From vicc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU Ukn Feb 19 15:53:05 1995 From: Vic Cinc Subject: Hope for the long-eyed Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 12:44:34 +1100 (EST) Status: RO X-Status: >And also, who knows? The eye may be able to shrink just as well as it can >grow if you change the pressure put on it by the muscles that surround >it: the eye is filled with fluid that circulates; part of that fluid >winds up as teardrops! this is interesting. cause sometimes I can get a clear flash by blinking, but the longer I try to hang on to it, the more some stress/pressure builds up somewhere in the eye which results in tears. I wonder if this is related. Vic ========================================================================= From vicc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU Ukn Feb 19 15:53:22 1995 From: Vic Cinc Subject: Re: Hope for the long-eyed (fwd) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 13:56:51 +1100 (EST) Status: RO X-Status: > >And also, who knows? The eye may be able to shrink just as well as it can > >grow if you change the pressure put on it by the muscles that surround > >it: the eye is filled with fluid that circulates; part of that fluid > >winds up as teardrops! > > this is interesting. cause sometimes I can get a clear flash by > blinking, but the longer I try to hang on to it, the more some > stress/pressure builds up somewhere in the eye which results in tears. > I wonder if this is related. > > Vic > >You probably get the clear flash because the layer of liquid adds another >refractive element to the surface of your eye (like a contact lens). >You get the tears because you are holding your eyes open too long and because >your eyes are drying out, they react by secreting tears. again I dont agree. cause I can hold my eyes open for quite a while without any tears. but this is diferent I can feel various forms of tension/pain which force the tears. I doubt its as simple as the eye pushing against the tear ducts or eye fluid spilling into them. I also get differnt types of clear flashes. the best of which results in total relief of any pressure or tension and perfectly clear vision. another type which I call artificial flashes come about by blinking and isnt sustained for more then a short time. the later also results in tears. the former doesnt. both go away with blinking. although I have just been able to make it through a couple of blinks with the real thing. :) I suspect the artificial flash comes abount from the blinking and various muscles sort of falling/tightneing/stretching into place. as for tears/liquid on the eye changing the refractivity I get these as well but these are the least stable, and you can in fact notice uneven clarity which gets moved around by blinking, I dont count these as proper flashes. and anyway you can always feel the moisture in your eyes. so you can tell what is going on. Vic ========================================================================= From pkerns@indirect.com Ukn Feb 19 15:59:37 1995 From: Patricia Kerns Subject: Clear Flashes Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 16:56:42 -0700 (MST) Status: RO X-Status: > I also get differnt types of clear flashes. the best of which results > in total relief of any pressure or tension and perfectly clear vision. > > another type which I call artificial flashes come about by blinking > and isnt sustained for more then a short time. the later also results > in tears. the former doesnt. both go away with blinking. although I > have just been able to make it through a couple of blinks with > the real thing. :) I suspect the artificial flash comes abount from > the blinking and various muscles sort of falling/tightneing/stretching > into place. > I, too, get two very distinct kinds of clear flashes (I've gotten into the habit of referring to them as "real" ones and "cheating" ones). The real ones are accompanied by an incredible sensation of relaxation around my eyes, and are not affected one way or the other (either started or ended) by blinking. I don't have the ability to bring these about by will, but I can create the conditions favorable to them by various relaxations techniques. The cheating kind of flashes are caused by blinking in a somewhat peculiar way, or simply by tensing and then relaxing all the muscles around my eyes. They almost never last more than two or three blinks. I can now bring these about any time I want to, and it's actually a useful skill every now and then, if I want to see something for a few seconds, but not run and get my glasses. What I find interesting is that I tried vision therapy on my own about 10 years ago, and only experienced the "cheating" kind. In spite of my learning that skill at the time, though, I lost it when I quit doing VT (in favor of orthoK). I remember halfheartedly trying to do it a couple of times in the interim, without any success. So, although I now consider this type of clear flash to be not the real thing, I've concluded that 1) it definitely is a skill that came from vision therapy, not one that I had all along, and 2) it seems to be a precursor of the real thing. Let me make it clear here that I'm no vision expert, but from my perspective, the "cheating" flashes are just a stop along the path to better vision. One thing I've been amazed at in my latest venture into vision therapy is how many completely different ways of seeing things the same pair of eyes can come up with (blurry, double image, multiple image, clear with halo, or perfectly clear). It seems very odd that no one has tried to scientifically research and explain this. Patty ========================================================================= From owner-i_see@indiana.edu Fri Aug 18 10:56:10 EST 1995 From: c22at@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com Subject: Clear flashes Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 10:35:24 -0400 (CDT) Status: RO X-Status: I have been trying to experience the 'clear flashes' thing using various different methods without success. The other day, I was lying down in bed, facing the ceiling. There was a ceiling fan right above the bed, so I was looking at the fan blades turning as I was lying down. As my mind wondered, I thought I got a clear flash for a split second from looking at the moving blades. It all happened so fast that I am not sure if the flash was for real, or just my imagination. The problem is, I can not repeat the experience anymore no matter how long and hard I tried. Can anyone confirm if one could get clear flashes by looking at turing fan blades, or was my experience a sub-conscious, wishful, foolish thinking? Thanks Andy ========================================================================= From owner-i_see@indiana.edu Fri Aug 18 13:02:16 EST 1995 Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 12:22:27 -0400 From: mat@tekbase.METRICA.COM (Marco A. Terry) Subject: Re: Clear flashes Status: RO X-Status: > From uunet!indiana.edu!owner-i_see Fri Aug 18 12:07 EDT 1995 > >Received: from unh.edu by relay4.UU.NET with SMTP > id QQzdik07724; Fri, 18 Aug 1995 11:41:53 -0400 > From: uunet!kocrsv01.delcoelect.com!c22at > Subject: Clear flashes > To: uunet!indiana.edu!i_see (i_see) > Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 10:35:24 -0400 (CDT) > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I have been trying to experience the 'clear flashes' thing using various [munch munch] > Can anyone confirm if one could get clear flashes by looking at turing fan > blades, or was my experience a sub-conscious, wishful, foolish thinking? > > Thanks > > > Andy > Ok! I have another one. I started fooling around with +ve lenses (1.25) and on my second day, I felt a 'thump' (or a 'click') in my eyes (both) kinda like a muscle contraction (or relaxation) and vioala, it was all clear for some secs (then I blinked :-( ). Can somebody explain that? Thx. -- Marco A. Terry Metrica, Inc. ' A Jurney of 1000 miles begins with a 8 Winchister Place single step......` - No idea Winchester, Ma 01890 ========================================================================= From owner-i_see@indiana.edu Fri Aug 18 17:55:08 EST 1995 Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 17:33:37 -0500 (EST) From: Alex Eulenberg Subject: Re: Clear flashes Status: RO X-Status: Marco Terry: > I started fooling around with +ve lenses (1.25) and > on my second day, I felt a 'thump' (or a 'click') in my eyes (both) kinda > like a muscle contraction (or relaxation) and vioala, it was all clear > for some secs (then I blinked :-( ). Can somebody explain that? > A common experience is to have everything all clear until you blink. Skeptics of vision improvement say this is because you "blinked off" a film of tears that was resting on your cornea, a kind of natural contact lens. However, if tears could improve vision that well, certainly clear flashes would be more commonplace. If, however, you suppose that good vision is maintained by the extraocular muscles -- the ones that point your eyes in different directions -- we may have a clue. I notice that whenever I blink or otherwise move my eyelids, I get a kind of "earthquke" in my visual field. It seems to be a kind of reflex of the extraocular muscles to move the eyes when you blink, which all too often can disrupt a clear flash. Fortunately, it is also common experience that over time, clear flashes become more resistant to blinking. * * * But how do you get your clear flash in the first place? I've found that clear flashes are more likely to occur just after a small snack. I've had good results with orange juice, carrots, and especially brewer's yeast. I hesitate to recommend any particular vitamin supplement, since I believe that each person has their own "something lacking". Find out what your missing link is! Your body should be relaxed but alert. I have a hunch adequate blood sugar is essential. Physical exercise is a good way to achieve this state. Clear flashes come more easily when I'm lying down. Another excellent way to bring about a clear flash is to go to a musical concert. Bright light or at least being outdoors (even if it's cloudy) also seems to be very important. I can't remember ever having a clear flash in a dimly lit room. With that in mind here's a recipie for a clear flash: 1. Have a workout, take a shower 2. Have a healthy snack 3. Put on your favorite music, or go to a concert 4. Lie down and look at something under bright light -- don't stare at it though, shift from detail to detail. If it doesn't come, close or cover your eyes for a few minutes or seconds and look around some more. Shift your gaze to the beat of the music. --Alex ========================================================================= From owner-i_see@indiana.edu Fri Aug 18 18:01:52 EST 1995 Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 15:41:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Roosen Subject: Re: Clear flashes Status: RO X-Status: In my experience, clear flashes show up just about any where. blinking one's eyes often leads to them. Looking at the world through a window screen is also a good way to get them. Robert On Fri, 18 Aug 1995 c22at@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com wrote: > I have been trying to experience the 'clear flashes' thing using various > different methods without success. > > The other day, I was lying down in bed, facing the ceiling. There was a > ceiling fan right above the bed, so I was looking at the fan blades turning > as I was lying down. As my mind wondered, I thought I got a clear flash > for a split second from looking at the moving blades. > > It all happened so fast that I am not sure if the flash was for real, or just > my imagination. The problem is, I can not repeat the experience anymore no > matter how long and hard I tried. > > Can anyone confirm if one could get clear flashes by looking at turing fan > blades, or was my experience a sub-conscious, wishful, foolish thinking? > > Thanks > > > Andy > ========================================================================= From owner-i_see@indiana.edu Sat Aug 19 08:47:56 EST 1995 From: Vic Cinc Subject: Clear flashes (fwd) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 11:56:07 +1000 (EST) Status: RO X-Status: Forwarded message: >I have been trying to experience the 'clear flashes' thing using various >different methods without success. > >The other day, I was lying down in bed, facing the ceiling. There was a >ceiling fan right above the bed, so I was looking at the fan blades turning >as I was lying down. As my mind wondered, I thought I got a clear flash >for a split second from looking at the moving blades. > >It all happened so fast that I am not sure if the flash was for real, or just >my imagination. The problem is, I can not repeat the experience anymore no >matter how long and hard I tried. > >Can anyone confirm if one could get clear flashes by looking at turing fan >blades, or was my experience a sub-conscious, wishful, foolish thinking? you can never be sure about spilt second clear flashes. I always consider a real clear flash to be multi second at minimum, now I can tell if one is comming on because it has a characteristic signature of feeling about it. at first you can never really make one happen, and my first was totaly out of voluntary control. the more you tense, tug or pull or at muscles in your eye the less likely you are to get one. you sort of have to allow it happen by leting go of everything. just by sittin gback and being a pure observer, allow your unconscious mind to adjust itself and your vision without conscious overide. its that conscious override which proably got you myopic in the first place. Vic Vic ========================================================================= From owner-i_see@indiana.edu Sat Aug 19 11:13:16 EST 1995 Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 10:51:12 -0500 (EST) From: Alex Eulenberg Subject: Re: Clear flashes Status: RO X-Status: On Sat, 19 Aug 1995, zarin pirouz wrote: > I am convinced it is neural processing, because the quality of the image > is very static and it takes a while for the mind to "get it". I think the > clear flash is just the rare occasions that the mind gets it perfectly. > It doesn't last because your eyes move around and your mind gets distacted. It appears that blinking can both bring on and destroy a flash of clear vision. What's going on? I think the best analogy is banging on an electric appliance. I agree with Zarin that the improvement is ultimately something "neural". But I disagree with him when he says that the reason for good or bad vision is in "image processing." I think what is happening is that some nervous energy block is released (or knocked out), perhaps in the brain itself, perhaps closer to the eyeball, allowing the correct focusing signals to finally get to the eye. > Although I must say that when I have a clear flash, everything seems just > perfect. Sometimes I even manage to hold the clear flash through several > blinks, but I have to concentrate very hard for that and stop my eyes from > moving around. > > I really hope I'm wrong and this improvement is really in the focusing > system, but I haven't seen any sign of it. If the focusing system was > improving, it would make sense to notice a gradual improvement...the > reverse of the process that lead to myopia. But right now this "all > or nothing" vision improvement seems just like a mental process to > me. Again, I disagree with your reasoning. If the improvement were in the inherent physical properties of the eyeball, then yes, you would expect a gradual improvement. But if it is the "focusing system" as you say, which is controlled by a "mental process" then there is no paradox. What we appear to be dealing with is a deeply-ingrained myopic (or astigmatic, or hyperopic for that matter) reflex. > One question that I have for all of you who have experienced clear flashes: > Have you ever seen a blinking or moving object in your clear flash? Yes! Examples: rustling leaves, birds, clock second hands... and the entire scenery moving as I sway my head back and forth. But, you're right... it does seem to be easier to get a clear flash while looking at a stationary object. However, tracking a moving object is as much a physical challenge a mental one. What I'm getting at is that focusing is a matter of PHYSICAL COORDINATION. What changes in vision improvement is the mind's ability to coordinate the physical structure of the eye. --Alex ========================================================================= From roosen@cts.com Sat Aug 19 15:15:41 EST 1995 Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 13:12:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Roosen Subject: Re: Clear flashes Status: RO X-Status: Bates gives an example of a man who had palming explained to him and perfected his vision in a single day. He sat at his kitchen table and palmed for 12 hours. I see this as support for Alex's thesis. Robert PS The man told Bates, "It was tedious, doctor. It was very tedious." On Sat, 19 Aug 1995, Alex Eulenberg wrote: > On Sat, 19 Aug 1995, zarin pirouz wrote: > > > I am convinced it is neural processing, because the quality of the image > > is very static and it takes a while for the mind to "get it". I think the > > clear flash is just the rare occasions that the mind gets it perfectly. > > It doesn't last because your eyes move around and your mind gets distacted. > > It appears that blinking can both bring on and destroy a flash of clear > vision. What's going on? I think the best analogy is banging on an > electric appliance. I agree with Zarin that the improvement is ultimately > something "neural". But I disagree with him when he says that the reason > for good or bad vision is in "image processing." I think what is happening > is that some nervous energy block is released (or knocked out), perhaps in > the brain itself, perhaps closer to the eyeball, allowing the correct > focusing signals to finally get to the eye. > > > Although I must say that when I have a clear flash, everything seems just > > perfect. Sometimes I even manage to hold the clear flash through several > > blinks, but I have to concentrate very hard for that and stop my eyes from > > moving around. > > > > I really hope I'm wrong and this improvement is really in the focusing > > system, but I haven't seen any sign of it. If the focusing system was > > improving, it would make sense to notice a gradual improvement...the > > reverse of the process that lead to myopia. But right now this "all > > or nothing" vision improvement seems just like a mental process to > > me. > > Again, I disagree with your reasoning. If the improvement were in the > inherent physical properties of the eyeball, then yes, you would expect a > gradual improvement. But if it is the "focusing system" as you say, which > is controlled by a "mental process" then there is no paradox. What we > appear to be dealing with is a deeply-ingrained myopic (or astigmatic, > or hyperopic for that matter) reflex. > > > One question that I have for all of you who have experienced clear flashes: > > Have you ever seen a blinking or moving object in your clear flash? > > Yes! Examples: rustling leaves, birds, clock second hands... and the > entire scenery moving as I sway my head back and forth. > > But, you're right... it does seem to be easier to get a clear flash while > looking at a stationary object. However, tracking a moving object is as > much a physical challenge a mental one. > > What I'm getting at is that focusing is a matter of PHYSICAL COORDINATION. > What changes in vision improvement is the mind's ability to coordinate the > physical structure of the eye. > > --Alex > ========================================================================= From owner-i_see@indiana.edu Sat Aug 19 18:36:27 EST 1995 From: "Stephen Thomas Brindle" Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 15:53:41 -0800 Subject: Flashes. Status: RO X-Status: I've had experiences every once in a while when things suddenly seem very clear, and this usually stays for a minute or so even if I blink. But I've especially noticed clear vision after opening my eyes in my swimming pool. I don't know whether this is an effect of the water in the pool merely cleansing my eyes, or some sort of visual property the chlorine has, but when I come up from opening my eyes underwater, I notice things to be sharper, brighter, and more colorful. That's just my experience. ========================================================================= From owner-i_see@indiana.edu Sun Aug 20 12:09:12 EST 1995 From: MBerezetsk@aol.com Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 12:49:42 -0400 Subject: Weird clarity Status: RO X-Status: When my vision gets clear -- and it happens a lot nowadays -- I have to deal with two weird problems. The first one is just unbelievable -- I can only describe it as an allergic reaction to clarity. (I have no history of allergies whatsoever.) My eyes start watering (which entails grave consequences for my eye makeup -- you guys have no clue unless you're Michael Jackson), my nose starts itching, and I often sneeze. For now, I trashed makeup and went natural, but I need a more permanent solution. (Again -- I'm not allergic to makeup or anything else, it only happens as a result of a clear flash.) The other problem is pain. With maximum clarity comes maximum pain -- and it's not your common everyday eyestrain, it's unbearably sharp (like when you're cutting an onion too close to your face). All I can think of is that in my native tongue, the saying that corresponds to "truth hurts" is, verbatim, "truth pinpricks the eyes." Has anyone experienced these symptoms? My original myopia is high and my difference between "clear" and "original" is several diopters. Does anyone have an explanation? Suggestions? Elena ========================================================================= From owner-i_see@indiana.edu Mon Aug 21 04:38:52 EST 1995 From: Vic Cinc Subject: Weird clarity (fwd) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 19:21:00 +1000 (EST) Status: RO X-Status: >From owner-i_see@indiana.edu Mon Aug 21 02:34 EST 1995 > >When my vision becomes clear -- and it happens a lot nowadays -- I have to >deal with two weird problems. The first one is just unbelievable -- I can >only describe it as an allergic reaction to clarity. (I have no history of >allergies whatsoever.) My eyes start watering (which entails grave >consequenses for my eye makeup -- you guys have no clue unless you're Michael >Jackson), my nose starts itching and I often sneeze. For now, I just trashed >makeup and went natural, but I need a more permanent soultion. true story. My eyes often start watering and I get a pain in the eye itself if I do an induced clear flash. my nbehavioral optometrist says this passes with time, and thinks its the EOMs misadjusting things nearby when they re-adjust to see properly. I wish I had a solution to this. next time you get a clear flash try blinking as *lightly* as possible at any indication of tears or pain and see how long you can maintain the clarity without effort. to me it always seem the effort is what trashes them. Vic ========================================================================= From owner-i_see@indiana.edu Mon Aug 21 04:58:13 EST 1995 From: Vic Cinc Subject: Re: Clear flashes (fwd) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 19:37:30 +1000 (EST) Status: RO X-Status: Forwarded message: >I am convinced it is neural processing, ... I am not convinced clear flashes are neural. firstly I can get a pain in the actual eye, and blinking makes mine go away. secodnly if it was nerual then the brain should be able to switch it on any time. >I really hope I'm wrong and this improvement is really in the focusing >system, but I haven't seen any sign of it. its not in the focusing, (ciliary) as I can accomodate at will and this does nothing to the clarity (when released :) >One question that I have for all of you who have experienced clear flashes: >Have you ever seen a blinking or moving object in your clear flash? yes. I watch cars down at the airport the size of ants racing about, which I cant even see normaly! Vic ========================================================================= From owner-i_see@indiana.edu Mon Aug 21 22:37:11 EST 1995 From: zarinp@ee.ubc.ca (zarin pirouz) Subject: Re: Clear flashes Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 20:15:59 -0700 (PDT) Status: RO X-Status: Forwarded message: > From: Alex Eulenberg > X-Sender: aeulenbe@hamlet.ucs.indiana.edu > To: I SEE > Subject: Re: Clear flashes > In-Reply-To: <9508191107.AA02429@fs0.ee.ubc.ca> > > On Sat, 19 Aug 1995, zarin pirouz wrote: > > > I am convinced it is neural processing, because the quality of the image > > is very static and it takes a while for the mind to "get it". I think the > > clear flash is just the rare occasions that the mind gets it perfectly. > > It doesn't last because your eyes move around and your mind gets distacted. > > It appears that blinking can both bring on and destroy a flash of clear > vision. What's going on? I think the best analogy is banging on an I don't lose it with a blink any more. I find I can keep it as long as I don't look at things with significant difference in distance ....I suspected the reason would be that the mind attempts to use a different filter algorithm as soon as the focal distance changes and in doing so it loses the old one which lead to the clear flash. I have to say that I find this discussion a bit pointless because neither of us have real experimental data for our guesses. I will explain the backgound a bit more, because I think I owe it to you since I brought up the subject, but I don't have any real proof, so I will not respond agian because that would lead to infinite loops of discussion. Sorry Vic, you asked me this on SMV too and I never responded, because I didn't know what to say. As far as banging on an electric appliance goes, that's a really bad idea too and it would be much better to understand what exactly goes wrong and fix it rather than random banging! > electric appliance. I agree with Zarin that the improvement is ultimately > something "neural". But I disagree with him when he says that the reason > for good or bad vision is in "image processing." I think what is happening > is that some nervous energy block is released (or knocked out), perhaps in > the brain itself, perhaps closer to the eyeball, allowing the correct > focusing signals to finally get to the eye. > This is not my original idea. In fact at first I resisted it a bit too because I was really excited about the new improvements and didn't want to believe that there was no real improvement. After impressing a physicist friend with reading distant things without glasses (things that he as a myope with a lower magnitude persc. can't read) he wanted to try it too. I showed him the tricks I used and within a few minutes he noticed a change too. Then he borrowed my Bates book and I think spent a few hours reading it and tried more of the stuff I do. His conclusion was that all I did was I trained my mind to correct the blurr in the same way that people train neural nets. He does a lot of neural net programming. Up to that point I had been convinced that what I did was closing the feed-back loop for the eye control system, so by reminding my brain what I expected to see it would "adjust" the control signal to the muscles to achieve it.....and I thought the clear flash was the rare times when I relax the muscles 100%. Just a quick explanation: Neural nets are modelled after the brain. People train them using a training set ( a set of things that you know how the net should respond to) and measure the error between the response of the net and the expected response. Then they change the net's parameters and do this training again and again using stadard optimization methods, till the error is minimized. In principle you could use a neural net to enhance a blurry picture that a satellite took as long as you could use a known feature in the picture and get the net to massage the data till the feature looks like what it should. This sounds very much like the exercises with eye charts or anything you might do if you try to see things as what you know they should look like. I have come to accept this neural training theory after noticing that it was the only explaniantionthat fitted all the evidence that I had. I am going to list them here so you can think about it and decide for yourself, but since I don't have real experimental data, even I am not 100% sure so I am not going to re-hash them and get to a long discussion and clutter everybody's mailbox. - Everybody seems to get clear flashes regardless of their eye problem. Bates even got people without lens (cataract patients) to see some things. If there is a real defect like short eye-ball or no lens (or no control over the lens for some reason) or miss-shaped cornea, I can't believe that any exercise "fixes" the *REAL* optical error, but neural image processing can be trained to work on a number of distortions. (Don't get me wrong some rpoblems with eye allignment seem to require some exercises, but that's not myopia.) - Richard Mccollim's post with info. regarding the lens elasticity suggests that no matter what causes the lens to remain convex (this could be some sort of stress induced cramping of the muscles or just prolonged near work) after the lens is kept so convex for so long, it will lose some of its elastic property and might take years for it to return to normal. So no matter how relax the muscles get, how relaxed you are, how much you have gotten rid of the "myopic personality" and near work, etc. etc. the lens will not return to normal right away. Think about it as an over-stretched elastic band, or a super-compressed mattress even when you remove the destructive force, they don't spontaneously return to normal for brief seconds and return to the deformed stage. Either they recover the original shape slowly or they don't. - Robert-Micheal Kaplan mentioned something about people being able to see better, but the refraction tests not changing at all or only a little after all these years of study that he did. - My clear flashes are very static. Remember I am a -4 myope. If you Alex or Vic get a clear flash becaue you're not so myopic, it's bound to be better than mine, because your natural system is not as "broken" as mine. For me it is still very amazing that I get them, but I notice that I can see things that are far, but if I try to see something close it's ruined. At the same time I don't have a problem turning my head and seeing all sorts of far things and keeping the flash. Even moving cars as long as seeing them clearly while they are moving does not represent a significant change in blurr. Same thing goes for when I see close stuff, I can't just shift to seeing far stuff. - If I have a clear flash outdoors in bright light I don't notice the haze, but if I do it inside, I notice the whole picture is a bit hazy and yet I see sharp edges around letters and things far away. - Another bizzare thing is that even after wearing glasses for a while and even after being very tired and stressed out and having worked through the night, I can still get clear flashes. A few times I had to wear glasses for the whole day (for the past 4 months I've not been wearing them almost 90% of the time), and I expected to have really blurry vision after taking them off, but to my surprize I even got better results than before, as if the new memory of "what sharp should look like" helped me in seeing better. - Since I became myopic slowly and the effect was gradual, I would expect any solution to the same problem should be gradual too. - Sometimes when I am trying to see some far object, I notice the way my mind is actually changing it. Sometimes it scales up or down or strech it sideways and I can see it's just playing with the image to get it right. All of the above points plus a few other minor ones that I don't bother with have lead me to believe that the improvement is caused by the mind's ability to post-process the blurry image. It is still amazing and I think should be studied and perhaps this will allow people whose myopia is stress induced to wear weaker or no glasses before it's too late. Of course it's also great for people with other vision problems. But for me a "real" improvement would have to be something that returns the natural elasticity of the lens, because if you have work/stress induced myopia, not matter what caused it, the physical effect is in the lens and unless you fix that, you havent fixed the problem. But I don't have proof for any of this. I just wanted to share it with you because I thought my friend had a great insight that for the first time explained all the things that seemed inconsistent to me. > > Although I must say that when I have a clear flash, everything seems just > > perfect. Sometimes I even manage to hold the clear flash through several > > blinks, but I have to concentrate very hard for that and stop my eyes from > > moving around. > > > > I really hope I'm wrong and this improvement is really in the focusing > > system, but I haven't seen any sign of it. If the focusing system was > > improving, it would make sense to notice a gradual improvement...the > > reverse of the process that lead to myopia. But right now this "all > > or nothing" vision improvement seems just like a mental process to > > me. > > Again, I disagree with your reasoning. If the improvement were in the > inherent physical properties of the eyeball, then yes, you would expect a > gradual improvement. But if it is the "focusing system" as you say, which > is controlled by a "mental process" then there is no paradox. What we > appear to be dealing with is a deeply-ingrained myopic (or astigmatic, > or hyperopic for that matter) reflex. > The reason I don't believe this any more is that if the lens loses it's original shape and flexibility, there is nothing the mind can do to fix that. > > One question that I have for all of you who have experienced clear flashes: > > Have you ever seen a blinking or moving object in your clear flash? > > Yes! Examples: rustling leaves, birds, clock second hands... and the > entire scenery moving as I sway my head back and forth. > Yes, but sorry my question was phrased poorly. I get all of that too, but if things are roughly as far away from you , then the mind does not need to re-learn the processing "parameters" that it used. I even believe that it can remember and recall a set of parameters for different distances Blurr factors), but it cannot smoothly give you a clear image while you shift your eyes from close to far or far to close....something that I would expect if the lens was working, because the process of changing shape is a continuous process. > But, you're right... it does seem to be easier to get a clear flash while > looking at a stationary object. However, tracking a moving object is as > much a physical challenge a mental one. > > What I'm getting at is that focusing is a matter of PHYSICAL COORDINATION. > What changes in vision improvement is the mind's ability to coordinate the > physical structure of the eye. > The mind cannot flatten the lens back to shape if it is "stuck". Time might, but the mind can't. The best the mind can do is "let go" of the ciliary muscles ....which is a good start. > --Alex > Now that I explained myself, I'll keep quiet because I have no real proof. BTW, Elena, my eyes watered for the first month and my whole face would be totally wet. But now it only does a bit, doesn't burn any more and it stops waterring after one second or so. Cheers, Zarin ========================================================================= From owner-i_see@indiana.edu Thu Aug 24 09:05:38 EST 1995 From: c22at@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com Subject: Clear flashes, I think I've got it!!!! Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 08:39:57 -0400 (CDT) Status: RO X-Status: Please confirm: The flash stays for some seconds. My eyes seem to be more light sensitive (by A LOT!!!) when it happens, causing discomfort and watering. The other problem is that it seems to only happen to my right eye (it is less myopic). Also, the flash is accompanied by some sort of double vision, resulting in a slight blur in the top part of the vision field. For example, I would be able to trace the bottom parts of thej letters of the words I am seeing, but the top parts of the letters are blurry due to the double vision. Could it be caused by the fact that my left eye did not the flash? I think this is the real thing. Could anyone confirm this? Andy ps : Thanks to everyone who responded to my posts. ========================================================================= From owner-i_see@indiana.edu Thu Aug 24 09:16:28 EST 1995 From: Vic Cinc Subject: Clear flashes, I think I've got it!!!! (fwd) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 23:55:15 +1000 (EST) Status: RO X-Status: >From owner-i_see@indiana.edu Thu Aug 24 23:48 EST 1995 > >Please confirm: > >The flash stays for some seconds. My eyes seem to be more light >sensitive (by A LOT!!!) when it happens, causing discomfort and watering. > >The other problem is that it seems to only happen to my right eye (it is less >myopic). Also, the flash is accompanied by some sort of double >vision, resulting in a slight blur in the top part of the vision field. > >For example, I would be able to trace the bottom parts of thej >letters of the words I am seeing, but the top parts of the >letters are blurry due to the double vision. Could it be caused by the >fact that my left eye did not the flash? > >I think this is the real thing. Could anyone confirm this? thats it!! you got it. there are various flavours of this. the extreme is when both eyes get simultaneously and wow! youl find that double vision has always been there in some degree or other but know you are noticing it more. cover each eye in turn with your hand next time it happens to check whats going on with each eye. double vision is astigmatism more or less. possibly some fusion as well. Vic ========================================================================= From aeulenbe@indiana.edu Thu Sep 18 20:55:44 1995 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 18:24:05 -0700 From: mccollim@ix.netcom.com (Richard Mccollim) Subject: Flashes of clear vision Status: RO X-Status: Alex (and anyone else interested): As you well know, the occasional posts to sci.med.vision on flashes of clear vision are answered with condescending remarks by the professionals. They are probably unaware that there are a few reports in the literature on this phenomenon. On re-reading a paper on "The resting state of accommodation" (Meredith Morgan, Am. J. Optom. and Arch. Am. Acad. Optom, Monograph 214, July 1957), I came across the following: "Le Grand, using skiametry, found five subjects who showed negative accommodation during "flashes of clear vision" while wearing too much convex lens power....Morgan and Olmstead, using skiametry to measure changes in the refractive state of the eye, reported that sudden sensory stimuli, such as an electric shock or a loud noise, may cause a sudden decrease in the refractive power of the eye, usually not more than 0.25 D." I noticed the same effect from a hard fall when hiking in the mountains--a flash of clear vision. I wonder if anyone else has had a similar experience. The comment about "wearing too much convex lens power" suggests a way to provoke flashes. How about wearing strong convex lenses while exposed to a loud explosion and receivng a strong electric shock! :-) (Would that produce a .75 D. reduction in lens power?) Rich The references are: LeGrand, Y, The presence of negative accommodation in certain subjects. Am J. Optom & Arch. Am Acad. Optom, 29:134, 1952 Marg, E. "Flashes" of clear vision and negative accommodation with reference to the Bates method of visual training. Am J. Optom & Arch. Am Acad. Optom. 29:612, 1939 Morgan, M.W., Jr. Olmstead, J.M.D. Response of the human lens to a sudden startling stimulus. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. & Med., 42:612, 1939 ========================================================================= From owner-i_see@indiana.edu Thu Oct 5 19:25:45 EST 1995 Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 18:59:14 -0500 (EST) From: Alex Eulenberg Subject: Re: Feast for your eyes Status: RO X-Status: I posted: >I've noticed that whenever I prepare myself a salad with lots of color >contrast (white feta cheese, dark green spinach, bright red pepper), and >I look at it, my eyes seem to come alive. Has anyone ever noticed an >eye-enhancement effect from looking at their salad? Tara Banfield replied to me (said I could forward it to the list)... >I *have* noticed that whenever >I see ANYTHING colorful (of the sort that I *want* to be seeing), or even >something less dazzling that is pleasing to look at, I relax all over >(endorphin flood?) and I imagine the response might enhance eyesight -- >there is that wonderful combination of calm and stimlation that makes me >just plain FEEL better. In any case, I'm sure it's not imaginary! Hm... Something to keep in mind for those of us staring at black and white letters all day. Which reminds me, a certain optometrist William M. Updegrave wrote a book in 1936, called "The Seeing Eye", and each page was printed with a different colored ink on a different colored piece of paper. He requested that readers write him and tell him which pages had the best effect on them. --Alex ========================================================================= From owner-i_see@indiana.edu Fri Nov 17 14:48:52 EST 1995 From: c22at@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com Subject: Clear flashes, a scientific experiment Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 14:28:19 -0500 (EST) Status: RO X-Status: A few months ago, there was a discussion on the cause of clear flashes. One theory is that the flash was caused by image processing done in the brain to "compensate" for the blurs. I think I found a way to test this theory. Take a picture of a familiar object. Make the camera out of focus, so the image will be blurred. Now look at that picture, and see if your brain can "process" the image so that the object in the picture looks clear to you. If clear flashes are the results of the brain's image processing, you should be able to do this. If not, then the theory is not valid. I think this should work. Comments? Andy ========================================================================= From owner-i_see@indiana.edu Fri Nov 17 19:41:21 EST 1995 From: zarinp@ee.ubc.ca (zarin pirouz) Subject: Re: Clear flashes, a scientific experiment Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 16:23:19 -0800 (PST) Status: RO X-Status: > > A few months ago, there was a discussion on the cause of clear flashes. One > theory is that the flash was caused by image processing done in the brain > to "compensate" for the blurs. > > I think I found a way to test this theory. Take a picture of a familiar object. > Make the camera out of focus, so the image will be blurred. Now look at that > picture, and see if your brain can "process" the image so that the object in > the picture looks clear to you. If clear flashes are the results of the brain's > image processing, you should be able to do this. If not, then the theory is > not valid. > > I think this should work. Comments? > > > Andy > Hi Andy, I put forward that theory and I also suggested that particular test (actually neither the theory nor this partcular test were my original ideas, but came from my discussions with a physicist friend when I was trying to figure out what was going on). I still haven't done it. I only have an automatic camera but it has an option for fixing the focus on a particular object, so I was going to put that in my far focal point, fix the focus and then remove the object and ask somebody to hold a letter (or a few letters) in front of the camera but further away than my focal point and take a picture. To be totally objective I need 2 other people and I should not be on the room, so that I can not see the letters in advance. I think if I could manage to see the out of focus letter it would prove the theory, but I am not totally sure what it would say if I couldn't see the letter. It is not too easy to control this clear flash process and how would you stop your brain from focusing on the edges of the actual picture and your hands etc. rather than try to look at the contents of the picture? This process is a bit automatic. Another thing is that I am pretty near sighted, so should I do this test with my glasses on or off? What is the effect of the additional distortion in either case? So I agree, if the test is successful, it proves the theory and although I don't believe the reverse holds, I think it is still a very good test. But I must say that so far using binoculars or my own glasses (that are too weak for me) I haven't been able to do the same thing as I do with naked eye....ie I couldn't compensate for the insufficient focus. That could just be due to lack of practice since I am used to getting clear flashes without any lens in front of my eyes. Since the principle behind both ideas is the same, I always thought I should at least learn to do it with my glasses on (ie try to read signs with my glasses on that I usually can't see) before I go to the camera test. ......but now that you brought it up I might get inspired and do the camera test and report back to the list! Zarin ========================================================================= From owner-i_see@indiana.edu Sat Nov 18 20:50:12 EST 1995 Date: Sat, 18 Nov 95 16:33 PST From: Beyond_20/20@Sunshine.net (Beyond 20/20 Vision) Subject: Re: Clear flashes, a scientific experiment Status: RO X-Status: I have used Andy's idea in slide presentations and have found that the audience can usually guess the image at about 20/40 or 50 level of blur. It is amazing how accurate they can be. I use one particular slide of a sunset with boats, and many can see the boats when they are quite blurry. I know the skeptics will say this is blur interpretation, but 3 lines of eyesight clearness is more than interpreting blur. Any thoughts? Robert-Michael Kaplan. ******A portion of Beyond 20/20 Vision profits are used to provide full-spectrum lighting for children's classrooms in schools******** -------------------------------------------------------------- Snail Mail Beyond 20/20 Vision=81 RR#5 Site 26, Comp. 39, Gibsons, British Columbia. V0N 1V0 Canada Voice (604) 885-7118 =46ax (604) 885-0608 >> A few months ago, there was a discussion on the cause of clear flashes. = One >> theory is that the flash was caused by image processing done in the brain >> to "compensate" for the blurs. >> >> I think I found a way to test this theory. Take a picture of a familiar >>object. >> Make the camera out of focus, so the image will be blurred. Now look at = that >> picture, and see if your brain can "process" the image so that the object= in >> the picture looks clear to you. If clear flashes are the results of the >>brain's >> image processing, you should be able to do this. If not, then the theory= is >> not valid. >> >> I think this should work. Comments? >> >> >> Andy >> >Hi Andy, > >I put forward that theory and I also suggested that particular test (actual= ly >neither the theory nor this partcular test were my original ideas, but came >from my discussions with a physicist friend when I was trying to figure out >what was going on). >I still haven't done it. I only have an automatic camera but it has an >option for fixing the focus on a particular object, so I was going to put >that in my far focal point, fix the focus and then remove the object and as= k >somebody to hold a letter (or a few letters) in front of the camera but >further away than my focal point and take a picture. To be totally objecti= ve >I need 2 other people and I should not be on the room, so that I can not >see the letters in advance. >I think if I could manage to see the out of focus letter it would prove >the theory, but I am not totally sure what it would say if I couldn't >see the letter. It is not too easy to control this clear flash >process and how would you stop your brain from focusing on the edges >of the actual picture and your hands etc. rather than try to look at the >contents of the picture? This process is a bit automatic. Another thing is >that I am pretty near sighted, so should I do this test with my glasses on = or >off? What is the effect of the additional distortion in either case? > >So I agree, if the test is successful, it proves the theory and although I >don't believe the reverse holds, I think it is still a very good test. > >But I must say that so far using binoculars or my own glasses (that are too >weak for me) I haven't been able to do the same thing as I do with naked >eye....ie I couldn't compensate for the insufficient focus. That could just >be due to lack of practice since I am used to getting clear flashes withou= t >any lens in front of my eyes. Since the principle behind both ideas is the >same, I always thought I should at least learn to do it with my glasses on >(ie try to read signs with my glasses on that I usually can't see) before I >go to the camera test. >......but now that you brought it up I might get inspired and do the camera >test and report back to the list! > >Zarin > ========================================================================= From owner-i_see@indiana.edu Mon Nov 20 17:48:26 EST 1995 From: c22at@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com Subject: Re: Clear flashes, a scientific experiment (fwd) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 17:26:15 -0500 (EST) Status: RO X-Status: > Hi Andy, > > I put forward that theory and I also suggested that particular test (actually > neither the theory nor this partcular test were my original ideas, but came > from my discussions with a physicist friend when I was trying to figure out > what was going on). > I still haven't done it. I only have an automatic camera but it has an > option for fixing the focus on a particular object, so I was going to put > that in my far focal point, fix the focus and then remove the object and ask > somebody to hold a letter (or a few letters) in front of the camera but > further away than my focal point and take a picture. To be totally objective > I need 2 other people and I should not be on the room, so that I can not > see the letters in advance. Hi Zarin, Actually what I was thinking was setting the camera focus to the nearest/shortest position possible, and hold the object slightly beyond. Say your focal point is 30cm, camera was set at 10cm, picture of object was taken at 15cm from camera. Now you get to look at the picture at 25 cm (your focal point minus blur distance of camera). > I think if I could manage to see the out of focus letter it would prove > the theory, but I am not totally sure what it would say if I couldn't > see the letter. It is not too easy to control this clear flash > process and how would you stop your brain from focusing on the edges > of the actual picture and your hands etc. rather than try to look at the > contents of the picture? This process is a bit automatic. Another thing is > that I am pretty near sighted, so should I do this test with my glasses on or > off? What is the effect of the additional distortion in either case? > Definetely do this with glasses off. To preven the "edging", make sure there is nothing else in the picture (obviously), use ??? background color on the picture, and neatly paste the photo onto a large piece of paper with the same color as the background. This way you field of vision will be covered by the paper, and there will be nothing else to focus on (you can always paste the picture to a wall so you don't have to hold it). > So I agree, if the test is successful, it proves the theory and although I > don't believe the reverse holds, I think it is still a very good test. > > But I must say that so far using binoculars or my own glasses (that are too > weak for me) I haven't been able to do the same thing as I do with naked > eye....ie I couldn't compensate for the insufficient focus. That could just > be due to lack of practice since I am used to getting clear flashes without > any lens in front of my eyes. Since the principle behind both ideas is the > same, I always thought I should at least learn to do it with my glasses on > (ie try to read signs with my glasses on that I usually can't see) before I > go to the camera test. > ......but now that you brought it up I might get inspired and do the camera > test and report back to the list! > > Zarin > We are waiting. You might be making a history here. Andy =========================================================================