Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
It has been pointed out many times before that the human retina contains zero efferent nerve endings from the brain. That, alone, should give peacegirl pause.
Couple that with the fact that there's a considerable amount of opaque tissue between the brain and the eyes (including bone), and we're left with the fact that the only possible explanation for how the brain can "look out through the eyes" is -- "it's magic."
|
Maybe I wasn't clear. Lessans explained what he believed was occurring. It is not the brain looking through the eyes as much as the other senses giving the brain the desire to focus the eyes to see what's out there. If you can't see the difference, this just shows me that you are not willing to understand what he was saying, for whatever reason. |
Lessans used the phrase that "the brain looks out through the eyes as windows". Now you say that's not what he said or meant? |
The brain, responding to the other senses, causes a desire of the baby to see which then begins to focus the eyes. Read this again. Maybe it will sink in.
Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient
accumulation of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and
smell — these are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the
child can look through them at what exists around him. He then
desires to see the source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as
binoculars.
The eyes are the windows of the brain through which
experience is gained not by what comes in on the waves of light as
a result of striking the optic nerve, but by what is looked at in
relation to the afferent experience of the senses. What is seen
through the eyes is an efferent experience. If a lion roared in that
room a newborn baby would hear the sound and react because this
impinges on the eardrum and is then transmitted to the brain. 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. The
brain records various sounds, tastes, touches and smells in relation
to the objects from which these experiences are derived, and then
looks through the eyes to see these things that have become
familiar as a result of the relation. This desire is an electric current
which turns on or focuses the eyes to see that which exists —
completely independent of man’s perception — in the external
world.
He doesn’t see these objects because they strike the optic
nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But in order
to look, there must be a desire to see. The child becomes aware
that something will soon follow something else which then arouses
attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the
relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses
when this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact
with a nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to
calling a potato, a fruit. Under no conditions can the eyes be called
a sense organ unless, as in Aristotle’s case, it was the result of an
inaccurate observation that was never corrected.”