Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The question I am still left with is how we see?
|
How we see has been explained here, it is more thoroughly explained elsewhere. You are either dismissing the evidence in favor of learned dogma or you don't understand the evidence. |
Couldn't that be what you're doing? I believe people are dismissing his evidence. |
His definition of the word sense is applicable to sight, as I demonstrated in a previous post. So there is no evidence for his view of sight, only his assertion that sight is not a sense.
Quote:
|
His observations as to how we learn words are not inaccurate. The question is whether this description would necessarily be incompatible with the eyes being a sense organ. That's the million dollar question.
|
As I said, his own definition of the word sense is applicable to sight.
Quote:
|
The available literature regarding the eyes hasn't changed because it is believed to be a fact that the eyes are a sense organ.
|
Because the eyes are sense organs, by definition...both the accepted definition, and, from what I can tell, Lessan's definition
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by standard definition
A specialized organ or structure where sensory neurons are concentrated and that functions as a receptor. Also called sensor.
|
Quote:
|
There is no further discussion on the topic. It is believed by all scientists that light is converted by the brain into an image. Therefore, either Lessans was wrong or they were wrong. I can understand the backlash that this debate has caused, but I can't disregard the possibility that Lessans might be right.
|
Based on what reasons might he have been right? Without experimentation or various technologies, how would he at all know how the nerves and receptors function? How did he determine the properties of light?