Bates method 'clear flashes' and neuroplasticity

For these of you who discredit many if not all of Bates' own ideas,
you have to keep in mind that he may have made a few contributions not
yet founded by our neuroscientists.

First, look at what MRI scans have confirmed about brain wavelengths
in Tibetan Buddhist monks when they meditate:
http://wanderingvisitor.blogspot.com/2006/02/meditation-and-neuroplasticity.html

It says there, "It demonstrates, he said, that the brain is capable of
being trained and physically modified in ways few people can imagine."

How did I run across this discovery? It was in Discover magazine: p.
65, Feb. 2007 issue. Article name: "REWIRING THE BRAIN-A change of
mind is now everyone's prerogative
By Matthew Blakeslee"

In that article, it states, "Brain scans reveal that the neural
activity of highly trained monks is off the charts, relative to
meditation novices, in circuits that involve maternal love (caudate),
empathy (right insula), and feelings of joy and happiness (left
prefrontal cortex). Even when these monks are not meditating, their
brains bear the imprints of their psychic workouts....Science, like
any other human endeavor, is susceptible to trends and pendulous
swings of groupthink. The current vogue is for "neurogenetic
determinism," the view that your genes and subconscious are the true,
essential shapers of who you are and how you think and behave; the
conscious mind is little more than a self-important figurehead along
for the ride."

Would this be how you perceive the conscious mind: "little more than a
self-important figurehead along for the ride"? Especially when
addressing vision?

Do you think you cannot produce 'clear flashes' yourself? Before you
dismiss an idea entirely, you need to try it first... and not be
spoonfed by the researchers. Great scientists have tesified about how
our researchers are being "unscientific". Richard Feynman, who
assisted in the development of the atomic bomb, expanded the
understanding of quantum electrodynamics, translated Mayan
hieroglyphics, and cut to the heart of the Challenger disaster once
said, "The experts who are leading you may be wrong....I think we live
in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of
communications and television-words, books, and so on-are
unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of
intellectual tyranny in the name of science."

I would say Richard Feynman saying "intellectual tyranny in the name
of science" was being polite. I think of science as a religion
complete with priesthood, true believers, heretics, etc. Every so
often the priesthood in power is over thrown by people with so much
proof in their favor they have to be recognized. This is also known as
swings of groupthink which Blakeslee mentioned in his article. Also,
you have to think about how the "telephone game" can be true when
information is passed from researcher to researcher. And how "pressure
to produce new information rather than reproduce others' work
dramatically increases the chance that errors will go unnoticed."
http://amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html

Experience IS the best teacher, not what others tell you. Most people
think 'clear flashes' are impossible. To do so is to fully
underestimate the mind's capabilities. I've personally had 'clear
flashes' without eye tricks like watery eyes, etc, that take my
binocular eyesight from 20/40 to 20/13 (confirmed on Snellen eye chart
at same time on a clock, standing distance, and lighting condition for
both measurements). How can the naked eye physically create such a
change in vision without the mind being an active participant? If you
see that much more clearly, then you just do... period! Can't really
be faked, especially not if you're able to see something like strands
of people's hair from 1/5 to 1/4 mile away.

The mind plays an undeniable role in vision, as illustrated through
vison orientation (retinal image flipped upside down shortly after
birth) and optical illusions. Is it not possible, then, to believe
that the brain can be programmed to see things more perfectly, similar
to how a tennis player creates what's known as "muscle memory"? But
remember... a tennis player will not develop "very good muscle memory"
the first day, until the day after that, and then the day after.

Need clear-cut instructions on how to produce a 'clear flash' to
verify this for yourself? I was messaging a certain individual
regarding a description I had sent to a different individual and this
is what I illustrated:

Here's Part 1:

Let me start by explaining that due to the mental component of our
eyesight, it is important to address it accordingly in a way that
causes the mind to believe it is seeing something differently. How do
I consciously produce clear flashes? One way is I imagine anything as
being perfect... for example, if you are a myope (nearsighted), look at
something up close and remember it as perfect (without straining) as
possible. Then look in the distance and close your eyes, and imagine
what you just saw up close as being as perfect as possible. Sometimes,
it takes timing to catch that "perfect" moment. Then when you open
your eyes, while at the same time remembering it perfectly, the world
becomes much more pristine all of a sudden. This is known as a 'clear
flash'. It's very difficult at first for people to imagine something
perfectly. Trying to imagine anything perfectly will most likely not
be possible at first.

(*****, it may take time before you get the hang of doing this and
start to notice something, but don't be discouraged. It gets easier
and easier after you experience even a single instance of such a
flash, because you will understand how it is done)... now for Part
2...

*****************************************************************

Part 2:

Later on, in reply to what I said in Part 1, the person states he has
a different understanding of clear flashes, so I say:

Regarding the clear flashes, you're correct. I was simply giving a
primer on how clear flashes could be produced. I wasn't sure if you
knew. My clear flashes are usually produced with normal, reflexive
blinks, and sometimes I trigger chain effects of clear flashes, such
as five blinks in a row in which each clear flash gets better. The
goal of clear flashes is to be able to produce them by remembering
something perfectly with the eyes open as you've said, just by
blinking normally, and the frequency and duration of clear flashes
will increase over time until you eventually acquire what I'll call
the ultimate clear flash, in which the clear flash becomes permanent.


(*****, you need to start with what I said in Part 1 first.
This is because Part 1 is important to be able to get a 'feel' for it
first before moving on to Part 2. Good luck!)

[END]

Visualizing something as appearing perfect is simply a way to create
mental imprints in the brain (neuroplasticity) to modify our visual
acuity, depth perception, and so on. Before you dismiss this entirely,
you need to give it a try several times spread over several days and
see what happens.

 

Was it when the lithium kicked in?

 

Try it for yourself first before making a joke, peabrain.

 

If you do not try something before disregarding it entirely, you are
the "one" being unscientific, Scott. It's as simple as that.

Unscientific people jump to conclusions without trying things -- when
you do not try something, how does that make you scientific?

When you have found the answer, let me know.

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=seidman+sh

Papers I've first-authored have been cited more than a hundred times,
when the modal (i.e., the number that happens most often) number of
citations for papers in indexed journals is zero. I've given invited
talks in four countries, counting the US, and to NASA. I've refereed
multiple times for at least a half dozen peer reviewed journals over the
last two years, maybe a half dozen more over the last decade. I've served
in an ad hoc fashion on a variety of grant review study sections for the
NIH, and turned down similar invitations from the NSF. I've sat, and
currently sit, on a number of Ph.D committees.

The next time I'm asked to do something, though, I'll be sure to tell
whoever is asking that swimchamp26 doesn't believe me to be qualified.
It will save me a lot of my time, I'm sure.

 

Scott,

Trying to promote an 'over-inflated' ego? You're missing the point.

You may have specifically proven a number of other things, but nowhere
do I see any studies you have done specifically on 'clear flashes'.
Have you even tried producing one yourself, following my instructions?

Simply using your other studies to negate out something else that you
have not tried does not make you "scientific" in that sense. Do you
even know what the word "scientific" means?

Nor would it make others "scientific" to believe you if you haven't
tried it yourself.

 

Not at all. I think in about a decade of participation in this group,
I've posted my credentials about twice. I just don't like fanatics
telling me I don't know what science is.

I'm not using my own studies to prove anything. I have not done any
studies on "clear flashes". I posted my background to make the point
that I understand what science is at a level that you don't. "Try it for
yourself" is the call of the charlatan. "Read the literature" is at the
center of scientific review. Just because I haven't tried something
doesn't mean that I don't know anything about it.

To top it off, I haven't made any claims about the Bates Method (though I
do firmly believe it is crap)-- I merely suggested that you might have
benefitted from Lithium from time to time.

 

Scott,

You're clearly missing the point.

You may have specifically proven a number of other things, but
nowhere
do I see any studies you have done specifically on 'clear flashes'.
Have you even tried producing one yourself, following my explicit
instructions?

Simply using your other studies to negate something else that you
have not tried does not make you "scientific" in that sense. Do you
even know what the word "scientific" means?

Neither would it make others "scientific" to believe you if you
haven't
tried it yourself.

 

Scott,

You're clearly missing the point.

You may have specifically proven a number of other things, but nowhere
do I see any studies you have done specifically on 'clear flashes'.
Have you even tried producing one yourself, following the same
instructions that I point out?

Simply using your other studies to negate something else that you have
not tried does not make you "scientific" in that sense. Do you even
know what the word "scientific" means?

Neither would it make others "scientific" to believe you if you
haven't tried it yourself.

 

Kyle,

Have you seen the history of what happens when people hawk unproven
theories around here?

Why not advocate that the major research institutes try it out. If it
works, people will use it.

Meanwhile ... have you met Otis Brown??

 

Does one have to wear a tin foil hat while doing the Bates thing?

 

Can I reflect on that for just a bit and get back to you?

 

What is the point of these so-called clear flashes? Entertainment?
Does this trigger some pleasure center? What do you charge patients
for teaching them to produce "clear flashes"? Would I recognize a
"clear flashing" person if I met one on the street?

DrG

 

Dear Mark,

I think you recognize that these majority-opinion ODs are
hostile to any and all second-opinions.

I believe that the study stated below should be repeated.

http://central-fixation.com/batesmed/myopiaprevention.htm

There you will read about a very simple program which was used
to bring the eyesight of 1,000 pupils to normal in six public schools
in NYC. This article was printed in the NY Medical Journal for
August 30, 1913. It is full of the names of real people, the
principals
of the schools, the names of various teachers and of various
public officials. This article was just recently uncovered by an
Italian gentleman. Yes, there is growing interest in Dr. Bates in
Italy, as there is in Germany.

Please don't tell me this is a fictitious report. There were libel
laws
in those days, stronger than the ones we have today, and the idea
that Dr. Bates made up the whole business and that the NY Medical
Journal printed it without doing even a cursory check is absurd.

I will give you some background. Before a meeting of some 300
ophthalmologists was to be held in NYC, Dr. Bates wrote to each
of the doctors who were going to attend and informed them that
he was going to make a public challenge to them. The challenge
he was going to issue was as follows,

"Come with me any classroom in the City of New York and if there
is one child in that classroom whose eyesight I cannot improve
by rest, I will admit I am wrong about the whole business."

Not one of those doctors accepted the challenge, but somehow
an official of the Board of Education of NYC heard about it and
invited Dr. Bates to a school to show what he could do.

Dr. Bates showed up and, with a teacher observing, did his thing.
The teacher was dazzled, but suspicious, feeling that some sort
of trick was being played. She asked Dr. Bates to stay in the class-
room while she attended to some business.

What she did was go into another classroom and do what she
had seen Dr. Bates do. She got the same results and came back
convinced that no trick was being played. The rest you can read
about.

The next thing I suggest you do is buy a copy of "Better Eyesight"
which is a compilation of the eleven years of the little magazine
Dr. Bates published. It is about $18.00 on Amazon. It is a
huge book.

There you can read about a similar program which involved
six schools and 9,000 pupils in North Bergen, New Jersey.
This program was so successful in both preventing and correcting
refractive errors in the pupils that the superintendent of schools
compared it to the invention of radio!

It was not merely the improvement of the eyesight of the pupils,
it was the extraordinary improvement in their academic achieve-
ment that sent him into orbit. If this is too much trouble, I wrote
a posting about this program and its success which I will post
if I can find it.

While this report was published in Dr. Bates's magazine, again
you will note that this magazine is replete with names of
real people and the idea that Dr. Bates could publish a
fictitious report on what was going on in North Bergen, New
Jersey, confident that no one would ever know, does not
present itself to be as being a compelling idea.

If you buy a copy of a book called "Reprints," from
"healthresearchbooks.com" you can read about another
program successfully used in Grand Forks, North Dakota,
for a number of years, also published in some medical
journal. That article is not as detailed as the other two.

What I am suggesting is that there is an alternative to just
throwing up your hands in despair and saying what can we
do? The children have to function. I really don't see why
there is no interest in Dr. Bates's simple program. It would
cost next to nothing and take little time.

If you are going to suggest these reports have no value
because there was no control group, permit me to ask
was there a control group in the tests which led the
FDA to approve the various systems of refractive
surgery-Lasik and the others?

Written by "Tom" on i-see.


***********************

 

[snip]

Well ... Otis re-posted it ... in its entirety. I can't see where
there's room for lingering doubt now ... :-\

 

I think the point is that if the phenomenon exists it would be good to
investigate it. If it's possible to produce clear vision, however briefly,
in a person who normally does not have clear vision then that's something
worth trying to understand. Practical applications may or may not come
later.

 

No doubt it has been investigated and found to be fraudulent, or to
have no practical application.

DrG

 

I think your point is perfectly valid and well taken.

In regards to the power of meditation, I've followed, with some
interest, the studies of Herbert Benson, of Harvard's Mind Body
Medicine Institute [1]. Benson was one of the researchers who
documented amazing physical capacities in Tibetan monks practicing a
particular sort of meditation known as "g Tum-mo" [2].

I think we see a select few posters around here, though, who really
ought to spend more time "writing their congressman," so to speak
(lobbying researchers in the major institutions nationally AND
internationally to look at their hypotheses) and less time telling us
how wonderful they and their theory are.

I've seen zero credible evidence that people can't get their theories
looked at.

Search PubMed for some things you'd have thought would get NO
attention (antibiotic properties of garlic?). In sooo many cases,
you'll find that the research IS done or HAS been done. It just takes
knocking on the RIGHT doors, and usually without a Conspiracy Theory
chip on one's shoulder.

[1] http://oasis.harvard.edu:10080/oasis/deliver/~med00061
[2] http://www.mbmi.org/about/articles/press/meditation_temperature.pdf

 

Here is a critique of the "flashing" phenomenon dating from 1952.
http://brain.berkeley.edu/pub/1952 April Flashes of Clear Vision.pdf

 

Some of it... not the whole history. You have to ask yourself this
question: How good were they at communication? Most people are very
weak communicators. They have very little clue regarding the ancient
Greeks' communication techniques, how linguistic and semantic
development plays a role in understanding context, how cultural
influences change how one perceives the world by making that person a
"prisoner of culture", and more. There's an interesting paradigm shift
illusion of a duck and rabbit -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Duck-Rabbit_illusion.jpg
-- in this illusion, you may only see the duck. You may only perceive
it as being correct one way. But once you see the rabbit --
metaphorically, you try something you dismissed before and find it's
true -- you begin to understand how something can be perceived by
people two different ways. This is a very important concept to
understand, and to ignore such a concept would leave you wide open to
assumptions. Why would someone like Richard Feynman bring up how
unscientific the "experts" were? This is his lecture on "What is
Science?" http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/what_is_science.html ... In
this surprising lecture, he describes exactly it means to be
"scientific". He was one of the most respected scientists in all of
history.

Following Feynman's thinking, I am not even implying the others you
mention are correct, but I will never, ever give them a "100%
certainty of being wrong" unless I have tried their claims and seen
with my own eyes why they are wrong. This is what it means to be
"scientific": to not rely on any assumptions even through the filtered
knowledge you learn in school textbooks, but making the final decision
of "100% probability of being correct or wrong" after actually trying
something.

Feynman was correct in saying, " When someone says, "Science teaches
such and such," he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't
teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, "Science
has shown such and such," you might ask, "How does science show it?
How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?" "

It is not that simple. Groupthink bias can stampede any new research
findings unless there is a lot of backup support. To say that
scientists are particularly objective is a myth. Why else would
several of you have such hostile feelings towards the Bates Method,
despite your scientific background? If any new research paper came
along, you'd probably just stampede it and dismiss it as nonsense. If
not you, then others will. That is why groupthink swings exist. As
stated earlier when I addressed science as a religion, "Every so often
the priesthood in power is over thrown by people with so much proof in
their favor they have to be recognized." Let's think of the major
research institutes. You have a very limited number of people who have
even heard of the Bates Method... how much of the U.S. population
would you say is familiar with the method? Now, if you were to ask
them to try out something they've never heard of, they will look it up
and run across the Quackwatch.org website (which is controlled by the
bias of individuals as to what is to be regarded as quackery), and
probably think their time would be better spent researching other
things. Research requires funds, and there are about a hundred
thousand other things the researchers could test out that they are
more interested in. Moreover, "pressure to produce new information
rather than reproduce others' work dramatically increases the chance
that errors will go unnoticed" in addition to greatly decreasing the
chance of findings being confirmed. http://amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html

Yes I know who he is, but he did not study how to communicate like I
did.

As for my clear flashes, if I go from 20/40 to 20/13 in a second and
confirm it on a Snellen eye chart, then it's simply too drastic a
change in "measurable" visual acuity to be denied on superstitious
grounds. You either see that much better or you don't from the very
same spot you are standing at the exact same time of day of year.
Experience is the best teacher, there's no arguing this.

However, if a person readily believes something is wrong without
trying to experience it, then the person is being unscientific
according to what Feynman said: "Science doesn't teach anything;
experience teaches it." The clear flashes are so easy to demonstrate,
doesn't require a lab to produce them, and could be of immense benefit
to you... so why not even try? What's stopping you - is it a
prejudice?

It needs to be understood that using other studies to negate something
else that you have not tried does not make you "scientific" in that
sense. You aren't even experiencing anything. Only experience teaches
you real science, and only an open mind will reward you.