I have a question - CORRECTION
kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Thu Dec 30 05:57:38 EST 2004
First, I Apologize for having given
your reply short-shrift.
It's just that I recognized the current
'discussion' as a "probe" [you know --
another instance in which I'm 'supposed'
to do folks' research for them], and got
"turned-off" by that.
And all I actually 'accomplished', in my
reply, was a 'thumbing-of-my-nose' at
the perceived 'affront'.
I Erred in that, so I'll CORRECT my
First, I'll re-establish my prior reply,
which was not included in the post
to which I'm replying, here.
"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B4zd.1157209$Gx4.94414 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| <behdadm at gmail.com> wrote in message
| news:1103941854.985718.57520 at f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|| Hi friends
|| I am a mechanical engineer. For some
|| stupid reason I am doing research
|| on eye.
|| The thing that I want to know is that
|| which part of the retina is more
|| sensitive to motion? I know that the
|| fovea is more sensitive, but I am
|| looking for a table or something that
|| compare different parts of the
|| Thanks you for your help
| Actually, the periphery is more
| sensitive to motion.
| The rods are much-fa[s]ter than
| the cones.
I wrote the above =presuming=, but with-
out knowing whether or not, it's True.
All I know about photo receptors with
respect to "speed"-of-response is that
it occurs on a femto-'second' time scale.
The network, of course takes longer.
But I've realized that I don't know the
relative response-latencies of rods and
cones, so I saw that my assertion, above
and in my prior reply, needs Clarification.
I presumed that the response-latencies
of rods is far-less than that of cones on
the bases of their relative workloads. The
cones just do a more-complex subset of
photodetection, so I =presumed= that
the relative-workloads would translate
But, I realized that my reply gave short-
shrift to the question that was posed by
the OP, and considered my reply further,
realizing that I'd Erred in "packing" a lot
of other analyses into my presumption
of rod-cone relative-response-latencies.
[To be fair to myself, I was in the depths
of other analyses [to others -- more
The stuff that I was discussing is actually
the product of the network, and it's in
the network at all scales.
I'll discuss further below.
| It has to be this way because
| what's going on in the fovea is
| already exposed to conscious-
| ness, but, when something hap-
| pens out in the periphery, de-
| pending on it's correlated 'vect-
| ors', it needs to not only be de-
| tected, but it has to force atten-
| tion to switch-over to it.
| This requires the peripheral stuff
| to be "more sensitive to motion"
| [which is not the way I'd say it].
| There is a =general= rule for all
| such considerations, and it applies
| rigorously across the whole nervous
| system. This general rule even determ-
| ines the [structure] of the body :-]
| [For those who have it, the necessary
| "vector" stuff is given in AoK, Ap6.]
What I was doing in my earlier reply
was just "encapsulating" a lot of stuff
that's discussed in AoK, Ap6.
The relative-motion-sensitivities that
I discussed in my earlier reply are
=Crucial= with respect to Survival.
If it were not as I stated in my earlier
reply, "vision" would be rendered
almost completely useless -- because
it'd be inherently "tunnelled", render-
ing organisms absolutely-vulnerable
to peripheral "surprise", which would
render Survival-capacities impotent
with respect to any organisms that
possessed "peripheral vision" dyn-
amics that "force attention" [for
those who have AoK" that force-
fully-drive "supersystem configura-
tion", Ap5, 6 and 7].
I was discussing all of this in my earlier
reply, but, upon rereading it, I saw
that I'd ['smugly' ["Ugh"]] left things
"hidden". [It's the "Hurting" that I
carry within my Being that, some-
'times' gets-the-better-of-'me' -- es-
pecially when it's obvious that folks
are 'poking-sticks-into-my-cage', ex-
pecting me to do their work for them
despite their doing squat to enable me
to exit what's been my virtual-imprison-
ment -- and especially when I'm 'tired'.
I'm always =Wrong= in this, but, when
I'm 'tired', I too-often 'cave-in' to the
"Hurting". Part of it is that everything
that's necessary has been in AoK, and
the Refs cited in AoK, all along, and
it's just 'heart'-breaking to witness it's
Gift-stuff not being comprehended. If
you're reading this, please try to under-
stand. AoK was written in =Desperate=
effort to circumvent interactive dynamics
that I Saw were 'moving toward' befal-
ling Humanity. [It's why, although I was
aware that the screen colors of the
electronic version of AoK were in-
adequate, I didn't take the 'time' to
correct that until recently -- be-cause
there just wasn't any 'time' to waste
in superficial 'elegance'.] I =Saw=
Humanity's 'moving toward' it's own
Destruction, and was =Desperately=
working to circumvent such. So,
seeing the way folks've 'yawned'
at what's reified within AoK leaves
me always-"Hurting". And, some-
'times', such seeps-out-of-my-Be-
ing. I'm =not= "excusing" myself,
but that's what is happening within
me. You know? It'd be different
if I was not literally facing the pre-
mature-ending of my Life while I
"wait" for folks to just do-Science
"After thought": I'll leave the above,
so that folks can have its 'information'
with respect to my 'Being', but, upon
reconsidering, I See that part of
why things've unfolded as they have,
is that I 'used' what has been my
"Suffering" as a "cudgel", and, to the
degree that I did so, folks, rightly,
perceived the "set-up" [the "Welt-
anschuung 'proving'" that's been in-
that, and 'moved away from'.
On my end of things, I 'gave-up'
Hope for myself long ago, and de-
cided to just beat-the-Hell out of
'the beast', "Abstract Ignorance",
using any "means" through which I
could do so, that did not "close the
door" to Individuals.
If folks look, they'll see the Calcu-
lation inherent. I 'give-up' hope for
myself in order to Free folks from
"recrimination". I call it "making my-
It's not like anyone can give my
Life back to me. That's 'gone', for-
ever. There's no "do-overs" in Life.
So, having 'lost'-everything, I was
Free to just Do what Needed to
I'm still doing that one thing.
It's ain't "pretty", but there's nothing
left that being-"pretty" can bring in-
to my Life, is there?
I'd "like" to not Die prematurely,
[Some-'times' there's usefulness
in being-'tired'. Allows one to 'move'
past the "sentries" one carries-around
within one's Being.]
| k. p. collins
<behdadm at gmail.com> wrote in message news:1104189924.193906.161060 at z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| I think you are wrong.
| "Handbook of Perception and Human Performance" page 16-8:
| "It is sometimes mistakenly claimed that the peripheral retina is more
| sensitive to motion than the fovea. In fact the threshold of motion
| increases steadily with eccentricity"
The ref you cite is just Wrong [be-
cause it suffers a cognititive form of
the "tunnel vision" that I discussed
above. This sort of thing occurs com-
monly within Neuroscience be-cause
experimenters routinely do extremely-
Beautiful small-scale work, but rout-
inely 'skip' integrating it within the body
of all experimental results. The biggest
part of this routine short-coming derives
in the way that Research is funded. With-
in funding dynamics, integrative efforts
are "frowned"-upon, 'because', suppos-
edly, 'everything that they deal with is
already known'. With respect to the
work I do, which is entirely within the
realm of such integration of the exper-
imental results that've been achieved
by my Colleagues in Neuroscience
[and other Sciences, with only a few
"small" experiments performed by me],
I wish I had a dollar for every 'time' I've
been told that "there's nothing new in
[my] what [I] say" :-]
| Although the rods are more sensitive to motion than cones, there are
| many other factors that can influence the motion sensitivity of fovea
| and other parts of field of view. For example, each receptor is
| connected to one ganglion cell in the fovea, but at the periphery 25
| receptors are connected to 1 ganglion.
The relative-power, inherent, is obvious
with respect to the network-tuning dyn-
amics which were the focus of my prior
I've discussed the pertinent stuff, above.
| What is your reference?
| Sorry but I didn't understand the meaning of "AoK, Ap6".
"AoK" it an acronym for "On the Automation
of Knowing within Central Nervous Systems;
A Brief Introduction to Neuroscientific Duality
Theory" [NDT], which is a ms. that remains not
formally Published, but which I've sent, in elec-
tronic "book" form to anyone who's asked that
I do so. It runs under Windows[tm] or DOS.
[Currently, I don't have a copy of the com-
pressed file on my Internet PC, so I can't
send it to folks, just now, but, if you want a
copy, I'll do what's necessary to get one to
NDT is a unified theory of central nervous
system function, cognition, affect, behavior
and consciousness. I developed it by working
with the published Neuroscience experimental
results -- "knitting" them together.
The main 'result' of my having done the
work, inherent, has been that thoughtless
folks have routinely used me as their "punch-
ing bag", and others have 'just' used me as
their 'research assistant', 'borrowing' the
work I've done while never Honoring the
Rationale that underpinned the doing of
I'm =WRONG= in 'caving-in' to it, but,
some-'times', it "Hurts"-like-Hell, and
seeing that such is 'moving toward' 'tak-
ing-over' my Being, I do what's Neces-
sary to break-out of the "inward spiral"
[AoK, Ap8] that's inherent -- which
Frees-me-up to just keep-on-keeping-
This thread occurred within such a
I =Apologize= to you.
You're Welcome [finally].
k. p. collins
More information about the Neur-sci