Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You have been unable to name any difference between the other senses and the eyes to account for Lessans insistence that the eyes are not a sense organ.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Yes I have LadyShea
|
No you haven't, in fact the last discussion we had about this you said the following:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl on 11/10/12
There probably is no unusual difference in the anatomy of the eye with that of the other sense organs (even though he said there are no afferent nerve endings in this organ)
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Science has not established conclusively that light brings an image without the object.
|
Of course not, because science doesn't claim that light brings and image without an object. This is a strawman of what the scientific claims are. |
No, this is not a strawman. In fact, this is pivotol to the afferent model. Let me refresh your memory. It is believed that if we were on the star Rigel and the light that bounced off the object or event finally reached our telescopes, we would be seeing a past event. That means that the object or event could no longer be present LadyShea, which means that light is causing the brain to interpret an old image.