http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Psychiatrists-Research-Finds-iw-2733973438.html?x=0&.v=1
Colin A. Ross, M.D., has published experimental data that supports his scientific hypothesis that the eyes emit energy that can be captured and measured.
why in the world would yahoo put this in the finance section? who's the idiot or idiots who organize yahoo news?
No clue, but I can see this as an explanation as to why animals advert gazes (including humans). The transmission factor seems unlikely because the primary function of the retina depends on the same set of genes related to photosensitivity, thus reception rather than transmission seems feasible. But... Under such conditions by which the same receptive function is found in a gene or set of genes related to sight (and general photosensitivity) that the same process which receives the energy of a photon could be reversed (only if there is an extra set of molecular reactions that can do so with ambient metabolic energy (thermal, electro-chemical, etc)).
What it could explain is why certain leaders are able to simply stare down opponents regardless of reasoning of his opponents. Consider it a form of browbeating without the need to make it obvious.
Edit: After watching the Doctor's videos it seems rather a simpler explanation does exist rather than depending on a reversal of photosensitivity mechanisms. In this case, he posits that since brain waves can travel quite far since they're ELF in nature, that the physical features of the eye, its socket, and nerve cord make it an ideal means to transmit brain waves. This seems plausible to me and if he's proven it to a certain distance I would say it's pretty damn important. It may explain why eye contact is very touchy for those who are autistic (as they have physical defects in the brain that make certain sorts of sensory input intolerable). As well as, again, explaining the nature of stares of intimidation.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
ladyattis: No clue, but I can see this as an explanation as to why animals advert gazes (including humans). The transmission factor seems unlikely because the primary function of the retina depends on the same set of genes related to photosensitivity, thus reception rather than transmission seems feasible. But... Under such conditions by which the same receptive function is found in a gene or set of genes related to sight (and general photosensitivity) that the same process which receives the energy of a photon could be reversed (only if there is an extra set of molecular reactions that can do so with ambient metabolic energy (thermal, electro-chemical, etc)). What it could explain is why certain leaders are able to simply stare down opponents regardless of reasoning of his opponents. Consider it a form of browbeating without the need to make it obvious. Edit: After watching the Doctor's videos it seems rather a simpler explanation does exist rather than depending on a reversal of photosensitivity mechanisms. In this case, he posits that since brain waves can travel quite far since they're ELF in nature, that the physical features of the eye, its socket, and nerve cord make it an ideal means to transmit brain waves. This seems plausible to me and if he's proven it to a certain distance I would say it's pretty damn important. It may explain why eye contact is very touchy for those who are autistic (as they have physical defects in the brain that make certain sorts of sensory input intolerable). As well as, again, explaining the nature of stares of intimidation.
very nice analysis...
Had me thinking about the arguments for imposition versus reflectionist when it comes to inferring reality. Plauche wrote a sensible paper on how that is a false dicothomy because logic unhitched from either one, meaning, to choose one over the over, has it's downfalls.
The possible downfalls of a completely impositional view is the mind overlays what reality is, so, reality isn't graspable outside the mind influencing itself upon the world.
The possible downfalls of a completely reflectionist view is reality enters through the senses and is reflected in the mind and is knowable but this taken to it's fullest doesn't explain how thought is logical. It leaves thought detached from being logically inferred and having anything to do with grasping reality.
What is known axiomatically, thus, the first principles that are self-evident that can be premised to then demonstrate a deduction are not only of the mind nor of the external world. Axioms are more a combination of the individual mind encountering circumstances in the external world in concert. These two unique natures, ie. mind and rest of world, work in concert therefore in order to come to starting points in which conclusions about reality can then be ascertained.
That's what I thought of after reading the OP.