This observation highlights the main differences of Torey's and Hull's opposite approaches to coping with blindness. Torey resisted his blindness, and actively worked to keep visualizing reality in his imagination. Hull, on the other hand, accepted the fact he was blind and therefore surrendered any effort to refashion his sense of vision. This neglect for vision allowed Hull to be prone to involuntarily visualizing random, hallucinatory imagery. While addressing the question of what happens to the visual cortex without any visual input, Sacks states that "isolated from the outside, the visual cortex becomes hypersensitive to internal stimuli or all sorts: its own autonomous activity" (Sacks, 313). This quote shows that as a result of Hull's neglect of vision, his visual cortex began to respond to internal stimuli from other brain areas. While this did allow Hull to detach from society's bounds to an even greater extent by allowing the conjuration of more novel images, these images were not generated voluntarily by Hull. They come and go randomly like hallucinations. Torey, on the other hand, resisted blindness and remained very visual, and was able to use his visual dexterity to conjure up an image at his own will, not involuntarily like Hull. This difference goes to show that resisting blindness and adapting to remain visual is much more effective to foster the growth of one's unique identity, rather than surrendering to blindness and neglecting any visual development.