Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer grammar as natural and logical consequence of thoughts

Hi, everybody!!!!!!!!!
Discussing about Photoreading I can say that this system is not logical because to understand a text we have to go through the structure, the meaning of word by word held by the grammar. When we want to express or discribe an idea we put the words in order, logically in a way that our thoughts are clear and understandable.
How can we understand a text if we do not go through this process.
When we photoread we absorb the material unconsciously; if so, how can we comprehend something if our subconscoiuseness doesn't respect the way of reasoning.
With our consciousness we can use the logic, but the other-then-conscious mind doesn't behave like that; it is like a place without rules, isn't it?

Hmm..

Here's a thought...

What's to say that our subconscious doesn't repect the way of reasoning? In other words, where' the basis for that statement?

How specifically do you know that our nonconscious mind must take things in linearly?

I ask this partly because I myself don't know the answer to that question.

-Jason

What I mean is that photoreading should allow to understand the material by activating.
Usually we comprehend message when consciously we understand it. But with photoreading is like understanding something that we've never met, read, think about.
I hope to have satisfied your doubts.
How can we "activate" material that never passed from our reasoning or present reality, I mean in the right moment when we are reading?
I hardly belive that any kind of information can be stored without passing through our consciousness.
Thank you for replying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the eye is capable of seeing 1 trillion bits of information a second. The corpus collosum is capable of receiving 400 billion bits of information a second and yet you are only responding to 2000 bits of information a second.

Who says that grammar, thought, structure, meaning of words and logic are sorted consciously?

In the PhotoReading class we have a little experiment to help the participants realise that reading is 95% non visual. It's handled by another part of the mind. The process isn't as conscious as you think.

Alex

Here's my initial thoughts.

I suppose that's like asking, "How is it that we can "activate" the English language without ever having studied the proper syntactical structure of English grammar?"

The interesting thing is, we don't even think about the actual structure of our language, and we just continue to speak it, naturally, and quite effortlessly.

So how does our ability to speak English happen so naturally without first passing through our conscious understanding of grammatical structure?

I haven't the slightest idea.

Yet, even when the grammatical rules are broken (which we all do quite frequently) and even out of order, we still understand the meaning without having been taught about the structure of how we learn to speak our first language.

Additionally, as an English (language) teacher, I've learned that conscious understanding of English grammar doesn't necessarily help the language learner. I know this because most of my own students know grammar better than I do, yet their speaking skills are nothing like their grammar.

Yet I don't consciously think about my grammar when I speak, and it just comes out naturally. Perhaps this says something about how photoreading works (or vice versa).

quote:

---

Originally posted by JasonC:
I suppose that's like asking, "How is it that we can "activate" the English language without ever having studied the proper syntactical structure of English grammar?"

The interesting thing is, we don't even think about the actual structure of our language, and we just continue to speak it, naturally, and quite effortlessly.

---

You grew up with it. Speaking single syllables first. Then progressing to words, simple sentences, and so on.

Unless you are suggesting it sprang up out of nowhere, in which case, can you speak/write Russian?

Language was around much earlier than grammar classes.