Sergio, On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Sergio Pissanetzky <[email protected]>wrote:
> I have started some experiments involving my own vision. Stereoscopic > vision needs two slightly different images from the same scene. The images > are compared, slight differences are noted, and sense of depth is derived > from there. > > ** ** > > I note that the differences between the images are "slight." This means > that the images must be sharp enough for the differences to be noticed. If > they are blurred, there will be no stereoscopic effect. Am I good so far? > **** > > ** ** > > Well, my airborne tea episodes always happen when I am not wearing any > correction lenses. Without lenses, I can still see the objects but they are > slightly blurred. Maybe this is imparing my sense of depth. In my > experiments, I set several objects on a table, look at them for a while > without wearing any glasses, and then close my eyes and try to grab one of > them. I always miss. I'll get back to you when I determine exactly how I > miss, what side, by how much, and all that for both eyes and for each eye > separately. > Glasses do LOTS of things besides making images sharp. They make images larger or smaller. They introduce pincushion or barrel distortion. They introduce differences in responses to maintain eye tracking. All of these things "warp" your sense of where things are in your world. How much time do you spend without your glasses? Perhaps you live in a permanently warped world? Can you navigate in complete darkness? > **** > > ** ** > > I can read on paper or on screen very well wearing cheap reading glasses > with minimum magnification. I have a pair of expensive prescribed bifocals, > but the $10 Walmart glasses work better. With both eyes and no glasses I > can read big font only, with one eye, either one of them, it gets > difficult. I never close one eye. It seems to me that there is little > single-eye specialization. > There are other types of specialization, e.g. eyes with astigmatism, where one eye might see the vertical edges, while the other eye sees the horizontal edges. They may be contributing equally, but differently. > **** > > ** ** > > > Once they accept that they DO need to understand the "early stages" (of > development), then who needs programmers?!!! **** > > >I agree. This is, precisely, the core of my work. Not to eliminate the > programmers, but to understand that development is self-organization, at > any stage. **** > > ** ** > > I am not sure what you mean with a year or so, but if it is what I think, > I am very sorry. But I am not sure these ideas would apply to a cataract. I > hope you can finish your book soon, and be able to raise some money for the > surgery. > Here is my dilemma: I could just get the same old cheapo non-adaptive IOLs they stuff into most people's eyes. However, I would then lose the ~3 diopters of adaption that I now have, and that other people have already lost. I would greatly accelerate eye specialization because then my eyes would then be REALLY different. They also have numerous other "little" problems where vision sometimes rapidly deteriorates after they are implanted. The cheapo operation would also forever ruin any future prospects for getting an adaptive IOL implanted at some later time. Further, Synchrony IOLs are still in a phase of rapid development. New models are coming out every year or so. They are rumored to have a new technology under development that requires a much smaller incision, so there isn't as much distortion from scarring. Hence, I should probably wait as long as possible to get the most advanced model. Complicating this are some potential issues with my eye that might make Synchrony IOLs impossible to implant. I will know more about this on August 14th when a Synchrony expert takes a really close look at things. Steve =================== > **** > > *From:* Steve Richfield [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, July 27, 2012 3:01 PM > *To:* AGI > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Lessons for AGI from the first glaucoma reversal**** > > ** ** > > Sergio,**** > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Sergio Pissanetzky < > [email protected]> wrote:**** > > Have you or are you planning to publish something on this? **** > > > Sure. I am roughing a book out now. **** > > **** > > Your thoughts are oriented to aging, and rigthfully so. But in vision > alone there are so many applications. You are basically saying that > corrective lenses in some cases may worsen the problem.**** > > > That is fairly well known. If you wear lenses to correct a problem, it > only gets worse. > **** > > You are probably not the first to propose a natural way for correcting > vision problems.**** > > > The good news: There are LOTS of them on the web. > The bad news: Most of them don't work.**** > > A few years ago I had an hemorrage in one of my retinas. It healed, but it > left a dark spot in my field of vision. The eye doctor shook me to the > bones when he said "don't worry, your brain will find its way around it." > It did. The spot is still there - I can find it by focusing my attention - > but I don't notice it at all. But this is passive. **** > > > I believe that the primary purpose of self-adaptation after our initial > growth is to work around problems like your hemorrhage. > **** > > You suggest to actively engage the brain and make it to do what needs to > be done. You may be the first in that. **** > > > There was a (now discredited) guy named Bates who proposed various eye > exercises, and maybe if I had spent many hours doing them, I might have > been able to help my condition. However, my much more acceptable (at least > to me) approach was to simply engineer special glasses that impaired vision > in carefully calculated ways, to force certain intended changes. **** > > **** > > Maybe you can correct stereoscopic problems in peripheral vision. As I > age, changes in my eyes have affected my ability to perceive the correct > position of objects I am not looking at. My cup of tea is on the table and > when I try to grab the sugar farther away I hit the cup and the tea goes > airborne. **** > > > I'd bet that you have your own eye specialization. Have you tried reading > with each eye separately? When I first tried this, my peripheral vision eye > saw the letters at being apparently moth eaten, only the missing bites seem > to move around in a Heisenberg sort of way. I could barely read at talking > speed. > > Do you automatically close one eye under certain circumstances, e.g. > looking at things up close, or straining to see small details? If so, then > this can be a BIG clue as to eye specialization.**** > > **** > > You are also saying that neurons, even in old age, possess the same > ability to self-organize they had when we were babies.**** > > > That does appear to be the case. If true, this really calls into question > the AGI presumption that they don't need to understand the early stages of > self-organization, because there may be no "early stages" that are > different than adult operation. Once they accept that they DO need to > understand the "early stages", then who needs programmers?!!!**** > > Remarkable. I take that as a confirmation of my EI theory.**** > > > You probably need more than just some masking tape on a pair of gasses to > fully confirm any theory, but this certainly questions a LOT of present > presumptions. > > Now that I have fixed the glaucoma in my right eye, I am on to working on > the cataract in my left eye. I only have a year or so left to figure this > out. For me, part of my life is figuring these sorts of things out before > they ruin my life, and there has been some close calls. There is an > acceptable surgical fix for my particular unusual cataract, but it isn't > available in the U.S. I see a foreign "medical vacation" in my future, if I > can somehow raise the money for it, and presuming that I don't first find a > biological cure for my cataract. > > On a curious side note, I have forced my HMO to pay for a U.S. evaluation > of my cataract, by an outside doctor experienced in the foreign procedure, > to see if I am suitable for the foreign surgery!!! Just because I can't get > the surgery in the U.S. doesn't mean that I can't legally DEMAND that it be > carefully considered as an option. After an appeal - I won. My appointment > will on August 14th. I will know more after that. > > One eye down, and one to go. > > Steve **** > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac>| > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > **** > > <http://www.listbox.com>**** > > > > -- > Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six > hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full > employment.**** > > ** ** > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/18883996-f0d58d57>| > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > **** > > <http://www.listbox.com>**** > > ** ** > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
