For Jan -- The gestalt switch, and the dynamic-eye paradigm

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by Otis Brown, Jul 16, 2004.

  1. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Jan,

    Subject1: The need to use neutral words to evaluate
    the natural eye as a dynamic (auto-focused)
    camera -- and the difficulties of
    discussing the issue until we agee on exact definitions
    to describe what we measure.


    Subject2: That is why a law that cannot even be demonstrated to one
    group of scientists may occasionally seem intuitively obvious to
    another.


    Otis> I simply state that the natural or native eye is a
    sophisticated auto-focused camera that controls its
    refractive status to the ACCOMMODATION SIGNAL, and will
    therefore evince a "stair-case" change if a minus lens is
    placed on this auto-focused camera.

    Otis> The order of priorities is to first establish
    a "paradigm" for the behavior of the natural eye
    (that can have negative or positive refractive states)
    before you even begin calling refractive states "errors"
    or defects.

    Or in the scientific words of Thomas Kuhn:


    Equally, it is why, before they can hope to communicate
    fully, one group or the other must experience the conversion that
    we have been calling a paradigm shift.

    Just because it is a transition between incommensurables, the
    transition between competing paradigms cannot be made a step at a
    time, forced by logic and neutral experience. Like the gestalt
    switch, it must occur all at once (though not necessarily in an
    instant) or not at all.


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


    The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

    Thomas S. Kuhn

    XII. The Resolution of Revolutions


    [The previous part of this chapter discussed fundamental
    scientific ideas, their development and the reasons for
    opposition.]


    ...These examples point to the third and most fundamental
    aspect of the in-commensurability of competing paradigms. In a
    sense that I am unable to explicate further, the proponents of
    competing paradigms practice their trades in different worlds.
    One contains bodies that fall slowly, the other pendulums that
    repeat their motions again and again.

    In one, solutions are compounds, in the other mixtures. One
    is embedded in a flat, the other in a curved, matrix of space.
    Practicing in different worlds, the two groups of scientists see
    different things when they look from the same point in the same
    direction.

    Again, that is not to say that they can see anything they
    please.

    Both are looking at the world, an the world they look at has
    not changed. But in some areas the see different things, and they
    see them in different relations to one to the others.

    That is why a law that cannot even be demonstrated to one
    group of scientists may occasionally seem intuitively obvious to
    another.

    Equally, it is why, before they can hope to communicate
    fully, one group or the other must experience the conversion that
    we have been calling a paradigm shift.

    Just because it is a transition between incommensurables, the
    transition between competing paradigms cannot be made a step at a
    time, forced by logic and neutral experience. Like the gestalt
    switch, it must occur all at once (though not necessarily in an
    instant) or not at all.

    How, then, are scientists brought to make this transposition?
    Part of the answer it that they often are not. Copernicanism mad
    few converts for almost a century after Copernicus' death.
    Newton's work was not generally accepted, particularly on the
    Continent, for more than half a century after the Principia
    appeared. Priestly never accepted the oxygen theory, nor Lord
    Kelvin the electromagnetic theory, and so on.

    The difficulties of conversion have often noted by the
    scientists themselves. Darwin in a particularly perceptive
    passage at the end of his Origin of Species, wrote: "Although I
    am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this
    volume..., I by no means expect to convince experienced
    naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all
    viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view
    directly opposite to mine.

    ...But I look with confidence to the future, -- to the young
    and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the
    question with impartiality."

    And Max Planck, surveying his own career in his Scientific
    Autobiography, sadly remarked that "a new scientific truth does
    not triumph by convincing it opponents and making them see the
    light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new
    generation grows up that is familiar with it."

    ___________________


    Subject: Can we reach an agreement?

    Jan> Otis, may I ask......

    Jan> This concerns ONE eye of an adult for simplicity reasons..

    Jan> Can we agree such a sophisticated auto-focused camera has a
    certain focal length when the lens is adjusted for infinite?

    Jan> Can we agree such a focal length has an according power in
    diopters?

    Jan> Can we agree putting a minus lens in front is causing a
    change in the total refracting power of the unit cameralens +
    minuslens?

    Jan> Can we agree the total power of this system
    (cameralens+minuslens) is lesser plus?

    Jan> Can we agree the cameralens has to be moved further from the
    receiving (film) plane in this situation ore has to become
    more plus when wanting a sharp image?

    Jan> Can we agree this more pluspower can be controlled by a
    sophisticated system and the addition should stop at the
    moment the control mechanism says "sharp" ?

    Jan> Can we agree taking away the minus-lens causes the
    sophisticated control mechanism to "look" in which direction
    the sharp image disappeared, forwards or backwards and go
    back to the correct focal distance?

    Jan> Then please recognize a "negative feedback mechanism" in both
    the eye and the camera, NOT the positive one you wanted
    people here to believe.


    Jan> Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Otis Brown, Jul 16, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Otis Brown

    Jan Guest

    Otis, you are famous for walking out if questions are to difficult or not
    possible to be answered by you.
    You then changes the "gestalt" and flee from giving answers and start a new
    thread as you did now by making a question out of a question (in an other
    thread) addressed to you.
    It seems clear to me that you have no direct answers on direct questions as
    shown at the bottom of this misty message.

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)


     
    Jan, Jul 17, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Jan,

    If you wish an optical analysis -- rather than presenting
    it here -- why not read a SIMPLFIED review presented
    in chapter 3 of my book, "How to Avoid Nearsightedness".
    You can find this Chapter from my site:

    www.myopiafree.com


    Any competent engineer, or scientist (like Dr. Stirling Colgate)
    can anlyze a box camera.

    It is simple: Your FREEZE the eye. You assert that
    all eyes MUST WANT TO BE ZERO, and then you analyize
    your assumed box camera -- insisting that
    a refractive state must be exactly zero to be
    NORMAL.

    But you missed my point completely. It is easy
    to answer "optical bench" questions -- except
    the natural eye never was -- and is not now
    an "optical bench".

    However -- you either preceive the natural eye
    as "dynamic" or you do not. I can hardly
    blame you for rejecting the concept that the natural
    eye is dynamic -- since they NEVER teach that at
    OD college.

    What they teach you is how to "satisfy" the
    great mass of the public that walks in off
    the street with "instant sharpness" produced
    with a minus (or plus) lens. If fact,
    if you attempted to do more that this,
    the public would "reject" you and the
    preventive method.

    Yes -- I understand this issue perfectly.

    But if the issue concerns true-prevention, then
    from my long experience, the person will have
    to figure out how to do is successfully BEFORE
    you put him in a minus lens.

    Equally when I asked you about the proven effect
    of a minus-lens contact on an eye -- you totally
    ignore and evade the question.

    I can understand why. Any admission that
    the natural eye "goes negative" from the forced
    wearing of a minus lens (proven in primates)
    leads to the conclusion that the minus lens
    can CREATE the very situation you SOLVE with
    a minus lens.

    You refuse to answer the questions I posed -- and
    I understand why. Any "staight" answers will
    lead to very serious "trust" problems with
    the public you now service.

    But that is the incommensurables nature of our paradigms.

    I see the natural eye as a sophisticated system. (I wonder
    if you would agree with THAT statement.) You do not.

    To me it is intuitively obvious that the natural eye MUST
    be dynamic, or as Thomas Kuhn said:

    Kuhn> That is why a law that cannot even be demonstrated to one
    group of scientists may occasionally seem intuitively obvious to
    another.

    So that is why we can not communicate about a basic and
    very sophisticated eye -- and why the questions I ask
    (of direct experimental data) are profoundly different
    that your "questions".

    Best,

    Otis
     
    Otis Brown, Jul 18, 2004
    #3
  4. Otis Brown

    Jan Guest

    Again you are avoiding giving direct answers on direct questions Otis.
    You are walking around in circles Otis.
    Why should I go to your spam site when you try to make us believe here
    (sci.med.vision) your ideas are correct.
    Provide PROOF right on at this newsgroup Otis your ideas are correct.
    You asked Dr Judy exact definitions and meanwhile you are not responding on
    questions asked to proof your ideas.
    Do you really think you are taking seriously?

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Jan, Jul 18, 2004
    #4
  5. He also rolls out Kuhn every once in a while to show that he is a
    scientific revolutionary.

    Scott
     
    Scott Seidman, Jul 19, 2004
    #5
  6. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Scott,

    From long conversations with people in medicine, I learned
    to respect them -- because they have ALMOST no choice
    but to use a minus lens on the great mass of the public
    who enter their office.

    In fact -- in their situation -- I could do NO BETTER than
    they do.

    But when you talk about pure OBJECTIVE FACTS, concerning
    the behavior of the natural eye as a sophisticated system,
    then the concept of Occum's razor must apply.

    The more basic concept -- that the natural eye changes
    its refractive status in a negative direction -- with
    the application of a -3 diopter lens must apply.

    And this NATURAL AND NORMAL BEHAVIOR.

    Scott -- use your brain-power here.

    I believe you are an "academic".

    You wish to state that the above is PROVEN
    TO BE FALSE.

    Is that your statment.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    Otis Brown, Jul 19, 2004
    #6
  7. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Scott,

    Scott> He also rolls out Kuhn every once in a while to show that he is
    a
    Of couse I "roll out" scientific, objective experimental data,
    but your intellectually blind-mind tells you that you
    must TOTALLY IGNORE all this scientific data.

    That is your "gestalt" with Thomas Kuhn describes to
    a "T".

    Another word is intellectual stuffed-shirt whose
    brain has gone dead some time ago, and can only
    repeat the mantra -- the minus lens has NO EFFECT
    on the refractive status of the natural eye -- EVER!!

    Best,

    Otis





    Here are the experimental results. I sent Howard Howland a copy of my
    book. I also talked to him to confirm the absolute results he
    achieved with the application of a minus lens.

    Further, other experiments with primate eyes (monkey) showed EXACTLY
    the same results.

    In discussions on this topic on sci.med.vision the ODs claim that
    "these results do not mean anything!!!

    And they say they are "experts"?
    Experts about what? Kicking along the
    method of the last 400 years?

    Go figure.

    At some point we must begin thinking for
    ourselves.

    But since your "

    Best,

    Otis

    _____

    Frank Schaeffel, Adrian Glasser and Howard C. Howland, "Accommodation,
    Refractive Error and Eye Growth in Chickens", VISION RES., Vol 28, No.
    5 pp 639-657, 1988. Pergamon Press.

    RESULTS:

    All eyes treated with positive lenses became consistently more
    positive (hyperopic).

    Negative lenses produced more negative (myopic) refractions (focal
    states) in all eyes.


    In a test of plus/minus lenses on left/right eyes, the eye with the
    plus lens moved in a positive direction.

    The eye with a minus lens moved in a minus direction.


    The control group did not change significantly in any direction.
     
    Otis Brown, Jul 19, 2004
    #7
  8. (Otis Brown) wrote in @posting.google.com:
    I've made no statement. I just chuckle at the way you compare yourself
    to a Kuhnian revolutionary. I chuckle for a number of reasons.

    First and foremost, what you preach is not so far outside the realm that
    it falls outside the current paradigm-- it's just proving not to be true,
    at least in humans. If what you propose turns out to be true, the
    concerned communities will be mildly surprised. They will not have to
    throw out their entire belief system of visual physiology and start
    fresh. That throwing out of the belief system--or "paradigm shift" is at
    the heart of the Kuhnian revolution. This stuff doesn't come up to
    snuff.

    If you want me to criticize the science, I will, but if your ego is
    feeling particularly fragile today, don't read on (I mean it--the
    statement you seem to be asking for is a pretty brutal).

    The experiments on primate eyes are on the eyes of DEVELOPING monkeys of
    a very young age. There is a huge difference in developmental biology
    and adult phsyiology. Thus, unless you can provide some data that
    suggests that this can happen in children older than infancy (or adults,
    as you seem to keep suggesting is true), then what you've been espousing
    just doesn't apply to humans outside of infancy. I can post paper after
    paper and textbook after textbook talking about lizards that regenerate
    all sorts of body parts. This doesn't mean that humans can regrow limbs.

    Let's say that perhaps there is some glimmer of truth deep in all this.
    Your science will never show it. From your ideas of keeping snellen
    charts close at hand, to the data collection techniques of having
    "motivated students" measuring their own snellen acuity. Before you
    start squawking about how engineering methods are different from medical
    science methods, they are not--at least not the measurement techniques
    you speak of. I tell you this after spending decades in training and
    practice as a biomedical engineer in an academic environment. I do
    federally-funded vision related research, I teach undergraduate and
    graduate engineers physiology from an engineering point of view (many of
    whom go on to well respected graduate programs in engineering and the
    life science, medical programs, and industrial R and D positions), and
    I'm part of a team that just brought our undergraduate program in
    biomedical engineering through a rigorous ABET accreditation procedure--
    successfully, to boot. Trust me, I have some glimmer of understanding of
    the nexus between engineering and medicine. At the very least, I can
    claim that I have some understanding about where the major contributors
    to the ABET accreditation process sit on this issue-- that would be the
    Biomedical Engineering Society (I was on their Membership Committee for a
    while, before I let my membership lapse. I'm under some internal
    pressure to rejoin, but these membership dues add up after a while--The
    Society for Neuroscience, The Society for the Neural Control of Movement,
    and the Barany Society all ask for enough dues without adding more), and
    the IEEE. Your claims that engineering data collection and medical data
    collection differ just don't hold water. Experimental design and
    approach might differ between the two communities, but unbiased data
    collection is at the heart of both science and engineering. Repeatable
    measurements from multiple sources are key.

    Your challenges to this community to answer questions regarding a simple
    exponential decay suggests that you do not quite understand the
    difference between data and a model, as does your offering of the
    Flitcroft modeling effort when challenged for data. The data validates
    the model, not the other way around. Sans validation, the model doesn't
    hold much meaning. I hope that 100% of my students walk away from my
    phsyiology class understanding what a model is, but I know they don't, as
    the concept is not the easiest to grasp in one semester. Of all the
    criticism I'm offering here, this is one I can let you slide on--many
    people have the same problem.

    Last, I see you up on your soapbox, preaching this idea of myopia
    prevention to a room full of people that are coming to this group for
    help with real vision-threatening conditions. People who have real
    visual problems would probably gladly give up one of their eyes if they
    could put a corrective lens--minus, plus, spherical, cylindrical, or even
    blank-- in front of their other eye and know that they will be able to
    see with it at some minimum functional level for their remaining
    lifespan. I can only imagine what going to sleep at night not knowing
    how much longer you'll be able to see is like. Frankly, I see your use
    of this forum as your own personal soapbox as arrogant and belittling to
    people coming here with real vision threatening problems like retinal
    degeneration, retinitis pigmentosa, retinal tears, and glaucoma.

    I'd love to see some real data on the public health issues surrounding
    myopia prevention. Personally, I suspect that its of miniscule concern
    compared to some of the other visually-related health and other
    neurological problems that scientists can throw themselves at.

    To summarize, I think you're off on the magnitude of the small chunk of
    visual science you're grabbing at, your interpretation of the literature,
    your scientific approach, your data collection methods, your use of
    modeling in physiological research, and the level of importance, with
    respect to public health, of the problems you are talking about.

    That's my statement,
    Scott
     
    Scott Seidman, Jul 19, 2004
    #8
  9. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Scott,

    You are truly a wonder!

    I run experiments to determine if the
    fundamental eye is dynamic.

    It might be, and perhaps it is not.

    But any decision I make -- or the people who
    might be making a decision about using
    the plus FOR PREVENTION ONLY should
    examine these objective facts.

    If they determine that these objective-facts
    do not meet their requirements -- then they
    should NEVER WORK ON PREVENTION WITH THE
    PLUS LENS.

    No harm done. But they might regret the
    stair-case myopia they develop later, but
    then they should not "worry" about that
    issue either.

    But we all make or own choices.

    I am curious about your professional
    background -- if you would care to post it.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    Otis Brown, Jul 20, 2004
    #9
  10. Of course the eye is dynamic as the whole body-mind is.
     
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Jul 20, 2004
    #10
  11. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Rishi,

    I have found that with a large number of people
    that our "hearts" are in the right place -- even
    as our "minds" crash into each other. Amazing!

    Dr. Bates "intuitive" sense of the eye was correct -- even
    if his words were not "quite right". But then that
    is in the nature of "medical" issues.

    As long as we first "AGREE" that the natural eye
    is dyanmic, then we can work on that issue.

    When the objective facts demonstrate with absolute
    clarity, that the REFRACTIVE STATUS moves in a negative
    direction when a minus lens is placed on it, then
    that is PURE SCIENCE.

    What is really tragic is when some "academic" proceeds
    to deny OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC FACTS TO MY FACE, and
    then produces a long-winded "story" with NO OBJECTIVE
    FACTS, and then expects me to BELIEVE HIM!!!

    Further, when another world-class scientists uses
    these facts to clear his own vision, then I must
    say that even in "pure science" there is a "second opinion",
    and we will have to make a choice between a "stuffed shirt",
    (he honestly believes his "story") and a very objective scientists
    like Dr. Stirling Colgate.

    No one should get on his "high horse" and attempt
    to tell everyone that "a minus lens has NO EFFECT on
    the refractive status of the natural eye".

    It is a demonstratably false statment in pure science.

    Best,

    Otis

    Engineer
     
    Otis Brown, Jul 21, 2004
    #11
  12. (Otis Brown) wrote in
    Now, Otis, I never said that, and you know it. I just said that you offer
    no proof that this is the case, and your "proposal" (see, I can use
    quotation marks in a derogatory fashion, as well) doesn't contain science
    good enough to show it.

    Scott
     
    Scott Seidman, Jul 21, 2004
    #12
  13. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    What joke.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 21, 2004
    #13
  14. Otis Brown

    LarryDoc Guest

    .........and blah blah blah........

    and yet you all continue to engage Otis in his one-concept no-proof
    zealot-like issue. How many times do you have make the point that he
    doesn't have one?

    Have you not anything else better to do?

    Best,

    Larry
     
    LarryDoc, Jul 22, 2004
    #14
  15. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear DrG,

    Your arrogance is comming through lout and clear.

    You consider work on prevention (by pilots) to
    be a "joke". Apparently you do not give
    a damn about their long-term visual welfair.

    Fortunatly some ODs take their responsibility
    more seriously -- I certainly do.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    Otis Brown, Jul 22, 2004
    #15
  16. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest


    So, are you saying that Otis is a spammer and that we should treat him like
    all other spammers, i.e. ignore him and he will go away? Or do you think
    that his posts sound rational enough that the uninitiated might take them
    seriously, and on that basis deserve a response, especially when they
    almost always contain a diatribe against your profession?

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 22, 2004
    #16
  17. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    Oh, so you are once again saying that there is something wrong with my
    professional ethics because I won't stand silent while you continually make
    a mockery of the scientific method and medical science? Why, how arrogant
    of me to challenge you on that basis. I should be ashamed(sarcasm).

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 22, 2004
    #17
  18. Otis Brown

    LarryDoc Guest

    Certainly I appreciate your (plural) desire to undermine his
    to-the-unititated rational sounding diatribe. I merely suggest a
    possibly more effective and less time consuming method of dealing with
    morons and zealots.

    That is, begin the subject line of each response with a common
    reference, for example:

    Otis the zealot: xxxxxxxxxx where xxxxx is the subject line he starts.
    In the body text of the post, limit comments to one line. Engaging in
    point-by-point denunciation and damage control is point-less as he
    always will have a retort or he will simple ignore and post some other
    BS.

    I'm only suggesting that we spend more time addressing legitimate
    vision-related queries and less, or no time with single-issue zealots.
    Flame wars and nonsense posts tend to foster that kind of activity here
    and then we loose the interaction with those who we can enjoy
    substantive dialog.

    So yes, then I'd say Otis is a spammer. He contributes nothing
    substantive to the forum and only serves to demean and infuriate with
    pseudo- science sounding jibberish,

    Hey, that's a pretty good one-line comment!

    OK. that's surely enough time spent by me on this.

    Best,
    (and meaning that in a supportive and appreciative way)

    Larry
     
    LarryDoc, Jul 22, 2004
    #18
  19. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Larry,

    Then by your definition ANYONE who disagrees with
    you or develops an "alternative analysis, or
    offers an intelligent "second-opinion" is a "Zealot".

    Then Dr. Steve Leung is a "Zealot".

    www.chinamyopia.org

    Further Ignaz Semmelwies (who advocated that
    hands be washed in a cholorine solution before
    delivering babys was also a "Zealot".

    In fact anyone who attempts to "change the
    system (how ever bad it is) is always
    called a "Zealot".

    But I understand "where you are comming from".

    You just do not want your routine of spinning
    dials on your phoropter disturbed in any
    way at all.

    Bad for business!

    Best,

    Otis

    *******
     
    Otis Brown, Jul 23, 2004
    #19
  20. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Dear Larry,

    Otis once again reveals his "true" agenda.

    DrG


    (Otis Brown) wrote in
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 23, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

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.