This may not be what you're looking for, but there is a fairly good example when you look at people who have had corpus collosum separation. The collosum is primarily used in correlating information between the hemispheres of the brain, and when people have severe forms of epilepsy, these pathways are severed to prevent the caotic seizures that come from inappropriate communication between the hemispheres(rarely done any more).
Studys that have been conducted on such people by presenting a word in say the left visual field and a picture in the right visual field have shown that an non-consciously perceived stimulus is still actually perceived at another level and can even dominate the processing pathways. Say the word "cake" was presented in the left visual field and a picture of a dog was shown to the right visual field. Then, the person was asked to state what the picture was. In the particular film I saw, way back in undergrad, the person would have then have this unreasonable (to them) urge to respond with "cake." Excuse me for the poor explanation. It really has been about ten years or more since I saw this film and my memory has not exactly improved with age.
My point with this is that, as I understand it, the garbled blob that you actually see before your eyes is your brains way of real-time interpretation of what is being presented to it by eyes that are normally converging on an object to get binacular vision. However, with photoreading, the divergent gaze does not provide overlapping images, even though both eyes are actually perceiving the exact same words and images. Because the brain can't make real sense of the image, it just blends everything and takes it out of meaningful cognition, which is the goal of photoreading. You're not supposed to be cognizant of what your mind is absorbing, which cognition would only interfere with the preconscious processing of the information.
Just like the person with a separated collosum, the information is getting in at a preconscious or precognitive level (meaning "before atively thinking about something," not precognition like ESP), but is just as viable, or even more so than the information that is cogitative (how's that for vocabulary!). In other words, the person hadn't though on the word "cake" when the picture of a dog was shown in the opposite visual field, however, "cake" was the dominant piece of information that was presented as the answer the question about what was being perceived. I hope I didn't just hopelessly confuse the issue.
My point in all of this is simply that the mind is very capable of sorting through wads of extraneous information and making sense of it, whether that sense is something we can readily, consciously think about, or if it simply "becomes" part of our thoughts in a preconscious or precognitive way. I hope this makes a little sense.
Bill
