The previous thread was getting to long. I would like to respond to some posts when I have time, now I will just respond to 1post per post.

Dmatech wrote:
<<<<<This really makes a lot of sense...If the conscious mind can only process ~7 pieces of info/second, it would make sense that the subconscious mind would filter out everything
outside of your direct concentration by making it appear blurry...this doesn't necessarily mean that your eye cannot clearly distinguish details outside of that focus, just that your subconscious is filtering what your conscious mind sees.>>>>>

The brain is not my area of expertise so much of this is just an opinion. I don't know if the subconscious plays an active part in filtering our senses (there are as always possible exceptions - excessive pain for instance). Perhaps it is the conscious mind just ignoring what it wants to ignore, and paying attention to what it wants to focus on. I just ask, why, when even I try can I not make out the letters that are not in the center of my focus on an item I am not familiar with. This leads us to :

<<<<<The lens is the eye...it can CLEARLY see everything within its view. The filter is like the subconscious mind...it blurs everything outside of a certain radius of focus. Unfortunately there is no way I know of to test this theory, but for all we know, the subconscious mind might be able to clearly see everything within the view (peripheral or otherwise) of our eyes.>>>>>

There are a good number of ways for scientists to test your hypothesis that I can think of.

1. Contact lenses these days can have graphics, if you have ever attended a rave or seen Michael Jackson Thriller? with those 'werewolf' eyes you know what I am talking about. Why not contact lenses which have black plastic in the middle which would block us from seeing in the center of our vision. The objective would be to see if people could make out items in detail that they do not know, could they read? Perhaps this experiment needs to be done with only one eye so the other eye does not fill in the gaps though.

In case this experiment does not work (people still see through plastic, etc) there are possibilities for the future:

2. This was a small story in 1999, scientists somehow intercepted the signals from a cat's vision to the brain by using electrodes and some such thing and project what it was seeing on to a computer monitor, the technology right now is very primitive I understand but this could be used to see if the story is true.

3. Scientists are working on a laser that would beam images directly into your eye. This would supposedly be the VR of the future and replace TV/Monitor like devices. This technology in the future could be used to test the theory out same way as the contact lense, have a black image of significant size in the center vision and see what people can make out in detail out side of it.

I would think the contact lens test would be easiest and important testable today as opposed to the other 2 ideas.

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

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).]

George,

I was thinking about what you said, I did not think the experiment would work with contact lenses. I could think too many things going wrong with it as well. I have thought of another 7 ways to test since then but like test 1 and 3 still test perception of the brain of the visual data. The one that may work though is number 2, where they intercept the signal from the eye(nerves) but before it hits the brain. Scientist could then see what detail an eye truly sees (outside the center)without having to depend on the realtime processing of the brain on a moving image.

I suppose it could be my own vast ignorance, but I'm not sure I would find any of these tests convincing. I can clearly see Chinese characters but they mean absolutely nothing to me. They can be as in focus and lovely as you like and they're still going to bounce off the back of my head with a meaningless thump.

However, to come back to my example from a previous posting: I can take a very bad fax and do a pretty nice job of deciphering it, based on partial words, partial letters, etc. My OCR software couldn't come close. Just by determining what I'm seeing, you would not be able to judge how capably I would process that information. Even if my peripheral vision does a mediocre job of capturing the image, it's still quite possible that whatever part of me does the analysis would be able to come up with the goods.

Does that make any sense?

mgrego2:

Yes, I think this goes to my point about needing to examine the entire vision system (eyes and brain together) as a working unit. And the need for a trained subject, not just anyone.

Rolf:

The realtime processing is part of the system. Why exclude it? For what it's worth, I feel that the emotional state of the subject may also be a factor. It might have an impact on the ability of the brain to process those peripheral images.

In addition, you'd need to establish some norms for lighting, colors, size and quantity of text, duration of exposure, and so on. It's a difficult and complex question.

Finally, you're in a difficult logical situation: you've essentially set out to prove a negative (photereading can't work as advertised). Most investigators would probably start with an observed instance and try and design a trial that tests why and how the process does seem to work.

James Randi would probably try to duplicate the performance by some covert means, thereby exposing the "trick." That could be one approach. At some point, Occam's Razor is in play, though. The simplest answer is perhaps the best: maybe the system just works.

--George

When I started with Photoreading I searched for ways to see for myself whether or not it could be done.
Concerning the question whether or not words enter my mind even though I am not consciously looking at them (not in focus) I thought about words or parts of words, i.e. "where are words starting with an a" or "where is the word "brain" and then gaze at a page, very unfocused. My eyes would quickly be drawn to those words. That was convincing enough for me concerning the pure mechanics of whether or not letters enter the brain. Actually, the idea for this sort of self-test came after an even simpler excercise which I got from somewhere from the LS materials: If you walk some place tell yourself to find all things red, or all things round ... whatever. All of a sudden you find tons of objects around you with that particular characteristic + shades and variations!

Wow! Some very interesting information!

I think what chaos is trying to find out in regards to his experiment #2 is JUST the capability of the eye. This would be useful in proving or disproving the article that was posted regarding the capabilities of the eye to focus outside of a small "circle" of focus. I hope that makes sense...I'm not really sure how to word it even though I know what I'm trying to say

In any case...if that is what you are trying to do chaos, is just isolate the eye's abilites, then I think that your 2nd experiment would work

I still stick by my original hypothesis in my post about the subconscious filtering the full focused image from the conscious in an attempt to curtail information/sensory overload...essentially only revealing a small part of the image at a time to the conscious mind. If this is the case, and if Paul Scheele's claim that Photoreading bypasses the conscious mind is true, then that is a pretty big chunk of evidence in favor of photoreading...wouldn't you think?

Thanks for the great input everyone!

GeorgeA,

Mgrego2 - I'll try to respond with fax idea tomorrow. GeorgeA, DMAtech is correct, I am suggesting isolating one part of the visual system (eyes) to see it's capabilities without having to examine the whole visual system. This is a common method in science because it elimates many factors and cuts down the complexity. After the eye is proven/disproven to have the capabilities of seeing letters clearly enough farther away from the center, investigators could move on from there.

GeorgeA wrote:
<<<<<Finally, you're in a difficult logical situation: you've essentially set out to prove a negative (photereading can't work as advertised). Most investigators would probably start with an observed instance and try and design a trial that tests why and how the process does seem to work.>>>>>>

It's true that I am very skeptical on the *photoreading step* of the 5 different steps itself, not the entire process. I have not seen it work (note: I have no contact with PRers, tried it myself though, so seeing it work would be a limited oppurtunity for me) but the scientific trials I have seen were not conducted as thoroughly enough to entrench me for my lifetime, but were enough to give me what I think is a reasonable opinion for the time being. I do not think first name only testimonials are evidence it works (I would go the other way too, first name only testimonials against it would not be evidence it doesn't work). Scientific studies would be more solid.

I am suggesting trials to see if it's first physically possible.

GeorgeA wrote:
<<<<<<James Randi would probably try to duplicate the performance by some covert means, thereby exposing the "trick." That could be one approach.>>>>>>>

I admire James Randi, he was a magician so he has experience tricking people (which they pay for when going to a magic show). He uses his knowlegde to educate many people how TV psychics are able to do seemingly astounding readings. He also shows the tricks behind other 'paranormal'(which means "beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation" at dictionary.com) powers/events. He is also amusing. Which performance are you referring to though?

GeorgeA
<<<<< At some point, Occam's Razor is in play, though. The simplest answer is perhaps the best: maybe the system just works.>>>>>

Occams razor mean different things to different people I suppose. It is a philosophy after all. Occams razor states: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity."

To me it means: Don't make any more assumptions than you have to. Example: Some people say aliens landed here thousands of years ago, otherwise man would not have been able to know so much math, art, etc. early on by themselves and do things like build the pyramids. I would say because of occam's razor there is no need to make such an assumption because it isn't needed to explain so earlier people's achievements. (this example taken from skepdic.com entry of occams razor)Occam's razor is also good for math, the less assumptions (axioms) we start out with, the more stable the foundation.

For example, I could possibly use (what I see as)occam's razor with photoreading: I don't need to assume the "photoreading" step works or use it to achieve their claim of going through materials 3 times fasters with the system. I could simply point out that step one focuses you to focus on your task (which many people probaly don't do otherwise), and step 5 rapid reading will get you through the material 3x faster as you are not stopping or backing up. Also things things that would speed up reading would be skipping 'filler' and having a purpose (which many people do not have when reading which is also a good suggestion). This is only an example though, how I might apply occams razor the other way, though if I had more time I could think up of more inventive ways to do it.

[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited March 25, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited March 25, 2001).]

Haven't read whole thread yet, but I will.

But I can sort of verify the 7 focus points at once. I did some research on this and there was some guy some time ago that did awesome demonstrations on it. Two hands, each doing two different things while he was fielding and answering questions. Something like that. I'll see if I can dig up some web-resources.

Be back in a few days.

Here's one I found real quick at totse . A great site with tons to read.

Multiple Mentality Course.

edit:UBB fix

[This message has been edited by LynnHalmich (edited March 25, 2001).]

chaos,

There is an interesting exercise on the tapes that would seem to suggest that something is happening during the photoreading stage.

The exercise involves photoreading the dictionary, then having someone pick a word at random. The purpose of the exercise is to see how accurate your "guesses" are.

The results are almost frightening

Rolf,

Where did you go? I'm hoping to read your arguments against my fax analogy. Hope all is well.

Mgrego,

I was busy, but thanks for reminding me. 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.

As for your argument:
<<<<<I can clearly see Chinese characters but they mean absolutely nothing to me. They can be as in focus and lovely as you like and they're still going to bounce off the back of my head with a meaningless thump.>>>>>

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, the following list has words whose letters you recognize but I'm willing to bet for you it is meaningless on at least one line. Probaly would be as meaningless at any chinese characters because you don't know the language or skill it is associated with:
étranger
kopfbedeckungen
bequem
escuela
padre
main{ static int i = 0; auto int j = 8h; for (;i<8;i++)--j; }/* /* *\ Author:kljdsfj*/

<<<<<I can take a very bad fax and do a pretty nice job of deciphering it, based on partial words, partial letters, etc. My OCR software couldn't come close. Just by determining what I'm seeing, you would not be able to judge how capably I would process
that information. Even if my peripheral vision does a mediocre job of capturing
the image, it's still quite possible that whatever part of me does the analysis
would be able to come up with the goods.>>>>>

First of all, a computer program is basically just a set of rules (written by the programmers) for the computer to follow. OCR might be programmed in the future to handle bad faxes etc. but right now they are written with clear letters in mind (more or less). I am lucky if my current OCR can even read the font I use which any human can read! But it is not comparable yet to the human mind.

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.

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.

<<<<Just by determining what I'm seeing, you would not be able to judge how capably I would process that information.>>>>>
Maybe not, but the purpose of the first few tests was to see the capabilities of the eye, not the brain.

Anyway like I said earlier, I think I came up with a way to test PRing scientifically but without all this advanced technology stuff and academic discussion of the brain.

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.

<<<<<<You've obviously never tried PhotoFocus. I can see the shapes of the letters quite clearly. >>>>>>>

I tried photofocus of course, I tried the system. In my vision (photofocus or not) I think I can see everything clearly. But if you asked me to read something not in the center of my vision, I just cannot do it. Perhaps I'm fooling myself thinking I see everything clearly until I have to prove it by actually reading something. I would have to move my center of vision there (even just for a split second) to read it.

<<<<<<<<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.>>>>>>>>

I came up with a test on my first post on this topic about this very thing, it is the second test I proposed.

<<<<<<<<<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.>>>>>>>>>>

This is addressed in the original eye tracker article. Cognitive science has some facts though on the capability of the eye you are arguing for. We have rods and cones in the eye. These are the recepters of light in the eye. They go denser towards the middle (think of a bulls eyes with rings). These are some facts scientist take into account when accessing capabilities of the eye.

<<<<<<<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.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I don't have Faith in science. Faith means belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Faith is a non-rational belief in some proposition. I have rational belief in it.

Your account of experiments that are not done competently is not overall reflective of science. There are enough scientific ways to accurately do experiments, double blind tests for instance. Manipulative researchers are individuals, not an entire field. Besides, controversial experiments yield more experiments (and in different labs)with more people and less chance to fudge results.

<<<<<<<<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.>>>>>>>>>>

Funny, one of the Wright brothers knew basic physics (a science) to make that plane fly. Going to the moon took a lot of scientists and engineers applying math, physics, chemistry, and other sciences, to get to the moon. They didn't get there on there good intentions alone. I looked up the fastest mile, it was in the 3 minute 40 seconds so we aren't there yet. I would say the sciences advanced us as a people, not hindered us, unless you know some secrets/conspiracies I do not.

<<<<<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? >>>>>>>>>>

I tried it out. I could lose time and $16.95 if photoreading is all I was after. I said often enough I tried it. I don't spend that much time posting anyway, you asked me for a response though. I am a skeptic, I say my views, and ask for contrary EVIDENCE which I NEVER recieve other than the popular scientific report reference (where the actual report nobody has a clue), or a bunch of testimonials.

<<<<<<<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.
>>>>>>>>
Neither am I telling anybody what to do, I am just stating my views and showing some links. Whoever is interest reads, whoever isn't will just skip over any way.

I investigate possibities of all types. But I base my judgements on probalities and evidence, not promises.

<<<<<<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.
>>>>>>>>>
Something we finally I agree on, I'm not convinced either. I'd be surprised that America is not a nation 60% populated by geniuses if this image streaming is true, I mean every household has an image streaming box, it's called TV

[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited April 09, 2001).]

I looked up the fastest mile, it was in the 3 minute 40 seconds so we aren't there yet.

Sorry. Typo. I meant two-minute egg.

HE HE HE HE HE i'd hardly consider T.V. image streaming.

Funny, one of the Wright brothers knew basic physics (a science) to make that plane fly.

Interesting. I've read that neither of the brothers finished high school. Wilbur read articles written by others about their efforts to design gliders and decided flight was possible. I would submit that he had more faith than scientific knowledge. One of his big contributions was the realization that the plane needed to be controlled in three axes of motion. He got the idea by wathcing buzzards flying.

In fact, here is a little quote about their engineering efforts...

"The Wrights built their first two gliders according to Lilienthal's calculations for lift - which were also the basis for all previous flight attempts. But something wasn't quite right. While their 1900 glider proved that their system of control worked, the lifting capacity fell short of Lilienthal's calculations. Their 1901 glider performed better than any of their predecessors, but again its lift capacity fell short of calculations.

"After two years of experiment, we cast it all aside, and decided to rely entirely upon our own investigations." "

[This message has been edited by mgrego2 (edited April 08, 2001).]

...........and a hush filled the room...........

Bravo, old chap!
Good show, I say!

mgrego2, you've got a point there the brothers definitely did NOT finnish HS, therefore very VERY VERY cursory knowledge of science.

Available at http://www.libraries.wright.edu/staff/dunbar/arch/ms1.htm:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
In their spare time, they read technical articles and books, and their interest in aeronautics gradually increased. The glider
flights of Octo Lilienthal attracted their interest as well as works by Octave Chanute and Samuel P. Langley. Their first glider experiments were conducted at Kitty Hawk, N.C., in 1900, and they tested their second glider there in 1901. Some of the
Wright Brothers' work was observed and constructively criticized by Octave Chanute, and at his invitation, Wilbur reported upon
their experiments before the Western Society of Engineers. This public review of their work led the brothers to verify their
ideas by the use of a wind tunnel which they built themselves. By the end of 19O1 they had tested more than 200 wing types and had
compiled tables of data upon which they felt they could rely. Their glider of 1902 had almost double the efficiency of their
previous ones, and when they returned to Kitty Hawk that year, they made more than 1,OOO flights. By the end of 1902 they were
ready to begin building a powered machine. With the aid of their mechanic, Charles Taylor, they designed and built and an engine
with the required lightness and power--12 hp at 1200 rpm, weighing 170 pounds. They also designed propellers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Let me see, they didn't have scientific knowledge because they didn't finish highschool? Why would that be, they could learn science elsewhere. They probaly had Faith in their work (as well as determination and persistence). But also shown by the article is that they read articles about aeronautics (scientific knowledge), did experiments (like scientists), showed their work to others interested (like many in the scientific community do still today), had many different wing types and COMPILED DATA among them, had objectives and MEASURABLE RESULTS (double the efficiency) among others. It looks like they worked in a more or less scientific way to make an airplane, it wasn't some (excuse the pun) fly-by-night operation nor was it successful because of FAITH alone. But if you think FAITH is all that is needed, by all means find a nice tall cliff and take off!

<<<<<<<<<<"After two years of experiment, we cast it all aside, and decided to rely entirely upon our own investigations."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Experimentation is what science is about, scientist need new ideas to progress (progressing does not mean throwing out all previous work). If the new ideas explain some thing better, work better and have satisfactorily evidence the existing theories get modified or thrown out, or the new ideas simply get incorporated in the existing structure. I read elsewhere that Wright brothers had to use Trigonometry (math, a science) to design the airplane as well. Did they start from scratch or modify Trig as we
know it today.

Elmo wrote:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
mgrego2, you've got a point there the brothers definitely did NOT finnish HS, therefore very VERY VERY cursory knowledge of science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Elmo I never had or finished kindergarden, elementary school, middle school, or high school so I must be totally lacking in all skills, not just in science. Can you teach me how to spell? If you can, I might just be able to "finnish" my College English class this semester

brian649 wrote:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
..........and a hush filled the room...........
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sorry brian649, that hushed silence must be the usual sound you perceive in your head

[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited April 09, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited April 09, 2001).]

Hey Rolf,

Rather than continuing to dance around an argument in which we'll clearly never reach an accord, I was wondering:

1. Did you get anything out of the PR system? Did you perhaps notice that your regular reading speed increased?
2. Have you found any other techniques or systems that improved your ability to acquire information? (Mind Mapping? Baroque Music? FreeNoting? ????)

Just curious,

I detect a slight pinch of animosity here.....just smile.....everything is gonna be alright

Animosity? Nope. I've enjoyed the discussion. It just appears that we're going in circles without ever getting any closer. I'm just sincerely curious to know what does get results for Rolf, if he's willing to share.

mgrego2,
This is going to be a long post because you asked me about 2 things I've been involved in since I was a kid. You are right of course, these arguments are becoming too repetitious - so I'm generously here waiting for your concession But I stand by my position (on Science and PRing). Also I encourage anyone who absolutely wants to prove me (or us skeptics in general) wrong, want to validate PRing for all the world, or for any other reason to participate in an independent scientific study of the method if the opportunity arises.

The reason I bought the book was that I found the idea of spending even less time on my studies than I do now attractive. What I found helpful in Scheele's book wasn't anything that original but I was really trying to make it work so I followed the steps rigorously for a few weeks and doing so probaly applied this basic idea which I heard elsewhere for the first time - preview the book first and then decide if it worth going further.

Before, when I started reading I felt obsessively compelled to finish what I started no matter what - so while I was doing the PR thing I got off of that habit. Because of that I also don't have to read newspaper or magazine stories word for word either anymore to get the same content - I mean who has to remember these mostly frivolous articles by details to come to think of it.

This does not go against what I said though, I do not think that the PRing step works. I was asked earlier what can you lose and I answered time and 16.95 - I believe that is true if you already have good study habits and the PR step is the one twist in the system. I also still think you won't get as good comprehension on the non-frivolous material. Anyway that is why a scientific test is in order - proving one right and one wrong.

I never mentioned before what I used as memory techniques because it hasn't any part in my argument - and I am only saying this since mgrego2 asked and I am giving a complete account so I don't have to explain anything later on Caution! Testimonial Ahead )----> As far as memory systems/accelerated learning systems are concerned, only two things worked for me: number one was a book given to me when I was 7 (in 1987).

I was homeschooled my entire life but at and before 7 years of age I had a terrible memory. At the end of every (school)year I had to pass a series of tests (various subjects) that the state (whichever I was in that year) gave to me in order to prove I was learning and up to par with my peers. My parents thought it would have been best to do some preventive medicine before I failed one year, as I had some bad test scores previously.

Preventive medicine was called The Memory Book and it was by Harry Lorayne (another Magician like Randi:P and Jerry Lucas. It was basically based on mnemonics (making up links and associations with funny/exaggerated pictures and some such stuff). Anyway in the book, they had modified the system to for remembering pretty much everything - lists, faces/names, long digit numbers, whatever, and they gave you enough examples so you could modify to fit your own needs.

The catch of the system is that to remember you need to be what the author called originally aware to remember something (somehow directly opposed to PRing ironically, I observe). Some things I know I don't have to do compared to observing others is that I don't need an address book, gadgets like a Palm (Put your brain on Auto)Pilot, to take notes in class, write down almost anything or that kind of crap. I also remember stuff I only went over once in reading - though I have to review it in my head to feel more confidant. This is not so bad since it is in my brain and I don't have to run around like a headless chicken to find the information.

I also felt better off since I don't forget math equations or foreign words, stuff that people always have trouble with (I was the TA in math and that is one of the most common problems as well as not understanding it in the first place). I have tried teaching the system to others but they all have the same problem I did in the beginning. They get results up front (remembering a long list of 50 items in sequence or some such) but it is an absolute *****, I mean ****ing kicking and ****ing screaming, to apply it - To this day I still have to consciously apply it to remember something, it is not like a photographic memory in that regard, it is not automatic for me.

But it does get faster as time goes along. I have a slower reading speed compared to others because of it when I apply the system. I thought PRing would take care of that one aspect, but my comprehension went way down. Overall I think I am ahead in life as a computer programmer and in general because of the system. I don't know if mnemonics is scientifically validated (remember this is only a testimonial!) but I have volunteered for memory and cognitive studies and will do so again after this summer.

The other thing isn't a memory system but I find it interesting none the less - mental math as an accelerated learning technique. I don't know how to do simple mathematics the same way most people learn how - I have never formally learned the multiplications tables for instance.

I learned the Trachtenberg Speed System (ancient book, 1960 I believe). Up to twelve digits multiplying, dividing, 16 addition, subtraction I can do in my head as well as square root. Or I can it put on paper (just need to write down multiplicand, multiplier, and final product) with no intermediate steps. Now I don't do this 12 digits in a split second, it does take me around 95 seconds (average time) more or less, much less for shorter digits but it is useful when I forget my calculator

It takes practice to get fast but people get up and running in a few hours. The book did not have subtraction though, as far as I remember, I had to jerryrig a system for that. Trachtenberg did mathematically prove his system with algebra so I know it is validated (you won't get the wrong anwer in addition, multiplication, division, but square root has small error possibility at the end). Whether or not you can do it in your head is a question of persistence and practice.

I have read in libraries more than at least 25 books and bought 10 others not available otherwise on memory, accelerated learning techniques but either they were a rehash of the first one (even Harry Loraynes other books), did not work for me, or what not - I was always seeking shortcuts in technique though. The other books are OK but not if youk now the techniques already. Well anyway, I'll be gone till the weekend.

[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited April 09, 2001).]

Rolf,

Thanks. Interesting story. I'll have to look into the Trachtenberg stuff. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there will be no concession. I respect your need for hard evidence and your reluctance to put much stock in testimonials. However, I have enough personal evidence to convince me that there is value to the system. Since it is difficult to hallucinate results, I am confident that the results I've had have been real. I don't expect you to accept this but it's been convincing to me.

hey whatta long post!
I'm fairly analytical and critical at times. so I think I can understand what you're getting at.
one thought did pop up in the midst of all the reading...

Apes... they barely do anything and just do things when they think, feel or have the urge to do. Now we have some apes, such as a gorilla or orang-utan who have communicated with humans through means of sign language which goes on to show that they have intelligence. what puzzles me about them is that how do they spend about 98% of their day doing nothing but eat, drink or sleep if they have this much intelligence?
well, i think - this's gotta have to do with the subconscious! the early humans, like the stone age humans up to maybe Egyptian era, they used their subconscious, and as their attitudes, personalities develope, they start using their Conscious mind? It's just a thought. I mean it would explain all that genuity of the past and how it's altered up to now. this would be because we're using our conscious minds more and more than we use our subconscious.

This would say that our subconscious is our source of information and our consciousness is our personality for our interactions with different people.

Hope this makes sense at all

chaosadelt:
Great post! Thanks for taking the time. I will definitely track down the Lorrayne book. You say the most worthwhile is his first one?

What are your favorite accelerated learning books? It is very exciting to speak to someone who is home-schooled & has actually used these books w/ success.

Thanks!

Margaret,

I guess The Memory Book by Harry Lorayne and Jerry Lucas was one of the better books. His other books rehash much of the information he has given before, but I probably base my opinion on the order I read them, The Memory Book being the first. The Memory Book also does cover pretty much everything in the other books, while the others may be more specific. He also has some tapes, but I didn't find these worth as much as a book, plus they are more expensive. Dr. Kenneth Higbee's book Your Memory: How it Works & How to Improve It also has the same information in techniques but it is more scientific. Think of Harry Lorayne as a How to guide while Higbee is more of a scientific/explanatory guide.

Be warned though, in a way these techniques are somewhat the opposite of PRing - the stress is on being 'originally aware' of information, no unconscious preprocessing here. Though (if PRing works) I could see how the systems could complement each other.

Anyway, I found the memory book, and the trachtenberg system to be the only substantially useful techniques for me. I don't know if the trachtenberg would be useful to anyone else who already knows arithmetic though, it's hard for most people to get out of their habits and into new ones.

Oh, I just thought of something, your memory maps as I know them are similar to the memory system in the books I mentioned - with links and associations. Just a thought.

Also with what I said with the trachtenberg system, like any skill I believe it follows the chart Paul Scheele has in his book on page 124, 3rd. edition - I don't have the book on me right now so please tell me if I made a mistake.

[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited April 13, 2001).]

Also with what I said with the trachtenberg system, like any skill I believe it follows the chart Paul Scheele has in his book on page 124, 3rd. edition - I don't have the book on me right now so please tell me if I made a mistake.

If you're talking about the "unconscious incompetence" to "excellence" chart, you nailed it.