A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

Well, she is a nice Christian lady, isn't she, boys? The Jews do get up to the Dickens about this and that and they like to make a big kerfuffle of just about everything.

Besides, I think her father wrote in his book that the Jews ought to quit bellyaching about Hitler killing them since they are still alive even though they are somebody else. Plus look at how her father outwitted those rabbis in debates.

You have no understanding of Chapter 10. I don't know why I'm doing this.

Chapter Ten: Our Posterity

There is an aspect of life that doesn't seem fair. There are
people who have suffered and died to develop this world
who will not be around when the fruits of their labor have
ripened to maturity. No matter how wonderful this Golden
Age will be, how can God be a reality when there is no way
perfect justice can prevail? Even though the other two discoveries will
bring about an entirely new world for the benefit of all mankind, the
blueprint of which is demonstrated as I extend the principles into
every area of human relation; the discovery which I am about to reveal
in this chapter is my favorite. When thoroughly understood it might
be yours too.

Well, my friends, I have great news! Wouldn’t it make
you feel wonderful to know as a matter of undeniable knowledge,
equivalent to two plus two equals four, that there is nothing to fear in
death not only because it is impossible to regret it, but primarily
because (don’t jump to any hasty conclusion) you will always be here.
We have been unable to see this hidden law because our reasoning has
prevented it. Although the basic principle has been an infallible guide
and miraculous catalyst through the labyrinths of human relations, it
cannot assist me here; but it did not help other scientists discover
atomic energy, nor was it used to reveal itself. However, that of which
it is composed, this perception of undeniable relations that escapes the
average eye will take us by the hand and demonstrate, in a manner no
one will be able to deny, that there is absolutely nothing to fear in
death because we will be born again and again and again.

<snip>

This is just too fantastic. In other words, once it is understood
that man’s will is not free and what this means, our people, the Jews,
cannot blame Hitler for slaughtering 6 million of us, nor can we feel
sorry for the dead because we are not dead?”

You must remember that anybody living who lost a loved one
in the Holocaust will never get over it. However, when he fully realizes
that all evil came into existence because God needed it to develop
mankind, and now that we are developed it will be forthwith removed,
he won’t ever again be able to blame another because there won’t be
anything left to blame. It might take 2000 years for this knowledge
to come to light because it may blind those who have been looking for
a different type solution, something in accordance with their own
opinion. It was the same thing that gave Mendel posthumous
recognition. In our Golden Age, the inception of which will take
place just as soon as this discovery is confirmed valid by our world
leaders, we will fall mutually in love, raise our families in complete
health, security, wealth and happiness, live to a ripe old age without
overpopulating the earth, and die only to be born for the same
happiness again and again and again. Well, isn’t this the most
wonderful knowledge to behold? It reveals in an infallible manner the
great wisdom that directs every aspect of this universe.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The anencephalic baby is alive even without a brain. If he was just born and his heart is still beating, there is life in him.

But earlier, you said that a functioning brain is what defines someone as being alive, and that a person is no longer alive after brain death, even if the heart continues to beat, etc.

So you're changing your definition of "alive," then?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe there doesn't need to be a connection in the way you're envisioning. The eyes are the windows through which the brain looks out, as he explained. He wasn't using the word efferent to mean nerve cells or motor neurons.

So you're back to we see via magic. Do keep in mind that the optic nerve can't be the connection in your view, since it contains no efferent fibers.

So ... somehow ... the brain "looks out" [that is not an "explanation," by the way -- we really need to get you a dictionary] through several inches of opaque matter, including solid bone.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These pictures don't tell the whole story.

Again, you're weaseling. The issue is that your inability to tell them apart (and the difference is obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about the relevant science) demonstrates that you're lying when you claim to understand the relevant science.



By the way, you do understand, do you not, that there is a whole industry centered around people having their bodies frozen at death, in the hopes that we will one day have the technology to repair the cellular damage and revive them? If they turn out to be correct, and these people are someday repaired and revived, would you say that they were never actually dead?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no understanding of Chapter 10. I don't know why I'm doing this.

Chapter Ten: Our Posterity
... you will always be here....

On the contrary, you stupid moron, I understand fully what he is arguing in Chapter 10. It's you who doesn't understand it. The "you" to which he refers, of course, is not a personal "you," but what Tom Clark at naturalism.org calls "generic subjective continuity" and what Wayne Stewart calls "existential passage." I already helpfully explained to you that what Lessans is proposing is identical to what Clark and Stewart propose, and if you sent Chapter 10 of Daddy Dumb Ass's book to them, you would have two allies, at least on this one subject.

But you won't do that because you really don't know what your father is talking about in Chapter 10, and hence are unable to see that it is identical to what Clark and Stewart propose. You don't understand it, but you support it, only because he wrote it.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there is no vital energy or chi (there is no blood running through one's veins), then the person dies.

Of all the amusingly-ignorant things you've written, this may be both the funniest and the most ignorant.

"Chi" and "vital energy" are like "germinal substance" -- terms that sound (to the ignorant) like they have meaning, but are utterly meaningless.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've answered this dozens of times. The ball would need to be very large for us to see it that far away. There would be no noticeable time difference between the lens and the retina. If we could see the ball, the light would have to be at the retina. You have to work this backwards.

You haven't answered, and you keep refusing to work this backwards. You never answer the questions asked, and you flat out refuse to work backwards with us to work out how light can be where you need it to be in your model.

With the newly ignited Sun example we have established that you need traveling photons from the Sun at the retina/film at 12:00, but you refuse to work backwards to work out what traveling they have done or when they could have been located at the Sun.

We are trying to work this backwards but you are refusing to cooperate.

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;1266226]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I cannot tell. I am not a biologist and I never claimed to be. As I explained, his observation of how language is acquired led him to making this claim. Obviously, there has to be a connection between the eyeball and the optic nerve. This still doesn't prove that the eyes work in the same way as the other senses, and that's what we're aiming for: proof.

Gee, I figured it out pretty quickly, and I'm not a scientist or biologist, I'm not even a medical doctor, just some dummy that happened to get lucky.

Lessans was wrong about how language is acquired, and this led him to several erroneous conclusions, and some pretty wild and amusing ideas.

Everything that science has learned about vision proves that vision is afferent, and not efferent. Lessans was wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not Christian David but I know about the resurrection.

Then you know something about Chopin's Trauermarsch from opus 35, good for you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no understanding of Chapter 10. I don't know why I'm doing this.

[I]Chapter Ten: Our Posterity
" - "

Horse Hockey.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there is no vital energy or chi (there is no blood running through one's veins), then the person dies.

We need to add "chi" to the list of terms that Peacegirl has no understanding of, and uses completely incorrectly.

"chi" has nothing to do with blood circulating through the body.

Apparently she has never watched "Star Wars".

[Vivisectus]

This is getting sillier and sillier. If a person is dead, he is not alive. If a person is alive (his heart is still beating) but on the verge of death, he is not dead. It is not arbitrary. Terri Schiavo was not dead even though she was in a vegetative state. She was being kept alive artificially in the hope that she could regain her function. Until she was taken off of the feeding tube, she was still alive. She died March 31, 2005. Does that make it easier?

...And now we are back the the heartbeat being where the line is drawn. Before it was brain function. You go back and forth according to context, not according to a detectable change in the subject. And then you need to make up a chi or an "essence" in order to prop up your point.

this is happening because you feel the need to shoe-horn reality into your ideas, rather than amending your ideas based on what you find in reality.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't answered, and you keep refusing to work this backwards. You never answer the questions asked, and you flat out refuse to work backwards with us to work out how light can be where you need it to be in your model.

With the newly ignited Sun example we have established that you need traveling photons from the Sun at the retina/film at 12:00, but you refuse to work backwards to work out what traveling they have done or when they could have been located at the Sun.

We are trying to work this backwards but you are refusing to cooperate.

Now we need to work out more even, because the photons pass through a lens as well. This takes time, and also is an afferent process!

And at the same time, light appears when light-sensitive chemicals are present. What makes them appear when there is something for them to react with, but not when there isn't?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

And the bush in the moss gathers two rolling hands.

And the horse that was led to the water didn't eat the pudding.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

And the horse that was led to the water didn't eat the pudding.

rather than the dark horse in the race that was looked in the mouth

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

rather than the dark horse in the race that was looked in the mouth

Or the chickens that have flown the coup after the barn door was shut.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

But earlier, you said that a functioning brain is what defines someone as being alive, and that a person is no longer alive after brain death, even if the heart continues to beat, etc.

So you're changing your definition of "alive," then?

I am.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe there doesn't need to be a connection in the way you're envisioning. The eyes are the windows through which the brain looks out, as he explained. He wasn't using the word efferent to mean nerve cells or motor neurons.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So you're back to we see via magic. Do keep in mind that the optic nerve can't be the connection in your view, since it contains no efferent fibers.

Has nothing to do with the brain being able to use the eyes to look out at the world. You're conflating your definition with his because you don't like his claim.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So ... somehow ... the brain "looks out" [that is not an "explanation," by the way -- we really need to get you a dictionary] through several inches of opaque matter, including solid bone.

No, the brain itself (without divvying up parts that can or cannot do what you deem is possible) can use the eyes, as a window, to the outside world. This is not that far-fetched. You're trying to use your idea of what constitutes "efferent" (as in motor neurons) to justify your belief that it's impossible to do what Lessans described. I don't agree.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These pictures don't tell the whole story.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Again, you're weaseling. The issue is that your inability to tell them apart (and the difference is obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about the relevant science) demonstrates that you're lying when you claim to understand the relevant science.

I didn't say I understand the relevant science when it comes to afferent nerve endings. I also said that the eyeball has to have a connection to the optic nerve. I know my father was vague but it's a starting point. I believe the eyes work differently based on his observations.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

By the way, you do understand, do you not, that there is a whole industry centered around people having their bodies frozen at death, in the hopes that we will one day have the technology to repair the cellular damage and revive them? If they turn out to be correct, and these people are someday repaired and revived, would you say that they were never actually dead?

Yes. This is pure science fiction. Some technologies that were once thought impossible turn out to be possible, but to bring a dead person back to life is beyond what is possible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

On the contrary, you stupid moron, I understand fully what he is arguing in Chapter 10. It's you who doesn't understand it. The "you" to which he refers, of course, is not a personal "you," but what Tom Clark at naturalism.org calls "generic subjective continuity" and what Wayne Stewart calls "existential passage." I already helpfully explained to you that what Lessans is proposing is identical to what Clark and Stewart propose, and if you sent Chapter 10 of Daddy Dumb Ass's book to them, you would have two allies, at least on this one subject.

But you won't do that because you really don't know what your father is talking about in Chapter 10, and hence are unable to see that it is identical to what Clark and Stewart propose. You don't understand it, but you support it, only because he wrote it.

There is no subjective continuity David. There is NO continuity with a person who once lived. There is no existential passage as if to say the person who died goes through a tunnel and ends up a different person. This is pure science fiction. I know you love your sci-fi but this is getting way out of hand. You are the moron David, and you're all puffed up with the belief that you know better than Lessans by offering a valid refutation. You're not. You are an arrogant asshole.

[The Lone Ranger]

How, exactly, does the brain "look out through the eyes" when there's quite a bit of opaque matter between the brain and the eyes? This is especially amazing since the only connection between the retina and the brain can only carry impulses toward the brain.

Can you look out through a window when there is several inches worth of opaque material between you and the window? If so, please explain how. If you can't, then please explain how the brain accomplishes this magical feat.


Once again, your "explanation" boils down to: "We see via magic." You disagree? Fine -- then explain how the brain "looks out through the eyes," despite there being opaque material between them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am.

There's the peacegirl we've all come to know and expect: when backed into a corner and shown that you're posting nonsense, change the definitions. Anything rather than admit that you were wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say I understand the relevant science when it comes to afferent nerve endings. I also said that the eyeball has to have a connection to the optic nerve. I know my father was vague but it's a starting point. I believe the eyes work differently based on his observations.

Once again, since you seem to be having particular problems with word comprehension: You have repeatedly claimed that you understand the relevant science of how we see. All I'm asking you to do is demonstrate the TINIEST bit of evidence that this is so.

The distinction between the afferent nerve endings of the olfactory and visual systems is simple and OBVIOUS. So much so that anyone who knows anything at all about the relevant anatomy and physiology should spot the difference instantly.

You have repeatedly claimed that you don't need any of this explained to you, because you already understand the science behind the "standard model" of sight.

Obviously, this is a lie on your part, or you'd be able to answer this simple question. I deliberately picked a question with a simple and obvious answer -- one that anyone who actually understands the material (as you've repeatedly claimed that you do) -- should have no trouble at all answering.

As I fully expected, you can't answer the question, and so your claims to understand the relevant science are clearly bald-faced lies.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Some technologies that were once thought impossible turn out to be possible, but to bring a dead person back to life is beyond what is possible.

Nowadays, we routinely resuscitate clinically-dead people who, just 50 years ago, would have been considered dead by any definition, and consequently beyond any hope of revival. As our medical knowledge and technology increase, your definition of "dead" must change accordingly.

But that's no surprise: we're used to you redefining terms whenever it suits you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

How, exactly, does the brain "look out through the eyes" when there's quite a bit of opaque matter between the brain and the eyes? This is especially amazing since the only connection between the retina and the brain can only carry impulses toward the brain.

Can you look out through a window when there is several inches worth of opaque material between you and the window? If so, please explain how. If you can't, then please explain how the brain accomplishes this magical feat.

Once again, your "explanation" boils down to: "We see via magic." You disagree? Fine -- then explain how the brain "looks out through the eyes," despite there being opaque material between them.

The brain as a whole is different than envisioning parts of the brain that have to go through a maze of opaque material.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

There's the peacegirl we've all come to know and expect: when backed into a corner and shown that you're posting nonsense, change the definitions. Anything rather than admit that you were wrong.

You can try to make it appear that I don't know what I'm talking about and then associate that with Lessans. It's a trick. I thought about it and I changed the definition because I realized that it's not about the brain or the heart that defines death. You're right, we know it when we see it and nothing but nothing can bring a dead person back to life.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say I understand the relevant science when it comes to afferent nerve endings. I also said that the eyeball has to have a connection to the optic nerve. I know my father was vague but it's a starting point. I believe the eyes work differently based on his observations.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Once again, since you seem to be having particular problems with word comprehension: You have repeatedly claimed that you understand the relevant science of how we see. All I'm asking you to do is demonstrate the TINIEST bit of evidence that this is so.

I understand Lessans explanation of how we see. But that's not good enough for you because you don't believe his explanation is correct. You keep insisting that I understand the relevant science. I know what I need to know, and that is that the afferent model of sight cannot be proven by dissection. Can you show me that you understand what Lessans was trying to explain?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The distinction between the afferent nerve endings of the olfactory and visual systems is simple and OBVIOUS. So much so that anyone who knows anything at all about the relevant anatomy and physiology should spot the difference instantly.

I don't need to do this in order to explain how Lessans came to his findings. It was his conclusion based astute observations about how language is acquired.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You have repeatedly claimed that you don't need any of this explained to you, because you already understand the science behind the "standard model" of sight.

I said I skimmed your paper. It's not that the explanation of what each part of the eye does that's incorrect. It's the theory of how the eye as a whole relates to the outside world that is being challenged. I know you think that it's all been wrapped up, but I don't.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Obviously, this is a lie on your part, or you'd be able to answer this simple question. I deliberately picked a question with a simple and obvious answer -- one that anyone who actually understands the material (as you've repeatedly claimed that you do) -- should have no trouble at all answering.

I don't need to prove that I understand the material. I know what science tells us, and for anyone to dispute it will be looked at as a kook.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As I fully expected, you can't answer the question, and so your claims to understand the relevant science are clearly bald-faced lies.

The relevant science for the purposes of this thread is that light is all we need to see the physical world, even when the event is gone. I brought to this thread a different point of view.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Some technologies that were once thought impossible turn out to be possible, but to bring a dead person back to life is beyond what is possible.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Nowadays, we routinely resuscitate clinically-dead people who, just 50 years ago, would have been considered dead by any definition, and consequently beyond any hope of revival. As our medical knowledge and technology increase, your definition of "dead" must change accordingly.

But that's no surprise: we're used to you redefining terms whenever it suits you.

Wrong. I am not redefining terms whenever it suits me. If technology can keep a person alive, or bring him back before he is at the point of no return, then that is a leap forward in our ability to save lives. No one is taking credit away from the people who created these marvelous innovations. There are probably millions of people that would have died without this advanced technology. That's not what I'm talking about, and you know it. I'm talking about people that have died and are decaying. Rigor mortis has set in. At that point there is no chance for any technology to bring this person back to life. Go talk to a medical examiner and see what she says.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand Lessans explanation of how we see. But that's not good enough for you because you don't believe his explanation is correct. You keep insisting that I understand the relevant science. I know what I need to know, and that is that the afferent model of sight cannot be proven by dissection. Sorry you don't like my answer.
[...]
No, I don't need to prove that I understand the material. I know what the general consensus is and for anyone to dispute it will be looked at like a kook.

You look like a kook because you don't understand the relevant science enough to provide a coherent critique. You also look like a kook when you ignore that fact the The Lone Ranger has told you multiple times that dissection isn't the only confirming evidence. (Even though just that evidence is quite enough to prove Lessans wrong.)


Actually, you do need to understand the relevant science, otherwise, no one will take this seriously. The fact of the matter is, you need to both show that the current scientific model is wrong, and then you need to show that Lessans' ideas are correct. You have done neither.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The brain as a whole is different than envisioning parts of the brain that have to go through a maze of opaque material.

Perhaps you've heard of something called a skull? Please explain which portions of the brain are not surrounded by opaque material.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, we know it when we see it and nothing but nothing can bring a dead person back to life.

Except, of course, that we can now bring back people who -- 30 years or so ago -- everyone would have agreed was clearly and unambiguously dead. And the whole point is that people disagree where to draw the line and say "we know that (s)he's dead".

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand Lessans explanation of how we see. But that's not good enough for you because you don't believe his explanation is correct.

Again, you're weaseling. The point is that you have repeatedly claimed that you do understand the relevant science. Clearly, you were lying.

You keep insisting that I understand the relevant science. I know what I need to know, and that is that the afferent model of sight cannot be proven by dissection.

You can't possibly know that, because you know absolutely nothing about what is (or is not) revealed by dissection. For all you know, there is a direct fiber optic pathway linking the brain to the eyes.

Besides which, you're being a HUGE hypocrite here -- not that this is anything new. You claim that others can't evaluate Lessans' claims without understanding those claims, but you not only understand nothing of the standard model of sight, you go out of your way to REMAIN ignorant of it.

Sorry you don't like my answer.

It's your blatant lying and your astonishing degree of hypocrisy that I find so offensive.

No, I don't need to prove that I understand the material.

You've repeatedly claimed that you do understand the material. When I ask you for the simplest demonstration that you have even the most basic comprehension of the material, you're revealed to have been lying.

I am not redefining terms whenever it suits me. If technology can keep a person alive, or bring him back before it is at the point of no return, that that is incredible. There are probably millions of people that would have died without this advanced intervention. That's not what I'm talking about, and you know it. I'm talking about people that have died and are decaying. Rigor Mortis has set in. There is no chance for any technology to bring this person back to life. Go talk to a forensic anthropologist and see what he says.

Of course you're redefining terms whenever it suits you! You just did it, in the very paragraph where you claimed you're not doing it!

So now it's not whether or not the heart is beating, nor is it whether or not the brain is functioning that defines death -- now the body must actually be decaying. Watch those goalposts fly!




One: What about people who are frozen right at the moment the heart stops -- or even before it stops? Are they dead? What if they're revived later? Would you say that they were never really dead?

We can't yet do that with an adult, but we can freeze an embryo and then successfully revive it. We have frozen animals as large as dogs in liquid nitrogen, stopping all bodily functions in the process -- and then successfully revived them. Was the dog dead and then brought back to life, or was it never actually dead, though there was no physiological activity whatsoever?


Two: You're now saying that your body must be decaying before we say that a person is dead. Well then, you have a problem. Guess what: Your body is decaying right now!

Entropy is a bitch. [Yeah, I know; you have no idea what that means -- it's for the literate people in the audience.] Every day of your life is a constant contest between cells dying and decaying on the one hand, and the remaining cells trying to replace the ones that die. When we're young, we can make new cells faster than the old ones die and decay. As we age, the rate at which we can make new cells begins to lose out to the processes of death and decay. By the time we reach old age, we're losing cells to death and decay far faster than we can replace them.

And keep in mind, less than 10% of the cells in your body are human cells. The vast majority are bacterial cells. A good many of them are preying upon -- killing and digesting -- your body cells. Your immune system keeps the bacterial cells from completely overwhelming you, but sooner or later, the bacteria will win.

Eventually, your heart stops, the immune system loses the ability to fight off the bacterial cells, which begin to reproduce wildly, and the surviving human cells gradually stop reproducing.

This takes days, by the way. Studies of cellular activity in cadavers show that some body cells can survive for 2 - 3 days after the heart stops, during which time they desperately transcribe genes and synthesize stress proteins, trying to halt and reverse the accumulating damage. It's a losing battle, of course.



In short, if you're going to define "death" as "when the body begins to rot," I've got bad news for you: You've been dead for most of your life.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

You look like a kook because you don't understand the relevant science enough to provide a coherent critique. You also look like a kook when you ignore that fact the The Lone Ranger has told you multiple times that dissection isn't the only confirming evidence. (Even though just that evidence is quite enough to prove Lessans wrong.)


Actually, you do need to understand the relevant science, otherwise, no one will take this seriously. The fact of the matter is, you need to both show that the current scientific model is wrong, and then you need to show that Lessans' ideas are correct. You have done neither.

I do not have to show exactly where the scientific model is wrong. I only have to show his explanation as to what he believed was going on and hope that they test it for integrity. So far, there is no proof that dogs can identify their masters from photographs. Those experiments that supposedly have "statistical significance" are completely unreliable. When a child misses her parents, she will look at photographs with true recognition. Dogs can't do that. They don't have the capability. That's just one of his observations which led him to conclude that there is no information being transmitted in the light, for if that were true a dog, just like a person, would be able to recognize his master in a photograph and show his recognition by a wag of a tail or some other means (especially when his master has been away for a long period of time) without having to artificially train the dog to pick the right picture for a reward, which is considered recognition if it is anything more than a 2 second stare.

[Vivisectus]

Efferent sight is not required for dogs to be unable to recognize images - whether they can or cannot. It is not an argument against your idea, or in favor.

So what are the other "observations"? Are there any more compelling ones?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't answered, and you keep refusing to work this backwards. You never answer the questions asked, and you flat out refuse to work backwards with us to work out how light can be where you need it to be in your model.

With the newly ignited Sun example we have established that you need traveling photons from the Sun at the retina/film at 12:00, but you refuse to work backwards to work out what traveling they have done or when they could have been located at the Sun.

We are trying to work this backwards but you are refusing to cooperate.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Hey, Peacegirl! What traveling have the photons at the retina at 12:00 done? And when were they located at the Sun from which they came?

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The brain as a whole is different than envisioning parts of the brain that have to go through a maze of opaque material.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Perhaps you've heard of something called a skull? Please explain which portions of the brain are not surrounded by opaque material.

What does having a skull have to do with the claim that the brain is looking through the eyes, as a window, to see the external world? After all, the retina is considered part of the brain.

In vertebrate embryonic development, the retina and the optic nerve originate as outgrowths of the developing brain, specifically the embryonic diencephalon; thus, the retina is considered part of the central nervous system (CNS) and is actually brain tissue.

Retina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, we know it when we see it and nothing but nothing can bring a dead person back to life.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Except, of course, that we can now bring back people who -- 30 years or so ago -- everyone would have agreed was clearly and unambiguously dead. And the whole point is that people disagree where to draw the line and say "we know that (s)he's dead".

Years ago they didn't know there was a window of time where a person could be revived. But after that window has closed, all the interventions in the world cannot revive a person and bring him back to life.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand Lessans explanation of how we see. But that's not good enough for you because you don't believe his explanation is correct.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Again, you're weaseling. The point is that you have repeatedly claimed that you do understand the relevant science. Clearly, you were lying.

Lessans never disputed that there was anything wrong with the relevant science other than the claim that light does not bring the external world to us. My hope is that his claim will be taken seriously one day.

You keep insisting that I understand the relevant science. I know what I need to know, and that is that the afferent model of sight cannot be proven by dissection.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You can't possibly know that, because you know absolutely nothing about what is (or is not) revealed by dissection. For all you know, there is a direct fiber optic pathway linking the brain to the eyes.

I'm sure you know, right? But we cannot dissect the brain and observe the process by which memory is stored. We can see all of the parts but we cannot figure out how to put it all together from dissection alone.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Besides which, you're being a HUGE hypocrite here -- not that this is anything new. You claim that others can't evaluate Lessans' claims without understanding those claims, but you not only understand nothing of the standard model of sight, you go out of your way to REMAIN ignorant of it.

I am not trying to remain ignorant of it, but I already know that their explanation is not Lessans' explanation regarding light. According to you, Lessans would have had to have been an expert in every field to have anything worthwhile to say. That's not true.

Sorry you don't like my answer.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It's your blatant lying and your astonishing degree of hypocrisy that I find so offensive.

I'm not lying and I'm not being a hypocrite. I am stating what my father concluded which goes against the standard model in one respect. You believe this changes all of cosmology, optics, biology, etc. I think you are overreacting.

No, I don't need to prove that I understand the material.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You've repeatedly claimed that you do understand the material. When I ask you for the simplest demonstration that you have even the most basic comprehension of the material, you're revealed to have been lying.

I will look this over if it makes you happy though I will not be tested on it, just so you can laugh at me some more.

Full Eye Description

[Continued from above] . . . Each eye is roughly 1 inch (2.5 cm) in diameter and fills most of the space within the orbit. Three distinct tissue layers – the fibrous, vascular, and nervous tunics – make up the wall of the eye and surround its gel-filled center.

The fibrous tunic forms the outermost layer of the eye and is instrumental in protecting its delicate inner tissues.

Anteriorly, the fibrous tunic consists of the cornea, a clear layer of dense regular fibrous connective tissue. The cornea forms a circular window allowing light to enter the eye while blocking foreign material from entering.
Extending from the cornea to cover the sides and posterior of the eye is the sclera. The sclera is a thick, white layer of dense irregular connective tissue that acts like a tough yet flexible shell for the eye. A thin layer of mucous membrane known as the conjunctiva covers the anterior surface of the sclera and the inside of the eyelids. The conjunctiva secretes mucus to lubricate the surface of the eye and contains blood vessels that support the tissues of the sclera.
Deep to the fibrous tunic is the vascular tunic that provides blood supply to the eye. It has three major parts: the choroid, ciliary body, and iris.

The choroid is a layer of connective tissues lining the inside of the sclera and providing blood flow to the sclera and retina. It also contains a high concentration of melanin, giving it a black color and helping it to absorb light in the eye.

The ciliary body is a widened ring of tissue at the anterior edge of the choroid. It contains the ciliary muscles and the ciliary bodies. The ciliary muscles pull on the zonular fibers and the lens of the eye to focus light, while the ciliary bodies produce aqueous humor.
The iris is a ring of pigmented smooth muscle extending from the anterior edge of the ciliary body and surrounding the pupil. Movement of the smooth muscle tissue in the iris adjusts the size of the pupil, the circular hole in the center of the iris.

cont. at: The Eye - Nervous System

I am not redefining terms whenever it suits me. If technology can keep a person alive, or bring him back before it is at the point of no return, that that is incredible. There are probably millions of people that would have died without this advanced intervention. That's not what I'm talking about, and you know it. I'm talking about people that have died and are decaying. Rigor Mortis has set in. There is no chance for any technology to bring this person back to life. Go talk to a forensic anthropologist and see what he says.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Of course you're redefining terms whenever it suits you! You just did it, in the very paragraph where you claimed you're not doing it!

So now it's not whether or not the heart is beating, nor is it whether or not the brain is functioning that defines death -- now the body must actually be decaying. Watch those goalposts fly!

I am not describing the moment death occurs as any one thing. We know the heart can still beat but the person can be brain dead. We know that there are some animals that don't have brain or hearts. We know that a zygote has the potential to become a fully functioning human being. I am only saying that there are indicators that show when a person has died and has no chance of being brought back. When this occurs we can say the person is dead. Being dead is the opposite of being alive.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

One: What about people who are frozen right at the moment the heart stops -- or even before it stops? Are they dead? What if they're revived later? Would you say that they were never really dead?

They could not have died before they were frozen. If at the moment the heart stops a person is frozen, that window of time could allow for a repair after they are thawed out. That is very different than working on a person who has passed that window of time and is not capable of returning.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

We can't yet do that with an adult, but we can freeze an embryo and then successfully revive it. We have frozen animals as large as dogs in liquid nitrogen, stopping all bodily functions in the process -- and then successfully revived them. Was the dog dead and then brought back to life, or was it never actually dead, though there was no physiological activity whatsoever?

It's an amazing technology where we can freeze embryos, but embryos are not dead. Animals that were used in these experiments were not dead at the time of being frozen. This is sort of like suspended animation.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Two: You're now saying that your body must be decaying before we say that a person is dead. Well then, you have a problem. Guess what: Your body is decaying right now!

Entropy is a bitch. [Yeah, I know; you have no idea what that means -- it's for the literate people in the audience.] Every day of your life is a constant contest between cells dying and decaying on the one hand, and the remaining cells trying to replace the ones that die. When we're young, we can make new cells faster than the old ones die and decay. As we age, the rate at which we can make new cells begins to lose out to the processes of death and decay. By the time we reach old age, we're losing cells to death and decay far faster than we can replace them.

And keep in mind, less than 10% of the cells in your body are human cells. The vast majority are baWhy docterial cells. A good many of them are preying upon -- killing and digesting -- your body cells. Your immune system keeps the bacterial cells from completely overwhelming you, but sooner or later, the bacteria will win.

Eventually, your heart stops, the immune system loses the ability to fight off the bacterial cells, which begin to reproduce wildly, and the surviving human cells gradually stop reproducing.

This takes days, by the way. Studies of cellular activity in cadavers show that some body cells can survive for 2 - 3 days after the heart stops, during which time they desperately transcribe genes and synthesize stress proteins, trying to halt and reverse the accumulating damage. It's a losing battle, of course.

Why is it a losing battle? Answer: Because the person is dead even though it takes a certain amount of time for every function of the body to cease. A chicken with it's head off is dead although it takes a certain amount of time for the reflexes to stop working. I'm sure a forensic anthropologist uses the extent of decay to determine the time of death, but he would never say that this means the person was still living.

Why do headless chickens run?
February 13, 2014

The brain does not control all body movements. Some movements are to a great extent controlled by neural networks in the spinal cord. This is why a chicken can run away after you chop its head off. A new study takes a closer look at this strange phenomenon.

Keywords: Animals, Biology, The brain

By: Kristian Sjøgren

A chicken can run without its head because a neural network in its spine is pre-programmed to control the muscles in frequently-used movements such as running or swimming. (Photo: Eric Guinther)
If you chop the head off a chicken, it can still run around for a few seconds. The same applies to many other animals, including the turtle, which continues swimming even though its head has come off.

The animals can do this because a neural network in the spinal cord is pre-programmed to direct the muscles in various frequently used movement patterns such as running or swimming.

Despite intense research into how the body, the brain and the nervous system works, scientists still do not have a clear picture of how nerve cells communicate to perform certain movements.

Using headless animals as study participants, a team of researchers from the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, will now try to get a step closer to understanding this phenomenon in their new project ‘Attractor network dynamics in the spinal cord’.

“Our objective is to learn more about how nerve cells function in networks. This will also help us understand the diseases that are the result of dysfunction in these networks,” says Henrik Lindén, a postdoc fellow at the Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology at the University of Copenhagen, who heads the new project.

Why a turtle can swim without a head

cont. at: Why do headless chickens run? | ScienceNordic

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In short, if you're going to define "death" as "when the body begins to rot," I've got bad news for you: You've been dead for most of your life.

Hahahaha!!!!