4 ms·

There's a good discussion about these, including responses from the makers here: "Valkee Scam" http://shkspr.mobi/blog/index.php/2011/09/valkee-scam/ http://shk

by jot 15y ago

There's a good discussion about these, including responses from the makers here: "Valkee Scam" http://shkspr.mobi/blog/index.php/2011/09/valkee-scam/ http://shkspr.mobi/blog/index.php/2011/09/valkee-scam/

sambeau 15y ago
I disagree with what this bit: The brain isn’t designed to get light in to it. If your brain is receiving light; there’s a hole in your head. That’s not healthy! The brain was not designed. There are a number of holes in your skull and your ears are two of them. Whether or not the brain reacts to light is either proven or disproven depending on whether you find a flaw in this research or can conduct research that finds against it.
- Tichy 15y ago
  It just seems very unlikely - that reactivity to light would serve no purpose and hence could be optimized away. And I think there is something more than "either proven or disproven". If you claim you have an invisible dragon in your garage, it seems very unlikely that you are telling the truth. No need to run experiments for that. (brain and light might be more likely than invisible dragons, just making a point).
  - makmanalp 15y ago
    I think it's unlikely too - however I think the point being made is that maybe it's not completely optimized away yet. We are not at the pinnacle of evolution such that every part we have serves a clear purpose.
    - Tichy 15y ago
      Maybe a better argument would be the other way round: if that positive effect could be had by shining light on the brain, the skull would be more transparent. Anyway, yes, everything is possible. But I am not betting my money on this...
    - sambeau 15y ago
      Evolution does not optimise away. If a mutation serves no purpose it remains unless it is replaced for a reason (or a gene has more than one function—God reuses constants ;-)). What does 'pinnacle of evolution' mean? Sharks and spiders have been around since before dinosaurs so they must be there, surely? Do we reach it if we hit a suitably low level of child mortality? There is an argument that we are already at the pinnacle of evolution for our environment and we will remain there until something changes and we are tested and our children start dying. That mostly happens in chunks… everything is fine, everything is fine, everything is fine, bang meteor! although it can happen in smaller steps. Whether we are still evolving in the rich, medicalised west is a matter of debate. The third world certainly has many children dying but the cause is often not something that natural selection can fix: politics & war.
  - sambeau 15y ago
    Evolution does not optimise away. It removes disadvantageous mutations. I think there is something more than "either proven or disproven". Then, I'm afraid, you are not a scientist. This is not an invisible dragon: they have done an experiment and produced a result. If the effect is accurate, measurable and repeatable then it is fact. If you can scientifically prove the existence of invisible dragons through experiment then I would be prepared to believe in them. Have you ever seen a germ? An electron? A black hole? Here be dragons!
    - Tichy 15y ago
      Somebody posted a link to a comment on this, which seems to imply that the experiment they did is not really published - it might as well be fiction. Do you know the invisible dragon story (I think by Carl Sagan)? It is not the same kind of invisible as an electron. And the bit about science is nonsense. Once you have acquired some knowledge you can use it. For example once you have worked out physics, you can build bridges. You don't need to build 100 bridges for every bridge you want to build to verify that your bridge will stand. It is true, I don't know the claim here is false. All I am saying is that it is unlikely to be true. That is not science of course. Nobody would publish a paper about a belief. There are concepts like Occams Razor that are also part of science. We never know anything anyway - we only have degrees of belief.
      - sambeau 15y ago
        Follow the link and there is a published paper. In fact there are two: one showing their experiment with light emitting earbuds and the other showing possible light receptors buried in the brain. This is not my field (and I assume it is not yours) so I cannot refute their claims. So far they have done an experiment and they have a significant result—in fact it is so significant that it is easily observable (10 out of 13 rather than the expected 6.5). There are three likely reasons for this result 1) Experimental error 2) Placebo effect 3) Brains react to light. The likelihood is probably in that order. If they, or another team, can repeat this finding in a double-blind test then I will be comfortable in accepting it. This is not bad science. It may be questionable business practice to move so soon on this (especially before a double-blind test) but it isn't total quackery.
kingmanaz 15y ago
Years ago I came across an article proposing that the eye first originated as a photosensitive cell in the mass of the brain. At first the cell was binary, it detected light or darkness, and its function had some positive role in the survival of the organism that possessed it. As time passed the cell became specialized and was relocated closer to the skin. Light penetrates skin, tendon, and bone, albeit in ever smaller amounts. It is not impossible that the brain reacts to light.

by jot 15y ago

sambeau 15y ago

I disagree with what this bit: The brain isn’t designed to get light in to it. If your brain is receiving light; there’s a hole in your head. That’s not healthy! The brain was not designed. There are a number of holes in your skull and your ears are two of them. Whether or not the brain reacts to light is either proven or disproven depending on whether you find a flaw in this research or can conduct research that finds against it.

Tichy 15y ago
It just seems very unlikely - that reactivity to light would serve no purpose and hence could be optimized away. And I think there is something more than "either proven or disproven". If you claim you have an invisible dragon in your garage, it seems very unlikely that you are telling the truth. No need to run experiments for that. (brain and light might be more likely than invisible dragons, just making a point).
- makmanalp 15y ago
  I think it's unlikely too - however I think the point being made is that maybe it's not completely optimized away yet. We are not at the pinnacle of evolution such that every part we have serves a clear purpose.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    Maybe a better argument would be the other way round: if that positive effect could be had by shining light on the brain, the skull would be more transparent. Anyway, yes, everything is possible. But I am not betting my money on this...
  - sambeau 15y ago
    Evolution does not optimise away. If a mutation serves no purpose it remains unless it is replaced for a reason (or a gene has more than one function—God reuses constants ;-)). What does 'pinnacle of evolution' mean? Sharks and spiders have been around since before dinosaurs so they must be there, surely? Do we reach it if we hit a suitably low level of child mortality? There is an argument that we are already at the pinnacle of evolution for our environment and we will remain there until something changes and we are tested and our children start dying. That mostly happens in chunks… everything is fine, everything is fine, everything is fine, bang meteor! although it can happen in smaller steps. Whether we are still evolving in the rich, medicalised west is a matter of debate. The third world certainly has many children dying but the cause is often not something that natural selection can fix: politics & war.
- sambeau 15y ago
  Evolution does not optimise away. It removes disadvantageous mutations. I think there is something more than "either proven or disproven". Then, I'm afraid, you are not a scientist. This is not an invisible dragon: they have done an experiment and produced a result. If the effect is accurate, measurable and repeatable then it is fact. If you can scientifically prove the existence of invisible dragons through experiment then I would be prepared to believe in them. Have you ever seen a germ? An electron? A black hole? Here be dragons!
  - Tichy 15y ago
    Somebody posted a link to a comment on this, which seems to imply that the experiment they did is not really published - it might as well be fiction. Do you know the invisible dragon story (I think by Carl Sagan)? It is not the same kind of invisible as an electron. And the bit about science is nonsense. Once you have acquired some knowledge you can use it. For example once you have worked out physics, you can build bridges. You don't need to build 100 bridges for every bridge you want to build to verify that your bridge will stand. It is true, I don't know the claim here is false. All I am saying is that it is unlikely to be true. That is not science of course. Nobody would publish a paper about a belief. There are concepts like Occams Razor that are also part of science. We never know anything anyway - we only have degrees of belief.
    - sambeau 15y ago
      Follow the link and there is a published paper. In fact there are two: one showing their experiment with light emitting earbuds and the other showing possible light receptors buried in the brain. This is not my field (and I assume it is not yours) so I cannot refute their claims. So far they have done an experiment and they have a significant result—in fact it is so significant that it is easily observable (10 out of 13 rather than the expected 6.5). There are three likely reasons for this result 1) Experimental error 2) Placebo effect 3) Brains react to light. The likelihood is probably in that order. If they, or another team, can repeat this finding in a double-blind test then I will be comfortable in accepting it. This is not bad science. It may be questionable business practice to move so soon on this (especially before a double-blind test) but it isn't total quackery.

kingmanaz 15y ago

Years ago I came across an article proposing that the eye first originated as a photosensitive cell in the mass of the brain. At first the cell was binary, it detected light or darkness, and its function had some positive role in the survival of the organism that possessed it. As time passed the cell became specialized and was relocated closer to the skin. Light penetrates skin, tendon, and bone, albeit in ever smaller amounts. It is not impossible that the brain reacts to light.