Rolf,

Thanks for replying.

With this post I was only coming up with ways to test the eyes to see if PRing is physically possible by isolating the system and not relying on the brain (taking out factors). I am happy to say that I devised a different thourough way to easily test photoreading without needing any of the advanced technology.

You've obviously never tried PhotoFocus. I can see the shapes of the letters quite clearly. I don't see how you can isolate the capabilities of the eye completely. Without inserting something between the eye and the brain, how do you isolate the received image from the processed results? I'd love to read about your test.

Though I don't see the point of this part of the argument let me comment on it. That is because you never learned it and associated anything meaniful to the character symbol

It may not be a stellar point, but my point was that my brain has learned to decipher text for a language I have learned. It does have the algorithm for dissecting what I'm seeing. It has the capabilities to apply that algorithm even in cases where the text may not be as clear as I would like.

When you reading a bad fax you still see a certain pattern (I assume if you can decipher it) and you can basically rule out certain letters on the bad part you are trying to decipher. Maybe seeing the pattern is enough to know the missing/bad letter. If not, then your mind can take in account the context, which letter would make most sense in that word, which word would make most sense in that sentence. You also might take in account the subject being written about for the clues. I would also bet that you would look directly at the bad parts of the fax to decipher it, not with your peripheral vision.


On your account with us being able to PR by filling in the gaps like reading a bad fax, I still cannot totally reconcile those two examples. What if outside our center of vision, there is truly not enough detail on letters so our mind can make it out. It would not take to much loss of detail to render one letter unreadable - letters look similar to a point.

What if? My point is that, even if you could isolate the image received by my brain, you have no clue whether my brain is capable of deciphering that text. Letters may look unreadable but, as you mention above, my brain is able to search for known words that fit the pattern or the context. How out of focus is "too out of focus?" Why are you so convinced that your brain can only process what is directly in focus? That seems incredibly limiting. You don't know until the other piece of the vision machine is brought online. It's a system, not a collection of independent functions.

And with PRing one page a second with no focus (or just center focus, still with 90% of letters outside center focus) where is my context to decipher all those letters - I cannot take the word it is in to decipher it since I didn't really make out the word, I cannot take the sentence the word is in since I really didn't make out the sentence.

As mentioned above, this is not what PhotoFocus is about. I'm NOT focusing 10% of my vision on part of the text. I'm opening my field of vision and seeing both pages with the same clarity. Having done it, I can tell you that the letters and words are very crisp. Much clearer than some of the faxes I've deciphered.

I admire your faith in science but you have a great deal more faith in it than I do. Scientific experiments can be like statistics. The results can be whatever the researcher wanted/expected. We hear about scientific studies where data was "tweaked" to fit the model that the researcher had in mind. Is it possible that the bias of the researcher actually crept in as the experiment was being designed? (Not necessarily intentionally but based on the world view that he/she has?) Man wasn't supposed to be able to fly or go to the moon or run a two-minute mile. Science is continually playing a catch-up game with reality. I think the capabilities of the human mind/body will continue to surprise us. The bottom line isn't what a scientist says or what someone on this forum says, it's what the system does for you.

Why not apply some of the energy you've spent trying to debunk the process to actually trying it out? What will you have lost? One of the things I've learned is that (within reason), I'm not going to let others tell me what I can and cannot do. If there is a potential benefit and no inherent physical or mental risk, I'll give it a shot. I'm not convinced that ImageStreaming will give me a 1 point increase in IQ for every 80 minutes I do (even though there is a referenced experiment that supports it). However, I have noticed benefits from using the system and I'll continue to test it.

If if it doesn't work for you, you'll know. If it does, you'll be pleasantly surprised.