A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He said there were no similar afferent nerve endings. I'm assuming he meant the optic nerve.

Why would you assume that?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

1. The outer ear catches sound waves and directs them into the ear canal.

2. The ear canal carries the sound waves to the eardrum (tympanic membrane).

3. Sound waves cause the eardrum (tympanic membrane) to vibrate.

4. The bones in the middle ear (malleus, incus and stapes) pick up these vibrations.

5. Vibrations pass through the oval window to the cochlea, setting the fluid inside in motion. This causes special nerve cells to turn the sound waves into electrical impulses.

6. The auditory nerve sends these electrical impulses to the brain where they are heard as sound.

How We Hear

That is exactly what I said, only with more detail.

Sound waves are mechanical oscillations of pressure that travel through a medium such as air.

Sound waves are not sound, just as light waves are not images

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We see airplanes if they are within our visual range; we don't see them if they are not within our visual range.

This is where we hit a real snag. The problem is that efferent sight has no mechanism.

For the normal theory of sight, we can account for every step of the process: Light reflects off an object, reaches a lens, is projected unto the retina, which reacts to the light and sends impulses down the optical nerve. These impulses are interpreted by the brain as images.

If we interrupt or change any part of this process, then the end result changes in a predictable way: glasses provide an extra lens, changing the way the light is projected onto the retina, and changes the resulting image in a way we can calculate beforehand, as we know how lenses affect the incoming light.

We can even take a smaller part of the normal field of view and use a lens to project it unto the retina as if it occupied our entire field of view... causing us to be able to see things that would be too small for the retina to resolve otherwise. These are tele-lenses, binoculars, microscopes.

But there is no such mechanism for efferent sight. We are told the brain "looks out through the eyes as through a window"... but that is just another way of saying "Sight occurs, and the eyes and the brain are a part of that".

We know light is supposed to be a condition for sight according to the book, but why this is, what it is that light actually does to enable sight to occur is not explained.

As a result, when we speak of an efferent "visual range", we do not know anything about that. The efferent definition of "within visual range" is "you can see it". But that does not give us any information.

In optics, we know why there is such a thing as a visual range: the retina has a certain resolution, and there is also constant light coming off the background that can drown out a low-lit detail.

In efferent sight, we do now know this. We do not know how a process that works outwards nevertheless results in new information in the brain... information it did not project, but received from the outside world. We do not know why lenses still work... we design them to bend light. What goes through them in the efferent theory? If light does not contain the information that ends up in the brain, then what does? How is the information transported to the brain? And what is it that comes out of the eyes for lenses to affect, making them work?

This is why "visual range" carrier no meaning in efferent sight, other than "when something is visible", making the statement "When a plane is in visible range, we can see it" completely meaningless from an efferent sight point of view.

[Vivisectus]

This man researched more than you could do in a lifetime LadyShea.

Now, be reasonable. All we have to go on is your say-so, and the book. We can assume that you are a bit biased because he was your dad. Nothing wrong with that, but a piece of data to keep in mind when deciding if we believe that your father did great amounts of high-quality, relevant research.

In the book there are a number of gaffes, and they are pretty basic. There are molecules of light. There is the statement that the eye does not contain "afferent nerve endings". There is the idiosyncratic use of the word "focus" which suggests a profound ignorance of even basic optics. We are told everything in the book is a logical extension of what came before, as undeniable as 2 + 2 = 4. However, we are shown to evidence to believe conscience works the way he says, even though the entire rest of the book hinges on this being true! No mention is made of the fact that efferent sight and special relativity contradict each other, which suggests he either never noticed this or was simply ignorant of what it states. This is rather painful, as he happily refers to Einstein earlier in the book.

Finally, there is something conspicuous by it's absence: Data. What did he research? What data did he gather? What did he measure this data against?

If he did do research as we understand the term, he seems to have failed to look into basic optics, physics, and biology, despite the fact that he made claims that have a lot to do with these fields. Please note we are not expecting him to have become an expert in these fields. He actually failed to acquaint himself with the very basics! So we know there were whole areas that he never even did the most cursory basic research into.

Worse than all this, he did not understand the scientific method. He used the very word in an idiosyncratic way, as a source of absolute, undeniable knowledge. Science is no such thing: it deals in increasing levels of likelihoods. If enough evidence piles up, this can become such a high level of likelihood that it is hard to distinguish from an absolute truth, but it never attains it. That is the beautiful thing about it.

All this does not suggest someone who did a lot of high-quality and relevant research. I am sure he read a lot of books, but that is not the same thing at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would you assume that?

Because that's what he referred to in the book; the optic nerve.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is exactly what I said, only with more detail.

Sound waves are mechanical oscillations of pressure that travel through a medium such as air.

Sound waves are not sound, just as light waves are not images

I agree that this is the more technical explanation. But it is acceptable in an informal discussion to say "carry sound waves". Even the way it's described in the previous summary, they use the expression "the ear canal carries soundwaves to the eardrum."

[peacegirl]

I can't find where it says the optic nerve is afferent. Could someone help me here?


Role played by afferent signals from olfacto... [Biol Pharm Bull. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

Afferent regulation of neurons in the brain stem... [J Neurobiol. 1990] - PubMed - NCBI

Somatosensory system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because that's what he referred to in the book; the optic nerve.

So, when you say he meant the optic nerve, how does that make sense at all in the context of that particular passage?

He said the other senses include afferent nerve endings and that similar afferent nerve endings are not present in the eyes. How does the optic nerve fit into that?

I would assume he meant the receptors...otherwise it's an even stupider claim. In order to make him not wrong you are making him make less sense.

[LadyShea]

http://musom.marshall.edu/anatomy/gr..._cranerv1.html

A. SSA (Special Somatic Afferents) (Atlas Figs. 9.4, page 814)

1. II (Optic nerve) ‑ vision (actually a brain tract); primary receptors (rods and cones) in retina; axons of ganglion cells of retina form optic nerve; half of axons cross over to opposite side at optic chiasm.

2. VIII (Vestibulocochlear nerve) ‑ auditory and vestibular sensation; cell bodies in cochlear and vestibular apparatus.

B. SVA (Special Visceral Afferents) ‑ Smell and taste.

1. I (Olfactory nerve) ‑ smell; cell bodies in olfactory epithelium; axons project through fila olfactoria to olfactory bulb. (Atlas Fig. page 800)

2. Taste ‑ more complex ‑ distributed over several cranial nerves. (Atlas Fig. 7.52B)

Special somatic afferent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Special somatic afferent (SSA) refers to afferent nerves that carry information from the special senses of vision, hearing and balance. The cranial nerves containing SSA fibers are the optic nerve (II) and the vestibulocochlear nerve (VIII). "SSA" may also stand for "special sensory afferent", however this term encompasses both special somatic and special visceral afferents.[1]

http://psy.sabryfattah.com/neuroscie...ranial-nerves/

II Optic nerve Special somatic afferent (SSA) Vision and associated reflexes

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree that this is the more technical explanation. But it is acceptable in an informal discussion to say "carry sound waves". Even the way it's described in the previous summary, they use the expression "the ear canal carries soundwaves to the eardrum."

What is acceptable in an informal discussion is not acceptable in a scientific discussion where the terms must be used precisely due to disagreement.

Lessans seemed to think there was a fundamental and demonstrable difference between soundwaves as a stimulus to mechanoreceptors and light as a stimulus to photoreceptors when he said : 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.


This is his strawman. Sound is not carried to our eardrums, sound is interpreted by our brain from soundwaves. "Pictures" are not carried to our eyes, images are interpreted in our brain from lightwaves.

He did not demonstrate the difference he believed was there, and in fact all evidence indicates he was mistaken.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

http://musom.marshall.edu/anatomy/gr..._cranerv1.html

Special somatic afferent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://psy.sabryfattah.com/neuroscie...ranial-nerves/

Did you read this? There is a difference with this nerve and other afferent nerves, so don't be so sure that Lessans was wrong in his analysis.

The cranial nerves are the components of the peripheral nervous system that are attached to the brain, rather than the spinal cord. In fact, nerves I and II are not true peripheral nerves but fibre tracts of the brain.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Well, that was predictable. Every time someone posts a disproof of Lessans' claims that even she can't ignore, she becomes openly hostile.

Interesting. By definition, a "scientist" is someone who tests ideas and submits the results for public review.

So I've asked this many times before without getting a reply -- maybe this time will be different:

What tests did Lessans perform?
How many test subjects did he use?
What was his experimental methodology?
How did he control for bias? (Did he perform double-blinded experiments, for example?)
Did he set up control groups and experimental groups? If so, how?
What statistical methods did he use for data evaluation?
Where did he publish his methodology and results for peer review?

We've been over this before. If you define the term in a narrow sense, then you could say he is not a scientist. But he clarified the use of this term so no one would get confused just like you're getting. He clearly stated that in the context he was using the word, it could be interchanged with "undeniable" or "mathematical". The word mathematical could also be taken out of context if you didn't read the introduction. What more could he do Lone Ranger except never use these words, which he chose not to do because it would be extremely repetitive to use the same words over and over again. I will continue to say that the knowledge is scientific and mathematical. He never called himself a scientist per se because you would envision someone in a lab doing experiments. He did say this knowledge is scientific.

Originally Posted by "If you can't answer these questions, they you're [i

lying[/i] when you claim he was a scientist.

And yes, just to reiterate what others have been pointing out to you. The retina of the eye is virtually nothing but afferent nerve endings that receive and respond to light. This is not supposition, it is direct observation and experimental results.

If only someone could write up a comprehensive outline of the anatomy and physiology of vision that you could read for yourself, you could learn such crucial information for yourself. Maybe if you ask, someone will do that for you.

The retina is not the optic nerve Lone Ranger. I would like to study the anatomy, and there are plenty of diagrams on the internet, but this still does not negate his understanding of the eye and how he came to these conclusions, which you aren't even investigating because you're so sure he is wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am so glad you said that! Because Science does not just make claims: it tests them. This book has nothing to do with science. It is just endless speculation based on trivial tautologies, anecdotes and often pure ignorance of the subject being discussed.

At no stage are the opinions in this book tested - in any way. And whenever we do test them, the evidence points the other way.

It is not a trivial tautology that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is why man's will is not free. In fact, with this knowledge we can change the world for the better. I don't call that trivial.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you read this? There is a difference with this nerve and other afferent nerves, so don't be so sure that Lessans was wrong in his analysis.

The cranial nerves are the components of the peripheral nervous system that are attached to the brain, rather than the spinal cord. In fact, nerves I and II are not true peripheral nerves but fibre tracts of the brain.

I did read it. What do you think it means and how does it pertain to his discussion of the dissimilarities between hearing and seeing?

You just see a difference and decide it is a meaningful support of Lessans? You need to explain HOW it it is meaningful to your point or it is just another weasel.

[LadyShea]

Because I know you have no idea why your latest weasely straw grasping is so obvious.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you read this? There is a difference with this nerve and other afferent nerves, so don't be so sure that Lessans was wrong in his analysis.

The cranial nerves are the components of the peripheral nervous system that are attached to the brain, rather than the spinal cord. In fact, nerves I and II are not true peripheral nerves but fibre tracts of the brain.

The acoustic nerve (hearing) and the olfactory nerve (smell) are also cranial nerves exactly as is the optic nerve. Nerve I referenced above is the olfactory nerve...so smell is more similar to sight in that regard as Nerve II is the optic nerve. Is smell also different from the other senses now?

[LadyShea]

1.sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since the nerve endings are being struck by something external

2.
The same holds true for anything that makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ

He does not use the optic nerve in this particular claim. He says nerve endings.

If he was referring to the optic nerve with the eyes, as you are now claiming, rather than the sensory receptors, which specific nerves was he referring to with "sounds, tastes, touches or smells" in order to directly compare and contrast?

You can't compare the optic nerve to the mechanoreceptors in the skin or the chemoreceptrs in the nose, you can only compare receptors to receptors and nerves to nerves. So you should explain that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We've been over this before. If you define the term in a narrow sense, then you could say he is not a scientist. But he clarified the use of this term so no one would get confused just like you're getting. He clearly stated that in the context he was using the word, it could be interchanged with "undeniable" or "mathematical". The word mathematical could also be taken out of context if you didn't read the introduction. What more could he do Lone Ranger except never use these words, which he chose not to do because it would be extremely repetitive to use the same words over and over again. I will continue to say that the knowledge is scientific and mathematical. He never called himself a scientist per se because you would envision someone in a lab doing experiments. He did say this knowledge is scientific.

The retina is not the optic nerve Lone Ranger. I would like to study the anatomy, and there are plenty of diagrams on the internet, but this still does not negate his understanding of the eye and how he came to these conclusions, which you aren't even investigating because you're so sure he is wrong.

You are only now assuming he was referring to the optic nerve, because you are weaseling.

If he was doing so, then his writing is even more muddled and unclear then before, because he used "nerve endings", which is not the same thing as a specific nerve.

[LadyShea]

We've been over this before. If you define the term in a narrow sense, then you could say he is not a scientist. But he clarified the use of this term so no one would get confused just like you're getting. He clearly stated that in the context he was using the word, it could be interchanged with "undeniable" or "mathematical". The word mathematical could also be taken out of context if you didn't read the introduction. What more could he do Lone Ranger except never use these words, which he chose not to do because it would be extremely repetitive to use the same words over and over again. I will continue to say that the knowledge is scientific and mathematical. He never called himself a scientist per se because you would envision someone in a lab doing experiments. He did say this knowledge is scientific.

Lessans didn't call himself you a scientist, YOU called him one. That is what TLR was reacting to,

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To your dismay, he was a scientist.

So if scientific is a synonym for undeniable, what on Earth are you saying is the synonym for scientist?

A scientist is someone who does science. How does that work with undeniable?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why didn't you just direct people to the audio where people can actually hear Lessans reading his complaint right out of the horse's mouth.

Wait, what? Lessans did a reading of his complaint and RECORDED it? That is awesome! Verily he was the humblest of beings, and had not a single self-aggrandizing bone in his body!

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If he was doing so, then his writing is even more muddled and unclear then before, because he used "nerve endings", which is not the same thing as a specific nerve.

In his defense, he hadn't the first clue what he was talking about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

]

... and which cues are these, pray tell?

Anything other than the eyes could be a cue that could help the mother recgognize her baby. It could be the baby's baaa that distinguishes it from other sheep. It could be the baby's smell if that's how sheep identify (I'm not sure), or his unique gait could be a cue. I am not a sheep expert. The point I'm making is that there are other ways for the animal kingdom to identify it's kin other than sight. I recently saw a movie about penguins. They find their young in the middle of thousands and thousands of baby penguins by sound alone.

[The Lone Ranger]

Guess where the distal ends of the afferent fibers that make up the optic nerve are located? Go ahead; I'll wait.


Here's a hint: even if we move the goalposts and say that Lessans meant "optic nerve" all along, he was quite ludicrously mistaken when he claimed that there are no afferent nerve endings in the eye.



Also, I explained the difference between cranial nerves and spinal nerves well over a year ago. All of our special senses (sight, smell, taste, hearing, and equilibrium) are due to the functioning of cranial nerves. [Touch is not a special sense, it's a general sense, and is due mostly (though not exclusively) to the functioning of spinal nerves.]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

More weaseling and evasion. You're MO.

I've not lied at all. My conclusions are mine and are based on facts and evidence, and therefore valid unless shown to be incorrect with superior facts and evidence.

How can your conclusions be based on facts if they turn out to be wrong? No, you're not purposely lying, but neither am I. That would be the pot calling the kettle black.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anything other than the eyes could be a cue that could help the mother recgognize her baby. It could be the baby's baaa that distinguishes it from other sheep. It could be the baby's smell if that's how sheep identify (I'm not sure), or his unique gait could be a cue. I am not a sheep expert. The point I'm making is that there are other ways for the animal kingdom to identify it's kin other than sight. I recently saw a movie about penguins. They find their young in the middle of thousands and thousands of baby penguins by sound alone.

The studies under discussion, the ones indicating sheep recognition of faces, used photographs.

Here's one from 2001. It didn't even require training the sheep to make a choice, they directly measured brain cell activity

To understand how these visual memories form and gradually fade, Kendrick measured the responses from cells in a part of the sheep's brain known to control facial recognition. Sheep were shown mug shots of unfamiliar and familiar sheep while an electrode measured cell activity in their brains.

"Sheep, like humans, have specialized areas in the brain for face recognition," said Kendrick, and they have a separate system, far less specific, for dealing with the recognition of other objects, such as rocks and trees.

"Whereas you can measure a cellular response to a face, you would have a hard time finding a cellular response to a banana," he added.

Kendrick's team discovered that a large network of cells responded to faces in general. A smaller number of cells respond to familiar sheep faces. An even tinier subset of cells responds to specific, very familiar individuals, such as pen mates of the sheep.

"There may even be cells that respond only to a particular individual," said Kendrick.

Kendrick suggested that memories may fade when circuits dedicated to recognition of a specific individual somehow become more general and are downgraded to "code" for just a familiar face.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com...bilities-sheep

The researchers also found female sheep had a definite opinion about what made a ram's face attractive, Dr Kendrick said. "Don't ask me what it is, but certain facial cues of a male do attract females."

Recognising different faces in a flock must be important in helping sheep to arrange hierarchies as well as keep friends. During the experiments – where sheep had to choose between pairs of familiar and unfamiliar faces to get a food reward – the animals would form orderly queues with those at the top of the hierarchy first, Dr Kendrick said. "[So] it is important not to chop and change the social environment of sheep, which is evidently so important for their well being."

Another earlier study showed that even with the other cues, ewes would avoid their white lambs if the lamb had been colored black.

As with both olfaction and hearing, the ability of sheep to use vision to recog-
nise each other was also first established for mother ewes recognising their lambs.
Here it was shown that mothers avoided their normally white lambs if either their
whole body was coloured black or just their heads were blackened (Alexander &
Shillito Walser 1977, 1978). The implication from this is that visual cues from the
head are important for recognition. The same researchers also used this strategy to
show that the animals could recognise different colours on their lambs (Alexander
& Stevens 1979).

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not a trivial tautology that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is why man's will is not free. In fact, with this knowledge we can change the world for the better. I don't call that trivial.

Ermmm... yes it is, unless you can demonstrate some way in which we can test possible decisions to find out if they are going to be the preferred ones.

If you cannot, then the only way you can define "the direction of most satisfaction" is "the direction which ends up being chosen"

Which is the same thing as saying "We choose that which we end up choosing" - which I think you will agree is a trivial tautology.

Edit: just to make sure I am clear, it is trivial in the sense that saying "Green apples are green" is trivial, IE there is no new information in the sentence. Saying "Green apples tend to be sour" is not trivial in that sense. I get the feeling you keep confusing yourself because you are unaware of the ways words can be used.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Well done Shea! I thought I was doing well, getting her to call the book "divine knowledge" but this is much, much better.

By the way, is anyone else noticing that everyone has to be humble, and that questioning the Holy Book is per definition arrogance? How dare you think you know better than Prophet Lessans! All you people will feel really sorry after you are dead! The petty cry of the small-minded religious fanatic through the ages.

I have never told people not to question. Why do you think I'm here? It's about how one expresses himself, which lately is just filled with knocks and put downs. Half of this thread is filled with this vitriol. If I have a hard time responding to these posts, it's because of your arrogant tone. You then have the nerve to imply that it is me with small-minded religious mind? Boringgggggg