Dr. Bates' Treatment Regarding 'Clear Flashes' and Neuroplasticity

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Alex Eulenberg, Jun 27, 2007.

  1. 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:

    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."

    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
    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


    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!)


    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.
    Alex Eulenberg, Jun 27, 2007
  2. 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.
    Scott Seidman, Jun 27, 2007
  3. Alex Eulenberg

    Neil Brooks Guest

    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.
    Neil Brooks, Jun 27, 2007
  4. Sorry, little Neil...

    The Kill-file not working again?

    Alex Eulenberg, Jun 27, 2007
  5. 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?
    Alex Eulenberg, Jun 27, 2007
  6. In other
    A google entry for "Neil Brooks" returns approximately 1,440,000


    Had no idea you were so famous.

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

    Alex Eulenberg, Jun 27, 2007
  7. 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.
    William Stacy, Jun 28, 2007
  8. Alex Eulenberg

    Neil Brooks Guest

    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

    He's basically sad that people are--in his view--attacking Otis, so he
    tries to come to Otis's defense.
    Neil Brooks, Jun 28, 2007
  9. Alex Eulenberg

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear William,

    Subject: The great Alex Eulenberg vs. David Granet debate

    Yes, Alex started his own group at:


    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.

    otisbrown, Jun 29, 2007
  10. Alex Eulenberg

    Dan Abel Guest

    I suspect that the participants might disagree on your idea.
    Dan Abel, Jun 29, 2007
  11. Alex Eulenberg

    p.clarkii Guest

    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
    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?
    p.clarkii, Jun 29, 2007
  12. Alex Eulenberg

    Neil Brooks Guest

    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
    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
    Neil Brooks, Jun 29, 2007
  13. Alex Eulenberg

    otisbrown Guest

    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

    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

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


    otisbrown, Jun 30, 2007
  14. Alex Eulenberg

    p.clarkii Guest

    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

    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?
    p.clarkii, Jun 30, 2007
  15. Alex Eulenberg

    Neil Brooks Guest

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


    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

    Thought so.
    Neil Brooks, Jun 30, 2007
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.