Re: Perfect Mental Control for Perfect Sight

On Sep 6, 11:49 pm, andrewedwardj...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

My hypothesis on vision is more or less already known to you.

I would prefer to operate on the basis of a comprehensive statement
from you as opposed to bits and pieces from different conversations.
"More or less" isn't good enough for me.

For myopia i am saying that the focus of attention is inwards towards
the myopic persons concerns worries opinions and ideas. There is a
difficulty releasing that short seeing way of seeing so that what is
further away is seen more clearly.

I wish you had ended your post here, because that is all I am really
interested in.

So it is a methaphorical and literal way of describing myopia.

I think it is more metaphorical than literal.

How an inwards directed attention then creates physical myopia does
not overly concern me. But for example it is known that myopes have a
lag of recovery of accommodation. That makes sense in terms of
difficulty of releasing a near or inner directed focus so that the
focus is towards things that are "further away" from the myope.

But, that is precisely what concerns me. Also, I don't know that
myopes have a lag of recovery of accommodation. I do know that long-
standing myopes either do not need to accommodate, or accommodate
less, and so their facility of accommodation (same thing) may be
temporarilly impaired from disuse. Furthermore, the myope indeed
perceives things further away, except that they are unclear....but
then how does all this apply to corrected myopes?

I think the best way to show the theory in action is by example with
the way you interact with me.

You mean the way you interact with the group?

"Andrew, the retired property developer, would like to discuss twin
studies and the results of his personality inventories of people with
different eye problems. "

That is not really true of me. As a beginning step to talking to
optometrists who believe genetic factors far outweigh behavioural
factors firstly we need to all come to the same awareness of the data
as *it is* rather than as we want it to be.

What part of the statement is untrue of you?

It is myopic to create a reality that only fits what we believe. We
need to be open to "what is" and allow that sense to come in. The
myopic habit is to project a reality outwards and refuse to allow the
sense in.

I only respond to and infer things from what you write, as you do to
me. However, our difference is that you go beyond that with your own
artificial constructs.

I also do not, as you believe, want to discuss personality
inventories. I prefer to actually be working with people to help
them see things more clearly. So that filters are removed and people
see things as they are.

....or to see them as you see them? How are you in the privileged
position of seeing things "as they are"? Also, what is the basis of
your ability to generalize from your data? Do you select subjects who
fit your preconceived ideas? What information do you ignore? What is
your sample size? What are you measuring? Can somebody else measure
it? Etc.

So my theme in going thru your comments is that you have a too strong
subjectivity about what you believe is true or false.

The least I can do is to compare your ideas to my own experiences and
see how many instances I can think of that would seemingly "refute"
your statements. I also try to come up with any similar theories or
studies to use as a sort of yardstick.

On the one hand there is the reality of Andrew. And then on the
other hand there is a perception of Andrew. Ideally these two
different points of view become closer and closer when i am seen
accurately. Most people here do not see me accurately. Instead they
project outwards some impression they have of me that does not fit me
as i see myself.

Sartre described people as having a Being for Others that they cannot
control. Your image of me does not fit with how I see myself. So
what? Why do we even talk about such nonsense? It isn't germane.

You may have decided above that you know what i want to talk about.
But in reality you dont know. But you have projected your opinion
outwards as if it were true and factually accurate.

I guess I am confused about what you want to talk about. I presumed
you wanted to convince us of the validity of your theories. The
question is: do you know what you want to talk about?

"The optometrists would like to stick to
things that have been corroborated and verified experimentally. We
are the end users of the scientific information, and for us any
behavioral theories of refractive error seem all too easy to refute. "

Here you are once again making the claim (it is just a claim) that in
some manner the opticians are the scientists and that i am not the
scientist.

This is sci.med.vision where we try to keep the conversation on
track. Others have tried to advise you on how to frame your work so
that it conforms to how other scientists evaluate their work. If you
have no use for that, then what is your purpose here/

You go onto say that the behavioural theories of refractive error seem
all to easy to refute. And i guess that implies or claims that i am
foolish for my beliefs.

I seem to be able to refute them out of my own personal experiences.
I can come up with examples of myopes who do not seem to be any
different than some hyperopes I know. And then there is that little
problem with the mechanism.

So once again you show me that you are not really interested in my
theories. You have already decided in advance they are foolish or
misguided or unscientific.

I've decided to make a fresh beginning. You don't seem to understand
or appreciate that.

However to me you are revealing your short seeing way of thinking
where you decide in advance what is true or false and you find it hard
to allow in the reality of what is true or false.

I admit that I have a conceptual framework within which I evaluate
different experiences and ideas. If I were to meet somebody on the
street, and they said that they possessed the secret of eternal youth
and that I could have it for a price, am I being too judgemental if I
did not suspend my disbelief? There are varying degress of what I
judge to be the veracity of a set of statements and to what degree I
believe they describe reality.


Your opinion, or your measure of your intelligence is important to
you. That feeling of intelligence then decides what is true or
false. In an alternate reality, very "unintelligent" people take
more time to decide what is true or false and require far higher
standards of proof then you might do yourself. Your proofs tend to
fit your opinions so they are then good proofs and all that dont fit
your highly intelligent opinion are assigned as trash proofs. Good
proofs tend to get more studies done on them so that they are even
better good proofs and already decided trash proofs find it hard to
get more study done on them. The quality of the proofs at the end of
the day *can* say no more than reveal the bias that is already built
into what people can believe to be true.

No comment on the above.

Yes billions of dollars are spent on some forms of research into
myopia and a few hundreds are spent on some studies on myopia and
axiety. Does that actually definately truelly say anything more than
some studies are easier to get more funding for? Obviously "trash"
studies find it hard to get funding. I think it is true that yourself
would ensure that my kind of study is seen to be trash and does not
get funding. You protect your opinion rather than allowing in what
could be true.

I think you would have to have better evidence than what you have
presented. Why not write a paper and publish it on your website?

I think actually that you are not as openminded as this might, at
first, suggest.

I am open-minded. You are not.

Instead having already decided i am a fool you are now looking for
ammunition whereby you can create more pain and misery for me while
you delight in your intelligent ability to make me look foolish.

I don't think you are a fool. I retract that statement and will even
apologize to you for it. I have no desire to inflict pain an misery
on anybody. I presumed that your skin was sufficiently thick.

Back in reality of course, and away from short seeing behaviours there
is another version of what is happening where you seem unable to allow
in the reality of who I am and what i am talking about.

That's for me and others to judge, and I see it as your responsibility
to convince us and not vice-versa. I'm not trying to convince you of
anything.

My feeling so far is that you are overly fixated with your own points
of view, and what you have already decided to be true, to discuss this
with me in a way that would truelly reflect an interest in what i have
discovered. I find it very hard to believe that you can think at
this stage that i have discovered anything of use at all.

I admit to be having a difficult time with it.

Your attitude towards me says that you think i am a fool.

I'm tired of the attack of the trolls. I also see that you need to
work on a more formal presentation of your ideas so that "we" can
evaluate them more seriously. My suggestion to use your own website
to publish your paper and then we can do a peer review of it online.

I cannot know what is going thru you mind right now but maybe just
maybe you might allow yourself to allow in who i am and stop replacing
who i am with the fool you keep creating.

Why bother. I'm really not that much interested in what is going
through your mind. If you are certain that you are not a fool, then
why care what I or anybody thinks? My take is that you care --
perhaps too much -- about what we think here. By choice, this group
has a specific focus that may be a bit too narrow for you.

When you create that fool it is you who is being foolish.

It wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last. I cannot
control my Being for Others.

I am saying that vision problems say far more about the person who has
poor vision than might be obvious by only considering their eyeballs
in isolation to the person behind them.

....and I say that vision problems may determine aspects of
personality, rather than vice-versa. Or, perhaps there are other co-
variables that need to be discovered. Personally, the only
differences that I have observed and that have been documented is that
there is a high correlation between myopia and intelligence, and
perhaps a reflective nature or opinionatedness are more correlated
with intelligence and are therefore co-variables.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Perfect Mental Control for Perfect Sight
    ... are the end users of the scientific information, ... It is myopic to create a reality that only fits what we believe. ... Your opinion, or your measure of your intelligence is important to ... Your attitude towards me says that you think i am a fool. ...
    (sci.med.vision)
  • Re: OT Presidents - was I Like This Group
    ... I don't hold an opinion with a, ... I know I'm right and that's that!", philosophy. ... passes the reality test, and I'll change "my opinion" in a heartbeat. ... We're not fighting a 'set-point' fire in Iraq. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: OT Presidents - was I Like This Group
    ... of what *I* perceive to be reality. ... I don't hold an opinion with a, ... I know I'm right and that's that!", philosophy. ... We're not fighting a 'set-point' fire in Iraq. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: believability
    ... spicing-up reality. ... peculiarity is seen to be the peculiarity of all great poetry: ... I don't much care what Eliot thought about Blake, ... and they will be no less opinionated than Eliot's opinion. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: believability
    ... spicing-up reality. ... peculiarity is seen to be the peculiarity of all great poetry: ... I don't much care what Eliot thought about Blake, ... and they will be no less opinionated than Eliot's opinion. ...
    (misc.writing)
Loading