Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer Is Photoreading safe for the human brain ?

Another interesting idea I picked up yesterday.

The neurons don't store memory, rather connect with other neurons to recreate the memory. The amount of different connections possible between the neurons in your brain is supposedly greater than the number of atoms in the universe.
Whether that's true or not, it obviously tells us that our brain has more potential than we think when it comes to memory.

Question is when you have a lot of information do you have the time to use it? To me it is not practical, and just to PhotoRead lots of books a day. Just because I can. I still find I want a purpose for reading. Not all information has the same value.

AlexK

I believe with full confidence that to be untrue. We probably have trillions or "million billions" of connections, but you probably want to read some Stephen Hawking before making a statement like that one. lol

Still, the brain is tremendously powerful, and is indeed capable of incredible things in terms of information processing. There are "side effects" of PhotoReading that I have written about in the past. For instance, many beginning PhotoReaders experience a sort of "high" after PhotoReading several books (or even one) for the first time. This is either a sensory illusion, or could be indication that some wicked neurological activity is taking place.

All information transmitted in our brains is done through electrochemical signals. Can you place much of a limit on the power of electricity? I cannot imagine one. Chemicals might have limits in speed, but the capability of neuronal networks to create reasoning is tremendous when our brains have so many connections to work with.

Vera Birkenbhil teaches this in the Memory Optimizer course. That memory is recreated each time we think about something. It's one reason why it is a good idea to work in short blocks of time for remembering things. What Vera calls piggybank time. You connect new ideads to knowledge that is already on your memory web 5 minutes at a time.

AlexK

Ok first of all youngprer, how would reading books by a theoretical physicist help me learn about the brain?
This was information taken from pyschologists/authors, credible people, not just made up by me.

Second, what are you even disagreeing with? I'm saying the brain has virtually unlimited storage, so are you.

Third, if you can put a limit on matter, you can put a limit on electricity, and if it's electrochemical, the limit on the chemical would effect this as well, not just the "unlimited" electricity, that's just logical reasoning in itself/

Fourth, the side effects can be psychological. It's something new, you're reaching a new state of consciousness and performing a new task on it as well.

Fifth, "wicked neurological activity" is happening all the time. Everything you process is processed in the neurological system, be it the brain or spinal cord, or whatever. All the feelings, non-conscious activity such as the heartbeat, digestion, even seeing and hearing things. That's already billions of pieces of information, reading a book is no different from looking around a room when photoreading. It's millions of pieces of information being processed at once.

And finally, just a question for Alex.
How do you know what information will never be of use to you? What if you will need information sometime soon, that's necessary, and you just don't know it yet?
That's what I find beneficial in reading everything I can. Whether I want it or not, I want to learn to better myself now, and in the future. Would you not agree?

-JackTuff13

I have no doubt that PRing is safe for the brain. The real question is whether a person is willing to invest the work required to activate, to train the non-conscious / conscious mind connection.

I recommend a few sips of water every few books.

I do not agree. I don't just read for the sake of reading. Anytime I need information I do not have I can seek it and with PhotoReading find it quickly. I choose my reading to serve my ongoing purpose in life. I look for what I need now and that now is already my future. I have no intention of becoming a doctor so I don't read books on operating procedures. Nor am I interested in becoming a mechanic I pay someone else do do those things. I PhotoRead and postview much that crosses my path but if it doesn't serve any immediate need I spend no more time with it. I trust myself and my mind to relocate the information if I do need it 3 weeks or 3 years down the track.

There is a lot of information out there. Much more than one person can understand in a life time. So what I select to read is what is of interest and relevant to me and the path I have chosen to take. There are too many things important to me that I am focused on right now that I want to devote my time to. And I trust my spirit that I will always have the knowledge I need or access to that knowledge to hande whatever is in front of me.

AlexK

Hey Alex,

I definitely agree with a lot of what you're saying, I understand that there is a lot of information and just too little time to get it all, or nearly all of it, and so finding just what you want or need now is a good thing.

But let's take that operating procedure example you gave. See, I have no intention of becoming a doctor either, but what if sometime in the future, you're in an emergency situation in which someone needs medical attention, and there is no professional around to help? For example, if a plane you're flying in crashes and you and another survive. You're fine, yet the other one needs help.
That would be a specific reason for getting all the information you CAN. Not necessarily all of the information in the world.
But that is just an example of information you may need in the future, not necessarily in the present.

Stephen Hawking said, in his book A Brief History of Time, the estimate for the amount of particles in the universe is around 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000.

Even for the brain...this is kind of a big number. Reading books about physics will actually tell you about the brain by telling you what we know to be possible, or what we believe to be impossible.

I am not claiming you made it up. It sounds interesting. If you have the time, could you track down the ones making the claim?

EDIT: On second thought, logic tells me that in order for that to be true, let us imagine there is only a single human being alive. Their neurons would have to be tiny, tiny neurons in order for the total number of connections to surpass total atoms in the universe. Cell size would have be remarkably small, and that's just an intuitive sort of estimate!



I was not aware I was communicating ineffectively. I agree that the brain has "virtually unlimited storage." I was only disagreeing that there are a similar number of connections in the brain to the number of atoms in the universe, especially if we're talking about the inflationary model (which currently seems pretty credible to many physicists), where atoms and other sorts of particles can be created or put together from energy.



In the sense that all matter is created from energy, and that electrical charge can theoretically be imagined to be at unlimited amplitudes - I do not imagine there is a limit on the power of electricity. Knowing whether or not there is likely involves the same sort of process to what might eventually happen to successfully implement nuclear fusion. We have simply yet to understand certain things about the universe.

For instance, we know that there is such a thing as electricity, or gravity, but we do not know exactly why these things exist. If we could answer that question, we could probably figure out the secret to real anti-gravity! (OMG, that would be so AWESOME).

I think that electricity still remains a very mysterious thing. We know that electricity in the body and brain is limited in terms of amounts of amplitudes, but I think the more important detail is the limit of chemical substances in conductivity, and that's kind of the point I was getting at. The power of the brain lies its neural net, not the physical structures.



This would definitely fall into the category of a sensory illusion, which I stated. Sensory illusions can be created by the natural cognitive mechanisms of perception or they can also indeed be purely psychological, and subjective creations all their own.



I suppose that in asserting that there is "wicked neurological activity" I might want to rephrase that a little more accurately. Of course, what I would rephrase it with, I'm not certain. Neurological activity can be defined as many different things, and I do not think it is one single process that is actually becoming active on its own without the involvement of the other processes during PhotoReading.

Does your brain necessarily process advanced concepts regarding your surroundings? Some would argue that it does, but most often it would appear that we process our surroundings for the purposes of being within those surroundings. We might remember where a chair or couch is so that we do not run into it. But going back to my buddy Stephen Hawking - do you think my brain is looking at the symbols (language) on those pages the same way? I highly doubt it.

True cognition is likely taking place behind the curtain, and with the added conscious benefit of purpose - your mind is able to arrange the information in a particular way more suitable to you (and not just its natural exploratory whims).

I hope this helps to clarify what I was attempting to convey.

Wow great discourse!!

Electricity is thinking. God's Thought.

Intelligence resides in spirit and encompasses the whole all universes at once. God is One, Spirit is One and we are One.

Of course, now I have slipped into metaphysics...