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

Dear All, I read all the comments and ideas about the photoreading system (reviews, comments, feedback) my concern is whether this technique is safe for the human brain, might there be any harmful side effects ? Due to the enormous amount of information that our brain absorbs for such a short time ? Sorry about that question guys but I could not find any information whether this system has proven to be safe for us ? I am very interested in that approach but to be honest I am a bit affraid to try it out, so any feedback from you would be really helpfull for me to make up my mind.

Has anyone EVER reached a limit? BTW since I asked THAT question, has anyone here learned a language in a week? I use a week, because one person supposedly learned icelandik in a week, and I once memorized over 1300 words of french in one DAY. It is unfortunate that I didn't try harder to maintain it. Still, through such things, I know such feats are possible. And kim peak apparently does it all naturally.(it is unfortunate that he can't really use it)

Steve

Seasoned,
Daniel Tammet? He's amazing, I read a book on him a few weeks ago. Really tremendous stuff.

Reaching a limit? I doubt it. It's like how you process loads of information while driving in a car near the countryside, or by a forest. Has anyone reached a limit from doing that? No, at least not that I know of. It's just processing of visual information, no matter if it's text or images.

Kim Peak is a savant. I think he can do it because of the way information goes into his brain. The lack of a corpus collasum? Maybe it's caused him to only take in information through his right brain. But he can recall, which is amazing.


Captain,
The brains purpose is to lead its system to survival. If it wasn't safe to process so much information at once, I doubt that many nerves would be in place to process the information.
It is safe, and I've been doing it for over a year. So far nothing bad has happened to me.
Pete Bissonette has been photoreading since 1985, and I'm sure he would stop if he found something wrong with it, and would either fix it with Scheele or would notify us to stop.

-JackTuff13

My first experiment to see if the brain fries was to sit down and PhotoRead 40 books in an hour. Then I PhotoRead over 100 books in a bookshop (from there selected 10 really interesting books) I'm still here

Now Paul Scheele is a PhotoReader for more than 21 years. He's gone on and developed quite a few course that probably wouldn't be around if it wasn't for his ability to PhotoRead.

AlexK

I've been photoreading for 1 year 15-20 books daily, had numerous spontaneous activations, and I haven't been ill since then, so, that's all about the dangers of Photoreading.
Anyway, Photoreading is definetly healthy, because you won't have to spend hours and hours on preparing for an exam, mugging
sometimes foolish thaories, and do badly on an exam. Instead, you will have plenty of time for other healthy activities like doing sports, you will have good marks, and last but not least, no stress, which is also again, healthy.

yes, there is one guy who've learned during just one week a language of an european country & then was plan to show up his skills during the main Tv news.

He has a photographic memory thanks to an accident.

I'v seen this on a very well-know french national channel (ARTE)



HOW ? Photoreading ? seems Incredible !

NOPE, I studied it about 10 words at a time, and tried to do the whole thing in such a way that I rehearsed the older stuff at a consistant pace, etc...

Frankly, the idea of reliably reading 2 pages at once with great comprehension sounds GREAT. I know a LOT of stuff I don't care about AT ALL, and constantly study trying to learn stuff I DO care about.

Hey,

Just something I found the other day that I wanted to share.

On the note of "enormous amount of information" :

Assuming that each neuron would be 1 byte, using memory units of a computer, the brain would be able to store 500-1000 terabytes of information. Most desktop computers only hold between 100 and 300 gigabytes. Each terabyte is about 1000 gigabytes. Each gigabyte is about 1000 megabytes, each megabyte about 1000 kilobytes and each kilobyte 1000 bytes (I think the correct measurement is 1024 for each of them but it's not much of a difference).

Just to show you how much information the brain is capable of holding. I doubt you'd be able to fill it to it's capacity if you were to photoread even 50 books a day for the rest of your life.

-JackTuff13

And I would say, the mind records by mathematics, not words so it would compress down those 1 million books to much less storage space...

It has been obvious to me for some time, and vera birkenbihl said as much, that the brain basically remembers connections to ideas. That is why if you learn that a word, that you already knew, is associated with another language, you might remember it quickly and practically forever while a new word takes longer. That in itself compresses things a lot. As for each neuron being a byte, who knows? We also remember things without realizing it, so there may be more to remember.

ALSO, KB is a computer term, and computers store things in round binary units. The closest unit to 1000 is 10bits, which is 1024. 9 is 512, and 11 is 2048. For mechanical storage, they feel they can get away with it, so they round down. So 120GB on a mechanical disk drive is REALLY only about 111GB.

Steve