Medical Error/Negligence
Firman
paper or magazine about medical profession made some wrong treatment
or intervention to the patient.
Whether it is causes dead cases or injury to the patient.
read more : http://nurse-ocha.blogspot.com
serebel
Neil Brooks
> Or whether it kills one's ability to to write in simple English.
Lena got an a/k/a??
Otis hitting the crack pipe again??
Atchoo overdid the "rest methods??"
Hm.
Zetsu
Don't be so silly!
One cannot overdid the rest methods. IT is impossible.
Rest is something constant, the normal eye is always in that state,
always shifting and without effort, it is always at a rest. Rest, in
the reference of rest methods, is merely an abscense of strain, not an
addition of anything. You see, to do anything extra requires undue
effort, and an undue effort always lowers the sight!
p.cl...@gmail.com
> >Atchoo overdid the "rest methods??"
>
>
> always shifting and without effort, it is always at a rest.
really? even when accommodating at approximately 5D?
> You see, to do anything extra requires undue
> and an undue effort always lowers the sight!
really? so sight is lowered when accommodating to read at near? how
come acuity is the same when the visual angle is measured at near (the
ciliary muscle is working) or at far (when the ciliary muscle is
relaxed)? How come uncorrected hyperopes have normal visual acuity
even though they are alway "working" to clear their distance vision.
at one point you stated you came to this forum to learn. how come you
always make proclamations of fact about things that you don't know
anything about?
Zetsu
You know perfectly well that your use of the word 'relax' is different
from mine. So you should not say such stupid things.
>really? even when accommodating at approximately 5D?
Yes, a person with perfect sight at 5D, is at rest.
When not at rest, the sight becomes imperfect.
Accomodation does not mean 'unrest', it just means accomodation.
Accomodation can be accompanied by rest, no troubles. Now stop
bringing that stupid argument, please!
Zetsu
I know that when the mind is at rest, the sight is perfect.
That is a fact, demonstratable.
Zetsu
No, sight is not lowered if the eye is at rest.
serebel
Even in blind people? Learn something new every day.
p.cl...@gmail.com
> >really? so sight is lowered when accommodating to read at near?
>
> No, sight is not lowered if the eye is at rest.
beavis,
go away. your show has been cancelled. nobody thinks you're funny
anymore.
Zetsu
Yes, for blind people the cure by rest treatment is precisely the same.
Zetsu
This is not a matter of funny or not funny. This is not a joke, stupid
man.
The cure of imperfect sight is a serious business, and will help many
to restore sight and relieve many of their suffering. If you think of
it as a joke; then so be it you dweeb.
Mike Tyner
"Zetsu" <absolutely...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Yes, for blind people the cure by rest treatment is precisely the same.
Like magic.
-MT
Zetsu
But really cure is only nature functioning in the perfect way, in the
eyemind.
Mike Tyner
"Zetsu" <absolutely...@hotmail.com> wrote
> It is like magic, a bit.
> But really cure is only nature functioning in the perfect way, in the
> eyemind.
From Wiki:
Noting the great similarity of magical thinking in all types of human
societies and eras of recorded history, some cognitive scientists suggest
that these ways of thinking are intrinsic to humanity. Many articles in
neuroscience have shown that the human brain excels at pattern matching, but
that humans do not have a good filter for distinguishing between perceived
patterns and actual patterns. This makes good sense from an evolutionary
perspective: if you see a pattern that might indicate that there is a tiger
hiding in the long grass, you are better off assuming that there is one
there than waiting for better evidence. Likewise, if you get sick after
eating a certain berry, it is a safer bet to assume that the berry caused
the sickness. A consequence, however, is that people often see
"relationships" between actions that don't actually exist, creating a
magical belief.
Much scientific research in cognitive science supports this view. For
example, people tend to seek confirmation of their hypotheses, rather than
seeking refutation as in the scientific method - an example of confirmation
bias. Many of these heuristics are believed to be imbedded into the human
psyche. People are also reluctant to change their beliefs, even when
presented with evidence, and often prefer to believe contradictory things
rather than change pre-existing beliefs. This phenomenon is known as belief
perseverance, which may lead to cognitive dissonance.
Magical thinking is often intensified in mental illnesses such as
obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), clinical depression or schizotypal
personality disorder.[citation needed] In each it can take a different form
peculiar to the particular illness. In OCD, it is often used in ritual
fashion to ameliorate the dread and risk of various dangerous possibilities,
regardless of whether it has real effects on the object of fear. It
contributes more to peace of mind, in that the person now feels they can
engage in a risky activity more safely. This is not unlike magical thinking
in non-afflicted individuals; lucky garments and activities are common in
the sports world. It begins to interfere with life when those activities
deemed risky are routine and everyday, such as meeting others, using a
public toilet, crossing a busy intersection, or eating. It is important to
note, however, that not all people with OCD engage in a strict form of
magical thinking, as many are fully conscious that the rationalizations with
which they justify their obsessions or compulsions to themselves and others
are not 'reasonable' in an ordinary sense of that word.
Psychometric evidence has been obtained showing a correlation between
psychosis and magical thinking. It has been found that those who scored
highest on magical thinking showed a predisposition to psychosis (Eckblad &
Chapman, 1983). Schizophrenic patients scored higher on a magical thinking
scale than non-schizophrenic psychiatric patients or normal subjects (George
& Neufeld, 1987). Subjects believing in extraordinary phenomena scored
higher on the Schizophrenia subscale of the MMPI than non-believers
(Windholz & Diamant, 1974). Research has also shown that paranormal beliefs,
including magical thinking, are significantly and positively correlated with
people experiencing psychosis from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (e.g.,
Thalbourne and French, 1995).
Zetsu
You know, like David Copperfield and David Blaine and Harry Potter!
Mike Tyner
"Zetsu" <Kyaz...@googlemail.com> wrote
>I thought magic was the stuff that magicians and witches can do.
> You know, like David Copperfield and David Blaine and Harry Potter!
In magic, the magician tricks you.
In magical thinking, you trick yourself.
Then you deny it.
-MT
Zetsu
In a way Mike, you're analogy using magical thinking and tricking
yourself and the rest methods which are used in the cure of imperfect
sight is very accurate. The rest methods are just a few ways of
tricking the mind into curing the sight, if you like it that way. Mind
tricks are a help to the sight, that is the by the aids of perfect
imagination and memory to 'trick' the sight into going perfect. But
the self-tricking is not done unintentionally, as in the case of a
magician->audience but instead it is done intentionally.
Mike Tyner
"Zetsu" <absolutely...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Mind
> tricks are a help to the sight, that is the by the aids of perfect
> imagination and memory to 'trick' the sight into going perfect.
That's magical thinking, for sure. You got it.
-MT
Nicolaas Hawkins
wrote in <news:rMKdncmNSdEBw5ja...@giganews.com>:
I have another name for it, but common decency forbids ....
--
Nicolaas.
... Never mess up an apology with an excuse.
Zetsu
with perfect sight, and that is a demonstrated truth, for anyone who
is willing to demonstrate.
Dr. Leukoma
Demonstrate means to show by reasoning. To prove. To explain by
using examples and experiments.
What you are suggesting has nothing to do with the verb
"demonstrate." It's utter nonsense.
Zetsu
another person. The reasoning is apparent once the demonstration is
performed.
Dr. Leukoma
This is not the usual and customary meaning of the word. The fact is
that you cannot demonstrate this to anybody, and so you must play word
games to go along with your mind games.
Zetsu
It is only of benefit to you, the demonstration.
To convince another person of it with talk is futile and useless as a
form of evidence. To compel another person to demonstrate it to
themselves is reasonable. The only thing you should be concerned with
is in curing your own sight; and then you may go on to help others.
Dr. Leukoma
To convince... To compel.
I would rather be convinced than compelled. If you were to practice
what you preach, then you wouldn't feel "compelled" to be here
spouting nonsense.
Zetsu
that you should feel compelled demonstrate anything at all; but I am
not concerned with what you believe in or do not believe in. I am
interested in those who are lost as a result of your incompetence and
have come here as the followup. I am here to aid these people and
direct them to the true cure of the defective sight.
For those who desire proof; they should demonstrate it. For those who
desire perfect sight, they should begin the rest treatments with
intelligence.
Dr. Leukoma
> I am not here to prove anything to anyone, thus it is not mandatory
> that you should feel compelled demonstrate anything at all; but I am
> not concerned with what you believe in or do not believe in. I am
> interested in those who are lost as a result of your incompetence and
> have come here as the followup. I am here to aid these people and
> direct them to the true cure of the defective sight.
...through the misuse and abuse of the English language.
> For those who desire proof; they should demonstrate it. For those who
> desire perfect sight, they should begin the rest treatments with
> intelligence.
...which adds up to total nonsense. I gather that belief in the "rest
treatments" is incompatible with intelligence and reason.
Zetsu
An efficient use of rest methods requires a proficiency with
intelligence and reason; that is the intelligence and reason found in
common sense.
Neil Brooks
You're missing the point, Dr. G. I fear others may be, too.
What Zetsu, Otis, AND Lena are saying is that it only matters if you
THINK you are seeing better. Using the diet analogy: as long as you
BELIEVE that you are lighter or slimmer, then that is all that's
important to them.
You, on the other hand, actually seek to make people better,
objectively.
Atchoo, Scrotis, and Lena want people to BELIEVE that their cancer is
gone ... even as it kills them. You and YOUR ilk actually want to
treat the cancer.
Vastly different standard.
Where they fall utterly flat is in understanding that this approach is
the ANTITHESIS of science, and doesn't belong on this board.
Zetsu
>THINK you are seeing better.
How the heck can a person only "think" they see better, unless they
actually do? You either have perfect sight, and know it, or you don't.
Neil Brooks
No.
Again, here's one of your basic problems. You're never in doubt, but
you are often wrong.
People can think that they are pink elephants. The mind is a very
powerful tool. Unfortunately, it doesn't always HAVE the influence
that people would like to believe it does.
My mother THINKS that she is, literally, taller after a session of
yoga. That doesn't seem to bear up well under actual MEASUREMENT
(look that up some time, will you?), though.
Plus, please don't make me explain, AGAIN, the difference between
subjective and objective, or blur interpretation and improved visual
acuity.
You seem simply NOT to get it.
But ... as always ... and LIKE Scrotis and Lenaski, that DOESN'T seem
to stop you from chiming in incessantly.
Shame, really.
RT
Neil Brooks <neil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You're missing the point, Dr. G. I fear others may be, too.
>
> What Zetsu, Otis, AND Lena are saying is that it only matters if you
> THINK you are seeing better. Using the diet analogy: as long as you
> BELIEVE that you are lighter or slimmer, then that is all that's
> important to them.
>
> You, on the other hand, actually seek to make people better,
> objectively.
>
> Atchoo, Scrotis, and Lena want people to BELIEVE that their cancer is
> gone ... even as it kills them. You and YOUR ilk actually want to
> treat the cancer.
>
> Vastly different standard.
>
> Where they fall utterly flat is in understanding that this approach is
> the ANTITHESIS of science, and doesn't belong on this board.
Actually Neil you are missing the point here.
(Disclaimer: I'm not "taking sides.")
Vision is qualitative. If a person thinks they are seeing better then
they are. Why do you need quantifiable proof for something you are
experiencing directly? Objective measurements often have no correlation
with the quality of vision. That is why OD's sometimes can't explain why
someone's having vision problems. Everything may look normal, but still
the patient complains of blurry vision. Or, for example, two people with
the same measure of astigmatism may have very different levels of visual
complaint.
Cancer is not analogous unless you are talking about eye disease that is
fatal or leads to blindness if left untreated. Most refractive errors, I
believe, are not due to disease (Disclaimer: I am not an eye care
professional, oh yeah, neither are you). In fact, as is stated over and
over on this board, refractive errors, whether treated or not, do not
progress or get worse because of (non)treatment. If you are to use the
cancer analogy, then you must qualify what kinds of eye "treatments" you
are talking about.
Science can't explain or treat everything. For example, with cancer, to
use your example, why is it that some people respond to "scientific"
treatments and others do not? You don't think that frame of mind (I'm
feeling/getting better) has anything to do with it? Good doctors who
I've met treat the mind as well as the disease. How patients feel about
themselves, the disease, the prognosis is ALL a part of the treatment.
Neither medicine nor treatment is objective science. If it were,
everyone would be cured with exactly the same treatment plan. And new
treatments wouldn't be sought, or old ones discounted, nor would drugs,
prescribed to millions one day, be pulled by the FDA the next. It's all
one big experiment, isn't it?
Your understanding of "science" is very limited.
Perhaps you mean the "scientific method"? If that's the case, then you
should say so.
--
~RT
Neil Brooks
> In article <1191603618.486572.88...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You're missing the point, Dr. G. I fear others may be, too.
>
> > What Zetsu, Otis, AND Lena are saying is that it only matters if you
> > THINK you are seeing better. Using the diet analogy: as long as you
> > BELIEVE that you are lighter or slimmer, then that is all that's
> > important to them.
>
> > You, on the other hand, actually seek to make people better,
> > objectively.
>
> > Atchoo, Scrotis, and Lena want people to BELIEVE that their cancer is
> > gone ... even as it kills them. You and YOUR ilk actually want to
> > treat the cancer.
>
> > Vastly different standard.
>
> > Where they fall utterly flat is in understanding that this approach is
> > the ANTITHESIS of science, and doesn't belong on this board.
>
> Actually Neil you are missing the point here.
> (Disclaimer: I'm not "taking sides.")
Unless, of course, you are, but .... I digress....
> Vision is qualitative. If a person thinks they are seeing better then
> they are.
Hypothesis contrary to fact. Vision can be measured subjectively and
OBJECTIVELY. Just because I FEEL taller after a healthy breakfast
does NOT mean that I am.
> Why do you need quantifiable proof for something you are
> experiencing directly?
I'm sorry, but the answer to that is really quite obvious. Mike Tyner
uses elephant repellent in his yard. He has NOT had an elephant
sighting (still true, Mike??). HE may assert cause and effect there,
but ... is probably dead ... assed ... wrong.
Still with me?
> Objective measurements often have no correlation
> with the quality of vision. That is why OD's sometimes can't explain why
> someone's having vision problems. Everything may look normal, but still
> the patient complains of blurry vision. Or, for example, two people with
> the same measure of astigmatism may have very different levels of visual
> complaint.
Why do I get the feeling that you're simply making up examples ...
with no regard for their bases in fact? Why do I get the feeling that
you're in a pre-aberrometry mindset, where previously thought
"qualitative" differences can now be MUCH MORE readily "quantified?"
But ... I'm not taking sides....
[snip]
> Science can't explain or treat everything. For example, with cancer, to
> use your example, why is it that some people respond to "scientific"
> treatments and others do not? You don't think that frame of mind (I'm
> feeling/getting better) has anything to do with it? Good doctors who
> I've met treat the mind as well as the disease. How patients feel about
> themselves, the disease, the prognosis is ALL a part of the treatment.
When you talk about something akin to psychoneuroimmunology, that is
where "holistic" inputs lead to OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE changes in the
body. The trick is not to FEEL LIKE you've kicked cancer/gotten
taller/changed your eye color, or ... whatever. The "trick" is to
actually DO it (objectively verifiable).
As a daily practice meditator and yoga guy ... I'm all over the mind-
body connection ... but ... yoga and meditation are NOT making me
taller, and I'm making NO SUCH claims.
Others here are.
> Neither medicine nor treatment is objective science. If it were,
> everyone would be cured with exactly the same treatment plan. And new
> treatments wouldn't be sought, or old ones discounted, nor would drugs,
> prescribed to millions one day, be pulled by the FDA the next. It's all
> one big experiment, isn't it?
>
> Your understanding of "science" is very limited.
Thanks. I tend to disagree, but ... that's neither here nor there.
You seem, in effect, to be asserting the argument of "irreducible
complexity --" something to which I will likely NEVER subscribe.
There ARE many vision-related issues as yet unanswered. That does NOT
mean that they don't have "hard and fast" answers that will yet be
teased out ... via the scientific method.
> Perhaps you mean the "scientific method"? If that's the case, then you
> should say so.
I have ... on about a thousand occasions. I've even linked to its
definition ... about a thousand times ... to help Otis learn to tie
his shoes ... and other such rudimentary lessons.
Neil Brooks
> When you have perfect sight, you'll know.
> Everything is effortless, you can see super depth, crystal clear.
> You just know; you don't need to measure.
I ate a hearty breakfast this morning. I FEEL much taller. I KNOW
I'm much taller.
Why doesn't that damned tape measure agree with me.
Ah, well. No matter. The fact that I FEEL taller is enough ....
right, Atchoo?
Incidentally, Gesundheit!
Ms.Brainy
>
> You're missing the point, Dr. G. I fear others may be, too.
>
> What Zetsu, Otis, AND Lena are saying is that it only matters if you
> THINK you are seeing better. Using the diet analogy: as long as you
> BELIEVE that you are lighter or slimmer, then that is all that's
> important to them.
>
> You, on the other hand, actually seek to make people better,
> objectively.
>
This explains why we have here a collection of frustrated wannabe
pilots. They think that imagining "perfect vision" will get them the
desired pilot license, but of course they are destined to get crushed
when reality slaps on their face and wakes them up.
Not only that they won't pass the objective test measuring their
refractive state (as Otis prefers to call it), they will not pass the
SUBJECTIVE vision test either. They will not be able to read the
letters/symbols on the chart, regardless of how good they feel about
themselves and what they believe their vision is.
Of course, they will blame the Snellen, the lighting, the tester, the
airforce and the entire optometry establishment. The fact will remain
-- they will not be able to pass the vision test or demonstrate to
others what they believe they have demonstrated to themselves.
Period.
I think Zetsu will change his mind again when he grows up to apply for
his new dream of becoming a pilot, and will end up working at the back
room of the optometric shop.
RT
Neil Brooks <neil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why do I get the feeling that you're simply making up examples ...
> with no regard for their bases in fact? Why do I get the feeling that
> you're in a pre-aberrometry mindset, where previously thought
> "qualitative" differences can now be MUCH MORE readily "quantified?"
Because you believe that quantified measurements always give you the
definitive answer. Ask Dr. G about his experiences with post-LASIK
patients and if all complaints are verifiable by objective measure, and
even when they are, if they are treatable.
> As a daily practice meditator and yoga guy ...
> I'm all over the mind-
> body connection ..
I don't see any evidence from how or what you write on this NG that you
have any understanding of "mind-body" connection or that you practice
anything other than ugly hateful words delivered through anger. Anyone
can go to yoga class and "meditate," that doesn't make you a
practitioner.
> but ... yoga and meditation are NOT making me
> taller, and I'm making NO SUCH claims. Others here are.
That's not how I read it. If you're talking about Zetsu, he either
spewing crap that is totally meaningless that even he doesn't understand
or have direct experience with or he's cutting and pasting from other
people's texts. Do you engage him because it makes you feel smart?
--
~RT
Neil Brooks
> In article <1191608034.162897.249...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why do I get the feeling that you're simply making up examples ...
> > with no regard for their bases in fact? Why do I get the feeling that
> > you're in a pre-aberrometry mindset, where previously thought
> > "qualitative" differences can now be MUCH MORE readily "quantified?"
>
> Because you believe that quantified measurements always give you the
> definitive answer. Ask Dr. G about his experiences with post-LASIK
> patients and if all complaints are verifiable by objective measure, and
> even when they are, if they are treatable.
I don't speak in terms of all-or-nothing. That would be what you just
did.
> > As a daily practice meditator and yoga guy ...
> > I'm all over the mind-
> > body connection ..
>
> I don't see any evidence from how or what you write on this NG that you
> have any understanding of "mind-body" connection or that you practice
> anything other than ugly hateful words delivered through anger. Anyone
> can go to yoga class and "meditate," that doesn't make you a
> practitioner.
Ouch.
Oh, well. Convincing you of .... well ... anything ... wasn't on
today's "to-do" list anyway.
> > but ... yoga and meditation are NOT making me
> > taller, and I'm making NO SUCH claims. Others here are.
>
> That's not how I read it. If you're talking about Zetsu, he either
> spewing crap that is totally meaningless that even he doesn't understand
> or have direct experience with or he's cutting and pasting from other
> people's texts. Do you engage him because it makes you feel smart?
Wouldn't it be quicker and easier if you were simply to tell me?
I'll wait right here.
Thanks, Doc.
Zetsu
>spewing crap that is totally meaningless that even he doesn't understand
>or have direct experience with or he's cutting and pasting from other
As a matter of fact I am not doing either of these things. I never
copy and paste from websites unless I add the reference at the end.
And I am not spewing anything that I do not understand first myself, I
have never ever ever done that. So you should not make up these lies
about me!
Zetsu
> They think that imagining "perfect vision" will get them the
> desired pilot license, but of course they are destined to get crushed
> when reality slaps on their face and wakes them up.
Yes, imagining perfect vision is one of the greatest ways by which a
person can rest their mind and cure their imperfect sight. It is
impossible to see perfectly when you are unable to imagine perfectly;
think about it. All the images we see aren't 'out there', they're just
all in our head. The light rays mean nothing until the eyes imagine a
picture using them; Imagination is paramount.
> Not only that they won't pass the objective test measuring their
> refractive state (as Otis prefers to call it), they will not pass the
> SUBJECTIVE vision test either. They will not be able to read the
> letters/symbols on the chart, regardless of how good they feel about
> themselves and what they believe their vision is.
If hey are truly cured, they will have forgotten completely all about
their vision, and about the way in which they were cured. There will
be no 'belief' in their vision; there is no need. The cure of
imperfect sight is a strange thing; when the person attains perfect
sight, it becomes a small issue, nothing important. For a child to
attain perfect sight, a doctor once said that this will only be the
very smallest, minutest level of achievement in his life.
> Of course, they will blame the Snellen, the lighting, the tester, the
> airforce and the entire optometry establishment.
Of course the lighting and the tester will have an effect on a person.
The less the lighting, the less the depth of field effect, and the
more a person with imperfect sight strains to see. IF the person is
not completely cured, then it is very easy to fall back into strain,
and have some short relapses in discouraging and uncomfortable
conditions; the patient can also be made nervous by the tester; now
this is really fatal to the sight.
That is why a real cure will mean that the person is able to see in
all unfavourable conditions; and to turn the worst of pessiums into
the greatest of optimums. Then the sight of the person is truly
invincible; unharmed by the prior conditions which had once been
straining.
>
> I think Zetsu will change his mind again when he grows up to apply for
> his new dream of becoming a pilot, and will end up working at the back
> room of the optometric shop.
Oh, that could be! Who can predict what the future holds for us.
Zetsu
>The light rays mean nothing until the eyes imagine a
>picture using them; Imagination is paramount.
I mean: 'until the mind imagines a picture'
Dr. Leukoma
> Because you believe that quantified measurements always give you the
> definitive answer. Ask Dr. G about his experiences with post-LASIK
> patients and if all complaints are verifiable by objective measure, and
> even when they are, if they are treatable.
I believe that most complaints have an objective basis, and that most
are treatable. I believe that the common yardsticks by which such
things are measured are going to be replaced by better methods. We
are better able to more precisely measure how the eye performs as an
optical device, but the image is still modulated by the brain. So, in
that sense, objective measurements do not always yield the total
picture. But they do give important clues.
Ms.Brainy
>
> I believe that most complaints have an objective basis, and that most
> are treatable. I believe that the common yardsticks by which such
> things are measured are going to be replaced by better methods. We
> are better able to more precisely measure how the eye performs as an
> optical device, but the image is still modulated by the brain. So, in
> that sense, objective measurements do not always yield the total
> picture. But they do give important clues.
Sure, the brain processes the image it receives from the eye through
the optic nerve, but can it process an image that it does NOT
receive? For instance, if there is no clear image on the retina of
the letter E on the chart, can the brain make a decision that it's an
E, but not B, F, H etc without simply guessing by chance (i.e.
sometimes guessing right, sometimes failing to identify the image).
And if the eye does not register any image, can the brain produce it
by processing information that it does not receive?
I think the answer is clear.
Dr. Leukoma
> Sure, the brain processes the image it receives from the eye through
> the optic nerve, but can it process an image that it does NOT
> receive? For instance, if there is no clear image on the retina of
> the letter E on the chart, can the brain make a decision that it's an
> E, but not B, F, H etc without simply guessing by chance (i.e.
> sometimes guessing right, sometimes failing to identify the image).
> And if the eye does not register any image, can the brain produce it
> by processing information that it does not receive?
>
> I think the answer is clear.
Please don't try to read things into my answers that simply aren't
there.
Of course neural processing is absolutely dependent on the resolution
of the retinal image. My point is that there is no set of objective
measurements that accounts for every subject visual perception.
RT
"Ms.Brainy" <mikab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And if the eye does not register any image, can the brain produce it
> by processing information that it does not receive?
Neil's can. Wasn't it Neil who says he can read street signs from
further away than anyone he knows even though the image is fuzzy and he
can't really read them. (Since he doesn't archive his messages on
Google, I can't verify this although I tried a search.)
> I think the answer is clear.
Well, that's because you're the brain. Ask an eye and you might get a
different answer.
--
~RT
Zetsu
>the optic nerve, but can it process an image that it does NOT
>receive?
Yes, that's described as an ILLUSION.
For instance, if there is no clear image on the retina of
>the letter E on the chart, can the brain make a decision that it's an
>E, but not B, F, H etc without simply guessing by chance (i.e.
>sometimes guessing right, sometimes failing to identify the image).
Yes, that's called your IMAGINATION.
>And if the eye does not register any image, can the brain produce it
>by processing information that it does not receive?
If the eye does not register an image, the brain cannot process
nothing. But it is rare for an eye to have lost completely the
perception of light. Bates once stated something along the lines of 'I
cannot set any limits upon the healing powers of the vision except
where the eye itself has been completely removed from its socket'. It
is one of my favorite quotes!
>I think the answer is clear.
The answer is clear; but you are unable to see it.
Zetsu
>further away than anyone he knows even though the image is fuzzy
Yeah he did. He keeps using that meaningless argument.
Ms.Brainy
I didn't read into your message what wasn't there. My comment was
actually directed to those who claim the eye-mind connection can make
up for image that is not on the retina, i.e. that the brain (or
"mind", as they call it) can see without receiving the proper input
from the eye thru the optic nerve.
I agree with your comments. I disagree though with Zestu, Lena, RT et
al.
Zetsu
>of the retinal image.
And then what do you make of MEMORY?
Ms.Brainy
Can you pass a vision test and get the pilot license with only memory,
imagination, illusion etc.?
Ms.Brainy
> In article <1191614724.342304.107...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "Ms.Brainy" <mikabra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And if the eye does not register any image, can the brain produce it
> > by processing information that it does not receive?
>
> Neil's can. Wasn't it Neil who says he can read street signs from
> further away than anyone he knows even though the image is fuzzy and he
> can't really read them.
Neil actually said that he can read signs of streets which he is
familiar with. I experience the same. Neither Neil nor I (or anybody
else) can guess a name of a street which the eye does not see and the
person is not familiar with.
Zetsu
> actually directed to those who claim the eye-mind connection can make
> up for image that is not on the retina, i.e. that the brain (or
> "mind", as they call it) can see without receiving the proper input
> from the eye thru the optic nerve.
No, when the mind is at the normal state, the retinal image also
becomes normal. But surely you are not challenging or denying the
EXISTENCE of illusions? Perfect sight or imperfect, there are many
illusions in vision. These illusions are all created by the mind. Look
read this, it might interest you -
"Illusions of Normal Sight
By W. H. Bates, M.D.
AN illusion is defined by the dictionary to be something which does
not exist. Illusions are not seen, they are imagined. One cannot have
perfect sight without illusions.
CENTRAL FIXATION.-When the sight is normal one is always able to
demonstrate that things regarded are seen best while those not
regarded are always seen worse. With Central Fixation if one
recognizes or sees a letter correctly, all other letters are seen
worse. With the best vision that can be obtained it can be
demonstrated that one cannot see a letter or any other object
perfectly without seeing one part best. No matter how large or how
small the letter or object may be, it is impossible to see it
perfectly without Central Fixation. Many people believe that when they
look at a small letter or a. small period that they see it all at
once; but, when you notice the facts, one finds that to see or to try
to see a letter, a number of letters all per-fectly, the vision
becomes modified or imperfect. Some persons with unusually good vision
can read the Snellen Test Card so rapidly that they have the
impression that they see all the letters perfectly at the same time.
It requires, in some cases, considerable trouble to demonstrate that
this is impossible. In some obstinate cases it has required not only
some hours but some days to prove that this is a fact. The letters of
the Snellen Test Card are equally black. To see one blacker than the
others, or a part of a letter blacker than the rest of it, is seeing
something which is not so. The large letters and the small letters are
printed in the same ink and all are equally black and although one
cannot read the letters unless they see them by Central Fixation it is
still, nevertheless, an illusion. One should emphasize the fact that
it is possible to have illusions or that one cannot see perfectly
unless the illusion of Central Fixation can be demonstrated.
SWINGING.-When a small letter of the Snellen Test Card can be seen
perfectly and continuously it can be demonstrated that the letter is
moving from side to aide about its own width or less or that it is
moving in other directions. To look fixedly at a letter and try to
imagine one point of the letter is seen continuously, can be
demonstrated to be impossible. One cannot obtain perfect sight by
staring or trying to see things or imagine things as stationary. I
have never seen this truth stated in any publication. It is just as
important an illusion as is CENTRAL FIXATION in order to have perfect
sight continuously. It can be demon-strated that all persons with
imperfect sight stare, concentrate or try to see letters stationary.
The illusion that the letter is moving, when the sight is normal, is
brought about by the normal eye to avoid the stare and the strain of
seeing things imperfectly. The point of fixation changes continuously,
easily.
When one looks to the right of the letter, the letter is to the left
of where you are looking. If you look to the left of a letter the
letter is to the right of where you are looking. Every time your eyes
move to the right, the letter moves to the left. Every time your eyes
move to the left the letter moves to the right and by alternately
looking from one to the other side of a letter one becomes able to
imagine the illusion that the letter is moving from side to side. When
reading rapidly one does not have time to demonstrate that each
individual letter is moving. Here again the imagination is respon-
sible for the illusion of the swing. The letters do not really move,
we only imagine it; and, unless we can imagine a letter moving
continuously we are unable to see it with normal sight continuously.
This is a truth; it has no exceptions. It is a necessary part of
normal vision, and yet it has not, to my knowledge, been pub-lished in
any book or periodical. People who write works on physiological optics
have much to learn. So many of my patients who have been benefited by
my methods have asked me: "Why didn't Helmholtz, Donders and all those
other authorities publish the truths that you have discovered?" Nearly
all ophthalmologists put glasses on people because that is all they
know. I can recall the time when that was all I knew. If a patient
left the office without a prescription for glasses it was not my
fault. Now when persons with imperfect sight, wearing glasses, become
able to practice CENTRAL FIXATION and the OPTICAL SWING in the right
way, their vision becomes normal without glasses.
HALOS.-When the sight is normal and when one regards a letter of the
Snellen Card with a white center, the white part of the letter appears
whiter than it really is and whiter than the rest of the card. I use
the word Halos for this illusion. This is an illusion which can be
demonstrated quite readily by covering over the black part of a letter
with a screen with an opening slightly smaller than the white part of
the letter, which permits the center of the letter to be observed.
When this is done the white center of the letter is the same shade of
whiteness as the rest of the card. Some people can imagine the
illusion when it is described to them. When reading fine print the
spaces between the lines appear whiter than the rest of the card, but
only when the vision is good. As a general rule when one can imagine
these white spaces between the lines are whiter than the rest of the
card, Halos, the black appears more perfectly black and the letters
can be read with normal vision. Halos are imagined, not seen.
Imagination of the illusion of the Halos is a quick cure of myopia and
astig-matism, as well as other cases of imperfect sight.
I am annoyed with myself when I realize how many years it required
before I had brains enough to notice the Halos. It seems to me that I
must have been awfully stupid to have failed to have noticed them for
such a long time. All persons who have normal sight are always able to
demonstrate the Halos. All persons with imperfect sight are cured,
temporarily or permanently, when they become able to imagine the
Halos.
BLINKING AND RESTING THE EYES.-By blinking is meant frequent closing
of the eyes.. It is usually done so rapidly that it is not
conspicuous. Many persons with normal sight have the illusion that
they do not blink. They believe their eyes are always at rest and that
their eyes are continually open all the time. When their attention is
called to the facts it is usually readily demonstrated with persons
with normal vision. In one case the patient was able to distinguish a
small letter on the bottom line at twenty feet, 20/10. He was positive
that he saw the letter, continuously. It was found by observing the
movements of his eyes that he did two things. First: He closed and
opened his eyes frequently, without being conscious of the fact. Sec-
ondly: He looked some distance away from the letter and back again and
did it so quickly that he was not aware that he did it. The facts can
also be demonstrated, perhaps more accurately, with the,help of moving
pictures. In all cases where the sight was normal, blinking occurred
almost every second. In some seconds the eyes were opened and closed
five times. Blinking occurs more frequently with the normal eye when
the light is imperfect or when the conditions are unfavorable for
perfect sight. When the light is good or the conditions most favorable
for good sight, blinking occurs at less frequent intervals. Persons
with imperfect sight do not rest their eyes as often as those with
normal vision. When they are encouraged to blink more frequently their
sight usually improves."
Zetsu
>imagination, illusion etc.?
Yes, if you are able to use these methods of rest with proficiency,
that is by imagining or remembering something perfectly, and to cure
your sight.
Zetsu
>familiar with. I experience the same.
When you read the signs of streets perfectly, I mean with perfect
sight (you see it very sharp, black, clear), you ARE SEEING them
perfectly. There is no such thing as blur interpretation in the cure
of imperfect sight; you either see or you don't see.
Zetsu
>guess a name of a street which the eye
>does not see and the person is not familiar with.
Exactly, so you are not seeing perfectly. There is no such thing as
seeing something unfamiliar, all things seen are familiar if they can
be seen.
Dr. Leukoma
> When you read the signs of streets perfectly, I mean with perfect
> sight (you see it very sharp, black, clear), you ARE SEEING them
> perfectly. There is no such thing as blur interpretation in the cure
> of imperfect sight; you either see or you don't see.
You are speaking in tautologies. You are not adding anything.
Ms.Brainy
Indeed, with perfect sight you SEE sharp, black and clear images. I
agree, you either see or you don't see. With imagination you IMAGINE
an image, but it's not the real object you are looking at.
Furthermore, you cannot use memory to "see" an object you are not
familiar with.
When I drive on Oracle Road I need to turn right on Ina Road. Before
I can clearly read "Ina" I know where I have to turn. Ina is not
Orange Grove, River Road, Campbell, etc. I can see THAT.
But if I did not know that there was an "Ina" Road, I would not be
able to tell you the name of the road until I got closer. No
imagination or memory could have revealed to me the name of that road
from that distance.
Dr. Leukoma
> On Oct 5, 8:49 am, "Dr. Leukoma" <d...@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 5, 10:46 am, Zetsu <Kyazek...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I am not here to prove anything to anyone, thus it is not mandatory
> > > that you should feel compelled demonstrate anything at all; but I am
> > > not concerned with what you believe in or do not believe in. I am
> > > interested in those who are lost as a result of your incompetence and
> > > have come here as the followup. I am here to aid these people and
> > > direct them to the true cure of the defective sight.
>
> > ...through the misuse and abuse of the English language.
>
> > > For those who desire proof; they should demonstrate it. For those who
> > > desire perfect sight, they should begin the rest treatments with
> > > intelligence.
>
> > ...which adds up to total nonsense. I gather that belief in the "rest
> > treatments" is incompatible with intelligence and reason.
>
> You're missing the point, Dr. G. I fear others may be, too.
>
> What Zetsu, Otis, AND Lena are saying is that it only matters if you
> THINK you are seeing better. Using the diet analogy: as long as you
> BELIEVE that you are lighter or slimmer, then that is all that's
> important to them.
>
> You, on the other hand, actually seek to make people better,
> objectively.
>
> gone ... even as it kills them. You and YOUR ilk actually want to
> treat the cancer.
>
> Vastly different standard.
>
> Where they fall utterly flat is in understanding that this approach is
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are separate threads. On the one hand there is the issue of not
wanting to have visual standards imposed upon from the outside by the
eye professionals.
The other discussion is the methods used to "cure" vision problems
such as myopia, macular degeneration, cataracts, etc. using
"imagination," "rest methods," "plus lenses," and various other shams.
These people are basically attracted to each other.
Zetsu
> Indeed, with perfect sight you SEE sharp, black and clear images. I
> agree, you either see or you don't see. With imagination you IMAGINE
> an image, but it's not the real object you are looking at.
Yes, an illusion.
> Furthermore, you cannot use memory to "see" an object you are not
> familiar with.
Yes, you can remember a familiar object perfectly to see the
unfamiliar object perfectly. I know what you are saying, but it is
incorrect.
> When I drive on Oracle Road I need to turn right on Ina Road. Before
> I can clearly read "Ina" I know where I have to turn. Ina is not
> Orange Grove, River Road, Campbell, etc. I can see THAT.
> But if I did not know that there was an "Ina" Road, I would not be
> able to tell you the name of the road until I got closer. No
> imagination or memory could have revealed to me the name of that road
> from that distance.
Think of it this way Brainy. What is the word 'Ina' made up of - if
not just infinitesimally small periods of black colour? That's all it
is. So, if you can imagine a period perfectly, you can also see the
sign perfectly. That isn't guesswork, that is seeing. You either see
or don't see the sign; and you know it.
Zetsu
>an image, but it's not the real object you are looking at.
This is a thing that really interests me. The thing that I'm curious
about, is what is the 'real object' we are looking at? I don't think
anyone knows, because no one can transfer them self into the mind and
eyes of another person, and no one can see what they are perceiving.
So I mean, what if everyone sees differently, but in RELATION
everything seems the same, and that's why we can describe 'pink' as
'pink' when we look at it; that is by comparison to another colour. I
wonder, what is vision and perception if not merely for comparisons to
another perception? Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Have you
ever wondered like that?
Zetsu
in the cure of imperfect sight. I think their use and power in
treatment of imperfect sight; is yet pretty much untouched by visual
scientists. I think that is one of the primary flaws in visual
science.
Yet illusions are not taken seriously; mocked by the people who are
unable to appreciate their value in sight, like some of the people in
this discussion. If we demonstrate these illusions, it is a great help
in the understanding of the mechanism by which the mind operates. I
believe they hold a big key to the next generation of advancements in
ophthalmolgical treatments. There is so much we have yet to learn; and
yet so many unwilling to learn... it is sickening.
Dr. Leukoma
The answer to that is that we can all describe the same thing, such as
the characters on a letter chart. What's the confusion?
Dr. Leukoma
> Yes, imagining perfect vision is one of the greatest ways by which a
> person can rest their mind and cure their imperfect sight. It is
> impossible to see perfectly when you are unable to imagine perfectly;
> think about it. All the images we see aren't 'out there', they're just
> all in our head. The light rays mean nothing until the eyes imagine a
> picture using them; Imagination is paramount.
The object is the correlate of the image. An image without an object
is a hallucination.
Zetsu
>the characters on a letter chart. What's the confusion?
The confusion being: what is the 'real' external object?
What I'm saying Greg, is that imagine that if all people actually see
stuff all differently. I mean, imagine if you were able to warp
yourself into another person's body for a day, and live his life.
Would things be the same, I mean seen the same? There's no way to find
out, not even by photographs.
We can use a camera or video cam and take pictures of external images;
but then WE (our sense of vision) is still the instruments seeing the
photographs, and we still cannot decipher a conclusion: does everyone
see the same, or do people see differently, only we are able to
DESCRIBE things as the same everytime, because in COMPARISON to other
forms and colours and perceptions, they remain the same, but in actual
picture they differ?
Take it like this: when we are young we learn to see 'pink' and we are
taught to call it 'pink', but what IS pink if not just another
illusion of the mind? I really wish you could understand what I am
saying... none of my friends understand what I am talking about!
Zetsu
> is a hallucination.
Yes, and a hallucination that is as an illusion in terms of sight.
Hallucination is a harsh word, normally used in a negative way as if
to imply that something is abnormal, not the normal perception, so I
think it's better to use the word illusion. All people have illusions,
whether they have perfect sight or normal sight. That is just as
easily demonstrated as every other truth of sight. It is normal; and
WITHOUT ILLUSIONS PERFECT SIGHT IS IMPOSSIBLE.
Zetsu
>whether they have perfect sight or normal sight.
Meant to say 'whether they have perfect sight or imperfect sight'.
RT
"Ms.Brainy" <mikab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Neil actually said that he can read signs of streets which he is
> familiar with. I experience the same.
No, actually I think Neil was talking about finding a street that he had
never been to. I'm pretty sure that Neil was boasting about exactly what
you are saying no one can do. Of course it would be great if someone had
a copy of that posting or Neil could remind us of what he said. If I'm
wrong, I'm wrong. But that's my memory of that thread.
BTW, even though I am disagreeing with you about our memories of what
Neil wrote, no where have I indicated that I agree or disagree with:
> Neither Neil nor I (or anybody
> else) can guess a name of a street which the eye does not see and the
> person is not familiar with.
I haven't provided an opinion on this or anything else about what you
call "mind-eye." And although you group me with Lena, Zetsu, et al, no
where have I agreed with anything they (or Otis or Andrew) post. It's
just that I'm not on your side, so I must be on theirs, right? What if
there were more than two sides? True horror if the world becomes defined
by Bush--""if you're not with us, then you're against us" mentality. Eek.
--
~RT
Mike Tyner
"Zetsu" <absolutely...@hotmail.com> wrote
> ophthalmolgical treatments. There is so much we have yet to learn; and
> yet so many unwilling to learn... it is sickening.
That's magical thinking for you. When you believe in magic, science seems
ridiculous.
Unfortunately, most colleges don't teach magic.
If you make it to college, you either unlearn the magic or you fail.
-MT
Nicolaas Hawkins
wrote in <news:1L6dnXitSateWJva...@giganews.com>:
Unless it's Hogwart's of course.
--
Nicolaas.
... Losing your temper doesn't get rid of it.
Mike Tyner
"Zetsu" <absolutely...@hotmail.com> wrote
> WITHOUT ILLUSIONS PERFECT SIGHT IS IMPOSSIBLE.
Magical thinking leads to ridiculous conclusions.
-MT
p.cl...@gmail.com
>
> > go away. your show has been cancelled. nobody thinks you're funny
>
> The cure of imperfect sight is a serious business, and will help many
> to restore sight and relieve many of their suffering.
you pathetic pimple-faced twit. you know NOTHING about helping people
restore their vision. you don't even understand 1% of the published
information about the human visual system. you just believe a bunch
of foolishness that somebody thought sounded good decades ago so they
wrote it down, and now a few gullible sheep like yourself follow it
despite the fact that it doesn't work and there is no evidence to
support it. just because very few people take the time to go to your
internet forums and write out messages telling you what they did and
that it failed doesn't mean that it actually works. once they try
your silly relaxation methods, find out that they don't work, and then
realize that they've been tricked by some stupid zealot 15 year old
kid who hasn't even graduated from middle school yet then they get
embarrassed and leave and never come back again. for some reason you
take that as evidence that you have helped them. what a moron. why
not publish a study where ~50 persons are treated with your method and
their refractions are carefully determined before and after the
treatment (by someone who has some real training and actually knows
what they are doing) and then announce the results? I know what
you'll say-- "no one has to prove it to me because I already know that
it works". you're scared because you know your methods simply won't
work any better than having the persons take a laxative and take a big
dump. you are not smart enough to organize a study, incapable of
managing the participants, and ignorant about how to analyze the
data. so instead you'll just cop-out and say it isn't necessary.
prediction-- you will never amount to anything in your whole lifetime.
Dr. Leukoma
Zetsu,
This is philosophy, not science. I am familiar with philosophy,
having studied it at the university. I would rather discuss science,
and not talk about things that involve describing emotional states,
the existence of other minds, consciousness, etc.
otis...@pa.net
Dear RT,
Subject: Neil is living is a never-never world.
RT> Neil's can. Wasn't it Neil who says he can read street signs
from
further away than anyone he knows even though the image is fuzzy and
he
can't really read them.
Otis> Yes, correcto-mundo. Neil also claims (with no medical
training) that he invented and adjustable suture (used in
highly complex strabismus surgery.)
RT> (Since he doesn't archive his messages on
Google, I can't verify this although I tried a search.)
Otis> Correct again. He tells many lies about his "brilliance".
We asked him to provded his published record in medical
journals. Yes, Brooks has little connection with
scientific reality.
Second-opinion best,
Otis
On Oct 5, 4:27 pm, RT <RTM...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <1191614724.342304.107...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "Ms.Brainy" <mikabra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And if the eye does not register any image, can the brain produce it
> > by processing information that it does not receive?
>
> Neil's can. Wasn't it Neil who says he can read street signs from
> further away than anyone he knows even though the image is fuzzy and he
> can't really read them. (Since he doesn't archive his messages on
> Google, I can't verify this although I tried a search.)
>
> > I think the answer is clear.
>
> Well, that's because you're the brain. Ask an eye and you might get a
> different answer.
>
> --
> ~RT
Dr. Leukoma
>
> - Show quoted text -
Otis, I am going to "stick-up" for Neil.
My impression is that Neil is a very bright guy who has had a lifetime
of severe eye problems. As a result of those severe problems, he has
had a lifelong relationship with medical doctors and optometrists. I
think he genuinely respects them and is grateful for their help. With
that in mind, he probably views your little "crusade" as akin to
tilting at windmills. Because he has strabismus, he is also acutely
aware of the ability of plus lenses to cause nearpoint exophoria, if
improperly used, and wouldn't want to wish that on anybody, either.
By the way, Neil is farsighted. He might view a little myopia as far
more preferable. I think Neil might regard your antagonism of the eye
professions as being somewhat malignant.
otis...@pa.net
Dear "L",
Subject: Two errors on your part.
1. I am highly supportive of PREVENTION MINDED doctors.
Since you hate the concept, I can only call your idea
the "majority-opinion".
2. Neil Brooks CLAIMS to have invented an
adjustable suture. That claim is false -- and I suspect
a number of further statements are in that category.
I do not consider plus-PREVENTION to be easy. But I
do believe it is possible.
But that choice will indeed depend on BOTH the parents
and the "guidance" of a second-opinion optometrist to
assist with that process. See:
To confirm that judgment.
Second-opinion best,
Otis
> professions as being somewhat malignant.- Hide quoted text -
Neil Brooks
> In article <1191616997.759777.59...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "Ms.Brainy" <mikabra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Neil actually said that he can read signs of streets which he is
> > familiar with. I experience the same.
>
> No, actually I think Neil was talking about finding a street that he had
> never been to. I'm pretty sure that Neil was boasting about exactly what
> you are saying no one can do. Of course it would be great if someone had
> a copy of that posting or Neil could remind us of what he said. If I'm
> wrong, I'm wrong. But that's my memory of that thread.
You're wrong.
I said that ... if I'm looking FOR, say, Walnut St., then I can
usually GUESS when Walnut St. appears on the sign BEFORE my emmetropic
friends can SEE it (without knowing what street I'm looking for).
Neil Brooks
> Subject: Neil is living is a never-never world.
Can you EVER wonder why I consistently refer to this douchebag as
nothing more than an absolute fucking idiot and a pathological liar?
Can ANYBODY EVER wonder why?
> RT> Neil's can. Wasn't it Neil who says he can read street signs
> from
> further away than anyone he knows even though the image is fuzzy and
> he
> can't really read them.
>
> Otis> Yes, correcto-mundo. Neil also claims (with no medical
> training) that he invented and adjustable suture (used in
> highly complex strabismus surgery.)
Otis ... you absolute fucking idiot and pathological liar. I bet you
miss your nephew and your niece. I bet you miss actual human contact
because -- in short order -- those who acquaint themselves with you
tire of your endless dishonesty and insanity.
HAVE you called David Granet (858-534-2020) yet, or are you too busy
lying (and harming children) to bother checking on the facts?
> Otis> Correct again. He tells many lies about his "brilliance".
> We asked him to provded his published record in medical
> journals. Yes, Brooks has little connection with
> scientific reality.
No lies. Not one ... you absolute fucking idiot and pathological
liar.
I wish you ill, you pathetic piece of shit. Truly, I wish you ill.
Neil Brooks
> Dear "L",
>
> Subject: Two errors on your part.
IF that WERE true, he couldn't hold a candle to you.
> 2. Neil Brooks CLAIMS to have invented an
> adjustable suture. That claim is false -- and I suspect
> a number of further statements are in that category.
David Granet, MD
858-534-2020
Why don't you call him, you absolute fucking idiot and pathological
liar.
Calling ME a liar is more of a dishonor than a piece of shit could
ever imagine. I will CONTINUE to provide Granet's name and phone
number so that anybody who ever cares enough to pick up a phone and
make a call can verify, with CERTAINTY, that you are a pathological
liar and an absolute fucking idiot.
Neil Brooks
Spot on.
Add in the fact that he DOES lie, pathologically, and you've got most
of it wrapped up in a tidy little bundle ;-)
Ms.Brainy
>
>
> I said that ... if I'm looking FOR, say, Walnut St., then I can
> usually GUESS when Walnut St. appears on the sign BEFORE my emmetropic
> friends can SEE it (without knowing what street I'm looking for).
I am wondering Neil... You are far sighted, so shouldn't it be obvious
that you would SEE (not only guess) far images/objects BEFORE your
friends, who are NOT farsighted, could?
Ms.Brainy
>
> Zetsu,
>
> This is philosophy, not science.
Exactly. The questions raised by Zetsu have occupied humanes minds
for millenia and were the subject of numerous philosophical writings,
however... it reminds me of the construction worker who decided to
become an intellectual, took Philosophy 101, and was fired from his
job after he shouted to his fellow worker who tried to keep his
balance on the scaffolding at 50 feet above ground -- "How do you know
that you really exist?"
Neil Brooks
> I am wondering Neil... You are far sighted, so shouldn't it be obvious
> that you would SEE (not only guess) far images/objects BEFORE your
> friends, who are NOT farsighted, could?
Nah.
At best, a person with simple, and LOW, hyperopia may see 20/20 (or
so) at optical infinity, but ...
a) They always accommodate more than emmetropes, and
b) An emmetrope, by definition, ALSO sees 20/20 at a distance
More 'clinically,'
Emmetropia: The condition of the normal eye when parallel rays are
focused exactly on the retina and vision is perfect.
Hyperopia: An abnormal condition of the eye in which vision is better
for distant objects than for near objects. It results from the eyeball
being too short from front to back, causing images to be focused
behind the retina.
So ... there's not much reason that a low hyperope would/should see
BETTER at a distance than an emmetrope.
It's just a neat parlor game I enjoy ;-)
lena102938
Mr Brainy, I thought that too.
But it is no
lena102938
> On Oct 5, 8:54 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It sounds like magic to you but it isn't. Perfect imagination goes
> > with perfect sight, and that is a demonstrated truth, for anyone who
> > is willing to demonstrate.
>
> Demonstrate means to show by reasoning. To prove. To explain by
> using examples and experiments.
>
Hi,
Demonstrate it is not to prove.
lena102938
> On Oct 5, 9:53 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Then you should demonstrate only for yourself, and not to prove to
> > another person. The reasoning is apparent once the demonstration is
> > performed.
>
> This is not the usual and customary meaning of the word. The fact is
> that you cannot demonstrate this to anybody, and so you must play word
> games to go along with your mind games.
Min games are successfully played by the counselors .
Why they can ?
Ms.Brainy
To demonstrate is to show something to OTHERS. You don't demonstrate
to yourself, it's an action you do unto sombody else, unless you are a
schizo.
lena102938
Yes, but it is just to show_to_others
I can show just a trick.
It is not to prove.
Ms.Brainy
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree. But you must have a receiver of the demonstration. The way
Zestu use the word is wrong. You don't show things to yourself, you
may see them, think them, be convinced of them, but you don't show or
demonstrate them by doing any of the above.
Zetsu
> Magical thinking leads to ridiculous conclusions.
No it is not ridiculous actually! Without illusions perfect sight is
impossible, and with imperfect sight there are also illusions, but
imperfect illusions. You CANNOT have perfect sight unless you have
these illusions. That is a demonstrated truth for all people.
Also, when you try and block out the illusions you can your sight
become imperfect, even if it is imperfect.
So for example, if you try and look at an object and keep it
stationary, and don't let it move from side to side, I mean if you
stare at it continuously with it remaining stationary, the field of
vision becomes blurred and the perfect sight is LOST. That is why for
people with imperfect sight, to learn to see perfectly these normal
illusions is a great help in restoring to perfect vision.
To not see illusions is a immense strain on the mind, to see illusions
is a rest and improves the sight, always. It sounds like magical
thinking to you; but ask any child the same questions; whether he sees
things all alike at once and all black, or only a small part; whether
he sees writing whiter in between the letters than the outside
borders, and whether he sees things stationary or moving. Ask a child
with perfect sight these questions; they are the expert, they will
tell you easily and slap you out of your idiocies.
I repeat this very important statement: Without illusions you cannot
have perfect sight.
Zetsu
> ridiculous.
You know, Einstein made up the theory of relativity when he was
sitting around and just imagining things; 'magical thinking' as you
call it. But look where science has been taken, because of the
imaginations of humans. If we didn't have 'magical thinking' no one
would be able to make the big advancements that have been made in
history. Imagination is more important than knowledge.
> Unfortunately, most colleges don't teach magic.
Who cares what colleges think; how many people has college lead you to
CURE? Zero. All you can do is fit people with some crap lenses and
they come back later with more and more complaints, you didn't learn
to fix anything.
> If you make it to college, you either unlearn the magic or you fail.
Then I will fail; no matter.
Zetsu
> Zestu use the word is wrong. You don't show things to yourself, you
> may see them, think them, be convinced of them, but you don't show or
> demonstrate them by doing any of the above.
The demonstrations in the cure of imperfect sight are different from
the normal way of demonstrations. Demonstrating the same thing to one
single other person is impossible; the best you can say is 'try it
out, demonstrate to yourself like I did'.
It is almost useless to merely tell someone about the swing, about
central fixation, about the stare and of stationary objects moving,
and of halos, and of all the other illusions of perfect and imperfect
sight. They have to demonstrate it themselves. That's why I keep
saying: demonstrate to yourself.
RT
Neil Brooks <neil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I wish you ill, you pathetic piece of shit. Truly, I wish you ill.
Is this what you meditate on while practicing yoga?
--
~RT
RT
Neil Brooks <neil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I said that ... if I'm looking FOR, say, Walnut St., then I can
> usually GUESS when Walnut St. appears on the sign BEFORE my emmetropic
> friends can SEE it (without knowing what street I'm looking for).
Well in that case, your original post had nothing to do with vision or
science and doesn't belong on this NG (by your definitions--and
"clearly" stated by the brain).
It's probable that you can see when others don't because your eyes are
in a relaxed state and you are experiencing perfect vision :-)
Must be from all the love you practice on this NG.
--
~RT
RT
Neil Brooks <neil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Otis ... you absolute fucking idiot and pathological liar.
>
> HAVE you called David Granet (858-534-2020) yet, or are you too busy
> lying (and harming children) to bother checking on the facts?
<snip>
> No lies. Not one ... you absolute fucking idiot and pathological
> liar.
>
> I wish you ill, you pathetic piece of shit. Truly, I wish you ill.
Do you think David Granet and his ophthalmology practice like having his
name and phone number associated with this kind of foul language?
How do you think Dr. Granet feels when he does a google search of his
name and phone number and these posts pop up?
--
~RT
RT
Neil Brooks <neil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David Granet, MD
> 858-534-2020
>
> Why don't you call him, you absolute fucking idiot and pathological
> liar.
>
> Calling ME a liar is more of a dishonor than a piece of shit could
> ever imagine. I will CONTINUE to provide Granet's name and phone
> number so that anybody who ever cares enough to pick up a phone and
> make a call can verify, with CERTAINTY, that you are a pathological
> liar and an absolute fucking idiot.
Do you think David Granet and his ophthalmology practice like having his