reply to post by Wolfenz
after 7 pages of searching to see if anyone would mention the Pineal Gland no ONE mention the Pineal gland
That's because it wasn't relevant.
as the Pineal Gland has the same Material make up as the eye ! minus the lens !
No, it's not. The eye is an organ, while the epiphysis cerebri is a gland. They share neither structure nor functionality. The "Third Eye" wasn't
an eye you'd recognize even when it was evolving because it didn't register or perceive visual sensory information. Some of retinal cells may share
a common ancestor with the cells in the pineal, but it was never truly an eye.
Abstract of the paper.
The 2004 Aschoff/Pittendrigh lecture: Theory of the origin of the pineal gland--a tale of conflict and resolution.
A theory is presented that explains the evolution of the pinealocyte from the common ancestral photoreceptor of both the pinealocyte and retinal
photoreceptor. Central to the hypothesis is the previously unrecognized conflict between the two chemistries that define these cells-melatonin
synthesis and retinoid recycling. At the core of the conflict is the formation of adducts composed of two molecules of retinaldehyde and one molecule
of serotonin, analogous to formation in the retina of the toxic bis-retinyl ethanolamine (A2E)
and is Light sensitive and a engorged flow with the key of life Blood
No, it is not.
Photosensitive cells in the retina detect light and directly signal the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), entraining its rhythm to the 24-hour
cycle in nature. Fibers project from the SCN to the paraventricular nuclei (PVN), which relay the circadian signals to the spinal cord
and out via the sympathetic system to superior cervical ganglia (SCG), and from there into the pineal gland.
The Pineal Gland has no photosensitivity, unlike the photosensitive ganglion cells of the retinohypothalamic tract. Those photosensitive cells ARE
found in the retina as well, and they are what carry information on whether it's light or dark to the suprachiasmatic nucleus.
The Parietal Organ
is the actual third eye
found in some species of amphibians, reptiles, fish, etc. Although it didn't see in any sort
of definition, as it was connected to the pineal gland and not (afaik) any visual processing centers. It was merely able to discern the presence or
absence of light. Some advanced adaptations, like the Tuatara's, have basic analogues to a retina and lens... though they don't function the same as
their primary eyes. Lamprey actually have two third eyes
which, given their earlier and more primitive morphology, may have been the normal
state of early ocean dwelling craniads as a means to detect predators swimming above them.
Mammals (Us) and Aves (Birds) do not have parietal organs. We do not have third eyes.
Did you bother to read the link you provided?
reply to post by drew hempel
Poor James Randi -- we can only feel sorry for him at this point:
Two links to a fringe apologist blog crying fowl and one wall of text supposedly from a submission to the Journal of the ASPR 18 years ago criticizing
CSICOP for not being "scientific"... of which James Randi was a member. The JotASPR, btw, is not a scientific (or even academic) journal by any
measure. It's the publication of ASRP, a non-profit society of parapsychology researchers. Got anything against Randi's challenge from a reputable
source - and preferably a more impartial position?
Randi attacked Chunyi Lin, qigong master, before he knew anything about him! haha.
Cute. Sounds like the opening to a cheesy Kung Fu flick when you say it that way.
The Mayo Clinic doctors have recently verified, with double-blind research, that qigong is real -- energy is transmitted out of the eyes.
springforestqigong.com... has the research.
Link to the specific paper, if you would. You gave me a homepage that looks like a 4AM infomercial, and I'm not going to waste time digging through
testimonies and sales pitches site trying to verify your claim. Either of them.
In the meantime, there legitimate studies in the medical literature which relate to the practice of Qigong for medical benefit in pilot studies and
proper trials to attempt to quantify it's effect on general health, cancer patients, diabetes sufferers, etc. Nothing substantial has really been
established above and beyond what contemporary methods of meditative stress reduction, low-impact exercise, a balanced diet, and a confidence boost
wouldn't also provide.
For example, here's a study published in the Oct 2009 Annals of Oncology; Impact of Medical
Qigong on quality of life, fatigue, mood and inflammation in cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial
Hardly what I'd call shooting energy beams from your eyes or "proving the power of Qigong" as anything other than an exotic flavor of physical
therapy and stress reduction. Now, I doubt Mr. Randi would have suggested that Qigong has absolutely no
health improving benefits. However,
claims of vitalism and energy healing which turn the sick away from proper medical care in an effort to sell a product line would meet with a negative
assessment, I'm sure.
[edit on 13-4-2010 by Lasheic]