[Nfbf-l] The Eyes Don't Have It All! Does Skin See?

[Alan Dicey]

The Eyes Don't Have It All! Does Skin See?

purple_sea_urchins
By Mike Pickett
Guest Writer for Wake Up World

Have you ever wondered why you awaken moments before your alarm goes off on the table next to your head? Did you actually SEE the alarm with your skin?
Is that just one of trillions of pieces of data your brain deals with as you sleep in autonomic world?

They say one should sleep with all the lights off. If your eyes are closed, why do you need to sleep with your lights off? Are you seeing things while
asleep? How?

You've always been enthralled with the 11:11 occurrence. How did you know, suddenly, that it was 11:11, turn and look?

Abstract - The author has gathered essays and observations to propose that the familiar "eye," common to many species, is not the ONLY way light is perceived
and evaluated. Two major conclusions can be drawn from recent information:

1. DNA makes it possible for the whole organism to detect light for specific purposes and the eye is just one type of receiver;

2. DNA operates as a transceiver.
Have you ever heard that statement "I'm all Ears?" I think it would be better said, "I'm all eyes." If Red Riding Hood were really observant, and lived
in these modern times, she would have exclaimed to the wolf, "MY what a big EYE you are."

What I am about to propose about "vision," seeing, and perceiving includes wolves, Red Riding Hood, single celled animals, the whole spectrum of kingdoms
and their phyla. Vision is not about eyes. Eyes don't have it all. I am proposing a more universal transceiver and calling it "skin vision."

The first portion of my essay is directed toward the possibility of a living body detecting light without the use of "eyes." In the first citation I would
present the sea-urchin that can see but has no "eyes." (1) There are several things taking place here. The first is the ability of the Sea Urchin to detect
either colors and/or brightness. If the creature is detecting either, the implication is simple. It has "detectors" that are able to sense and interpret
various colors that have importance to the urchin. Click 
here
 to see article: sea urchins "see"

The more important question, which I will leave for a different essay, is: what meaning does the creature get from these colors, and where did it "learn"
that behavior? Dr. Rupert Sheldrake and Dr. James T. Culbertson have presented convincing papers concerning that matter.

Meanwhile, the urchin has no organs to which we would refer to as "eyes." One must differentiate by saying that "eyes" in the traditional sense of the
word are rather large organs that have specific types of detectors and the urchin has some other organ similarly disposed. That organ would have to be
its body. The detectors in the urchin would have to be far more sensitive and specialized since they are receptor/detectors in DNA.

I do believe the urchin can transmit some kind of primeval coherent information out as easily as it receives information.

Next it helps to rehearse the ability of flora of all kinds to alter their biology depending on the length of day. Originally it was thought that trees
dramatically alter their growth process when it begins to get cold in the fall. It has been since shown that the trees actually shed their leaves and prepare
for winter based on the length of night (2). That means there is absolutely NO alternative but to conclude that the DNA of the tree is able to sense light.
Again, like the sea urchin, I have to leave the matter of HOW the tree is able to interpret that information to a different essay. Click 
here 
to see article: "trees change color"

Next I would like to introduce a very recent video of a Chameleon that was posted on the Internet primarily as a most impressive and entertaining curiosity.
It shows the Chameleon changing colors as it passes over objects of a specific color (3). The Chameleon's epidermis has the ability to change color. How
it does that has been studied extensively in a separate venue. The truly incredible thing is that there are detectors in the epidermal DNA of the creature
that can not only detect the exact frequency of the color, but also make arrangements to duplicate it. So, I would assert that this is another extension
of vision beyond what we call the "eye." The Chameleon has very large and peering "eyes," and in this video they appear to be looking elsewhere and not
at the colored objects over which it was passing. So, the whole skin of the Chameleon serves as an "eye" and it is a transceiver. Click 
here
 to see : "Chameleon changes color"

I would propose an experiment for the owner of the Chameleon. Find some way to place a simple picture like a small colored target on the side of the Chameleon.
I would suspect when the picture was removed, the skin might have a target on it. Looking at the video, the Chameleon receives a broad blast of color from
the glasses and it's DNA reacts. If one were to narrow the size of the transmitter and place it on the side of the creature, one might refine their view
of the process. If not, the most likely answer is that the cells radiate their colors in all directions, including to neighboring cells.

It seemed to me that I needed at least one example of vision without the use of the "eye." It needed to be in a creature whose species is always associated
with "eyes." Nature provided a number of examples in the caves and dark places of the world.

I would like to introduce just one prominent and well-known creature, the Mexican Blind Cave Tetra (Astyanax fasciatus mexicanus). (4) This species is
perfect for this discussion because it is a variant of the Mexican Tetra that has eyesight. Click 
here
 to see: "Blind Mexican Tetra"

Scientists have stated that this creature senses the presence of other things by employing a series of pressure sensitive lines on its sides. I have read
the studies of "lateral lines" and do not have an issue with the notion. I do believe, though, that the fish also has the ability to "see" with its skin.

It has been observed that this creature can get to its food even more quickly than fishes with eyes. It has also been observed that its quickness makes
it very difficult to capture with a net. I believe that is because it can "see" the net as well as sense it's movement in water with the "lateral lines"
sonar type detection. If something as large and noisy as a net were plunged into the environment, how would this creature be able to avoid it without "seeing
it."

At this point, my question is rhetorical. I have NO proof that the fish can "see" other than its ability to hover well above gravel beds (where pressure
variations would be very difficult to claim as a tool).

Next I would like to introduce a man who has been found in Turkey (Esref Armagan) who can paint pictures of landscapes. He has no eyes and was born blind. (5) He
has been taken around the world where he has even demonstrated his ability to perceive perspectives in architecture. He has expressed his discomfort about
being studied, because his artwork is exceptional and no one seems interested in that. He perceives himself as normal, and a good artist (I must add that
I think he is an excellent artist).

The question is how does he do what he does. If you look very closely, you will see that he has his fingers immersed in his paints, and constantly adds
paints to the pallet to get the color he wants. If he cannot SEE (eyes) the colors, the obvious conclusion is that he can "feel" the colors. Taking the
word "feel" out of the sentence and doing a little reconstruction, I say that he can SEE (DNA) the colors within the DNA of his epidermis just like the
Sea Urchin or the Chameleon.

Video : Blind Man Paints by seeing colors through fingers

Flash start
More info  
Esref Armagan a blind man who can paint
Play
Share  
Flash end

Since we are talking about amplitude of light that is so weak as to defy description, there has to be some natural explanation for this. I would assert
that Armagan can sense the light (SEE/DNA) because the optical portion of his nervous system is not overloaded with other information. It is quite like
the African folk who can hear whispers at distances of 100 meters because their ears have never been damaged or overwhelmed by other more strident sounds.

The question arising about the artist Armagan is how did he manage to paint a seascape? The answer would have to be: "He SAW (DNA) it." Better yet, one
would have to ask how he knew a sailboat was a sailboat? I believe that his parents or guardians were very verbal people, who would, in the process of
teaching him his native vocabulary, describe objects and name them, not realizing that he was storing the DNA pictures away for future reference. I am
NOT certain this does not take place in unimpaired children, only the primary scene is instead "tagged" from the massive EYE electrochemical sensors.

I did notice a striking difference between several of his paintings in his gallery. I have not taken the time to correspond with his manager, but it seems
to me that there is a marked difference between a landscape he may have been "seeing" and a plain photograph (that of Mr. Bill Clinton). In an effort to
NOT violate any copyright issues, I invite you to compare these two images and decide for yourself:

Click: 
A scene with wonderful perspective

Click: 
Mr. Bill Clinton

The daunting implication of Armagan's ability is that his body behaves much like a digital camera where coherent light is only interpreted if it comes
in a parallel fashion. If that is the case, and considering that morphic resonance has caused the more successful natural processes to become habits, one
could propose that the successfulness of faceted eyes in insects is the model for the "facets" of DNA in Armagan's body. The problem of planar reception
would be solved by the DNA being in his epidermis so that no light information passes through his body.

My conclusion for Part I of this exposition is that DNA can receive light and react to it in such a way as to allow a creature to discern colors (frequencies).
That is proven by the ability of creatures to receive color frequencies and then duplicate them. The process of duplication of those frequencies is proof
that DNA is by definition a transceiver.

The fact that Efram Armagan can receive specific information in this way is evidence that information can be transmitted to a creature in such a way as
to result in translation into useful data.

My final conclusion is that all species could well have the ability to see with their DNA/skin. I believe that all species have a general morphic field
that is employed to create this ability in the creature. It might well be called "Primordial," although that word tends to depreciate the actual process.

With "advanced" creatures like humans, the sense would be called "vestigial" because it doesn't seem to have much use. I am going to explore that notion
in Part II and assert that rather than vestigial, the sense is powerful, but neglected.

I believe that eyes are actually additional sensory tools created from more specialized morphic fields that resulted from the need for creatures to move
quickly, both defensively and offensively. It is my belief that what I call "skin-vision" is OSP (Ordinary Sensory Perception), and the eyes are ESP (Extra
Sensory Perception without the hyphen) .

I firmly believe that we humans receive "visual" information via our epidermis DNA, information which the magnificent data processor called "our brain"
ordinarily ignores.  Occasionally, though, our ever-analyzing subconscious startles us by alerting us to such things as clock readings. I also firmly believe
that we have this vision from all sides, so it is not unusual to turn and find some visual of importance to us on display, such as the famous 11: 11 on
clocks.

In Part II of this essay I intend to delve into the notion of light as a carrier frequency, much like radio signals carry information. I also intend to
examine other field effects to which others have referred in various "extra-sensory" discussions.

Note - The author owes a big "thank you" to 
Dr. Rupert Sheldrake
 for his taking the time to scan this essay and make a suggestion about its composition that adds clarity to the treatise.

Source URL:
http://wakeup-world.com/2012/07/13/the-eyes-dont-have-it-all-does-skin-see/



_______________________________________________