Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
So, to sum up: When you said that if someone invented a functioning bionic eye, that would disprove Lessans' claims regarding vision, you were lying. Good to have that cleared up.
Carry on.
|
I never said that. In fact, a bionic eye is just a replacement part for what is not functioning. But it doesn't account for what is happening inside the brain. |
Actually, yes you did say that. Repeatedly. In reponse to people asking what could possibly falsify Lessans' claims.
Unfortunately for you, you were too ignorant regarding the field to know that we already have devices that disprove Lessans' claims regarding vision -- by your own criteria. Must be uncomfortable being hoist by your own petard like that. |
If it disproves Lessans' claims, then go your merry way Lone. Why would you stay at some weird thread that is put out by some crackpot?  Just go our merry way, and teach what you have learned. No one is worse for the wear. |
I am a scientist and an educator. I have an obligation and a duty to confront and expose ignorance and pseudoscience. And yes, ignorance and pseudoscience can be very damaging -- look at all the damage being done by vaccine deniers, global warming "skeptics," creationists, etc., etc.
The real question is: Why do you persist, given that Lessans' claims regarding sight have been disproved by your own criteria?
It's dishonest at best to persist in making demonstrably-false claims. |
Because I don't believe it's been proven that the brain interprets images from light, and that without the object, the light still brings the pattern of a physical event long after the event is gone. I am persisting and will continue to do so. I am not doing anything that is damaging to anyone. I could say the same thing about you because you are making every effort to prevent this discovery from coming to light by stating that this is a false claim. |
You are the one who claimed that a functioning bionic eye would disprove Lessans' claims. Such devices exist. |
Maybe I wasn't being clear. There has to be a way to determine whether the impulses being sent by the optic nerve actually are being interpreted by the brain. I don't know whether it's possible to separate the variables such that we would know what those impulses mean, and what is going on with the brain. It's not a slam dunk by any means. If I said something that now I'm retracting, I'm sorry. I wasn't clear myself and I'm trying to work it through. As long as there is a functioning retina, or a replacement retina, we won't be able to tell whether the non-absorbed photons are being transduced into an interpretable image, or whether the brain is looking at the object directly through the retina.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
You are a liar and a hypocrite.
|
I'm sorry you think that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
I will admit that you are personally harmless, since no sane person could accept your claims. But your attitude -- that what you want to be true is far more important than mere facts, evidence, or logic -- is very, very dangerous indeed.
|
First of all, the verdict is still not in. I will not give up on this claim just because scientists believe they have proven that images are interpreted in the brain due to light. I think it's dangerous of you to treat this claim as impossible because you are perpetuating the idea that science is infallible. I am not telling you to change your worldview. I am only asking you to keep an open mind, which you are not doing if you have to call me names.