Dr. Bates' Treatment Regarding '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-neuroplas...

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.

 

Boy, I know people at the ophth department at IUPUI, so I asked them about
Alex Eulenberg, a net loon from the old days of smv, and they regarded him
as a real life loon. You could pick a better net personna.

You're just here to kick up the shit.

 

Yup. It's Kazekage/Atchoo again.

Since I'm acquainted with Alex, I forwarded this D-Bag's e-mail TO
Alex to let him know. I'm sure Alex will be thrilled to know that our
local pre-pubescent troll has stolen HIS identity, too.

 

Sorry, little Neil...

The Kill-file not working again?

 

As I understand it, another Alex used to post here. -- but my name is
Alex Eulenberg.

And yes, I do know a number of Alex Eulenbergs...

So, uhh... if you wouldn't mind, eh?

 

In other
A google entry for "Neil Brooks" returns approximately 1,440,000
articles.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=neil+brooks&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Had no idea you were so famous.

And wow, it seems you're quite the athlete!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Brooks

 

So are you not the "original" Alex Eulenberg? from 10-15 years ago here
on s.m.v.?

As I recall, that Alex had a position at I think it was Indiana
University, maybe in the math dept? Anyway, are you not that Alex?
Your posts seem very reminiscent of his. He also started a listserver
of some type that used the name I-See or something like that.

w.stacy, o.d.

 

No, Doc. I don't think this is the real Alex.

This is some English kid () who goes
by quite a few aliases (Zetsu, Sashime, Kazekage, WH Bates, Atchoo, et
al).

He's basically sad that people are--in his view--attacking Otis, so he
tries to come to Otis's defense.

 

Dear William,

Subject: The great Alex Eulenberg vs. David Granet debate

Yes, Alex started his own group at:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/

The debate which ran for several years led to no
conclusion, only the idea that a second-opinion
would be wise, but that no further actions were to be taken.

It seems that people love to sit on their duff and do
nothing, and bame the majority-opinion ODs who
is only making it sharp in five minutes.

I mean, why bother with preventive methods at all.

Otis

 

I suspect that the participants might disagree on your idea.

 

i went to school at IU. got two doctoral degrees from there. alex is
indeed "well-known" there.

and it looks like the i-see discussion group's content has improved
somewhat now compared to the quality of postings there a few years
ago.

there was no such conclusion. the conclusion was that intelligent,
level-headed people just gave up trying to make sense to someone who's
mind is already made up and who's perception of reality is something
like the next episode of the X-Files.

well you have to be crowned the chief of the duff-sitters Otis! you
spend your day just posting and reposting the same old verbage over
and over again where ever anyone lets you. you take no time to read,
learn or listen. you just write over and over again "this is what I
think", "this is what I think" blah blah blah. once someone points
out a logical fallacy in your thinking or asks you to explain yourself
in light of proof against you, you just disappear.

the internet is great isn't it Otis-- no accountability for being
wrong! Just out of arms reach. Right?

agreed. none of them work so why pretend that they do. But maybe if
we just "try harder" then the impossible will happen, right? maybe if
we rub our shoes together and try real hard we'll make it to Kansas--
right Otis?

 

Newsflash: I'm pretty sure that "William" thinks you're insane, too.

Only in your demented mind, Uncle Otie.

I do believe that you're the only one who tends to "bame" [sic] OD's
for anything. There's near unanimity that they're quite caring and
helpful.

Good point.

Didn't do anything for your niece, Joy Benson, now did they?

But preventive methods that ACTUALLY WORK ... now THERE's something to
pursue.

 

I do believe that you're the only one who tends to "blame" [sic] OD's
for anything. There's near unanimity that they're quite caring and
helpful.

Otis> Sorry, Neil, that you get so MANY thing WRONG. I agree, in
the context of Dr. Raphaelson's statements that you are correct
about the majority-opinion OD. IF they would restrict their
statements to ONLY 'servicing' THE GENERAL PUBLIC that
EXPECTS very, VERY shapr vision is a short period of time.

Otis> But that is a very limited point-of-view concenring the
real and PROVEN dynamic behavior of the fundamental
eye.

Otis> Obviously OPINIONs vary on this subject. That is why
you call then the MAJORITY-opinion.

Otis

 

Otis > raphaelson blah blah blah

Otis > second-opinion blah blah blah

Otis > stirling colgate blah blah blah

Otis > prevention works, just believe me, just try harder, blah blah
blah

Otis > natural fundamental eye blah blah blah

Otis > I'm just like Galileo (maybe Van Gogh) blah blah blah

is anyone listening? does anyone care about me as much as I do?

 

Start naming them ... after you answer these questions, please:

www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

How's your niece, Joy's, myopia doing? She never wore a minus ... DID
wear a plus ... and has a restricted driver's license, now, doesn't
she?

Thought so.