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. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
He never said that the eye didn't contain receptors.
|
He said there were no afferent nerve endings in the eye. Photoreceptors are afferent neurons. He was wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
He didn't say that nothing entered the eye because he said that light strikes the optic nerve.
|
Not originally he didn't. You added that. Originally he said
because nothing from the external world strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I don't get your last sentence at all. Where did I negate the only difference Lessans thought existed between the eyes and the other senses?
|
By adding "other than light" you negated the point he was making. He was clearly saying that the eyes didn't receive stimuli from the outside world, and that there were no sensory neurons in the eye. He stated it plainly! The one time he was clear as crystal, you start re-interpreting and adding words
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Explain what Lessans thought was the difference between the sense and the eye, using ONLY LESSANS WORDS and not your additions
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The only difference is the senses are receiving and transmitting external stimuli to the brain. He did not believe that light has the same properties as other external stimuli because patterns don't travel through space and time, so how can light work like the other senses?
|
|
This shit about traveling images/patterns is a strawman. It is stupid and incorrect. You've stated how many times that you understand that images don;t travel, so why do you revert to it every 5 seconds?
Sound doesn't travel, taste doesn't travel, odor doesn't travel. Light travels. Chemical compounds travel. Soundwaves (vibrations) travel. The external stimuli all travel.
Light is an external stimuli that is received by specialized afferent receptors in the eye. According to the definition Lessans accepted of a sense organ, the eyes are a sense organ.
Light is different than chemical compounds which are different than air vibrations. Each receptor is specialized to interact with a specific stimuli. So if the eyes aren't a sense organ, than neither are any of the other sense organs.
Where is this big difference in the eyes you seem to think exists?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
How can we interpret an image if there is no pattern to be interpreted?
|
This is gibberish...once again you are using the stupid strawman of traveling images, except you've changed it to patterns.
The light that is received by the photoreceptors is interpreted into an image. Just as the vibrations that are received by the mechanorecpetors in the ear are interpreted into sound, and the chemical compounds received by the chemoreceptors in the nose are interpreted into odors.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Oh my god, what additions? I added a few examples that I was very honest about.
|
You added the words "Other than light" which changed the whole meaning of Lessans explanation.