Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer I want to meet one PhotoReader before I buy

Martin,
I only mentioned the Server 4.0 b/c i was amazed at passing the test the first time. I was in no way bragging. I am 53 & when i was in college, there were no computers.

I also was out of the country for some number of years & when i returned in 1986, i returned to another world. America was not the same country to me when i returned.

I eventually learned about computers & someone talked me into taking that course. It was not taught by a microsoft teacher & i don't even have any software that has the screens on it. We didn't even have labs that replicated the conditions for say, learning tcpip. So, at the age of 53, w/ no software, no real labs, no nothing actually, to pass the test the first time was AMAZING to me. I know very well for those of you out there in the IT world, my accomplishment means very little. To me it was major stuff b/c i know how nominal my knowledge is. AND, guess what, i passed the test & still know NOTHING. I would never consider doing anything in the IT field!

I attribute my passing of that test to LS. Yes, w/o PhRing & MMing & using the accelerated learning techniques i learned in the PhRing course........I WOULD HAVE FAILED

Gosh! I forgot to mention the most important thing:

I would have never even considered taking that course if i did not know PhRing & MMing were there to help me.

I even finished the course not knowing what IT meant! Novice, i was beyond novice. But i stated clearly & found immediately info that i needed. I used Personal Genius & PhR that large book for about a 7-10 days until i felt comfortable. Honestly, after PhRing it about 5 times, i began to just feel like i could learn it.

There was a smaller book, but we did not get that book till the end of the course. It was helpful, but i had already learned what i needed to learn.

I'm not sure i'd ever want to put myself in that position again. It was unnerving even though it was successful. But, if i was in college........WOW....what fun.

After reading Balkanboy's post, it makes me feel great pleasure to have learned the photoreading system to my level! It has reminded me just how much the human race is blocked by sketecism to excel, push the boundaries and to become outstanding. This is exacly why there are so many so called "dumb" people in our society, they just squable around day in and day out thinking that eveything has to be done a certain way, and changing it would be dooms day.

Let me end this post by asking some questions:

What would a rose smell like if you'd use your hands to smell it instead of your nose?

What would be the tactile sensation of rough pavement if you just look at it with your eyes from a distance?

What would your friends look like if you used your ears to look instead of your eyes?

And finally how would a book "feel" if you read it word for word as opposed to reading it with the whole mind?

..........pretty boring

[This message has been edited by Elmo9 (edited March 20, 2001).]

Elmo9,

I read your previous posts. You said you read 100 books a day, how much do you remember? And what is photoreading exactly, I mean I've been confused lately Exactly what does photoreading promise me? Please don't be ambiguous, I kinda get vague answers from everyone I know and I do not like that. I'm willing to go to Vancouver this summer to see a demonstration, would you be interested in showing me? Sorry bout stealing your name in a way, I will think up of a new one I promise but my first choice was taken!

CJ

The professor may be quite right in his assertion of the speed limitations on the eye. However, this argument treats the photoreading step as if it is speed reading. It isn't. The professor appeared not to know what the PR process was. I can understand why you would base decisions on an article written by a journalist, based on an advertisement. That is much more credible than the experiences of people who are actually using the system.

For an interesting discussion of the capabilities of the subconscious (or unconscious) mind, try reading "The User Illusion" or "Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind". Neither book addresses PhotoReading, but both present a compelling case that the capabilities of the unconscious are far more vast than we realize. If you believe that your brain's abilities are restricted to the small sliver of conscious awareness that you have, so be it. It seems evident that the brain actually absorbs and processes far more information than you can ever consciously comprehend. Ever ducked a ball that you saw out of the corner of your eye? If you had to rely on your conscious mind to dodge the ball, you'd eat the ball. Ever lost a set of keys (or other object) and then later saw an image of where they were? Your brain may have filtered that information at the time because it didn't seem important, but the information went in and was later retrieved.

The argument boils down to whether or not you believe the unconscious mind is capable of taking snapshots of a page of text and then using "optical character recognition" to gather and sort the information. My crappy little PC can do it. I don't think it's a stretch to think that your brain can do it. Your brain obviously has OCR type abilities or you wouldn't be reading this. It isn't paranormal. It isn't spirit guides. There are no crystals required.

mgrego2,

Wonderful!

I'm just me; noone important; not doing anything special. But, i did learn PhRing & since i was a teacher & i did manage to do a MA degree, i can clearly know the difference in my life.

I have read more books since learning PhRing than i could ever imagine. Pete's contest changed my entire outlook on my abilities.

My abilities? Everyone has this possibility available to them. It's just a technique. Intuition or periphereal input is also a valid branch of knowledge. Jung pointed out: thinking/feeling sensation/intuition as the 4 functions. One will be differentiated & it's opposite will be pretty much undifferentiated. The other two will be present in lesser degrees.

Whole brain thinking & things like PhRing take into account all 4.

BB,
My first thought is... suck a nut.

My second is.. I understand your skepticism, but you can get farther with people if you are less caustic.

My third thought is.. I've actually been wondering exactly what you posted.

I mean, just how many people out there HAVE experienced spontaneous activation? Certainly no one on this DB. That is something that's been bugging me for a while. Other than Peter and Paul, who can REALLY photoread at 25000wpm and KNOW what they've seen right after? Pete, I think we're going to need a response on this one. How many out there can photoread at or near on your level?

On the mystical side, I've gotten some emotional feelings here and there, once and a while a flash of recall, quite a few times when I knew EXACTLY where to find information, and I ALWAYS feel as if I've read the material before if I wait at least a sleep cycle.

Once, I got perfect recall of DeBono's Thinking Course in my dreams on the first go. ..but then I forgot it all when I woke up, heh.

Then once I photoread the f uck out of Suze Orman's The Courage to Be Rich.. at least 500 times over the course of two weeks. Nothing. At least until I started to read it. I timed myself at 15 seconds a page with PERFECT comprehension. Not bad, not bad. But how practical are experiences like this?

They're nice. They're cute. They're fun to talk about and even more fun to experience.

..but the thought has recently come to me: ...who cares? This all seems to be just the frosting on the cake. A fun, enjoyable toy to play with... almost a pasttime.

As Paul says in the book, Spontaneous Activation is the pie-in-the-sky and unnecessary to reap benefits form the system.

I've noticed but ONE solid, hardcore, pragmatic benefit from the *photoreading step* in the past 5 months: If I photoread a book with proper brainwave entrainment, then sleep, then the next day when I speed read I have the 'qualitative' / 'unprovable' feeling that I've read the material before. This allows me to blast through 'filler' more easily.

I read some heavy crap too. This semester it's all the ancient chinese philosophers, a seminar on the history of nukes, a psych course on media influence, and a western civ enlightenment philosophy class. I'm a yale student and you can come by if you like. Though, there's not much to see, except me reading at about 30-45 seconds a page instead of 60-90.

But that single benefit is certainly worth it to me given that I have to read probably ... god, at least six hundred pages a week.

btw, where in the Balkans are you from? I spent a couple weeks over the summer in Croatia and Slovenia...had a blast in Dubrovnik and Split, though it was quite hot. Also, my brother is a balkan's specialist--an analyst for the department of defense.

Brian

Brian,
How c lever! Leave it to the kids to figure a way around anything

Mgrego2, I like your post but I have to disagree.

<<<<Ever ducked a ball that you saw out of the corner of your eye? If you had to rely on your conscious mind to dodge the ball, you'd eat the ball.>>>>

Though I do believe in subconscious, this statement is not necessarily true. Our minds are attracted to the unexpected (sounds, visual, taste, etc). We also have a survival mechanism it seems. Dodging a ball in your peripheral vision might be a result of these two things.

<<<<The argument boils down to whether or not you believe the unconscious mind is capable of taking snapshots of a page of text and then using "optical character recognition" to gather and sort the information. My crappy little PC can do it. I don't think it's a stretch to think that your brain can do it. Your brain obviously has OCR type abilities or you wouldn't be reading this.>>>>

There is a few things wrong with this reasoning in regards to the article. Your eyes have more sensors going closer to the middle. That is why when we want to focus on something, we focus so that something goes to the middle of your vision so you can see it the clearest. If you seen something just on the edge of your vision (that ball you were dodging for instance). Did you see it's details or just a flash?

From the article "With George McConkie, now at the University of Illinois, Rayner measured the perceptual span of readers by replacing most of the words on a video screen with nonsense strings of letters. Wherever the eye was pointing, a small patch of screen would have the correct letters, but everywhere else they would be jumbled." And the participants did not notice!

As every seeing person knows, we have a vision area larger than this middle area, but how much detail does it give the farther from the middle

As for the analogy that computer OCR and photoreading should be possible because of brain OCR:

Computer OCR, the computer takes in letters clearly (no periph vision, all detailed) and decides what those letters are.

Photoreading we see the page a few seconds (in photo focus as book states) and never focus on any words individually. How can we focus on words afterwards if we haven't focused and seen them in clear detail during. The article seems to support the notion that you can visually see many letters (but not id them) at once of course, but can physically only clearly focus on and decipher (OCR) a few words (10-15?) a second.

[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited March 21, 2001).]

Brian649,

Hi, I just read your post and some of your feelings. May I suggest you read this link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1563824477/qid=985155839/sr=1-3/re f=sc_b_4/002-4093418-8494415

I just like the analogy he gives at the end, it kinda reminds me of your situation.
Cheers.

PS Though I don't presume what your real situation is, sorry If I am way offbase.

[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited March 21, 2001).]