Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer the science of PR?

Let's assume you are reading this message. The letters should be about ~18" away from you. There are photoreptors on the back of your eyes (known as rods and cones) which have a specific density (closeness together). Imagine a whole bunch of circles inside one another (like an archery target...we call these concentric). The closer to the center, the denser the circles.

Problem is you can't read out of the corner of your eyes because it is your peripheral vision. The density of the rods and cones is NOT dense enough to be able to read anything more than about ~3" away from the focal point of what you are reading (assuming 20/20 vision, font size=12, distance from source ~18"). It can't hit your "subconscience" because your senses can't even ascertain the detail needed recognize the words and translate their meaning via your angular gyrus!

However, I would like to give PotoReading YET ANOTHER chance since so many people claim it works. I myself believe it is no more than speed reading rapped in a study skills package, which most students never properly developed. However, I am giving PR once last benefit of the doubt. Since there are so many successful PR's on this forum, please find legitimate scientific (empirical) studies and prove what we KNOW about the CNS wrong.

If you are photoreading these message, feel free to ask questions and I will ACTIVATE anything you don't understand after you've peripherally skimmed it.

Peripheral vision is real. Now, kindly leave off of bagging on PR--is this your pasttime? Why don't you try it?

I think you're just jealous of us all.

Huh? I didn't say peripheral vision was bogus! I am asking for scientific evidence of a claim PhotoReading makes that has been negated by modern science. Perhaps if you reread my post without PR, you would have realized I acknowledged peripheral vision exists. In fact, it was quite important to the survival of your ancestors once Apollo had finished pulling the sun across the sky.

Although I have experienced the course, I have yet to waste a dime on PR, nor do I intend to. I already read at least two books a day just fine thank you, at near 100% comprehention. Why would anyone with an eidetic memory be jealous of a PR adherent? Remember, I am only here to help YOU, Patti!

I disagree. I would very much like to learn if/how photoreading works; however, I will not spend any $$$ on a course that requires me to take leaps of blind faith.

If soemone can explain the science behind it, I will gladly lay down some green.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saraswati:
I disagree. I would very much like to learn if/how photoreading works; however, I will not spend any $$$ on a course that requires me to take leaps of blind faith.

If soemone can explain the science behind it, I will gladly lay down some green.

---

If you believe the subconscious does not have the ability to make complete accuracy out of "blurry peripheral vision," then your lack of education in that area is what is having you believe that the method of PhotoReading is scientifically impossible. No, it can't REALLY be proven, because there is no way to study the mind, there is not much of anything that can be proven about the theories of psychology, and there is very little that can be told except for the already-present results from existing successful PhotoReaders.

One way to prove to yourself that it works, is through lucid dreaming. I've actually done dream activation before, then gone back to find it in the book, and *GASP* IT WAS RIGHT THERE IN BLACK & WHITE! I guess I accomplished the scientifically impossible!! WOW!

Feel free to run your own tests to disprove it. It's people like you that prevent this from getting into the public education system.

-youngprer

huh? If I do not believe the subconscious, wha? uhm, in order for the "subconscious" to RECEIVE this information, it has to be sensed/absorbed in the first place. This doesn't happen through osmosis; remember, Edgar Casey was a known charletan who worked in an occult bookstoore before he went on to dupe the masses with his mentalist act. But that's a tangent for another day. As I was saying, the periphery of the eye simply cannot do this to the extent advertised in photoreading....??

UNLESS there is something I'm missing here. if so that's what this thread is about....TELL ME PLEASE!

Regarding LD's: although I have spoke to hundreds on this subject, I have never met a person who was truly able to lucid dream. All of them I have met have in fact been dreaming about lucid dreaming. Talk your vitamins, you'll see what I mean!

Anyway, if you see the book in a lucid dream, and this is in fact THE EXACT replica of the book, what you have achieved is truly phenomenal. Are you aware that if you can recall such a text VERBATIM once awake that you would be eligible for prize money (assuming you could demonstrate your skill in front of an audience of skeptics, and their "negativity" did not "mess you up.")?

"Feel free to run your own tests to disprove it. It's people like you that prevent this from getting into the public education system."

I wish to disprove nothing. I am not a debunker. I only intend to learn more about the mechanics of PR?

As for why it isn't in schools, that is an excellent question. Perhaps master educators realize the system does not work as advertised? What are your thoughts on the subject?

Saraswati
Hi. Can you tell me is it a requirement of being a 'know all' to have a 'chip on your shoulder'.
Your attitude reminds me of an old English folk saying 'You can always tell a Yorkshireman but you can't tell him much'.

Search the forum. There are other threads that deal with the science of vision and those that deal with perception and the brains processing mechanisms and ability.

If you want to learn more, then go to the library and do some reading.

Good luck,

Iam2

Saraswati--
If it works for people, who cares if its "scientifically proven" besides, science isn't 100% fool proof.

I really didn't want to get into this again.

Can you scientifically prove that you are thinking now? Please go ahead.

Other than that, I'm staying out of this because I don't want to be insulted anymore by [namewitheld]