Re: The Oakley-Young Study versus the Shotwell Study


Dear Scott.

Subject: Agreement on a mathematical concept of the
natural eye's behavior.

Re: Agreement that the natural eye refractive state
(entire population) follows the accommodation
signal.

The definition of the accommodation signal is that
the "lens" follows a "control-signal" from the retina.

As long as we exclude the word "error" then I think
we can agree that the natural eye is a two-stage
control-system.

The first stage is the accommodation "system" as
I have described it -- having a time-constant of
about 3/4 second. (Some "time-lag" but
we will "cover" it with the 3/4 time contstant.)

The second system controls the NATURAL EYE'S
refractive state (as a DYNAMIC SYSTEM -- OR
AUTO_FOCUSED CAMERA.)

The real test is to determine if if the "second system"
exists -- and its "character".

The possibilities are:

1. The system is "open-loop", i.e., the nature
eye is NOT a dynamic system -- and we should
find this out. (This was the proposal by
Helmholtz and the Gullistrand "schematic eye"
theory.) This MIGHT be the case -- so let
us test for it.

(Must break for now.) But once we find
that the natural eye is "dynamic" with respect
to its ACCOMMODATION SIGNAL -- we must determine
the nature of the "transfer function" for the NATURAL DYNAMIC
EYE.

This is basic engineering -- are you with me
to this point Scott?

Love this "tech talk".

Best,

Otis

_______



Scott Seidman wrote:
> "otisbrown@xxxxxx" <otisbrown@xxxxxx> wrote in
> news:1135888230.696502.85930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
> > Dear Scott,
> >
> > Otis> The others on this site argue essentially
> >> that the naturel eye is NOT DYNAMIC,
> >> and is the box-camera proposed a long
> >> time ago.
> >
> >
> > ... again, a misrepresentation
> >
> > Otis> But whose standards? Are you God?
> > Do you agree that a populations of natural
> > eye's are sophisticated and therefore dynamic
> > systems? Or do you deny the objective
> > facts of the primate experiment? Which
> > is it, Scott? Please explain.
> >
> >
>
> Otis-- can you read a whole post at once? I said at least twice in that
> post, very clearly (to those who don't drink in the middle of the
> afternoon, anyway), that to the best of my recollection, nobody here
> (certainly not me) has claimed that the eye is not dynamic. The
> misrepresentation, as usual, was you putting those words into our mouths.
>
>
> --
> Scott
> Reverse name to reply
> Hak mir nisht ken tshaynik

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Front focal point measurememt.
    ... the eye. ... your refractive STATE would be of that value. ... When the reading starts to blur, at say 20 inches, ... accommodation is "active". ...
    (sci.med.vision)
  • Re: Apollo One Forum
    ... Believe me, Daniel, I've been considering that last suggestion of ... I'm still too angry at Scott for not ... keeping his eye on the ball. ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Pet "Red" Eye
    ... Scott W wrote: ... the flash at the same time will make the photos look even better. ... I try to find a shot which doesn't show a problem and pick up that color and flood the selected bad eye. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Scientific Proof of the Great Flood
    ... > Dr. Scott would never say something that wasn't true. ... Doc Literal, enemy of metaphor! ... look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Whats wrong with my chook?
    ... One of my chooks has a lump just behind her right eye. ... Scott. ...
    (sci.agriculture.poultry)