Rolf:

You raise some interesting and challenging points, which prompts me to add my two cents as well.

The "7 pieces of information" comes up with Scheele, too. I'm not sure whether it's one of those "conventional wisdom" statistics or if it's the result of some clinical study.
Usually, however, it's stated as 7 simultaneous concepts, rather than as a rate ("per second"), I believe.

Clinical research on autism (of which I am emphatically NOT an authority) does suggest that at least one form of the condition is caused by the inability of the brain to filter sensory impressions. The individuals in this case are quite literally overwhelmed by the flow of information. Of course, these impressions are usually more than simply visual, but you take my point, I hope. The brain is a filter of sorts.

Regarding the contact lens suggestion: I don't think this will provide the testing you want. According to my understanding of optics (and the structure of the eye), the entire panorama of the visual field passes through the eye's lens (essentially one point--think of a pinhole camera), and is "projected" on the retina. I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, but that's it in a nutshell. The iris opens and closes to allow more or less light through the lens, but doesn't directly affect focus.

The physiology that applies, and the real thing I think you want to test, is the sensitivity of the off-central portion of the retina to distinguishing shapes. Additionally, this part of the eye is generally known to contain more rods than cones, making it less sensitive to color.

One thing can be easily proven and I believe it to be the case: the image sent to the retina by the lens is essentially in focus across the entire surface of the retina. That would be a simple optical experiment you could perform. You just need an eye that's not being used.

I'm sure a physiologist could take issue with this simplification, but let's continue.

The issues, which none of your experimental scenerios considers, are these: the brain itself is as important to the interpretation of visual images as the organ of the eye; and, the brain can learn--it can be programmed.

Suppose I sat you at a machine that had a series of black and white buttons and a diagram--a program, if you will--that I claimed could be interpreted sequentially by an operator in real time. Some of the buttons would be held longer than others, and some combinations would be effected by one hand, while others would be accomplished by the other hand simultaneously. And suppose I gave you a very limited time frame with a specific number of clock cycles to execute the program.

If you'd never seen a piano before, you might think this to be a crazy, impossible task. Who could learn to do that? Press a bunch of keys in proper sequence and in time while reading ahead and preparing for playing the next group of notes?

It takes training, practice, confidence, and talent. Believe me, if you sat me down with one of Mozart's piano concertos, you wouldn't like the result! But does my experiment prove it can't be done? Of course not.

So that gets back to the clinical trials. I don't think--given the eye/brain collaboration and the need for an expert photoreader--that you can devise a clinical, non-destructive experiment that you will find convincing.

That perhaps leaves you still asking for a demonstration as the only reliable "evidence." The more pragmatic approach might be to try the system for yourself, but that depends whether or not you can come to grips with your own belief system--your personal paradigm.

BTW, I for one am pleased that you've chosen to be less acerbic in your postings.

--George

[This message has been edited by GeorgeA (edited March 22, 2001).]