Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer I'd like to meet one photoreader PART2

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).]