Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

9696Re: neurons and optical illusions

Expand Messages
  • mrnavigator10
    Oct 7, 2002
      Hi Eduard

      Wrong on the purpose for my being here.

      Secondly this url


      doesnt seem to go anywhere is it co rrect

      Please advise and I wil check it out



      --- In existlist@y..., eduard <yeoman@v...> wrote:
      > mrnavigator10,
      > <<< What do mean nothing>>>
      > My meaning of "nothing" was with regard to things
      > that presumed to be "special or supernatural". My
      > point is that such things are a construct of the
      > mind ... a fanciful interpretation ... like gods
      > and souls.
      > <<< According to you and few others who dont
      > really know >>>
      > I would presume, from your comment, that you are
      > one of those who really do know. If so, then
      > please identify something that you "know" without
      > an interpretation.
      > <<< In theory >>>
      > Your comment seems to indicate a lack of agreement
      > to my statement that "it is our neurons [meaning
      > our brain] which creates the outside world for
      > us". I am not saying that the outside world does
      > not exist. The table, that we bump into, is very
      > real, but our understanding of it requires a
      > neural interpretation, as is the pain that we
      > sense from the impact.
      > <<< What do YOU mean WE think we see >>>
      > We "think we see" something, because this is the
      > only manner in which we do "see" anything. For
      > example, in some forms of brain damage, a person
      > can look upon a face and yet not be able to
      > interpret whether or not it is a friend, brother,
      > or simply a picture.
      > <<< Bollox >>>
      > Your simplistic response here is with respect to
      > my point that we see through "parameters that are
      > partially learned and partially genetic". The
      > fact is that such parameters are well known ...
      > obviously not to you.
      > <<< THat might be true for you but you only speak
      > for you >>>
      > This with respect to my statement that there are
      > things such as "optical illusions". Of course I
      > speak only for me. I sense that your real purpose
      > here is to be combative, rather than to discuss
      > the matter. What did you think of the website at"
      > http://www.optillusions.com/
      > eduard
    • Show all 21 messages in this topic