Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer photofocus

Yes, that is what I am saying. It is stored in our inner mind with clarity. Our inner mind is experienced in polishing up the information that it brings to our conscious mind awareness. Whether we see it 'blurred or in focus' makes no difference. It is stored by our inner mind ready to put into our conscious awareness with clarity when we call upon the information. Even what we seem to see immediately is already past by the time we are consciously aware of it. The information that we 'see' has been edited and placed into our conscious awareness after it was processed by the brain.

What is in focus is one of the 7 plus or minus 2 things that our conscious mind is aware of at any given time. Change the focus and it's there instantly because even while we were looking at one thing the information about the other was already there being processed by the inner mind.

Alex

The very first Image Stream example that Win Wenger uses in The Einstein Factor is a man who kept seeing the image of a tire, although he tried to block it out thinking it was wrong. It turns out his wife blew out one of the tires on her car.

W. W. doesn't say that it's psychic, although that would appear to be the most logical choice. Rather, the explanation is that he looked at the tire and knew at some level that there was a serious problem with it.

Being able to pick out clear and accurate information from an out-of-focus image is something our brains are very capable of doing.

If you want proof that your mind handles the information that goes into it through your eyes and sorts it out to make some sense of it for you you might want to check out these 2 links.
http://dragon.uml.edu/psych/kaniza.html
Note there are no triangles or circles in the images...
http://dragon.uml.edu/psych/organize.html
This one is pretty powerful proof that you can read blurred words.

Alex

[This message has been edited by AlexK (edited November 13, 2002).]

AlexK, I'm not sure that's a great blurred text readability demonstration.

I believe that in art it's called negative space illustrations. They do demonstrate some of the power of the mind to interpret visual information, that many people are not aware of.

In the past I've seen nice demonstrations where you presented with each word as a block. The block is only a outline of the all the letters, running from the top of one letter to the top of the next. All the white space between the and within the letters is filled in. It's amazing how well your concious mind can read the material. Many words are easy, all on there own. Others you can figure out because of context and semantics.

I took a first look, and didn't think it was a really applicable example myself. I just tried a second time, though, and applied photofocus to the second link. I was amazed at how the word jumped out at me. (I didn't even bother finding the word the first time, so I can't chalk that up to already knowing.) That seems a powerful point about rod vision and the ability of the mind to interpret.

KWLee

Hearing about rod versus cone vision and only really knowing that cones are for colour and are concentrated in the center of our FOV (field of view); I finally did a little reading.

I thought that cones had the high angular resolution, and the rods had low angular resolution. I can't give any measured numbers for the resolution but I did find out a few physiological details.

There are approximately 8,000,000 cones in the average persons eye. They are almost exclusively in the center of our vision. The cone density peaks about about 150,000 per square mm. I thought wow.

Then I read that there are about 120,000,000 rods. The peak rod density is about the same as the cone peak density. The rod peak density is located in the area around the region of cones. The density for about half (maybe 2/3 I didn't note it too well) of our FOV has a rod density greater than 75,000 rods per sq. mm. And at the edge of our FOV the density is still at 20,000 rods per sq. mm.

The rods are radiometrically more sensitive than the cones, but are spectrally indiscriminate.

------

Just throwing a couple of more pennies on the piles. Blame it on KWLee, he said rods.

Hey Snickers00

Try the White Room exercise I suggested in my post here:
http://www.learningstrategies.com/forum/ubb/Forum8/HTML/001944.html

I hope it helps!

Good luck, and...
CommonSense