Since I know that people want to see it:

Marshal/Science

Not true. My grandmother is legally blind from macular degeneration and so can see much more clearly with her peripheral vision than straight ahead. Unless that's not what you were trying to say.

My grandfather had that too! He used to hold Mah Jongg tiles up next to his head rather than in front of him, to try and see what they were using his peripheral vision.

But no, that's not what I'm trying to say. With macular degeneration, everything you see is perceived with equal quality: oncoming truck or Mah Jongg tile, as long as you see it with the peripheral parts of the visual field, you see it. With brain damage, depending on the type, you might see the moving truck but not the stationary tile, or be able to read the number off the tile but fail to realize that an oncoming truck is a threat, or correctly recognize the threat of the truck without knowing why or being able to say what that oncoming threat is called. People with blindsight can't tell you what object you're holding in your hands, but if you throw it at them, they'll duck.

People with blindsight can't tell you what object you're holding in your hands, but if you throw it at them, they'll duck.

Which is cool, in a weird way. I mean, if you're not the person who has this affliction, it's interesting how the brain works.

There's some sort of disorder (I forget what) where you don't see moving objects as being in motion; rather, it's as if you see a series of stills. So if a train is pulling into a station, you see the train near the station, but not moving, then you see it a bit closer, but still not moving, etc.

All true and interesting, but I'm not sure it's relevant -- since what we're talking about is government recognition, I'm much more concerned with , say, do the visions of dancing hamsters prevent holding a job? or driving? and if people with that class of brain injuries can't be classified as blind, are there benefits they should be getting but are denied?

(For that matter, legal blindness isn't blindness at all, and has never been -- it's having vision on a level that keeps you from doing certain things. It's basically a functional definition, but only available for people with a certain neurological starting point?)

There's some sort of disorder (I forget what) where you don't see moving objects as being in motion; rather, it's as if you see a series of stills. So if a train is pulling into a station, you see the train near the station, but not moving, then you see it a bit closer, but still not moving, etc.

Wow, the weeping angels would have even more of an advantage then.

Wow, the weeping angels would have even more of an advantage then.

I was just thinking that it sounded like living in Blink-land. Eeee.

since what we're talking about is government recognition

Tangentially, and maybe I mentioned it here already, but my grandmother only recently got classified as really actually legally blind, even though she hasn't been able to drive for years, and was getting some government services for that -- apparently she wasn't getting the full array of stuff she could have been getting all these years! So now she has a talking clock and phone and other stuff.

(For that matter, legal blindness isn't blindness at all, and has never been -- it's having vision on a level that keeps you from doing certain things.

Yeah, for all the brouhaha about David Paterson being a blind governor, he was all about seeing blood run in the streets this weekend.

The government also won't recognize any disability that resulted from the commission of a felony or the ensuing prison term.

Ugh. The first is simply cruel. The second - given our disgusting attitude towards the safety of prisoners, it goes way beyond that. Sometimes I hate this country.

Wow, the weeping angels would have even more of an advantage then.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

(Don't mind me, I'll just be curled up under my desk with my eyes WIDE OPEN for the next few hours.)