Author Topic: What is the optimal level of blur?  (Read 6785 times)

Offline Todd Becker

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 442
What is the optimal level of blur?
« on: March 05, 2013, 09:51:10 PM »
I wanted to start a thread on the question of how much "blur" or defocus is optimal to effectively induce the eye to remodel itself away from myopia (or hyperopia) towards the ideal of emmetropia (perfect focal ability).

The question was raised in a private exchange from John Link, which I excerpt here with his approval:

John: Hi Todd,  I was intrigued by the following passage you wrote in http://gettingstronger.org/2010/07/improve-eyesight-and-throw-away-your-glasses/:

"For a myope engaging in distance activities (such as driving or viewing presentations), either no lenses or undercorrected lenses are recommended, though very mild plus lenses (less than +1 diopters) can be used when the myopia has been significantly reduced. The key is that the eye will adapt and remodel only when subjected to mildly uncomfortable stress. If the stress is excessive, the eye gives up and no progress is made. This principle is very similar that followed by weight lifters, who understand the importance of slight, but not excessive, overload."

I wonder what the optimal amount of blur relative to 20/20 might be. Maybe .25 D? .50D? .75D? 1.00D? What do you think?

Todd: The question you ask about the optimal level of blur is a good one.  I'm not sure I know the answer -- or whether there is a precise answer.  I think it probably something that varies among individuals, just as the optimal amount of effective  "overload" varies among individual weightlifters.

The absolute amount of optimal overload in pounds might vary across individuals but I suspect that the optimal relative overload (overload in pounds/pounds at ease) varies not so much, and I consider diopters of defocus to be relative overload. But maybe the optimal relative overload does vary significantly across individuals. In my Feldenkrais practice I find that some clients can deal with relatively larger challenges and others don't like to be challenged much.

The key, I think, resides in the autofocus mechanism of the eye.

John: What a great way to think about it!

Todd: If the blur is excessive, the eye gives up trying.  This can also be experienced as causing tiredness or even redness, as some have reported.

John: These ideas make great sense. If I walk around without my contacts (-3.25L -3.0-2.25x010R) I don't expect that there will be any improvement.

Todd: I would tend to err on the low side until you are sure you are making progress.  So undercorrecting by 0.25 to 0.5 diopters worked for me.

John: Today I tried a +1.0 over my contacts which give me 20/20 and that gave me more blur than I would like while biking or driving, but it would be ok for watching TV. I think I could handle reducing my prescription by 0.5, but I wonder whether 0.25 would be better. I just wonder whether 0.25 is enough blur for my brain to try to improve. Do you know what the answer would be for the autofocus on a camera? Would it react more quickly to a 0.25D blur or a 0.5D blur?

Todd: But it's a moving target.  Once you make progress (which can be sporadic), you need to keep ratcheting down the minus prescription. (Or alternatively:  sitting farther away from print, or using stronger plus lenses).

John: Right. Fortunately 1800contacts.com will give me credit for unused contact lenses, so I can keep reducing my prescription with each increment of progress as often as is needed without concern for the cost.

Regarding the level of optimal "blur", I would also point those who are interested to a set of principles I proposed on an earlier thread that starts here, in answer to a very similar question that was posed to me by Jansen.  In that post, I defined three distances -- D1, D2 and D3 -- which I think are useful as guidelines:

http://forum.gettingstronger.org/index.php/topic,8.msg781.html#msg781

Hello everyone,

I would like to discuss reading at the edge of blur, which I guess means reading at the point where the letters are almost unreadable. Has anyone ever tried this vs. reading at the edge of focus like normal?

Hi Jansen,

Good question - a fairly sophisticated one.  So I can tell you are putting a lot of thought into this.  It might be good for you to first puzzle this out and write down your guess before you read my answer.  

Let us distinguish three distances:

D1. The 'edge of focus' which we'll define as the furthest distance for myope (or closest for a hyperope) where a printed letter is completely in focus
D2. The 'edge of blur' which we'll define as the distance just beyond the edge of focus, where a slight blur in the letter can just be detected
D3. The 'edge of readability' which we'll define as the furthest distance where you can intelligibly recognize what the letter is.

Now D1 and D2 are going to be VERY close, almost exactly the same distance. If you are reading at D1, and you push the print slightly away less than an inch, you are immediately at D2. And if you are at D2 and get the tiniest distance closer, you are back at D1 again.

But D3 (which is what I think you are calling "the edge of blur", but is really beyond that) might be a fair distance away, perhaps even several inches (for small letters) or several feet (for large letters).  And D3 will also depend on your familiarity with the letters and the language.  You can "guess" a blurry word like "eye" because you know the English language, whereas if it is a word in a different language you might not be able to read it.  So D3 depends on the size of the letters and your ability to recognize the letters and words.  D3 depends upon your brain, not your eyes. You might be able to read a very blurry version of the word "eye" and guess it, whereas a non-English speaker might guess the wrong letters.

To get the benefit of plus lenses, your eyes must be working "automatically" to try to focus, so they must be able to detect the direction of defocus, that is, whether the blur is caused by being too close or too far.  Your eyes detect this defocus right within the retina -- the back of your eye.  This detection process does not involve your higher brain functions that are involved in word recognition or trying to guess what a word means.  So you must allow the eye itself to detect the defocus.

Therefore, ideally your focal distance should be at D2 -- the edge of blur. This should be the slightest blur detectable, and it is even OK to move back and forth between D1 and D2 to keep "testing" this distance.  If you go beyond D2 to D3 (the edge of readability), you are now at a place where your brain is doing the work of guessing, but the focus detection system in your retina is no longer able to detect the direction of defocus. It's not just that the eye muscles and lens "give up" trying to focus, its also that you lose any stimulus for change of the structural tissue around the focal plane at the back of your eye (the retina).  So your eye gets no information about how it needs to change.

I hope this explanation makes sense and is not too complex. Let me know if it does not seem clear to you and I'll try to do better.  But it is an excellent question you asked, because to answer the question you really have to understand what is happening in the eye.

Todd

(Interestingly, I notice that other sites have adopted the terms "edge of focus" and "edge of blur" -- which I believe I originated in the above post)


I'd be interested to hear others weigh in here on what practices has worked for them. 

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: What is the optimal level of blur?
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2013, 11:10:03 AM »
Hi Todd,
Subject: Philosophy - what is the optimal level of "motivation"?  When can a mix of intelligence and motivation at the "right time" be effective?

As you know, I do acknowledge that most people want a "instant solution" and have no patience for working on prevention when they still read the 20/60 line.  There are many reasons for this lack of motivation, and most of it is personal.  We have talked to many people (at 20/60, and -1.5 diopters) who MIGHT have gotten out of it - IF they could have convinced themselves to wear the plus on a regular basis - for the LONG TERM. But most people don't have that kind of personal resolve, or they never were convinced of the necessity of wearing the plus - and so became AFRAID of wearing the plus when they were at 20/60.    I have not encouraged a person to attempt to "wear the plus" unless there was a reasonable prospect of some success.  I certainly encouraged my "blood relatives" to wear the plus (for the last 30 years), since I know from the bi-focal (or plus) studies what will happen - FOR CERTAIN - if you refuse to take is seriously - when you are at 20/60.  I am pleased that Steve is reading the 20/40 line, as is Peter.  In my judgment - if they can continue to wear the plus for the next nine months - they could get to 20/25 and 20/20.  But that is totally up to them.

Offline johnlink

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Re: What is the optimal level of blur?
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2013, 03:40:54 PM »

Subject: Philosophy - what is the optimal level of "motivation"?  When can a mix of intelligence and motivation at the "right time" be effective?


Actually, Otis, the subject of this thread is "What is the optimal level of blur?". Would you care to address that question?

Offline Steven

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
Re: What is the optimal level of blur?
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2013, 03:56:50 PM »
Quote
The key is that the eye will adapt and remodel only when subjected to mildly uncomfortable stress. If the stress is excessive, the eye gives up and no progress is made.

If the blur is excessive, the eye gives up trying.  This can also be experienced as causing tiredness or even redness, as some have reported.

I am going to express my opinion after several tests i made and from personal experience.
Your statements are not completely true because :

1. If your eyes are -4 and you put your glasses off and you use 24/7 a +2 your eye will change by X1 amount after Y1 months.

2.  If your eyes are -4 and you put your glasses off and you use 24/7 a +6 your eye will change by X2 amount after Y1 months.

If you use a stronger plus, just like when using a stronger minus over healthy eyes, you will push much harder the eye in one direction or the other.

With a +6 used 24/7 your eyes will change 3 times faster than with a +2 used 24/7 in the same Y1 months.

For the fastest progress the only things to consider are :

a) How much plus can you take before you can't even walk or do anything at all.
b) How much time are you willing to sacrifice and do other things that don't require your eyes that much (listening to things, meditating, or reading very close)

The stronger the lens the faster it will literally force the eye to adapt / get out of it's current shape.

If you put a +2 and look around for 5-10 minutes you will feel a certain pressure.
If you put a +6 and look around for 5-10 minutes you will feel a much stronger pressure.

A very strong plus will :

~ Break your eyes current shape much faster (that is most likely stagnating by now)
~ Push your eyes in the desired direction much faster.
~ Achieve more easily 20/8 with stronger plus.

Offline johnlink

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Re: What is the optimal level of blur?
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2013, 06:08:59 PM »

With a +6 used 24/7 your eyes will change 3 times faster than with a +2 used 24/7 in the same Y1 months.


Steven, what is the basis for your assertion?

Offline Steven

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
Re: What is the optimal level of blur?
« Reply #5 on: March 10, 2013, 12:00:00 PM »
Several tests + personal experience as i said above.

If you can sacrifice all the time you have and wear a super strong plus you will change your eye much sooner in the plus direction (or by a greater degree)

If you put a -12 lens on someone who has hyperopia he will quickly become close to emmetropia.

That kind of power is pushing the eye very hard but you will get your vision back sooner.

Think of it this way. If you suffer from myopia and you wear a +2.5 or +2 you will still lose plenty of time while doing nothing important. So why not use a +6 or more to really push the eye to change shape faster.

Offline johnlink

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Re: What is the optimal level of blur?
« Reply #6 on: March 10, 2013, 01:35:05 PM »

Several tests + personal experience as i said above.


Would you describe the tests in detail?

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: What is the optimal level of blur?
« Reply #7 on: March 10, 2013, 04:45:31 PM »
Hi Steve,

Some people ask for proof that a plus and minus lens have a profound effect on the eye.  Here is that proof - for those who are "understanding" and interested in science.

The effect of a minus 3 diopter on the normal (emmetropic) eye: 


http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swf

This is SCIENTIFIC PROOF - of what you have stated. Notice the by-lie, a minus lens CAUSES MYOPIA in the totally NORMAL EYE.

The second question is more difficult.  Can you get the natural (emmetropic) eye to change its refractive STATE in a positive direction - from wearing a +3 diopter lens for a long-period of time.


http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/pos_lens_induce_hyperopia.swf

Again, this is pure-scientific proof.  If some one wishes to insist that THIS NEVER HAPPENS, I suggest that we are bound by objective facts, and repeatable scientific experiments. Not that the word "hyperopia", MEANS a positive refractive STATE for the NATURAL EYE.  (This situation is proven for primates that live IN THE WILD.  They are all "hyperopic". The word "defect" should never be attached to a refractive STATE that is totally necessary and normal.

Yes, there is strong science supporting your statements, Steven.  Always remember that truth.



Several tests + personal experience as i said above.

If you can sacrifice all the time you have and wear a super strong plus you will change your eye much sooner in the plus direction (or by a greater degree)

If you put a -12 lens on someone who has hyperopia he will quickly become close to emmetropia.

That kind of power is pushing the eye very hard but you will get your vision back sooner.

Think of it this way. If you suffer from myopia and you wear a +2.5 or +2 you will still lose plenty of time while doing nothing important. So why not use a +6 or more to really push the eye to change shape faster.

Offline johnlink

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Re: What is the optimal level of blur?
« Reply #8 on: March 10, 2013, 05:37:02 PM »

Yes, there is strong science supporting your statements, Steven.  Always remember that truth.


Where is the science supporting this statement Steven made?

Quote

With a +6 used 24/7 your eyes will change 3 times faster than with a +2 used 24/7 in the same Y1 months.


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: What is the optimal level of blur?
« Reply #9 on: March 10, 2013, 05:46:35 PM »
Hi Steve,

Subject: SCIENTIFIC TRUTH - versus the "common" and incorrect statements - that are very biased.

You have stated, correctly, that the natural eye is very responsive to 1) Long-term near (creates negative status in our natural eyes), and 2) The minus lens, simply produces an even MORE negative STATE in our natural eyes.

You might be asked for scientific proof.  (Objective, measured, repeatable, scientific experiment.)  If you argue with most people - they will  just IGNORE THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF - so this becomes a matter of your wise, educated JUDGMENT.  What was done here, was to put a -3 diopter lens on the eyes of NORMAL monkeys - to see if there was ANY RESPONSE.  The conventional idea insists that there MUST BE NO RESPONES - and the minus is "perfectly safe", and will not make "matters far worse.  Here is the data, that shows that all natural (emmetropic) eyes respond in BOTH DIRECTIONS.


http://myopiafree.i-see.org/FundEye.html


There are people who will try to convince you that this is a "wrong" experiment.  You have stated the CORRECT ANSWER - that is strongly supported by this type of analytical science.  You have reached the "level" of reading the 20/40 line.  I hope you will use this scientific data to continue to wear the plus (as Todd did) and very slowly reach the "level" of reading "higher" lines on your own Snellen.  This is indeed PERSONAL, and no one can "order" you to do it. But there is profound science that supports you in your work.


Several tests + personal experience as i said above.

If you can sacrifice all the time you have and wear a super strong plus you will change your eye much sooner in the plus direction (or by a greater degree)

If you put a -12 lens on someone who has hyperopia he will quickly become close to emmetropia.

That kind of power is pushing the eye very hard but you will get your vision back sooner.

Think of it this way. If you suffer from myopia and you wear a +2.5 or +2 you will still lose plenty of time while doing nothing important. So why not use a +6 or more to really push the eye to change shape faster.

Offline Todd Becker

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 442
Re: What is the optimal level of blur?
« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2013, 07:11:43 PM »
I come back to Steven's provocatively interesting claim "made and from personal experience" that the eye can change faster if we push it harder using a stronger plus correction and investing as much time and effort with the plus as a you can tolerate "before you can't even walk or do anything at all".

This is certainly interesting, if true.  My own experience -- plus what several others have reported -- is that that overdoing it backfires.  I've found that beyond a very small level of blur, the eye is unable to move towards focus efficiently.

If it is true, Steven's contrary claim--that pushing the eye harder will deliver results faster--would be an interesting exception to the principles of plastic remodeling of other aspects of human physiology.  Overtraining in weight-lifting, long-distance running, and other sports is counterproductive. Overtraining the brain in studying or memorizing backfires.  There is generally an optimum balance between stress and relaxation or recovery in most remodeling or rehabilitative processes.

But I'm always interested to learn something new.  If Steven speaks from personal experience, let's hear about the personal experiments he did to accelerate his progress.

I would love for Steven to be right.  I need to hear more supporting details.

Todd
« Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 07:20:32 PM by Todd Becker »

Offline Steven

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
Re: What is the optimal level of blur?
« Reply #11 on: March 12, 2013, 01:37:33 PM »
Sure, i want to add some interesting details.

As you already know, as your vision gets worse either by going to + or to -, you tend to try and focus (desperately) on different objects (hoping that you will see better) instead of letting your eyes wonder around in a relaxed mode.

Trying to focus on objects is over-training the brain and puts counter productive strain on the eye system, because you consciously force a system that was designed to work by itself (unconsciously - you don't have to think about it to see - just like breathing works) and you manually override it.

Now, when you put a strong plus and try to focus on things your vision improvements will suffer greatly. The strong plus itself is not counter productive at all if you remember to let your eyes wonder extremely relaxed. The counter productive effect comes into existence, because, when you see bad (blurry) the first instinct is to over-focus, consciously, all the time, on various objects/places.

My guide would be like this :

1. Take all the glasses off and learn how to let your eyes wonder unconsciously (use your thoughts to reflect upon yourself - introspection - this will enable you to put the conscious focus on a secondary level or even forget about it)

2. Use a soft plus and repeat the exercise.

3. Use a strong plus and avoid thinking about consciously focusing on things.

4. In a relaxed state the eye does not try to counter-react in any way to changes in size.

For example if you have -4 myopia and you take you glasses off :

a) if you try to consciously focus on things the eye will get tired and reject any changes in size; (just like any over-utilized muscle)

b) if you try to avoid any kind of conscious focusing your eyes will get very relaxed (just like a relaxed muscle) and then you can impose a filter (the plus lens in this case) that tells the eye that the visual conditions have changed. (it needs to adapt to a different world).

I urge you to read this articles as it brilliantly explains how the bicep muscle and the eye work.
http://avalonfalling.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/the-secret-of-myopia-near-sightedness/

Relaxation of the eye is even more important then the plus lens. Otherwise when you go back to 20/20 or 20/8 without knowing how to use your eyes optimally you will develop myopia all over again in the absence of a strong plus lens. When you reach 20/20 or 20/8 you want to stay there without a plus lens. The key is relaxation (forget/avoid conscious focusing).

Enjoy the reading. (Otis was there)
« Last Edit: March 12, 2013, 01:43:54 PM by Steven »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: What is the optimal level of blur?
« Reply #12 on: March 12, 2013, 05:31:50 PM »
Hi Steven and Todd,
Two items:  1)  I know that each of us has his own "reasons" and explanations.  I know I am not good at explaining these issues - and you have to work out your own method.  But I do support you on a "deep" scientific level (animation of all natural eyes) as shown. 2)  Other people contact my and I will add their successful experience to help all of you. 

Pavol (Paul) contacted me about six months ago.  I asked him to 1) Get a free Snellen chart and read it (he read about 20/50 to 20/50).  2) Get some trial-lenses from Zennioptical to double check his prescription.  3) Be patient - it would take about six months of consistent wearing of a plus to get to 20/20 - and I could not guarantee results - they depend totally on the person himself.  Here are his results.  I know Steven is at 20/40 - so I hope this will help him in his quest.
+++++ 

Dear Otis!
I was examined today by my girlfriend on the eyechart with strong
light.Surprisingly,I could read 3 letters of 20/16 line.This is something that I
couldn´t do before.I know it was only a little "flash"I am trying to correctly
understand focusing with my eye-lens.I am practising focusing on close objects
and gliding to far objects.It makes my lens stronger and relaxed.I am not trying
to see,I am trying to make my lens more flexible.Now,I understand that clear
vision is coming with flexible eye.I didn´t notice that.I was always trying to
see with effort.But the eyes must work correctly and than clear vision will
appear.
Very important thing is self-checking on the eye-chart.You can´t lie to
yourself.

I am also using plus lens while I am writing this :)

Thank you for warninig me before it´s too late.

Pavol Hajdena

Offline Todd Becker

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 442
Re: What is the optimal level of blur?
« Reply #13 on: March 12, 2013, 08:31:08 PM »
... The strong plus itself is not counter productive at all if you remember to let your eyes wonder extremely relaxed. The counter productive effect comes into existence, because, when you see bad (blurry) the first instinct is to over-focus, consciously, all the time, on various objects/places.

...In a relaxed state the eye does not try to counter-react in any way to changes in size...if you try to avoid any kind of conscious focusing your eyes will get very relaxed (just like a relaxed muscle) and then you can impose a filter (the plus lens in this case) that tells the eye that the visual conditions have changed. (it needs to adapt to a different world).

I urge you to read this articles as it brilliantly explains how the bicep muscle and the eye work.
http://avalonfalling.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/the-secret-of-myopia-near-sightedness/

Relaxation of the eye is even more important then the plus lens.

Steven,

Thanks for the link.  I agree with the author (Christopher) regarding the observational fact that close-work induces myopia, and the prescribing of minus lenses makes myopia progressively work.  However, the author seems to believe that the biomechanical cause of myopia is the tensing of the ciliary muscles.  And that allowing the muscles to relax, will reverse the myopia.  This is not unlike the theory of Bates, who held that the primary cause of myopia was muscular tension, and advocated relaxation exercises to reverse myopia.

That's where I disagree with Christopher, and with William Bates.  While ciliary tensing can cause temporary myopia (so-called pseudo-myopia), I don't think it adequately explains the long term elongation in the shape of the eye that is behind axial myopia. (Axial myopia is the most common type of myopia -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myopia)  The elongated eye doesn't just "pop" back into shape when muscular tension is removed.  Its elongated axis tends to persist.  And it persists because the eye has literally grown longer, by changes in the scleral tissue.  In this sense, it is not nearly as dynamical as the tensed muscles in the example of the bus rider that Christopher describes in his articles, whose biceps temporarily deform when he bends them to read a book. 

Myopia through close work and minus lenses doesn't happen overnight.  And reversing myopia doesn't happen overnight.  There must must a sustained defocus stimulus working in one direction or the other. The best way I know of to reverse such long term remodeling of the myopic eye, is to stimulate it to shorten.  Lengthening and shortening of the axis of the eye has been demonstrated experimentally in chicks, primates, and other animals, by fitting them with minus or plus lenses, in experiments that I cited in my articles on the blog.

So while relaxation might help in cases of mild, temporary myopia, I'm skeptical that it can help in cases of strong myopia involving several diopters of deviation from the emmetropic eye.  At the end of the day, however, I'm open to seeing any data, or hearing from people who reversed their strong myopia by "relaxation" of the sort you describe.

Todd

Offline Steven

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
Re: What is the optimal level of blur?
« Reply #14 on: March 13, 2013, 12:57:24 AM »
I went from -4 to -2.5 without touching plus lenses.
Then i went from -2.5 to -2 using a plus lens from time to time.

http://www.preventmyopia.org/ebook/07chapter2.htm (the ciliary muscle is indeed why the eye gets elongated over time, according to this - take a look)

http://www.preventmyopia.org/ebook/19chapter14.htm

Relaxation will reverse myopia up to a degree. Maybe even to 20/20 if you avoid looking at anything under 6 meters and/or you let you eyes wonder without focusing. (like the Vietnam soldier case in the jungle)

Looking at close distance (not less then 50 cm) and then looking far away relaxes the eye and you win like 0.5 diopters instantly. (this temporary improvement becomes permanent later)

It does not pop back because there is no bones in the eyes to force it back. It just stays there elongated unless you learn how to relax your eyes 24/7 not just 10 minutes a day.

De-focus allows the eye / the ciliary muscle to no longer focus on close objects (it will stay in a more relaxed state).

So as a conclusion :

a) There is no sufficient reasoning that a lower plus will have a more powerful effect than a stronger lens. The stronger lens will always provide a stronger benefit in one direction or the other.

b) When you wear no glasses or very strong plus glasses you must learn to let your eye wonder (because their very fast short movements relax the eye the most). Every time you consciously focus on something you literally are overwriting the unconscious passive relaxation mode of the eye.

c) When you sleep/dream the eyes wonder around. Even if you are near objects (the closed eyelid) the eyes will not focus if you let them wonder. (and they will eventually when your conscious mode shuts down). Sleep is also a good way to reverse some myopia ... why ? because of how the eyes work when you sleep.

So the best way is to use a strong plus lens and while wearing it do not try to focus on things. When you get them off also do not try to focus on things (unless something really important is needed). You will see that you can do many activities without focusing on precise points.

d) People with 20/20 vision that never had myopia, look at computer screens and at objects closer then 6 meters all the time (inside the office/home). How are they at 20/20 then ? Because they are making 0 effort to see things consciously.

You must not force yourself to consciously see/focus on things (very hard exercise indeed). Breathing is done passively / unconsciously. Focusing on things is exactly like consciously controlling your breathing for every breath you inhale and exhale. A very unproductive thing to do, since the breathing mechanism in humans is already an automated process (just like seeing), that was design to work by itself without needing your attention.

Seeing things does not require your conscious attention at all. So Bates was very right when he said that you should not try to see things.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2013, 01:27:05 PM by Steven »