, , , I know, ,
"I came home and found thedoc in bed with my wife. I said: 'thedoc I have to . . .








. . . but
you?"

--J.D.
Reply With Quote
  #2593  
Old 04-25-2011, 03:21 AM
The Editor's Avatar
The Editor The Editor is offline
Stop that!
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: LXXV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Perhaps this peacegirl should read and respond to this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Seemed like it might be a fun topic to me. Please note, this is only a very, very cursory examination of what we know and understand about how vision works. If I were to go into detail, it would quite literally fill a textbook or two.

With your permission, I'll start out with the basics and work up. So forgive me if it seems a bit slow at first.



Let's start with the atom. I'm sure everyone knows that atoms are the fundamental unit of which normal matter is constructed. That most-definitely includes the human body. Further, I'm sure everyone understands that an atom has three basic components.

Every atom contains one or more positively-charged protons. (Please don't confuse protons with photons; photons are "particles" of light.)

Most atoms also contain one or more uncharged neutrons. The protons and neutrons are bound together in the nucleus of the atom. Surrounding the nucleus are negatively-charged electrons. The electrons are distributed in what are called orbitals or shells.

Every atom, by definition, has equal numbers of positively-charged protons and negatively-charged electrons, and therefore has no net electrical charge.


A carbon atom.
Note that every atom has equal numbers of protons and
electrons by definition. The number of neutrons need not
be equal to that of the number of protons/electrons, however.


An atom can either gain or lose electrons and thus acquire an electrical charge. It is no longer known as an "atom," however; it is known as an ion.

If an atom gains an electron (each electron has a charge of -1), it becomes a negatively-charged anion. If an atom loses an electron, it becomes a positively-charged cation, since it now has more positively-charged protons than negatively-charged electrons.



Atoms can come together and chemically bond to form molecules. One way in which this is done is that some atoms can actually take electrons away from other atoms. The atom that takes an electron becomes a negatively-charged anion, and the atom that loses an electron becomes a positively-charged cation. The ions then stick together because of their opposite charges. Unsurprisingly, this is known as ionic bonding.



Ionic Bonding to form a Molecule of Sodium Chloride.
After the atoms exchange an electron, the resulting ions are held together by their opposite charges.




Another way in which atoms can form chemical bonds is by coming together and merging their outermost orbitals, and thus sharing electrons. This is known as covalent bonding.



Covalent bonding between 4 hydrogen atoms and a single carbon atom to form a molecule of methane.



Now then, the subunits within an ionic-bonded substance are electrically charged by definition. The subunits within a covalently-bonded substance may or may not be.

In some cases, the atoms within a covalently-bonded molecule share their electrons equally. In that case, the charges balance out, and the molecule has no net electrical charge. This is known as a nonpolar molecule.

But in some covalently-bonded substances, electrons are not shared equally. Because one or more of the atoms in the molecule "hoards" electrons, the charges are unbalanced. In effect, the electrons tend to "cluster" on one side of the molecule. This means that one end of the molecule has a slight negative charge (where the electrons tend to cluster) and the other side has a slight positive charge. This is a polar molecule. Water is a good example of a polar molecule.



Water is a polar molecule because the oxygen atom and the two hydrogen atoms do not share their electrons equally.
(The oxygen, in effect, "hoards" the electrons.) The “δ” symbol indicates a partial charge.




A molecule of carbon dioxide is about the same size as a molecule of water.
The two substances have very different properties, however, because the valence electrons are shared equally
in a molecule of carbon dioxide (making carbon dioxide a non-polar substance), but not in a molecule of water.


Because each polar molecule has a (slightly) positive end and a (slightly) negative side, polar molecules tend to be attracted to each other. That is, the partially-positive end of one polar molecule is attracted to the partially-negative end of another polar molecule. The weak bonds that thus form between polar molecules are known as hydrogen bonds.



Hydrogen bonding between water molecules.


Because of their charges (either partial in the case of polar molecules or complete in the case of ions), most polar and ionic substances will easily dissolve into water. Such substances are therefore said to be hydrophilic (literally, "water-loving").

Because they won't form hydrogen bonds with polar molecules, non-polar molecules typically will not dissolve into water. They are therefore said to be hydrophobic (literally, "water-fearing"). This is why most oils, for example, will not dissolve into water -- the molecules that make up the oil are non-polar and thus hydrophobic, and so cannot form hydrogen bonds with the water molecules.


Sodium chloride (table salt) dissolves so well in water because the salt is ionic. The sodium cations are attracted to the partially-negative
regions of the water molecules and the chloride anions are attracted to the partially-positive regions of the water molecules.



Some larger molecules have regions that are hydrophilic (and will thus dissolve into water) and other regions that are hydrophobic (and thus won't). A good example is a phospholipid molecule. A phospholipid molecule has a "head" that is strongly polar (hydrophilic) and so is attracted to water molecules. But it also has 2 nonpolar (hydrophobic) "tails" that are, in effect, repelled by water.

When placed into water, phospholipid molecules will therefore spontaneously organize into a bilayer. The hydrophilic "heads" face outward, toward the water, and the hydrophobic "tails" face inward, away from the water.

You'll doubtless have noticed that this means the central region of a phospholipid bilayer is hydrophobic. Thus most polar and ionic substances cannot cross phospholipid bilayers, because they can't pass through the hydrophobic interior.



A phospholipid molecule. Note the polar (hydrophilic) "head" and the nonpolar (hydrophobic) "tails."




When placed into water, phospholipid molecules spontaneously organize into a bilayer, with the hydrophilic "heads" facing outward,
toward the surrounding water and the hydrophobic "tails" facing inward, away from the water.





The basic subunits of living things are cells, of course. And every cell is surrounded and held together by a plasma membrane. The plasma membrane is primarily made up of a phospholipid bilayer. Molecules of cholesterol are embedded in the membrane, which helps to strengthen it. There are also various proteins embedded in the membrane. They serve various functions, but a very important one is that they help determine what substances can cross the membrane, and under what circumstances.



A generalized animal cell. Cells contain genetic material
and cytoplasm, and are enclosed by a plasma membrane.





The plasma membrane is primarily a phospholipid bilayer. Cholesterol molecules help to strengthen it.
Protein molecules embedded in the membrane are essential in determining what can and cannot cross the membrane.



It's essential to keep in mind that the interior of the plasma membrane is hydrophobic. Therefore, most polar and ionic substances cannot cross the plasma membrane of their own accord. Some small ions and polar molecules (such as water, for example) can cross the plasma membrane because they're small-enough to slip between the relatively large phospholipid molecules. We'll get back to that point shortly.



Because of their thermal energy, molecules and ions, when they're free to move, will tend to move from where they're more concentrated to where they're less concentrated. This phenomenon is known as diffusion.

For example, if the concentration of a substance on the outside of a cell is high and the concentration on the inside of the cell is low, molecules will tend to spontaneously move into the cell from the outside. If they can cross the membrane, that is.

The molecules are moving randomly. To understand why they spontaneously move from high concentration to low, imagine that the concentration of molecules on the outside of the cell is 10 times greater than the concentration on the inside of the cell. This means that for every molecule that just happens to move outside of the cell, ten will be moving into the cell. So the net movement of molecules is into the cell.

This will continue until a state of equilibrium is reached and the concentration on both sides of the plasma membrane is equal. It's not that the cells stop moving: it's just that when the concentration is equal on both sides of the membrane, for every molecule that happens to move out of the cell there will be, on average, one molecule moving into the cell. So the net movement is zero.



Diffusion across a cellular membrane. When the concentrations on both sides of the membrane
are equal, the net molecular motion is zero. (Hit "refresh" to see the animation.)




Now then, it surely won't surprise you to learn that cells have various mechanisms by which they can move substances across their membranes -- even substances that wouldn't normally be able to cross those membranes. Most of these mechanisms involve those proteins embedded in the membrane.

If the molecules of a substance are hydrophobic (such as most lipid molecules, for instance), they can diffuse through the membrane on their own, since they are not repelled by the hydrophobic membrane interior. Small molecules (like oxygen, for example) can also diffuse across most membranes on their own because they can slip between the phospholipid molecules. When substances diffuse into and out of cells on their own, because they can cross the plasma membrane unhindered, this is known as simple diffusion.

You'll note that the cell does not expend any of its own energy in simple diffusion, since the molecules in question are moving of their own accord.



Some of the proteins in the plasma membrane can temporarily bond to substances and transport them across the membrane from high concentration to low. The proteins that do this are called carrier proteins, since they carry substances across plasma membranes. In this way, carrier proteins allow substances to cross plasma membranes that would ordinarily be unable to do so. If the carrier proteins allow the substance in question to cross the membrane from high concentration to low, the cell does not have to expend any energy of its own in the process (since the energy is supplied by the moving molecules). This is known as carrier-mediated facilitated diffusion.

In some cases, carrier proteins can pull substances across the membrane from low concentration to high. The cell must expend energy in order to do this, however, since it is moving molecules in the opposite direction that they're "trying" to go. This is known as active transport.


Some of the proteins embedded in the plasma membrane of a cell are hollow, and penetrate all the way through. They thus form channels that hydrophilic molecules can pass through to enter or exit the cell. Naturally, these proteins are called channel proteins.

One especially important thing about channel proteins is that some of them can be opened and closed, in order to adjust the movement of specific substances across the plasma membrane, as necessary. These are known as gated channels.

Consider, for example, what will happen if a cell actively transports a hydrophilic substance outside, so that its concentration is greater outside the cell than inside. (It will have to use carrier proteins to do this, of course.) If there are channel proteins in the membrane of the cell through which this substance can pass but they're closed, the cell can make the concentration of the substance in question much higher on the outside of the cell than on the inside. And so long as the gated channels remain closed, this state will persist. But as soon as those gated channels open, there will be a massive inrush of the substance into the cell.


Water is a special case, by the way. Water molecules are small-enough that they can "slip between the cracks." Water can therefore diffuse across plasma membranes even though it's (obviously) hydrophilic. But there are gated channels in the membrane called aquaporins. By opening and closing aquaporins, the cell can speed up or slow down the movement of water across its plasma membrane, as necessary. Diffusion of water across a plasma membrane is osmosis.




Some of the ways that substances can cross plasma membranes. Note that none of these illustrated methods require the cell to expend energy.
By the same token, none of these methods can be used to create a difference in concentration on the two sides of the membrane.
The cell can use its carrier proteins to transport substances from low concentration to high and so create a difference in concentration
on the two sides of the membrane, but it must expend energy to do so.



Some cells, using active transport and gated channels, can move ions across their membranes and so create a situation where the electrical charges on the opposite sides of the membrane are different. When a cell does this, and so has different electrical charges on the two sides of its plasma membrane, it is said to be polarized.

Obviously, a cell that is polarized is in a highly unstable state. But so long as the gated channels remain closed, the ions cannot re-cross the membrane and so the cell will remain polarized. Of course, as soon as the gated channels open, ions will rush across the membrane until the charges on both sides are equalized. When that happens, we say that the cell has depolarized.



What causes gated ion channels to open or close?

Some are chemically gated ion channels. In this type of channel protein, a region of the protein is known as the receptor. Certain molecules (called ligands) can bond to that receptor. When the appropriate ligand bonds to the receptor, the protein changes shape, causing the channel to open. Two common classes of ligands are neurotransmitters and hormones.

Some ion channels are voltage gated ion channels. They open and close not in response to ligands, but in response to changes in the voltage of the nearby plasma membrane.



Two types of gated ion channels.




Now let us consider a neuron. A neuron is special because it can generate and rapidly conduct electrochemical impulses. It can do this because it has specialized proteins in its plasma membrane that can actively transport ions -- especially sodium (Na+) and potassium (K+) ions -- across the membrane. In other words, it can be polarized.


The bulk of a typical neuron is in its central region, called the cell body or soma. Projecting out from the neuron are long, thin projections known as the neural fibers. At one end of a typical neuron are many branching fibers. These are known as the dendrites. A neuron may have as many as 10,000 dendrites. At the other end, there is a single axon. No neuron has more than one axon.

Under normal conditions, a neuron will conduct impulses in only one direction. Dendrites carry impulses toward the cell body, and the axon carries impulses away from the cell body. This is an important factor in how the nervous system works: the nervous system would be a chaotic, function-less mess if neurons conducted impulses in both directions.



Outside of the brain and spinal cord, the axons of neurons are bundled together to form organs called nerves. A neuron that is carrying impulses from a sensory receptor toward the Central Nervous System (that is, the brain or spinal cord) is known as an afferent (or sensory) neuron. A nerve that contains only afferent neurons can therefore conduct impulses only to (not from) the CNS and is known as an afferent or sensory nerve.

A neuron that is carrying impulses from the CNS to an effector (usually a gland or a muscle) is known as an efferent (or motor) neuron. Naturally, a nerve that contains only efferent fibers is known as an efferent (motor) nerve.

Some nerves contain both afferent fibers going to the CNS and efferent fibers coming from the CNS. These are known as mixed nerves.

Nerves that contain afferent fibers only include the olfactory nerve (responsible for the sense of smell) and the optic nerve (responsible for the sense of sight). For comparison, the oculomotor nerve (controls some of the muscles that move the eyes) contains mostly efferent fibers, though it has some afferent fibers as well. All of the nerves that originate in the spinal cord are mixed nerves.




A typical neuron. Dendrites carry impulses toward the cell body, and the single axon carries impulses away from the cell body.




Now then: back to neurons.

When it's at rest, a neuron actively transports ions across its membrane. Specifically, it uses transport proteins in its membrane called the Sodium-Potassium pump to transport ions. Here's how it does it.

Potassium ions can diffuse across the plasma membrane. The sodium-potassium pump is an exchange pump. That is, it moves one ion in one direction and another ion in the opposite direction. The Na+-K+ pump consumes energy to actively transport potassium ions to the inside of the cell and sodium ions to the outside of the cell.

But the potassium ions can readily diffuse across the membrane, so they don't accumulate inside the cell. The sodium ions are much less capable of crossing the plasma membrane, so the cell is transporting them out much faster than they can diffuse back in. This means that the concentration of positively-charged sodium ions is much higher on the outside of the neuron's plasma membrane than it is on the inside. So the outside of the cell has a positive charge, compared to the inside of the cell. The charge difference on the two sides of a resting neuron's membrane is known as the resting potential.



How a neuron establishes and maintains its resting potential. Because the inside of the cell contains negatively-charged ions and the outside
of the cell contains a surplus of positively-charged ions, there is a charge difference of 70 milliVolts on the two sides of the membrane.
This is possible because the Na+-K+ pump transports Na+ ions out of the cell and K+ ions into the cell. Potassium ions can diffuse
back out as fast as they're pumped in. Sodium ions cannot diffuse back in as fast as they're pumped out, and so accumulate outside the cell.





How to measure the charge difference on the two sides of a resting neuron's plasma membrane.



The neuron has sodium gates and potassium gates in its membrane. When the cell is polarized, those gates are closed, of course, which prevents sodium from diffusing into the cell as fast as it's being pumped out.

A stimulus is something that causes the sodium gates to open, and therefore causes the neuron to depolarize. Different neurons are specialized to depolarize in response to different stimuli. The chemoreceptor neurons in your respiratory epithelium, for example, depolarize when certain chemicals called odorants bind to receptors in their membranes, causing ion gates to open. The photoreceptors in the retina of your eye depolarize in response to photons of light. (Sort of; I'll get back to that.)



Since the gated ion channels in the plasma membrane of a neuron are voltage-gated channels, if enough of them open, a chain reaction begins. If an appropriate stimulus forces some of the gated channels to open, there is a massive inflow of sodium ions into that part of the neuron and that portion of the neuron depolarizes. If only a few gates open, then they close again almost immediately and the Na+-K+ pumps quickly restore the polarized state -- that is, the affected region of the neuron repolarizes.

But if enough of the gates open, the change in the voltage of the membrane causes nearby gates to open. And as those gates open and sodium ions rush in, gates further down the length of the neural fiber open. And so on and so on. It's like pushing over a domino: once the first one is knocked over, the rest are knocked over in sequence.

And so a wave of depolarization moves rapidly down the length of the neuron. This wave of depolarization is known as the action potential. The action potential is the nerve impulse.



How an action potential is propagated down the length of a neuron. Because the sodium gates are voltage-gated, when enough of them open, the change
in membrane voltage causes gates further along the membrane to open in sequence, and so a wave of depolarization rapidly moves down the length
of the neuron. This is the action potential or nerve impulse.




Okay, so we know how a neuron generates and propagates an action potential. The logical question to ask at this point is: "How does the action potential get transferred to the next cell along?". (That cell may or may not be another neuron.) I'm glad you asked.


Where the axon of a neuron contacts another cell is known as a synapse. In most cases, the neuron does not actually touch the cell it synapses with. Instead, there's a small gap called the synaptic cleft between the neuron and the next cell.

The end of an axon is swollen, forming what is called the axon terminal. The axon terminal produces and stores chemicals called neurotransmitters.

There are lots of different neurotransmitters. Different neurons produce different neurotransmitters. This is part of the reason why neurons can affect their target cells in so many different ways.

When the action potential reaches the axon terminal, the axon releases its stored neurotransmitters. The neurotransmitter molecules are then free to diffuse across the synaptic cleft where they bind to receptor proteins in the membrane of the next cell. (The neuron that's releasing the neurotransmitters is the presynaptic cell, since it's before the synapse. The cell that's receiving the neurotransmitters is the postsynaptic cell, because it's after the synapse.)

When the neurotransmitter binds to receptors in the membrane of the postsynaptic cell, it causes gated channels in that cell's membrane to open, and so that cell may depolarize in turn.


Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. Some neurotransmitters are excitatory and so make the postsynaptic cell more likely to depolarize. (Remember that a critical number of sodium gates must open before the cell will depolarize and generate an action potential.)

Some neurotransmitters are inhibitory and so make the postsynaptic cell less likely to depolarize and generate an action potential. That might sound weird, but it's just as important to prevent cells from depolarizing when they shouldn't as it is to cause them to depolarize when they should. Otherwise, there would be so much "noise" due to randomly-depolarizing neurons that the nervous system would function very poorly, if at all. (Inhibition of neuron depolarization is also an important part of how the nervous system processes impulses.)

Note that the neurotransmitter is either reabsorbed or chemically degraded almost immediately in most cases. Otherwise, there would be no way for the postsynaptic cell to repolarize after it generated an action potential.




How a typical chemical synapse works.



***

Now let's consider the structure of the eye. Don't worry: we'll soon be able to put all of this together.


Broadly speaking, the human eye consists of three distinct layers, called tunics. The tough, outer layer is known as the fibrous tunic. The very tough white portion of the fibrous tunic is known as the sclera; the clear portion that allows light to enter into the eye is the cornea.

The middle portion is known as the vascular tunic. It contains large numbers of blood vessels, as well as a densely-pigmented layer known as the choroid. The blood vessels supply oxygen and nutrients to the other tissues, and the dark pigments of the choroid absorb stray photons of light.

The innermost layer is the neural tunic, because it's made up mostly of neurons. The neural tunic is also known as the retina.



The anatomy of the human eye.


The vascular tunic forms a muscular structure called the ciliary body that is attached to a non-living, more or less clear structure called the lens. The muscles of the ciliary body can contract to alter the shape and thickness of the lens.

The vascular tunic also forms a colored muscle that lies just in front of the lens. This muscle is the iris. It has an opening in it known as the pupil. The muscles of the iris can contract and relax as necessary to control the size of the pupil -- and therefore how much light passes into the interior of the eye and ultimately to the retina.

The space between the cornea and the lens is filled with a thin, watery fluid known as the aqueous humor. The space between the lens and the retina is filled with a thicker, jelly-like substance known as the vitreous humor.




Now let us consider the nature of light for a moment. Light consists of moving particles called photons. The various wavelengths of light -- from very high-wavelength radio waves to very low-wavelength gamma rays -- make up the electromagnetic spectrum. There is a direct relationship between the wavelength of light and its energy, by the way. Radio waves carry very little energy. By contrast, x-rays and gamma rays carry a lot of energy -- that's why they'll pass right through most normal matter.

Only a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum can be detected by the photoreceptors in our eyes. The wavelengths of light that we can detect with our eyes make up what's called the visible spectrum, because we can see this light.


The speed with which light moves is a function of the medium that it's traveling through. The denser the medium, the slower the light moves. So as light passes from the near-vacuum of space into the Earth's atmosphere, it slows down a bit. Similarly, it slows down a bit as it moves from air into a denser medium, such as water.

If the light passes into a new medium at a distinct angle, then the change in speed causes the rays of light to bend. This is known as refraction. This is why an object looks like it bends when it passes from air into water.



The spoon looks bent and displaced because of the refraction of light where it passes from the air into the denser water.



So, if an object is transparent (that is, if light can pass through it) and it is of a different density than the medium that surrounds it, then light will bend as it passes into the object. If the object in question is properly shaped, it can bend the incoming rays of light so that they come together (focus) and form an image. Such an object is called a lens.

The eye works because it focuses incoming light to form an image that is projected onto the retina.

As light passes into the cornea and the aqueous humor from the air, it is refracted. As the light continues into the lens, it is further refracted, so that an image is projected onto the retina. (Contrary to what most people think, most of the focusing of light is done by the cornea and the aqueous humor; the lens "fine tunes" the focus.)

Because of the ciliary muscles, the lens' shape can be adjusted to ensure that the light is properly focused onto the retina. This is why we can clearly see objects at different distances.



The eye focuses incoming light to form an image that is projected onto the retina. Note that the image projected
onto the retina is upside-down and reversed. The brain reverses and flips the image in order to interpret it.



Now let's look at the retina itself, where the focused image is projected. The retina contains three layers of neurons. The deepest layer (ironically), is the one where the photoreceptors are located. These neurons contain light-absorbing pigments. The middle layer is made up of neurons known as bipolar cells. The outermost layer (ironically, the layer where light first strikes) is made up of neurons known as ganglion cells.

You may have noticed, by the way that there are a number of specialized neurons in the retina other than just the photoreceptors, the bipolar cells, and the ganglion cells. These neurons can receive and process impulses coming from the other neurons. In other words, there is quite a lot of processing of visual impulses before they even reach the optic nerve, much less the brain itself.



The retina of the eye. Light passes through the ganglion cells and then the bipolar cells to strike the photoreceptors (the rods and the cones) in the deepest layer.



Broadly speaking, the all-important photoreceptors come in two types. Some are more or less rod-shaped and so are somewhat unimaginatively called rods. The rods are quite sensitive to visible light within a broad range of wavelengths. What they don't do is discriminate between the different wavelengths of light that they can detect. So they relay information on the intensity of light, but not its wavelength (that is, they do not convey color information).

The other type of photoreceptor cell is somewhat cone-shaped, and so these cells are called cones. There are actually three different kinds of cones in (most) people's eyes, and each of them is most sensitive within a fairly narrow range of wavelengths. Since different wavelengths of light stimulate the three different kinds of cones with different intensities, the brain can interpret the impulses coming in from the cones to determine the wavelengths of light that are being received by the retina. This is interpreted by the brain as the color of the light, of course.



The electromagnetic spectrum and the sensitivities of the four different types of photoreceptor cells to different wavelengths
of visible light. Because each cell type is most sensitive to different wavelengths, this gives the brain the ability to
determine both intensity (brightness) and wavelength (color) of incoming light. Rods are more sensitive at low light levels than are cones.



The photoreceptors (rods and cones) contain pigment molecules that can absorb light. The photoreceptors synapse with the bipolar cells, so the impulses generated by the photoreceptors are conveyed to the bipolar cells. The bipolar cells, in turn, synapse with the ganglion cells, and so convey impulses from the photoreceptor cells to the ganglion cells.

The axons of the ganglion cells come together to form the afferent (sensory) fibers that will ultimately convey these impulses to the brain as the optic nerve. As you recall, neurons will normally conduct impulses in only one direction, and the optic nerve contains afferent fibers only. So it can conduct impulses only toward the brain. No impulses of any kind travel from the brain to the eye via the optic nerve.

Our eyes are "backwards" in a sense, since the ganglion cells are the outermost layer of neurons in the retina. This means that where their axons come together to form the optic nerve, they must penetrate into the retina. This means that where the axons of the ganglion cells come together to form the optic nerve, there are no photoreceptors.

This region of the retina, where there are no photoreceptors and therefore there is no vision, is known as the optic disc. Since there are no photoreceptors in the optic disc, each of us has a blind spot in each eye. We don't normally notice, because the brain automatically fills in information from the surroundings, creating the illusion that there is no blind spot. (This is one of the reasons why fighter pilots are taught to constantly swivel their heads. If an enemy plane is approaching from within your blind spot, you won't see it coming. Nor will you notice anything amiss, since you're not normally aware that you even have a blind spot in each eye.)

Evidently, God likes squid, because a squid's eye is organized much more sensibly than is a vertebrate's. In a squid, the ganglion cells are behind the photoreceptors, so there's no blind spot.



Where the axons of the ganglion cells come together to form the optic nerve is the optic disc.
Because there are no photoreceptors in the optic disc, each of us has a blind spot in each eye.
The brain has various means of compensating, so we don't normally notice.




The photoreceptors in the retina work backwards from the way that you might expect, by the way. When they are not receiving light, they depolarize. When a photoreceptor depolarizes, it generates an action potential which causes it to release neurotransmitters at its synapse with a bipolar cell. These neurotransmitters are inhibitory, and so the bipolar cells does not depolarize. So no impulse is relayed to the ganglion cell.

This might seem backwards at first, but it's actually very efficient. This reduces the incidence of spontaneous depolarization and so greatly cuts down on the "noise" that would otherwise plague the visual system.



The photoreceptors contain light-absorbing pigment molecules. When a photon of the appropriate wavelength strikes a pigment molecule, it does not cause the neuron to depolarize; it does exactly the opposite. Sodium gates close and the neuron becomes hyperpolarized.

This means that the photoreceptor is no longer generating an action potential, and so it is not delivering inhibitory neurotransmitters to the bipolar cell(s) it synapses with. So the bipolar cells depolarize and generate action potentials. The neurotransmitters released by the bipolar cells are excitatory and cause the ganglion cells they synapse to depolarize and generate action potentials.

And since the optic nerve is just the axons of the ganglion cells, the impulses are relayed to the brain.




When it is not receiving photons that it can absorb, a photoreceptor cell is depolarized. (On the left.)
The depolarized cell releases inhibitory neurotransmitters that prevent the bipolar cells from depolarizing.
Thus the ganglion cells do not depolarize and so do not generate action potentials.
When it is receiving photons that can be absorbed by its pigments, a photoreceptor cell hyperpolarizes
and therefore does not generate an action potential. (On the right).
Since it is not receiving inhibitory neurotransmitters, the bipolar cell depolarizes and
generates an action potential. This, in turn, causes the ganglion cell to depolarize and generate an
action potential. The impulses are relayed via the axons of the ganglion cells (the optic nerve to the brain.)



The impulses relayed by the optic nerves go ultimately to the brain. Interestingly, the two optic nerves come together at the optic chiasma. Here, many of the fibers "cross over." That is, many of the fibers from the right optic nerve cross over and ultimately go to the left side of the brain. Similarly, many of the fibers from the left optic nerve cross over and ultimately go to the right side of the brain.

Some of the fibers from the optic nerve synapse with a brain region known as the pretectum or pretectal nucleus. Based upon input from the optic nerve, this brain region sends impulses out to the [different] nerves that control the muscles that adjust the size of the pupil. This is why our pupils contract when we're exposed to bright light and why they dilate in dim light.

Some of the fibers of the optic nerve continue on to synapse with a brain region known as the superior colliculus or tectum. Among other things, the superior colliculi are responsible for some of our reflexive responses to movement within the visual field. (Again, no information is relayed to the eyes via the optic nerve from the superior colliculi.)

The ultimate destination for the remaining fibers of the optic nerves is the visual cortex in the occipital lobe of the brain. This is where the visual impulses are interpreted.



The visual pathway.


This is, as mentioned, a very abbreviated summary of what we know about the anatomy and physiology of sight. I've left out a lot for the sake of clarity (and because it's getting late, and I have classes in the morning). But I hope that it's of use.

Cheers,

Michael


given how it refutes her claims.

Ed.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Goliath (04-25-2011)
  #2594  
Old 04-25-2011, 03:27 AM
lisarea's Avatar
lisarea lisarea is offline
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XVMMMDCXLII
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by
madness, starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn
looking for an angry fix
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Doctor X (04-25-2011), LadyShea (04-25-2011), Stephen Maturin (04-25-2011)
  #2595  
Old 04-25-2011, 03:27 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Hey Peacegirl, since you are bound and determined to continue flogging this shit and insulting everyone's intelligence, and lying to boot (like saying no refutations have been "offered" when in fact truckloads of them have been dumped on you) then I challenge you to explain your father's reasoning in the following quote from his book.

Quote:
If I couldn’t see you standing right
next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had
not yet been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12
noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very
moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8
minutes afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a
large star; the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have
light with which to see each other.
Explain how that is supposed to work, peacegirl, in detail. Notice your father offered no explanation of this "astute observation" of his; he merely asserted it. Now I want the explanation. I want you to explain HOW and WHY we would see the sun immediately if it were turned on, but not see our neighbor standing next to us for eight minutes.

We're all ears, peacegirl. It's going to be fun to see you try to explain the wholly inexplicable, since the statement is not only wrong, it's incoherent. :popcorn:
Stop talking to me david because you're wasting your time.
Reply With Quote
  #2596  
Old 04-25-2011, 03:28 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I haven't seen copious data that demonstrates the invalidity of Lessans' claims about dogs.
It is not necessarily the case that because you haven't seen copious data such data doesn't exist. That would be false inference. It may just be because you have not actually looked at the data that has been provided.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we accept your implied claim that there is insufficient data demonstrating that dogs can recognize their masters based on their facial features alone. Will you agree that there is at least some experimental data suggesting that some dogs can recognize their masters based on their facial features alone? If you agree that at least some such experimental data does exist are you willing and able to present at least some experimental data that suggests that the contrary is true?

It seems to me that, in all fairness, if you are going to require copious amounts of data in support of one side of the argument, then you also ought to require equally copious amounts of data in support of the opposing argument.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-30-2015)
  #2597  
Old 04-25-2011, 03:29 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Are ABC, and another group of AGB, allowed.
AGB is not one of the combinations, sorry. :(
Reply With Quote
  #2598  
Old 04-25-2011, 03:29 AM
SharonDee's Avatar
SharonDee SharonDee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nashville, TN
Gender: Female
Posts: VMDCCXLII
Blog Entries: 2
Images: 60
Disapprove Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
Quote:
This is turning out to be a joke on you, not me.
In that you're probably a troll, I suppose so :troll:
I must come to the troll conclusion, as well.

I've had as much fun in this thread as I can. And it still just as irresistible to me as ever. However, I no longer believe that anyone can be so tenaciously stupid as this and still be able to operate a computer.

My verdict, should anyone care: Troll. Definitely.
__________________
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2599  
Old 04-25-2011, 03:30 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor X View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
I was going to say something, but my wife says I'm not allowed, , ,
yea, , , I know, ,
"I came home and found thedoc in bed with my wife. I said: 'thedoc I have to . . .

. . . but
you?"

--J.D.
Well at least she would have been smiling, for a change. :yup:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Doctor X (04-25-2011)
  #2600  
Old 04-25-2011, 03:37 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Flyover Hillbilly
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: MXDCCII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I appreciate your presentation, ...
You most certainly do not appreciate The Lone Ranger's presentation, in any sense of the word "appreciate."

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
...but I am neither arrogant or wilfully ignorant just because I'm trying to understand whether it is possible that Lessans could be right.
That is correct, though in a wholly unintended way. You are not arrogant and willfully ignorant for trying to understand whether Lessans could be right; you are arrogant and willfully ignorant because you've already made up your mind in that regard and will not be dissuaded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't deny that the model of sight is, for the most part, correct.
You are, of course, wholly unqualified to admit or deny anything in this regard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I am not sure about that one aspect, ...
Bullshit. You are absolutely sure about that particular topic. "The Sacred Text says it, I believe it, that settles it."

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
...and I will fight to the death to find out.
:laugh:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You would burn me at the stake alive, even though you come off so loving.
Your laughably overblown sense of relevancy notwithstanding, I doubt very much that TLR would go so far as to set you on fire. If he did, though, there's probably plenty of folks who would willingly piss on you to put out the fire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I am not going to take the brunt of your anger.
You don't have an option, remember? As long as posting here constitutes your greatest satisfaction, you'll keep coming back and taking all the abuse we can dish out. :yup:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I will continue to research the ciliary muscle to see if there was any truth to what this website was saying.
In which "research" means "running a Google search and slogging through page after page of mindless Internet piffle to ferret out the lone unsupported, anally-derived contention that might, if tortured sufficiently, yield support for Mr. Lessans' anally-derived contention."

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I am looking for the truth, are you?
At this point you wouldn't recognize the truth if it walked up to you, introduced itself, knocked you down, sat on you and farted in your face.

ETA: :lol: I see you edited out your "looking for the truth" howler. Good move, but too late.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson

Last edited by Stephen Maturin; 04-25-2011 at 03:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-25-2011), The Lone Ranger (04-25-2011)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 39 (0 members and 39 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.26819 seconds with 14 queries