ive been researching some time stereoscopic vision and found something odd:

if you present with an stereoscope two different images for each eye theoretically everybody will see one image or the other, the dominance of one eye over the other when theres rival images

this is called binocular rivalry and is studied as a way to analize conscience

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binocular_rivalry

but my dad and brothers, my moms normal, have not binocular rivalry but experiment fusion

this in quite much research only found it happening injesting ayaguasca:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14621134

in fact normal homo sapiens cant do this fusion however hard they try, not even tibetan monks:

http://www.mail-archive.com/fa...ps.com/msg20081.html

but the thing is that i know theres more people with the odity of not having binocular rivalry, this would be the only way you can practice this exercise:
http://www.web-us.com/brain/vi...pheric_dominance.htm

so as said theres some people whith and some without binocular rivalry

the curious thing is that training fusion, if you have not binocular rivalry, you can achieve psi abilities

so maybe stan lee was right

http://www.thiaoouba.com/aura_eye_exercise.htm

see, raaaid, the disappointing thing with answering to your topics, is that you just constantly refuse to even consider what others write.

again, what is described in
http://www.web-us.com/brain/vi...pheric_dominance.htm
is NOT binocular rivalry.

i very much doubt, that you have been able to 'test' any of your family on binocular rivalry.
i tend to believe, that you instead still use your fancy self-made diagrams.

it can't be that difficult to understand, that 'presenting different images to each eye' doesn't mean, you just can 'present the same image with two different objects represented'? or is it?

in the link of yours ( http://www.mail-archive.com/fa...ps.com/msg20081.html ) it says:
'Binocular rivalry was induced with head-mounted display goggles (Figure 1A) that presented horizontal and vertical green stationary gratings to the right and left eye',
which is a proper method.
how did you achieve to test it your way?


the very difference in stereoscopic vision and binocular rivalry is, that the latter seems to be attention-independant.
the interesting thing in binocular rivalry is NOT in the different contribution of hemispheres, but the level of perception, and the question of consciousness and awareness.
you might want to search for 'change blindness' or 'inattentional blink'... topics which are less about consciousness, but probably describe events on the same neuronal level as those, which lead to binocular rivalry.

hi thanks for the feedback

i used this home made stereoscope:



somebody made me question that maybe my stereogrmas didnt test bin rivalry

i think my home made steroscopy is as valid as wheatstones and now im sure i have interhemispheric fusion instead of rivalry

that is indeed pretty much nearer to testing binocular rivalry, sorry for my before assumption!

for the test-environment: i don't think, that you need mirrors. it is only needed, that the images are only accesible to the regarding eye (a simple 'wall' would be sufficient), and best would be to reduce irritating subjects in the peripheral field of view (for concentration).


however, now for discusssion!
i think, you need to differ between 'phenomenal' and 'perceptual' findings.
the binocular rivalry describes the concurrance of sensoric input by the two eyes. the percepted information is processed in the occipital lobe (brodmann-areal) which filters and structures the pure amount. here it is that the rivalry (probably) occurs.
the 'image' then is recognised in the temporal lobe by input from the v1-area. binocular rivalry shows as a changing 'cognition' of the images, depending, which percepted information is send to the temporal lobe. so you have to differ between perception and cognition (the very question about it).

so far there is no evidence of any fusion of images on the perceptual level. depending on eye-dominance, the regarding image might well be percepted more often or in a faster rhythm, but never a fusion of both images happened in the primary visual cortex. this is binocular rivalry.
on the level of cognition, as in what one recognises in higher centres of the neo-cortex, things are slightly different - which is referred to as 'phenomenal'. for example, a structured pattern can be conceived from parts of both images. as well as some kind of 'afterimages' as memory traces - however these have not be found to merge with new input due to binocular rivalry.
this was a main topic when studying monks... it was found, that at the momment of visual input (by watching the images) the monks were not able to merge/fusion the images, but they were later - when actual input has stopped and such by memory revocation.
it could also be achieved, that, triggered by concentration, one image was recognised with a dominant rate or even a steady representation over prolonged time.

in none of the cases the binocular rivalry ever stopped. it is seen as a sign for the early processes of visual perception, which happen on a non-conscious level.
there is evidence, that the input of information to the temporal lobes from the primary visual cortex can be influenced by attention in some way. in these studies, the activity of the primary cortex has remained the same (concluded as ongoing 'rivalry'), but the electrophysiological answers from the cognitive areas could be changed.

the report about influence of chemicals, which you have quoted, concludes to 'phenomenal fusion'. this should be in agreement to what has been found in a later article by carter et al ( http://www.nature.com/npp/jour...6/full/1300621a.html )
both research the influence of psychoactive drugs, and both articles are about conscious disturbances. mostly the describe what happens after visual recognition, ie the post-processing of information after conscious recognising in the secondary visual cortex. indeed, they use the preliminary findings of ongoing rivalry and the nevertheless different cognition of the presented images (in these studies due to drugs).
there is some discussion about the underlying mechanisms of rivalry, as such as if the main processes were suppressing the processing of input of one perceived image (at the level of the primary visual cortex), the presynaptic filtering (on retinal level, same where strucural grouping of visual information occurs) or the 'chosing' of one eye's information as input to the temporal lobe (on an inhibitory postsynaptic level, with perhaps intermediate feedback input from temporal lobe)

what i want to say is, that you haven't observed 'interhemispheric fusion instead of rivalry'. interhemispheric fusion is a conscious process (triggered by drugs, or maybe trained), but rivalry is hardly be influenced by conscious processes.
however, this might be less relevant for the questions, you want to raise. still you should know, what to conclude from what. in that regard, it is false to say 'so as said theres some people whith and some without binocular rivalry'. also there is nothing to conclude that 'you can achieve psi abilities'.

training interhemispherical fusion as such is basically meaningless, there are no 'byproducts' by it. in opposite, some effects of interhemispherical fusion are resulting from meditative processes - in which case meditation is not aiming for any kind of fusion, but just achieving it (perhaps) as a side-effect.
in fact, not having binocular rivalry would probably show as a partial inability to 'see', as in recognising any images at all - this not by the lack of rivalry (which is in coomon life more rarely experienced), but because it is known, that a certain level of congruence is needed between both eyes for identifying structures.


i find it very respectable, that you have built that kind of apparatus for your research (i wouldn't have the nerve and i am a lousy builder anyway). i would recommend a more box-like construction though - maybe like two connected boxes for each eye and a transparent material at the end wher you can put the images in. i guess, it would be sufficient enough to use a bulb as light-source, at which the apparatus could be directed then. that way, peripheral influence is reduced and the tested person can concentrate on the pictures better. you perhaps should refine the way, how tested persons can signal what they see at the regarding moment - maybe by two buttons for each image.
however, you shouldn't start research with the predetermination of connecting to psi-abilities. first, it surely takes already a lot of testing and variations to undoubtfully show and prove the (lack of) binocular rivalry. second, you then need to develop test-procedures to show and prove any kind of psi-abilities. and third, if you have found evidence for both, you need to do show a resaonable and statistically proven connection between both.

the thing is that i dont only have interhemispheric fusion but i can also have rivalry at will:

for example the picture i watched with the stereoscope of red and yellow horizontal and vertical lines i can see them at will:

only horizontal only vertical, or both fusioned, even apreciating the orange colour where they cut

i can change rivalry at will even every half second

this in the perception level which is the only one i can know of

dont you admit this is odd?

edit:

i insist this doesnt happen to me i have a fusioned perception:

Binocular rivalry occurs when different images are presented simultaneously to corresponding points within the left and right eyes. Under these conditions, the observer's perception will alternate between the two perceptual alternatives.

edit:

just for fun ill make a simultaneous drawing using my non rivalry

check out this drawing i made looking with the mirror at each drawing with each eye, they are superimposed which i could only do it if i had fusion perception:


edit:

i think i could use this method to photocopy a drawing, with one eye the original with the other your work, im on it

edit:

hey yes this is a good way to copy:

raaaid,

by all means, what is it with the mirror?
i have no clue, why you use a mirror instead a solid separation of the eyes' field of views...

as long as you offer any kind of similarity to the two eyes, the conscious brain will be able to consider it the same environment and exclude the parts which are one-eye only - that is the reason, why there is not much disturbance by your nose in all-day viewing.
by offering different images, the talk is not about only an 'image' or 'painting' as part of the field of view, but all the percepted view. this is why wheatstone directed the perception to very different angles with his mirror.
the mirror in your environment is purely a 'wall', but obviously don't keep out enough of what both eyes can see.

furthermore i don't know, why it shouldn't be possible to draw something which only one eye can see with the other eye (as soon as it gains dominance in time).
your photo with the mirror though seems, that you still not testing anything related to binocular rivalry - you need to isolate the field of views!

i use a mirror so its natural i dont have to put the eyes like dux avatar

in fact i just invented a new way of copying if you have not binocular rivalry:


notice using the fact i see fusioned images i copyit with the stereoscope almost identically as we did as kids of putting a light undernetah what we wanted to copy

This message has been edited. Last edited by: raaaid,

it occurs to me, that your mirror-construction still is not appropriate to test binocular rivalry.
if mirror or not, shouldn't make any difference... the function of it has to be only one: to seperate the fields of view.

there is no need for reflection and for sure no need to look like marty feldman. in case, that you are in need of the reflecting property of a mirror, the test is done wrong.

edit:
in fact, when i see your photos, i am pretty sure, that you have perhaps found a nice way to copy pictures, but nothing of it has to do with binocular rivalry.
i wonder, why you are so fixated on binocular rivalry - something which so far can not be tested the way you build it and which also is most probable not different for you than for the rest of humanity.

oh i put the mirror right on my nose so both pictures are separated

and yes i think i invented a new way to copy pictures

but not for everybody

Copying pictures with reflections has been done, kids toys too:



http://www.digidraw.com/

my method still differs, interesting nevertheless

as i said before, i don't think that you ever try to seriously discuss the topics you started.
which is rather disappointing, the more if they are basically interesting.

however, as soon as the replies don't fit your interpretation, you avoid to continue the debate with adressing the counterargument, but either answer off-topic or diverge into other, non-relevant points.

i am not interested, what your nose does when you stare at humphrey bogart, nor am i interested in copying techniques of that character.

it stands, that you are not seperating the field of views for each eye - and by that you are not presenting different images - and therefore you don't seem to research anything about binocular rivalry - at least not by a mirror of that size.
you may practice copying pictures until you can do it with psi-abilities, but i consider the scientific aspect not to be your approach.

that mirror actually is a home made steroeocope

very similar to wheatstones with which he discovered binocular rivalry

if i didnt see the image of each eye superimposed with the other eye i just wouldnt be able to use that technique to copy

thats why its revelant

raaaid,

seriously, whom are you making fun of?

if the picture of humphrey bogart is 'superimposed', how can your drawing be mirrored? is that some kind of ridiculising?
if you had drawn ol' humphrey from a 'superimposed' left-eye perception, he surely wouldn't change direction, would he?

you obviously just stared into the mirror, which has nothing to do with anything else but staring into a mirror.

there is nothing (!) in your entertaining waste of time, which has to do with wheatstone. wheatstone used mirrors to direct the views to a nearly 180° diffferent angle - that way there was no chance, that there is anything similar to both eyes.
your mirror is just a mirror, not seperating anything!
your drawings are mirrored copies, not superimposed images!
nothing in this or your past postings has anything to do with binocular rivalry.


whatever you have posted in this forum so far might have been interesting thoughts or questionable imagination, however not dumb.
with your last replies though you either haven't thought a bit about what you wrote, or you have sent your mind on vacation, or you try to play me for fool. or you are so fascinated from your wishful thinking, that you just believe your self-created theories.
i hope it is the latter - however, i have so far lost any interest in the discussion.

you have some good credits here for your eccentric and at the same time kind posts. nevertheless and for your own sake, you should make your mind up, if you just want to see your own words written on a dirty grey web-board or if you want some kind of communication.