Pg
That is a pretty good map of light traveling and the present belief as to how sight works, but nothing in that diagram explains how the eyes work. There is no proof that nerve signals reach the brain and become images, which is the main argument.
Rods and cones on retina connected to nerves, nerves running to a region of the brain. Signals on the optic nerves run one way, eye to brain.Rods ad cones cones convert photons to electrons. You might just as well argue against photosynthesis in plants
We know damage in the area of the brain where optic nerves go causes vision problems.
I am not debating any of this. Every part of the eye is necessary for sight. The only difference is the mechanism of how these structures are used in light of real-time vision. It doesn't remove them. Every part of the eye and brain is essential, including memory.
I had a temporary speech aphasia from a subdural hematoma. Fluid acculturation put pressure on the speech enter of my brain.
You can search for specific studies. Fairly old news.
I can understand that. Anything that interferes with a particular part of the brain, due to a lack of blood supply, would cause a serious problem. Thank goodness yours was resolved.
Imaging the brain's response to visual stimuli involves techniques like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG) to map activation in the visual cortex and higher-order areas. Visual stimuli typically trigger responses in the primary visual cortex (V1), moving through areas V2-V4 for feature detection (color, orientation) and into the ventral stream for object recognition.
MRI can show which areas of the brain are invoked for different kinds of stimulus.
I watched a neuroscientist talk about an experiment. He ran MRIs on theists while contemplating god and paraying to see which areas of the brain increased activity.
It's really fascinating what neuroscience is learning about the brain, but so far, nothing has pinpointed a location in the brain where images are formed in delayed time.
You are arguing from an apriori assumption Lessans is right without evidence.
Visual images are foamed tin the visual cortex. Your chronic argument that science does not explain vision is patently false. It does not add credence to your claims.
We know that the visual cortex is the vision center of the brain, but neuroscientists do not explain how the visual cortex works other than by theorizing what they think is happening.
It is like a Creationist argument.
Steve, you are so off the mark, I don't know how to convince you. THERE IS EVIDENCE, but maybe not to your satisfaction. More tests can be done. I'm not here to fool you. I am challenging beliefs that you have carried for decades.
You use the same kind of argument.
Theists will argue both science and Chrtianity are faith based. Belief science works is as much a faith as religion. So, region is as valid as scienc
False equivalence?
Religion is not science.
For the first time, the members of a congregation, realizing that God is everywhere, not just in churches and synagogues, and realizing further that all evil is coming to a permanent end, will prefer spending their money in a different direction. Religion will be reluctant to give up the pivotal role it has played for thousands of years, but how is it possible for these theologians to object to the very things they have been unsuccessfully trying to accomplish without revealing that they don’t want mankind to be delivered from all evil? This does not mean that religion has not served an important function in man’s development. We could not have reached this turning point had it not been for our religious institutions, but we are at last shedding the final stage of the rocket that has given mankind its thrust up to this point. The great humor and the very reason religion could never approve of this work, despite its purpose, is because it would be forced to relinquish what has always been a source of tremendous satisfaction There is something else that annoys religion because it expects the Messiah to look like Christ or some other historical figure, and that he will come to Earth not through ordinary channels.
Someone who would claim to have solved the problem of evil could easily be mistaken for a false prophet or even the antichrist. It may be difficult for the faithful to entertain the idea that the promised Messiah may not come in bodily form but rather as a divine law which has the power to prevent what manmade laws and institutions could never accomplish. To some, this suggestion may be viewed as an unpardonable offense because it appears blasphemous. It may be impossible for those who adhere to the literal translation of the Bible, or any other sacred text, to consider the possibility that peace might come through an unexpected source, although still in accordance with God’s will. Even if I had never made this discovery, it would have come to light sooner or later because what is revealed is a definite part of the real world, not a figment of the imagination. Science will have to take the lead in affirming the accuracy of these principles before they can be applied worldwide. The truth will be very easy to convey once it is understood and acknowledged by scientists because it involves undeniable relations such as two plus two equals four, but when people have been taught for centuries that man’s will is free and the eyes are a sense organ, it becomes more difficult to break through these beliefs since the long tenure of preempted authority has confused opinions with facts and dogmatically closed the door to further investigation. However, when theologians fully realize that not only were they teaching something false and that God’s will,
the truth, was hidden behind a different door, but that their standard of living will be permanently guaranteed even though they step down from the pulpit, we will very quickly get their cooperation in attaining this sonic boom.
Same type of claims with creation science. It is as sound and objective as physics.
Yo0u argue that Lessans subjective observations and interpretations without evidence is as objective as science, which it is not.
Lessans wrote his ideas are true with scientific and mathematical certainty.
You're all washed up, Steve. He was very precise in his observations and his description of how we become conditioned. You have no idea where his observations originated, or why he made this claim in the first place.
Hmm .. could that be hyperbole?
No hyperbole.
Your postings collectively have a religious like tone.
Maybe you're not used to his style of writing, but a religious tone? NOT.
A dead guru-master who left behind cryptic profound revelations. Belief will save the world. A high priest/priestess interprets, perches, and guides to the truth. Watch out for the evil naysayers who deny the truth of the dead master.
Historically formulaic.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
) that he was right. It has important implications for our world.