|
 |
The Ultimate Accelerated Learning Exp. ! | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies |  | |
| Arekkusu Hexaglot Senior Member Canada bit.ly/qc_10_lec Joined 5194 days ago 3971 posts - 7747 votes  Speaks: English, French*, GermanC1, Spanish, Japanese, Esperanto Studies: Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Estonian | Message 33 of 200 07 April 2011 at 8:20pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Oh come on, now, have you no faith?!? These are revolutionary methods we're dealing with! I'm pretty sure one could go through MT at 1.5x speed and retain everything. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Teango Triglot Winner TAC 2010 & 2012 Senior Member United States teango.wordpress.comRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5369 days ago 2210 posts - 3734 votes Speaks: English*, German, Russian Studies: Hawaiian, French, Toki Pona | Message 34 of 200 07 April 2011 at 8:48pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You could even break the experiment into 3 stages: Bourne Identity, Bourne Supremacy, and Bourne Ultimatum. :) Edited by Teango on 07 April 2011 at 8:50pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Arekkusu Hexaglot Senior Member Canada bit.ly/qc_10_lec Joined 5194 days ago 3971 posts - 7747 votes Speaks: English, French*, GermanC1, Spanish, Japanese, Esperanto Studies: Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Estonian | Message 35 of 200 07 April 2011 at 8:50pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I call the whole trilogy the Bourne Delusion. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Teango Triglot Winner TAC 2010 & 2012 Senior Member United States teango.wordpress.comRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5369 days ago 2210 posts - 3734 votes Speaks: English*, German, Russian Studies: Hawaiian, French, Toki Pona | Message 36 of 200 07 April 2011 at 8:54pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just make sure you don't forget your name! ;) 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Splog Diglot Senior Member Czech Republic anthonylauder.c Joined 5482 days ago 1062 posts - 3263 votes Speaks: English*, Czech Studies: Mandarin | Message 37 of 200 07 April 2011 at 8:56pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I really cannot understand why you keep making inaccurate references to physics to justify your experiments. Not only are they irrelevant to the discussion, but they undermine the credibility of the methods you intend pursue. We don't need any pseudo- science pre-justifications. Rather, I suggest it is better to let the results speak for themselves. Edited by Splog on 07 April 2011 at 8:57pm 3 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 5824 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh | Message 38 of 200 07 April 2011 at 10:12pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OK, so I only did an elementary course in vision processing, but I suspect you haven't done any. First of all, the cones and rods in the eye are analogue, so "bits" is an totally inappropriate measure. There are only 120 million nerve endings in each eye, so you're assuming equivalent to 16-bit accuracy in each nerve ending. Why? I don't know and I don't really care. Why don't I care? Because what goes into the eye doesn't matter. I said earlier that the brain isn't a camera, not the eye. There are less neurones in the visual cortex than nerve endings in the eye. The brain cannot take a "bitmap" of viewed information -- it has to filter the data. It does this in the first instance by identifying so-called primitives in the image -- basic shapes like lines and curves. It then looks for known patterns built up of these primitives. What we remember isn't the photographic depiction of a scene, but the elements within it. When we recall the memory, we don't view an image, we recall the elements. But because we experience vision in this way, it feels like viewing the image. This leads to interesting quirks. If our generalisations change, the image changes. So our earliest childhood memories of our mothers will have the wrong haircut, for example. And when we think of childhood games with our brothers and sisters, our image is normally of their adult appearances rather than their childhood appearances. The bonus of this is that as Alzheimer's sufferers lose their memories further and further back, their images of familiar people don't regress. So an 80-year-old woman who tells the nurse that her kids are doing well at school will still often recognise the 50-year-old son who comes to visit her after work. Long story short: The brain is physically incapable of capturing photographic images. The fewer familiar patterns in an image, the harder it is to memorise. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| rapp Senior Member United States Joined 5544 days ago 129 posts - 204 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Esperanto, Spanish | Message 39 of 200 07 April 2011 at 10:46pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I think you have the wrong model of what is going on here. First, this isn't really a double-slit experiment, but rather Schrödinger's cat. And you are not the observer. You are the cat. You previously existed in a superposition of the states "knows Russian" and "doesn't know Russian". But by starting this thread you effectively opened the box and allowed us to peer inside. Thus your waveform will collapse into one state or the other. And if you are correct that "observer expectations & beliefs completely influence the results of the experiment", then you are doomed. We don't believe the experiment will work, so you will end up in the "doesn't know Russian" state. So you might as well not even waste your time trying. It is just simple science. 3 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Abazid Diglot Newbie Egypt Joined 4830 days ago 16 posts - 23 votes Speaks: Arabic (Egyptian)*, English Studies: Russian | Message 40 of 200 07 April 2011 at 11:38pm | IP Logged | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You're very much generalizing here out of belief rather than knowledge ,For me to take your words seriously in anyway , You'd better be accurate & specific yourself about what looks to you as pseudo-science in relation to quantum physics , Until then , I respect your opinion , But it's just an opinion .
Never heard of it , How does it work ?
It's interesting how you could read my mind and my hidden intentions , But even if that's true what is exactly the problem with that ?
Reality is pretty much a very flexible concept , So in this case it's your "Own" reality rule-set which is based on your own beliefs and life experiences , Meaning that this is the only viable way for you to achieve this , Because you've collapsed your own reality to such outset through such observation . And obviously anything that seems to be extraordinary to the outsider can sure seem like Magick .
Common sense has been defied countless of times in Science , Pretty much if you were sent back to the past and told people that you could talk to people from foreign countries in your own home through your wireless phone or computer , You would be burned for the practice of sorcery/heresey/quackery..etc . Yet if you're talking about science & knowledge here , Show me plausible evidence that this is bunk and I'll be glad to take you seriously as well .
Well it seems to me that you've pretty much believe that it must fail as well , So there's no point in talking about whether it would work or not with you , In either case to me it doesn't matter , It's just an experiment that's meant to be fun , It's not a challenge .
I agree that learning anything new needs lots of time & effort , But there are lots of mental strategies that save a lot of time & effort , And could cut one's learning time in half or even more .
Yeah , It's mentioned that there's more than 1000 words of vocabulary , I still need to figure out roughly how many hours each would take .
This is not meant to be rapid-fire learning/rapid reading..etc , It's meant to be communicative just like in the description of the exercise , And I've got 61 hours or more to go through each of them with relaxed ease , My tiredness later on might either help imprint the info more easily as I stop analyzing the info or vice versa , I'm not sure what's going to happen .
Probably because they've have no beliefs pretty much about anything yet and they're curious & non-judgemental , And they tend to have lots of imagination which activates both brain hemispheres , Increasing learning effectiveness and making the absorption of information to be very easy . Most of adults not only have lost their imagination skills due to no use , But they have learned left-brain learning skills that decrease learning & understanding to great measures and all their beliefs account to lots of blocks in learning new things rather than being open, curious & experimental . There was a study related to this , But I dun remember the reference : "According to the National Education Association statistics, people’s learning curve rises almost exponentially from birth to the age of five, then drops inexorably from that time on. Before school, children take in life with a dynamic, whole-brain processing, naturally and easily retaining all that they are exposed to in the long-term ."
This thread was meant to be my journal for scribbling down my thoughts and observations based on my own reality model , But it seems that it turned into a controversy & was hijacked into what "Would" & "Wouldn't" work based on what ? Beliefs & Opinions based on biased experiences of people probably emotional about the fact that there's a possibility that they could have wasted a lot of time while they could have done something different that would have taken half the time , Which I could totally identify with , Yet like I said in the beginning it's not helpful because we're not discussing it in active skepticism , But in a judgmental & critical manner . The funny thing is that I didn't even start the experiment yet =D !?
I never said that this is a "double slit" experiment , I wanted to point out to the observer-created subjective reality model that pretty much determines how the wave collapses into particles , Hence objective reality . And Yes ,This would be true anyways If I believe in the disbelief expressed by some of you, But it's based on nothing but common-sense based on your own realities, Hence there's no reason to believe it or disbelieve it , I'd rather be neutral . Edited by Abazid on 07 April 2011 at 11:52pm 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
