[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Point One: Given that the optic nerve is the only neural connection between the retina and the brain, and that in humans at least, it contains afferent fibers only, then the mechanism by which the brain "looks out through the eyes" is apparently ... magic.

Not at all.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Point Two: It's demonstrably true that the brain uses impulses from the optic nerve to construct images. Not that you'll do so, but you might read up on the studies in which electrodes have been connected to the brains of cats to see what's happening in the brain as visual impulses come in from the optic nerve. Not only do these electrodes -- which are recording the firing of neurons in the brain -- produce actual images corresponding to what the cat is seeing, if the cat is looking at a person, you can even recognize facial features in those images.

Recognizing facial features that correspond with the light does not translate to the brain interpreting those same images as an image. Actually, this in no way negates efferent vision. I hope you see why.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Remember: this is an actual recording of what the cat's brain is doing, not some sort of speculation.

What the brain is doing is a far cry from a causal connection.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You wonder why people keep accusing you of willful ignorance, stupidity, and dishonesty? The answer is simple.

It has been repeatedly explained to you by many different people -- in overwhelming detail and in terms that could be readily understood by any reasonably intelligent grade-schooler -- how efferent vision and "real-time" seeing are both physically impossible and demonstrably false.

In response, you keep insisting that you "don't understand" how any of this disproves Lessans' claims. Assuming that you're telling the truth, and that you truly don't understand why Lessans' claims regarding the nature of sight are false -- that's a big assumption, admittedly -- there are only three logical possibilities.


Possibility One: You're willfully ignorant. There's a great deal of support for this conclusion, given that you've repeatedly admitted that you have no intention of making any serious effort to understand things such as neural physiology or Relativity Theory which disprove Lessans' claims. Moreover, you've demonstrated time and time and time again that you will summarily reject any evidence which contradicts Lessans' claims (while making no effort whatsoever to understand why it contradicts Lessans' claims), no matter how well-supported and carefully-conducted those experiments might be. But, hypocritically, you immediately and unquestioningly accept any unsourced, unsupported anecdotal claims which you think will support Lessans.

Personally, I vote for this possibility, given your repeated demonstrations of your eagerness to ignore evidence which contradicts your claims. You certainly give the impression that you go to great lengths to avoid learning things that you don't wish to think about.



Possibility Two: You're really, really stupid. Given that it is demonstrably true that we don't see efferently or in "real time," and that this fact has been pointed out to you with many different examples and many different explanations that any reasonably intelligent grade-school student could readily comprehend, it could be that you're simply too stupid to be capable of comprehending that you or Lessans could have been mistaken about something so basic.

I don't believe that. Your apparent ignorance of pretty-much all relevant information is too carefully-crafted to be the result of mere stupidity, it seems to me.

These first two possibilities are not mutually exclusive, of course.



Possibility Three: Somehow, you're in possession of knowledge which demonstrates that virtually all of modern science is wrong. All the thousands of studies of neural anatomy and the physiology of sight are wrong. Relativity Theory is wrong -- despite the fact that GPS systems, nuclear weapons and the like (which depend upon Relativity for their functions) actually work. And so forth.

I think we can safely disregard this possibility. Especially since you're doggedly refused to provide any actual evidence for your claims, which -- if true -- would mean that pretty-much all of modern science would have to be thrown out the window. And since you've repeatedly displayed your near-total ignorance of the scientific principles and methodology which you're disputing, and why they would have to be abandoned if Lessans' claims regarding the nature of vision were true.

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence, but no absolute proof. If you are going to condemn me for resisting your condemnation; you might as well condemn anyone who resists a conclusion that is not conclusive.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Of course, it's difficult to believe that you could possibly be as ignorant and/or stupid as you pretend to be. Which is why many people suspect that the simpler explanation is the correct one: you're lying.

Calling me names is very immature Lone. I'm surprised that a teacher of science could go that low.