200 messages over 25 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 7 ... 24 25 Next >>
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 49 of 200 08 April 2011 at 6:36pm | IP Logged |
Solfrid Cristin wrote:
| Gentlemen, may I suggest that you take it down a notch? I understand your sceptiscism, since what he is trying to do is incredible, in all senses of the word, but give the guy the benefit of the doubt. |
|
|
Note that very little of the criticism here is against the 61-hour "brainwashing" technique. Some of it is, most of it isn't.
I can see why it might work, although I am personally skeptical. I would be interested in the results of this, even though one man's experience wouldn't be statistically significant.
However, if his experiment starts on demonstrably false premises, I feel the most sociable thing to do is point this out. If he attempts this with photoreading, he will fail, because even if photoreading in a familiar language is possible (and I consider this unlikely), photoreading in a foreign language is scientifically impossible. Any "preconscious processing" cannot occur without familiarity with the presented visual stimulus.
So using photoreading dooms his experiment to failure, and we won't see any benefit from his research.
Regardless, it is unscientific to attempt to prove two unrelated theories by a single experiment.
He would be better to consider individual experiments to establish the efficacy of a) 61-hour "brainwashing" and B) photoreading as language learning techniques.
If you
2 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 50 of 200 10 April 2011 at 3:07am | IP Logged |
Quote:
| 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. |
|
|
Analouge to Digital :
Quote:
Ref:Scientific American
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:HSKlEYfZhrwJ:dbbs. wustl.edu/dbbs/website.nsf/forms/forms/%24file/Ances_Raichle %2BScientific%2BAmerican.pdf+sciam+The+Brain%27s+Dark+Energy +pdf&hl=en&gl=eg&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjut2gYaz26hniSqKwzFF90SX zB4FRMd9xV7iWPmusNzopyZ53iUufZ1hnWS7ZQwKKAxdlkXEtoF2Ph_r2PLK ZDCPruLEM_I107yPfX_a13Q11q-yvZfm142f-WxxYX9wrDZ-o5&sig=AHIEt bRtiqv6F3w8vuoFIq9Ny75dRKf7XQ
Visual information, for instance, degrades significantly as it passes from the eye to the visual cortex.
Of the virtually unlimited information available in the world around us, the equivalent of 10 billion bits per second arrives on the retina at the back of the eye. Because the optic nerve attached to the retina has only a million output connections, just six million bits per second can leave the retina, and only 10,000 bits per second make it to the visual cortex.
After further processing, visual information feeds into the brain regions responsible for forming our conscious perception.
Surprisingly, the amount of information constituting that conscious perception is less than 100 bits per second. Such a thin stream of data probably could not produce a perception if that were all the brain took into account; the intrinsic activity must play a role.
Yet another indication of the brain’s intrinsic processing power comes from counting the number of synapses, the contact points between neurons. In the visual cortex, the number of synapses devoted to incoming visual information is less than 10 percent of those present. Thus, the vast majority must represent internal connections among neurons in that brain region. |
|
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
Yes this is true in this elementary model , But the current model shows that this is completely inaccurate :
Quote:
Memory is not the only thing the brain may process holographically.
Another of Lashley's discoveries was that the visual centers of thebrain were also surprisingly resistant to surgical excision. Even afterremoving as much as 90 percent of a rat's visual cortex (the part of the brain that receives and interprets what the eye sees), he found it could still perform tasks requiring complex visual skills. Similarly, research conducted by Pribram revealed that as much as 98 percent of a cat's optic nerves can be severed without seriously impairing its ability to perform complex visual tasks. "3"
Such a situation was tantamount to believing that a movie audience could still enjoy a motion picture even after 90 percent of the movie screen was missing, and his experiments presented once again a seri-ous challenge to the standard understanding of how vision works.
According to the leading theory of the day, there was a one-to-one correspondence between the image the eye sees and the way that image is represented in the brain. In other words, when we look at a square, it was believed the electrical activity in our visual cortex also possesses the form of a square .
Although findings such as Lashley's seemed to deal a deathblow to this idea, Pribram was not satisfied. While he was at Yale he devised a series of experiments to resolve the matter and spent the next seven years carefully measuring the electrical activity in the brains of mon-keys while they performed various visual tasks. He discovered that not only did no such one-to-one correspondence exist, but there wasn't even a discernible pattern to the sequence in which the electrodes fired. He wrote of his findings, "These experimental results are incom-patible with a view that a photographic-like image becomes projected onto the cortical surface. " "4"
3. Karl Pribram, "The Neurophysiology of Remembering" Scientific American 220 (January 1969), p. 75.
4. Karl Pribram, Languages of the Brain (Monterey, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing, 1977), p. 123.
Source:" The Holographic Universe BY Michael Talbot" |
|
|
This completely deals a death blow to the extremely limited view of a supposedly "Physical" brain and it's incapability of saving a mere photograph .
Not including the fact that I said Subconscious "Mind" , Which is a different entity from the supposedly physical brain .
Quote:
Others have mentioned it earlier, and I guess it bears repeating: When you have results, post back. We'll then be able to see if you were successful or not.
Until then, all we're seeing is posturing on your part, in spite of what many people are trying to tell you. But if you manage to come back with proof/pudding/eating, you'll get a "Bravo, well done!" from all of us.
Remember how this thread started. You are asking us to believe in what you are doing, not the other way around. We have nothing to prove to you.
|
|
|
I never asked anybody to believe in any part of what I'm doing and certainly the merry expressions of approval of any of you is obviously of zero value to me ,And this thread is my own journal , I have the freedom to go in any style or direction I want ,If any of you don't like how or where I'm going with it , You could simply leave .
Quote:
| So show us you can do it, instead of just talking about it. |
|
|
You do realize that this is going to span about 80 hours(67 hours without 10 min breaks) which means more than 3 days ,Not including that major missing aspect of the experiment which is substituting the instructors with my own material ,Meaning that not only I have to free a lot of time in a busy schedule , But I have to work out specifically which material I'm going to be using and would be effective in this type of experiment .
You can't just jump into things without proper planning .
Quote:
| BTW, when do the 61 hours start? |
|
|
Tomorrow
Quote:
| First, there's no reason to believe that something in a superposed state, as you are, can observe itself and thus collapse its own waveform. Matter can't be self-observing or superposition of states would be impossible, thus undermining quantam physics and the whole rationale for you experiment. Schrödinger's cat can't keep itself alive by not looking at the geiger counter. So your belief is irrelevant. |
|
|
Too bad "I am" not matter .
If I could observe anything , It doesn't take much reflection to realize that it's impossible for me to be part of it .
Quote:
| Second, even if your belief did matter, then if it could override ours, that would mean you're in a privileged position as an observer. Somehow our observations would get averaged together, and then yours would trump that if it were different than that average. But doesn't the theory of relativity tell us that there is no privileged frame of reference? All frames have equal standing and it is just their relative values that are important. And when you've got a whole bunch of frames pushing in the direction of "it won't work", I don't see how your one frame of "yes it will" can overcome that relative force. |
|
|
You're all theory , First of all you're operating from the limiting belief/part(-icle) that there's such a thing as Duality/Polarity , As in "Positive" & "Negative" , While in the core everything interpenetrates eachother , They're all energy , And since in my own reality I observe things as they really are as just energy , Your whole belief only operates & limits your own subjective experience , Not mine .
Whether I succeed or fail , There's a lot to learn from both especially failure , So I dun mind =) .
Quote:
| Sorry dude, I just think you've got the science working against you. You're pushing on the short end of the lever going "why won't this thing budge?!" |
|
|
There's no lever ;)
Quote:
I disagree. This site is for sensible discussion about languages and language learning.
It is not a place to make blatantly erroneous connections between quantum physics and
language acquisition. Until we see compelling evidence the approach works, these claims
will certainly benefit from all of my doubt. |
|
|
Just to show you dunno what you're talking about , QP has a direct relation every single thing we percieve in our reality , Especially consciousness.
For all the hardcore skeptics in the "Possibility" of an ability like information acquisition out of nowhere and its relation to Quantum Mechanics , Here's my final word on it :
http://blog.learnremoteviewing.com/scientific-research/
If this is possible , Then there's a possibility that an ability like Telepathy or Glosslalia is available to all of us , Not impossible like most think , Thats what I believe , That's all .
Quote:
If he attempts this with photoreading, he will fail, because even if photoreading in a familiar language is possible (and I consider this unlikely), photoreading in a foreign language is scientifically impossible. Any "preconscious processing" cannot occur without familiarity with the presented visual stimulus.
So using photoreading dooms his experiment to failure, and we won't see any benefit from his research. |
|
|
I haven't tried PR before with a foreign language I never knew , But this research study is what I intend to experiment with as it has proven successful , This form of very fast Rapid Reading is very close to PR :
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_ nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED056830&ERICExtSear ch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED056830
Quote:
Regardless, it is unscientific to attempt to prove two unrelated theories by a single experiment.
He would be better to consider individual experiments to establish the efficacy of a) 61-hour "brainwashing" and B) photoreading as language learning techniques. |
|
|
This is what I intend to do , I'll start with Brainwashing .
Edited by Abazid on 10 April 2011 at 3:40am
1 person has voted this message useful
| Abazid
Diglot
Newbie
Egypt
Joined 4830 days ago
16 posts - 23 votes
Speaks: Arabic (Egyptian)*, English
Studies: Russian
| Message 51 of 200 10 April 2011 at 3:26am | IP Logged |
Update :
I'm going to do this 81 hr brainwashing experiment tomorrow .
After lots of research related to what the best material to go through and in what order, I've decided to drop Rosetta stone , It's supposed to take more than 150 hours and the russian edition has been criticized hard as ineffective , I'll go only for MT & Pimsleur for now , Both should give me 2 facets of the language , The speaking & listening facets , Then I'll have to go through writing & reading in another time .
Basically Michel Thomas Foundation, Advanced & Vocabulary spans about 19 hours combined + Pimsleur 3 levels span about 48 hours = 67 hours .
If I'm going to have about 67 hours purely without the 10 min breaks in each hour that would mean I need exactly about 81 hours as a total .
I'm going to work with MT first (As it needs more thinking rather than repeating) & Pimsleur in a parallel way , As in finish MT Foundations and then go through Pimsleur lv I , And then do the same with the rest , This should flow better than finishing each 3 levels of each program first .
Replacing instructors with Audio seems to result in a problem , Staying awake without passing out !
I'll do some mental programming to prepare myself & support myself with less foods/drinks that induce sleep , And I'll keep myself by moving around whenever I feel sleepy , Obviously lots of coffee & maybe physical exercise in the 10 min breaks .
I'm pretty excited about this though =D !
Edited by Abazid on 10 April 2011 at 3:43am
1 person has voted this message useful
| tbone
Diglot
Groupie
United States
Joined 4804 days ago
92 posts - 132 votes
Speaks: English*, German
Studies: Spanish, Russian
| Message 52 of 200 10 April 2011 at 5:34am | IP Logged |
Good luck! Three times in grad school I hit 51 hours (programming, double all-nighters), and, man, I was a wreck
by then.
Look forward to your post later in the week. You should wake up by Thursday.
1 person has voted this message useful
| Doitsujin
Diglot
Senior Member
Germany
Joined 5133 days ago
1256 posts - 2363 votes
Speaks: German*, English
| Message 53 of 200 10 April 2011 at 1:20pm | IP Logged |
Abazid wrote:
And I'll keep myself by moving around whenever I feel sleepy , Obviously lots of coffee & maybe physical exercise in the 10 min breaks .
|
|
|
I still think that this is a bad idea, but if you're really going through with this, at least make sure that you stay hydrated and don't consume too many caffeinated drinks. Otherwise you might end up like this guy.
2 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 54 of 200 10 April 2011 at 1:21pm | IP Logged |
Abazid wrote:
| This completely deals a death blow to the extremely limited view of a supposedly "Physical" brain and it's incapability of saving a mere photograph . |
|
|
Read this again, from the text you quoted:
"These experimental results are incompatible with a view that a photographic-like image becomes projected onto the cortical surface."
Incompatible with photographs in the brain. Incompatible. Incompatible. In com patible.
1 person has voted this message useful
| apparition
Octoglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6463 days ago
600 posts - 667 votes
Speaks: English*, Arabic (Written), French, Arabic (Iraqi), Portuguese, German, Italian, Spanish
Studies: Pashto
| Message 55 of 200 10 April 2011 at 4:21pm | IP Logged |
Good luck, abazid. Don't forget to take some notes as you go along.
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 56 of 200 10 April 2011 at 8:51pm | IP Logged |
You sound very committed to this programme. I'm looking forward to the results. Удачи (good luck)!
1 person has voted this message useful
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.3594 seconds.
DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
|
Language Learning Forum : Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies
Printable version
