Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
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.
|
Lessans made a completely false statement in this passage.
Do you admit he was wrong, or do you admit you are a lying weasel?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lessans
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.
|
So, Lessans seems to agree with the dictionary definition of sense, and then goes on to state that this definition does not apply to the eyes....
because nothing from the external world strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.
He clearly thought that the eyes were different anatomically and functionally. He seemed to think the eyes did not contain receptors. They do. He seemed to think NOTHING from the external world entered the eye. When you added (except for light) you made it make even less sense, because you negated the only difference Lessans thought existed between the eyes and the other senses.
Explain what Lessans thought was the difference between the sense and the eye, using ONLY LESSANS WORDS and not your additions |
How absolutely glorious! Wonderful!
The Holy Book already has shown evidence of being edited by a different author. And to make it even better, it is being edited because the editor has an agenda: she is involved in a polemic that seems very important to the editor at the time, but which later readers would be unaware of. It makes the Holy Book read slightly awkwardly in places, almost self-contradictory. That is because the addition to the book is there to deal with an argument about the book that the original author was not aware of, and neither are most readers today.
But then, someone clever finds the different versions and works out what the reason for the addition would have to have been and all is revealed. Lady Shea, you now get to name the different authors of the holy book. Of course in this case we know exactly who they are, but we could still stick with convention and call them the (L) and (P) authors?
The theory about it's authorship will now of course be named the Shea Hypothesis. It is so strongly supported as to almost guarantee it will dominate the concensus opinion, and your name will go down in history as the first ever Lessans Scholar of Critical Lessans Analysis.