Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
How 'bout some of the alleged evidence to support his claim that the eye contains no afferent nerve endings that are contacted by light?
I'd love to see that evidence!
|
He didn't say anything to that effect. He never disputed that light strikes the optic nerve (or retina), so I'm not sure where you get this idea. The only thing he argued was that this light carries messages to the brain that can be interpreted as an image. |
He said it flat out, in those exact words. We posted the quote multiple times just last week. And you say you are not a weasel? You are totally fucking lying right here!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lessans
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.
|
|
Well there's some confusion then. This is also what he said:
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?”