notes on looking at details and changing - Printable Version
+- Eyesight Improvement Forum (https://www.iblindness.org/forum)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.iblindness.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: David's method (https://www.iblindness.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Thread: notes on looking at details and changing (/showthread.php?tid=1571)
Re: notes on looking at details and changing - David - 03-19-2011
My general opinion, for what it's worth with only limited evidence, is that the eyes are not statically too long but are held dynamically in an elongated shape by the existing tension of one or more muscles, as Bates described. I'm not understanding what you mean about the eyes being vibrated backwards to improve focus.
With the technology of modern 3d modeling and stuff, it ought to be possible for surgeons and other skilled people to figure out the physical mechanism at play, but there's really no money to be made in the answer, so they haven't. And there isn't yet enough people who are improving their vision to a high degree for others to take serious notice, so the solution is for more people to do so until the question changes from "can it be done?" to "how is this happening?".
Re: notes on looking at details and changing - hammer - 03-19-2011
David Wrote:My general opinion, for what it's worth with only limited evidence, is that the eyes are not statically too long but are held dynamically in an elongated shape by the existing tension of one or more muscles, as Bates described. I'm not understanding what you mean about the eyes being vibrated backwards to improve focus.
Well, I have to say first that I am no expert on this, but I have noticed too relationships, and can draw some conclusions out of it,
Nr.1: Leo said that a farsighted person has too tensed rectus muscles that pulls the eye backwards such that the eye becomes too short and thus farsighted.
Nr.2: Some people on this forum complains about that their vision becomes worse despite that they have done Bates thoroughly.
Conclusion nr 1: The conclusion is that myopic people have too tensed rectus eyemuscles.
When myopic people relax (doing e.g. palming) their rectus muscles thus also relaxes.
But, some myopic people initially gets worse eyesight when relaxing as they have stored additional tension that improved their myopia a bit. Most myopic people have on the other hand not such a tension that improves myopia, and thus this group of myopic people just experience improvement of the myopia when they relax.
Conclusion nr 2: If those people (in Nr.2.) continues too do relaxation and get good visual habits their vision improves.
How, why, how is this possible ?
Now, imagine that the "software" in the brain is really perfect.
Then the eyes are able too follow very short shifts (almost also vibrations, might be a wrong word, not english, but anyway) according to the attention pattern that the brain "software"commands.
Of course this requires that the rectus muscles are relaxed, otherwise the eyes have absolutely no possibility to follow that advanced attention patterns. As the rectus muscles are relaxed this means that the eyes will be pulled backwards, not by tension, but due to that the rectus muscles "curves" and softly holds the eyes such that the eyes can move effortlessly.
I got this picture in front of me, I imagined this picture this evening in front of me, I imagined that I hold my eye in my hands and what it would be if I relaxed the hands (curved right).
So it is about relaxing the rectus muscles, but following the attention pattern of the software in the brain.
Oh, my god this starts to become rediculous , but once I have understod this I think it will be a strong driveforce !
Re: notes on looking at details and changing - Mzero - 03-28-2011
I noticed that since the whole world is meant to be imagined moving, it isn't enough to just look at the world: you have to track it.
When you treat stationary objects like objects that you would track with your eyes, you might notice them starting to move. Something you surpressed before.
This means that in case of objects which are actually moving, you have to track double, once for their initial movement as stationary objects and a second time for their more obvious motion.
Re: notes on looking at details and changing - hammer - 04-25-2011
Mzero Wrote:I noticed that since the whole world is meant to be imagined moving, it isn't enough to just look at the world: you have to track it.
Yes, that is true, but location, direction and speed is just some other characteristics gathered as status of each object that is observed.
When you lock on to the object with your vision you observe that object, and that means that you also track the changes in the characteristics (status) of that object.
The object it self is no object as such we define it without this gathered status of that object.
People really have thought about these questions in object oriented programming, that is quite interesting to study actually.
Also if you look upon seeing the object as a process it becomes very important to let that seeing process continue without being stuck.
That is why looking at details is so good, because you look at one point now and then in the next instant you look at another point, and so on,
thus the seeing process continues without being stuck. If the process gets stuck then it is more likely that the synchronization/focus/vision falls out of control,
because a process cannot go back in time, traveling back in time is at least yet impossible in this world.
Re: notes on looking at details and changing - DaniFixe - 05-31-2011
By your experience what is correct to do when the letters become clear? To avoid staring at them i do palming and then i restart.
Re: notes on looking at details and changing - hammer - 05-31-2011
DaniFixe Wrote:By your experience what is correct to do when the letters become clear? To avoid staring at them i do palming and then i restart.
The letters become clear for one reason, that is because you use your eyes in a relaxed way.
So, just continue and the clarity will last.
Re: notes on looking at details and changing - JMartinC4 - 09-13-2011
Instead of looking at objects, I am now looking into various distances - with both eyes synchronized and shifting - and then relaxing and letting the objects at those distances clear up 'on their own' (so to speak). It is working. It is becoming a habit.
I was going to post this elsewhere, but as long as I'm here -
I have lately been combining a number of methods with excellent results:
1. While walking forward, I use pawel86ck's method of relaxed blink counting to try and develop a more normal blink routine/habit. Instead of counting the number of blinks, I count the seconds between blinks. As soon as I blink, I start over. The goal is to extend the normal seconds-between-blinks count to around 15 (?).
2. I combine that method with forward motion. The goal is to learn to maintain looking into a normal distance at a normal visual height for my physical height.
3. I combine those two methods with synchronized shifting - but the shift is as follows:
a. With each forward step I relax and let my face and nose shift slightly to point over the foot which is stepping forward. It becomes a natural synchronized rhythym. Constantly 'dragging and dropping' my visual gaze, slightly shifting from one foot to the other in rhythym with my body. (On analysis I realized that for probably most of my life I have been inhibiting this natural movement and holding my face in a rigid straight-forward position. Wrong!)
b. This combines with sharing the eye dominance so that my over-dominant better-visioned right eye is brought under control and my submissive worse-visioned left eye is encouraged to participate. It probably keeps the optic chiasm activated for smooth binocular vision.
We are winning this fight. We are figuring it out. Follow us if you want to see clearly into the distance like a normal human being should.
Re: notes on looking at details and changing - JMartinC4 - 09-13-2011
Sorry - I just trial-and-errored this method and the count is of half-seconds not seconds.