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

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

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

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.

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.

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).]

Sorry. Typo. I meant two-minute egg.

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).]

Bravo, old chap!
Good show, I say!