A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Peacegirl, what do you mean when you say "focus"? It means something different from the regular way the word is used, as that is an inherently afferent process.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was not in those exact words, but it means the same thing.

So the opposite of what he said means the same as what he said?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was not in those exact words, but it means the same thing.

That is exactly the afferent account, and not what your father wrote, claiming that this is not the afferent account just indicates that you don't understand the afferent account of vision. And if you claim that your account of vision means the same thing, that is saying that you are claiming the afferent account of vision.

Your fathers account of efferent vision claimed that the brain was doing the seeing through the eyes and the eyes were just inactive conduits of sight and the brain somehow sees the object directly, remember that distance is not a factor, so the brain is in direct contact with the object being observed.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can end the conversation here.

The conversation will end when you admit that you and Lessans are wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So the opposite of what he said means the same as what he said?

Wow! that logic should get some sort of a prize, - Oh, I know, the booby prize.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Peacegirl, what do you mean when you say "focus"? It means something different from the regular way the word is used, as that is an inherently afferent process.

Yes, light is striking the retina and that is an afferent process, but how the brain causes this focusing of the eyes is not an afferent process. As I said earlier, it doesn't matter to me whether the eyes are a sense organ. Do you want me to finish posting or have you lost interest?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't say they didn't exist. He said there were no similar afferent nerve endings in the eye that make direct contact.

That's saying they don't exist.

I don't want to over-analyze this excerpt because it does not nullify his original claim that sense experience awakens the brain which causes a focusing of the eyes to see that which it is experiencing it is clearly wrong.

If you don't want to move on, that's okay. We can end the conversation here.

Would you please answer this:

Originally Posted by But

Now, what is the function of the three different types of these afferent nerve endings called cones (which your father claimed don't exist) that are sensitive to different colors? Surely that has nothing to do with pupil contraction?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

That is exactly the afferent account, and not what your father wrote, claiming that this is not the afferent account just indicates that you don't understand the afferent account of vision. And if you claim that your account of vision means the same thing, that is saying that you are claiming the afferent account of vision.

Your fathers account of efferent vision claimed that the brain was doing the seeing through the eyes and the eyes were just inactive conduits of sight and the brain somehow sees the object directly, remember that distance is not a factor, so the brain is in direct contact with the object being observed.

He did not say that the brain sees directly. The brain focuses the eyes once enough sense experience is gained. He said the eyes are the window to the external world. That's all he said.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, light is striking the retina and that is an afferent process, but how the brain causes this focusing of the eyes is not an afferent process. As I said earlier, it doesn't matter to me whether the eyes are a sense organ. Do you want me to finish posting or have you lost interest?

You are correct so far, but you need to understand that the eyes do send impulses to the brain that are interpreted as images, and seeing is an internal process in the brain, there is nothing efferent about vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

That's saying they don't exist.

Would you please answer this:

Stop it! He didn't say they don't exist. Once again, I think you are misinterpreting what he said.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not say that the brain sees directly. The brain focuses the eyes once enough sense experience is gained.

The feedback that controls the focusing of the lens doesn't have to come from other senses. In fact it has nothing to do with them.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not say that the brain sees directly. The brain focuses the eyes once enough sense experience is gained. He said the eyes are the window to the external world. That's all he said.

Actually Lessans did say that the brain sees objects directly, it's just your lack of understanding of what he wrote or your obfuscation of his meaning.

And that is where Lessans confusion is, the brain doesn't need any sensory stimulation to begin vision. The brain and eye work together from the beginning to see the external world independent of the other senses.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You are correct so far, but you need to understand that the eyes do send impulses to the brain that are interpreted as images, and seeing is an internal process in the brain, there is nothing efferent about vision.

All you are doing is concluding that this is true. Isn't that what you accuse me of doing? There are still mysteries when it comes to the brain. Science does not know it all.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop it! He didn't say they don't exist. Once again, I think you are misinterpreting what he said.

He said it quite literally. Now would you please answer the question?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Actually Lessans did say that the brain sees objects directly, it's just your lack of understanding of what he wrote or your obfuscation of his meaning.

Show me where he said the brain sees objects directly.

Originally Posted by thedoc

And that is where Lessans confusion is, the brain doesn't need any sensory stimulation to begin vision. The brain and eye work together from the beginning to see the external world independent of the other senses.

Mimic, repeat, mimic, repeat. That's all you do.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Me too...

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

He said it quite literally. Now would you please answer the question?

He did not say it quite literally.

The retina is a layered structure with several layers of neurons interconnected by synapses. The only neurons that are directly sensitive to light are the photoreceptor cells. These are mainly of two types: the rods and cones. Rods function mainly in dim light and provide black-and-white vision, while cones support daytime vision and the perception of colour. A third, much rarer type of photoreceptor, the intrinsically photosensitive ganglion cell, is important for reflexive responses to bright daylight.

Retina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[thedoc]

Lessans said there are no "similar nerve endings" in the eye, and that is similar to the afferent nerve endings in the other sense organs, and that is wrong. There are afferent nerve endings in the eye that are similar to the afferent nerve endings in the other sense organs, but they are sensitive to light, not sound, odors, pressure, and taste, but they are similar in that they send signals to the brain that are interpreted by the brain.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are still mysteries when it comes to the brain. Science does not know it all.

Yes, but science does know how the senses work, and that includes vision. That you and Lessans don't understand how science works, or how the senses work, does not affect what science knows and can demonstrate.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Show me where he said the brain sees objects directly.

That is a combination of what Lessans wrote in the book, and what you have added in trying to justify his nonsense. The book is on my computer as a PDF download and your addition is buried in this thread.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not say it quite literally.

The retina is a layered structure with several layers of neurons interconnected by synapses. The only neurons that are directly sensitive to light are the photoreceptor cells. These are mainly of two types: the rods and cones. Rods function mainly in dim light and provide black-and-white vision, while cones support daytime vision and the perception of colour. A third, much rarer type of photoreceptor, the intrinsically photosensitive ganglion cell, is important for reflexive responses to bright daylight.

Retina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, and the rods and cones are the endings of afferent nerves, and they detect light that strikes them.

Now would you please answer the question??

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, light is striking the retina and that is an afferent process, but how the brain causes this focusing of the eyes is not an afferent process. As I said earlier, it doesn't matter to me whether the eyes are a sense organ. Do you want me to finish posting or have you lost interest?

So what does you mean when you say "focusing"? What is happening when the brain focuses the eyes?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you want me to finish posting or have you lost interest?

Please continue, most here are very interested in what you have to say.

[Angakuk]

Can people who are born deaf see?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

The feedback that controls the focusing of the lens doesn't have to come from other senses. In fact it has nothing to do with them.

Well, that's what he's disputing.

p. 114 The dictionary states that the word ‘sense’ is defined as
any of certain agencies by or through which an individual receives
impressions of the external world; popularly, one of the five senses.
Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and
transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc. But this is a
wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because
nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic
nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.
Upon hearing this my friend asked me in a rather authoritarian
tone of voice, “Are you trying to tell me that this is not a scientific
fact? ”

I replied, “Are you positive because you were told this, or positive
because you yourself saw the relations revealing this truth? And if you
are still positive, will you put your right hand on the chopping block
to show me how positive you really are?”

“I am not that positive, but we were taught this.”

It is an undeniable fact that light travels at a high rate of speed,
but great confusion arises when this is likened to sound as you will
soon have verified. The reason we say man has taste, touch, smell,
sight, and hearing is because these describe individual differences that
exist, but when we say that these five are senses we are assuming the
eyes function like the other four — which they do not. When you
learn what this single misconception has done to the world of
knowledge, you won’t believe it at first.

So without further delay, I
shall prove something never before understood by man, but before I
open this door marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses’ to show you
all the knowledge hidden behind it, it is absolutely necessary to prove
exactly why the eyes are not a sense organ. Now tell me, did it ever
occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally
accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately
symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult
since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is? In fact,
it can be demonstrated at the birth of a baby 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.

“But doesn’t light cause the pupils to dilate and contract
depending on the intensity?”

That is absolutely true, but this does not cause; it is a condition
of sight. We simply need light to see, just as other things are a
condition of hearing. If there was no light we could not see, and if
there was nothing to carry the sound waves to our ears, we could not
hear. The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums
whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of
light to impinge on our optic nerve. Did you ever wonder why the eyes
of a newborn baby cannot focus the eyes to see what exists around
him, although the other four senses are in full working order?

“I understand from a doctor that the muscles of the eyes have not
yet developed sufficiently to allow this focusing.”

And he believes this because this is what he was taught, but it is
not the truth. In fact, if a newborn infant was placed in a soundproof
room that would eliminate the possibility of sense experience which is
a prerequisite of sight — even though his eyes were wide open — he
could never have the desire to see. Furthermore, and quite revealing,
if this infant was kept alive for fifty years or longer on a steady flow of
intravenous glucose, if possible, without allowing any stimuli to strike
the other four organs of sense, this baby, child, young and middle aged
person would never be able to focus the eyes to see any objects existing
in that room no matter how much light was present or how colorful
they might be because the conditions necessary for sight have been
removed, and there is absolutely nothing in the external world that
travels from an object and impinges on the optic nerve to cause it.