Question about CI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wirelessly posted

Jiro said:
faire_jour said:
absolutely. If they were doing a study where they implanted CIs in people with normal hearing, i would be first in line.
Click to expand...

of course.... you'd say that because you know it would never happen :lol:

cute but try to be less fake this time.
Click to expand...

not being fake at all. If i could, i would. It wouldn't replicate what my child hears, since i have always been hearing, but it would give me at least a portion of understanding what it is like for her. Why would i not?
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



connected? No way. The electrode is completely inside the cochlea. The cochlea is not part of the brain. Anyone who says otherwise, and knows better, is being disingenious.
Click to expand...

Sorry, FJ. You are as misinformed regarding the neurology as you have ever been.
 
faire_jour said:
not being fake at all. If i could, i would. It wouldn't replicate what my child hears, since i have always been hearing, but it would give me at least a portion of understanding what it is like for her. Why would i not?
Click to expand...

a portion of understanding? so you mean during the whole time... you don't really understand your daughter at all? What about our life experience? We've told many stories and your daughter will be going thru same thing.

you do realize that it's irreversible process. It's against medical ethic to destroy a "healthy" organ.
 
Cloggy said:
And surprise!! Nothing about being attached to the brain!
Well - Surprise to some...
Click to expand...

attached?

Let me ask you this - are you thinking that we're saying CI is directly connected to brain? surgically implanted into brain or something?
 
For all of those that do not understand the distinction between "attached to" and "connected to", let's do a little experiment.

Everyone look at the first finger on your left hand. It moves free and isn't attached to anything other than the rest of your hand. Right? That finger certainly isn't attached to your brain in any way, is it? Of course not. You would know it if your finger was attached to your brain, right?

Lay that finger down on a hard surface. Chop the end of your finger off with a meat cleaver. Hurt, didn't it? You know why? Because the nerves in that finger are connected to the brain. Those traumatized nerves sent a neutral stimulus to the proper area of the brain, the brain interpreted that stimulus into pain based on former experience with the same type of stimulus, sent the message out that pain had been felt, and that messaged geared the peripheral nervous system into action.

When you connect anything to a nerve leading directly into the brain and without which there would be no pathway to conduct stimuli, you have connected that device that becomes part of the pathway, to the brain. Without it, there is no pathway.

So, let's try this once again, using the words in the proper context. The CI is attached to nerves leading to the brain. Therefore, it is connected to the brain.

Now, if the hearing people will simply use the words "attached" and "connected to" in the proper context, and read them that way as well, there will be no more disagreement about things that one doesn't even understand what they are disagreeing with.
 
Jiro said:
attached?

Let me ask you this - are you thinking that we're saying CI is directly connected to brain? surgically implanted into brain or something?
Click to expand...
You have been saying it for the last 3 pages...
Wiggling again? Or trolling?... AH.. Both
 
Jiro said:
How Nucleus 5 Works | Cochlear


What is a Cochlear Implant?


Cochlear Implants


btw Grendel - in case you're unfamiliar with how cellphone works... your cellphone actually receives electrical signal and it converts signal into sound wave and your "fully-functional" ear captures it.

So if you're going to use cellphone example..... HA would be an appropriate comparison, not CI.
Click to expand...

Finally. Someone gets it. Strange that it is a deafie! Aren't hearies supposed too have better use of language?
 
Cloggy said:
You have been saying it for the last 3 pages...
Wiggling again? Or trolling?... AH.. Both
Click to expand...

ah so you have resorted to this.... how unsightly.
 
jillio said:
For all of those that do not understand the distinction between "attached to" and "connected to", let's do a little experiment.

Everyone look at the first finger on your left hand. It moves free and isn't attached to anything other than the rest of your hand. Right? That finger certainly isn't attached to your brain in any way, is it? Of course not. You would know it if your finger was attached to your brain, right?

Lay that finger down on a hard surface. Chop the end of your finger off with a meat cleaver. Hurt, didn't it? You know why? Because the nerves in that finger are connected to the brain. Those traumatized nerves sent a neutral stimulus to the proper area of the brain, the brain interpreted that stimulus into pain based on former experience with the same type of stimulus, sent the message out that pain had been felt, and that messaged geared the peripheral nervous system into action.

When you connect anything to a nerve leading directly into the brain and without which there would be no pathway to conduct stimuli, you have connected that device that becomes part of the pathway, to the brain. Without it, there is no pathway.

So, let's try this once again, using the words in the proper context. The CI is attached to nerves leading to the brain. Therefore, it is connected to the brain.

Now, if the hearing people will simply use the words "attached" and "connected to" in the proper context, and read them that way as well, there will be no more disagreement about things that one doesn't even understand what they are disagreeing with.
Click to expand...

so Cloggy... FJ... Grendel...

are we in agreement that CI is, in fact, connected to brain?
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



either way, neither are connected to your brain!
Click to expand...

So, the end of your finger isn't connected to your brain, either. Did you try my little experiment. I think you will conclude otherwise.
 
Jiro said:
so how are ears/eyes connected to brain? by nerves, correct?

I think it's time you stop being silly and acting like we're saying CI is directly connected to brain with wires. You know very well that anything that connects to nerves is connected to brain. That itself is a truly remarkable feat in medical technology.
Click to expand...

She has no understanding what so ever of the unbelievably complicated subject she is attempting to discuss. This is neurology at it's finest.
 
jillio said:
For all of those that do not understand the distinction between "attached to" and "connected to", let's do a little experiment.

Everyone look at the first finger on your left hand. It moves free and isn't attached to anything other than the rest of your hand. Right? That finger certainly isn't attached to your brain in any way, is it? Of course not. You would know it if your finger was attached to your brain, right?

Lay that finger down on a hard surface. Chop the end of your finger off with a meat cleaver. Hurt, didn't it? You know why? Because the nerves in that finger are connected to the brain. Those traumatized nerves sent a neutral stimulus to the proper area of the brain, the brain interpreted that stimulus into pain based on former experience with the same type of stimulus, sent the me
PHP:
ssage out that pain had been felt, and that messaged geared the peripheral nervous system into action.

When you connect anything to a nerve leading directly into the brain and without which there would be no pathway to conduct stimuli, you have connected that device that becomes part of the pathway, to the brain. Without it, there is no pathway.

So, let's try this once again, using the words in the proper context. The CI is attached to nerves leading to the brain. Therefore, it is connected to the brain.

Now, if the hearing people will simply use the words "attached" and "connected to" in the proper context, and read them that way as well, there will be no more disagreement about things that one doesn't even understand what they are disagreeing with.
Click to expand...

Except for one thng: The CI is not attached to the nerve. It's placed adjacent to the nerve. Near ( very near ). But, not attached. In your lovely meat cleaver analogy, there's space between severed, non-attached finger and intact hand. There's space between electrode and nerve fibers. Not attachment.
 
GrendelQ said:
Except for one thng: The CI is not attached to the nerve. It's placed adjacent to the nerve. Near ( very near ). But, not attached. In your lovely meat cleaver analogy, there's space between severed, non-attached finger and intact hand. There's space between electrode and nerve fibers. Not attachment.
Click to expand...

Near enough that when the electrical impulse is received, the nerve is touching.

Again, let's try to keep this contextual. You are obviously not accounting for synapses. Nerves are always non-touching until activated by stimulus and synapes are breached.
 
Jiro said:
How Nucleus 5 Works | Cochlear


What is a Cochlear Implant?


Cochlear Implants


btw Grendel - in case you're unfamiliar with how cellphone works... your cellphone actually receives electrical signal and it converts signal into sound wave and your "fully-functional" ear captures it.

So if you're going to use cellphone example..... HA would be an appropriate comparison, not CI.
Click to expand...

:laugh2: I was not suggesting that a CI and a cellphone are interchangeable in terms of "sound processing": in the context of your argument that a CI is indeed attached to the brain as described in the people of the eye post, and therefore not possible or difficult to explant for that reason, I pointed out that there is a "connection" of CI to brain only in the same physical sense that a cell phone or pacemaker could be considered "connected" to the brain: all send signals that ultimately reach the brain, but none are attached to brain matter.

And if you are now stretching to say, 'well, you meant that it's attached to a nerve that's attached to the brain, therefore ... ' -- it's not affixed to that nerve either.

But, I think Cloggy's is right, several of you will do some wild maneuvers to avoid backing down from your untenable position of "a CI is attached to the brain".
 
jillio said:
For all of those that do not understand the distinction between "attached to" and "connected to", let's do a little experiment.

Everyone look at the first finger on your left hand. It moves free and isn't attached to anything other than the rest of your hand. Right? That finger certainly isn't attached to your brain in any way, is it? Of course not. You would know it if your finger was attached to your brain, right?

Lay that finger down on a hard surface. Chop the end of your finger off with a meat cleaver. Hurt, didn't it? You know why? Because the nerves in that finger are connected to the brain. Those traumatized nerves sent a neutral stimulus to the proper area of the brain, the brain interpreted that stimulus into pain based on former experience with the same type of stimulus, sent the message out that pain had been felt, and that messaged geared the peripheral nervous system into action.

When you connect anything to a nerve leading directly into the brain and without which there would be no pathway to conduct stimuli, you have connected that device that becomes part of the pathway, to the brain. Without it, there is no pathway.

So, let's try this once again, using the words in the proper context. The CI is attached to nerves leading to the brain. Therefore, it is connected to the brain.

Now, if the hearing people will simply use the words "attached" and "connected to" in the proper context, and read them that way as well, there will be no more disagreement about things that one doesn't even understand what they are disagreeing with.
Click to expand...
"Hearing people" ... Really?? They are mixing up the words....
WOW... The "hearing people" except you have been saying this all along, explaining this and getting insulted by you and company. Like here.
jillio said:
:laugh2: Could you find a more biased source to try to support your nonsense? They know nothing more about the neurology behind a CI than you do!:laugh2:

And the only thing you proved is that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

And then you say the same thing that "the hearing people" have said and present it as if you are the sweet, lovely , sensible peacemaker... I'm sure some people will believe you..

It's about time for you and company to make a sencere Apology to posters like audio fuzzy, faire jour, GrendelQ and others about the insults you gave them.
Don't bother apologising to me.... I won't believe you would mean it....
 
GrendelQ said:
:laugh2: I was not suggesting that a CI and a cellphone are interchangeable in terms of "sound processing": in the context of your argument that a CI is indeed attached to the brain as described in the people of the eye post, and therefore not possible or difficult to explant for that reason, I pointed out that there is a "connection" of CI to brain only in the same physical sense that a cell phone or pacemaker could be considered "connected" to the brain: all send signals that ultimately reach the brain, but none are attached to brain matter.
Click to expand...
but it does not make any sense at all. HA makes sense for your cellphone example... not CI.

GrendelQ said:
And if you are now stretching to say, 'well, you meant that it's attached to a nerve that's attached to the brain, therefore ... ' -- it's not affixed to that nerve either.

But, I think Cloggy's is right, several of you will do some wild maneuvers to avoid backing down from your untenable position of "a CI is attached to the brain".
Click to expand...
stretching?

CI is connected to brain via nerve. period. Same for advanced prosthetic leg with electrodes.
 
Cloggy said:
You have been saying it for the last 3 pages...
Wiggling again? Or trolling?... AH.. Both
Click to expand...

Cloggy said:
"Hearing people" ... Really?? They are mixing up the words....
WOW... The "hearing people" except you have been saying this all along, explaining this and getting insulted by you and company. Like here.


And then you say the same thing that "the hearing people" have said and present it as if you are the sweet, lovely , sensible peacemaker... I'm sure some people will believe you..

It's about time for you and company to make a sencere Apology to posters like audio fuzzy, faire jour, GrendelQ and others about the insults you gave them.
Don't bother apologising to me.... I won't believe you would mean it....
Click to expand...

I smell a ban coming along. bye bye agitator! :wave:
 
Cloggy said:
"Hearing people" ... Really?? They are mixing up the words....
WOW... The "hearing people" except you have been saying this all along, explaining this and getting insulted by you and company. Like here.


And then you say the same thing that "the hearing people" have said and present it as if you are the sweet, lovely , sensible peacemaker... I'm sure some people will believe you..

It's about time for you and company to make a sencere Apology to posters like audio fuzzy, faire jour, GrendelQ and others about the insults you gave them.
Don't bother apologising to me.... I won't believe you would mean it....
Click to expand...

When did any of this become all about you and your little followers? Whew! Such a sense of self importance!:roll:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top