Roger, Even faster. Instantly from a human perspective, otherwie the universe cannot be holographic. Richard
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote: > Hi michael haaheim > > Since mind is a MQS or Multiple Quantum Superposition, it can > process information at the rate of a quantum computer. > > Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 3/18/2013 > "Coincidences are God's way of remaining anonymous." > - Albert Einstein > > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > From: michael haaheim > Receiver: mindbr...@yahoogroups.com > Time: 2013-03-18, 06:43:49 > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] News: How can we stlil raed words wehn > tehlettres are jmbuled up? > > > > >>The point of processing speed is an interesting one. I don't think it could >>be a matter of overall processing speed, as I have a few friends who are >>dyslexic... interestingly, they are speed readers, while I have very poor >>memory retention if I read faster than natural speaking pace. >>On the other hand, there has been some research suggesting that cognitive >>ability might involve brain wave synchronicity. If such is the case, then a >>local shift in processing rate could cause reading (and visual, in general) >>processing to fall out of sync. This would fit in well with my hypothesis, as >>well, if the synchronicity is responsible for relative spatial placement >>recognition. >> >>MH >> >> >> >> >> >>>________________________________ >>> De : Robert Karl Stonjek >>>à : Mind and Brain >>>Envoyé le : Lundi 18 mars 2013 1h13 >>>Objet : Re: [Mind and Brain] News: How can we stlil raed words wehn teh >>>lettres are jmbuled up? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: michael >>haaheim >>>To: mindbr...@yahoogroups.com >>>Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 2:57 AM >>>Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] News: How can we stlil raed words wehn >>teh lettres are jmbuled up? >>> >>> >>>To >>RKS: out of curiosity... and because it is related to some linguistics work >>that >>I have been doing... how are you at spotting camouflaged items? >>> >>>There are >>hypotheses that at least some, if not most, forms of dyslexia are actually >>problems in visual processing, rather than linguistic processing, per se. Some >>of the recent research in visual processing suggests that we see by >>identifying >>certain characteristic visual features (angles, curves, straightlines, etc), >>and >>building a kind of model of their collocations. In most cases, the >>collocations >>don't have to be exact positions (which is why we can often just ignore things >>like reversed or dropped letters, as well as even badly misspelt words... with >>collocations, you don't necessary need all the items, and some "noise" items >>can >>be included; it is only necessary to have a sufficient number of recognizable >>features in collocation with one another). However, in cases where incorrect >>positioning could lead to ambiguity, this becomes more problematic. >>>In the >>example in the artical, all the letters are present, and identifying the >>correct >>word is assisted by context. but in some conditions, such as camouflage, where >>there is an intentional effort to create ambiguitybetween the form and >>background, exact placement can be important to identify the contour. >>>This >>leads me back to my original question. From what you have said, you do okay >>when >>you have sufficient context to rely on, but you have difficulties when the >>words >>are removed from their context. This would suggest to me that you should also >>have a similar difficulty in spotting items that have low contrast with their >>backgrounds. Do you find that this is the case for you? >>> >>>MH >>> >>>RKS: >>>Yes, >>that would be the case. Whole word addition and deletion from sentences >>would be a good example of that. When my Dyslexia abated through my effort >>I became fluent enough to read sentences so the dyslexia also moved up to >>sentence level and some words would be added or deleted to the sentence. >>The best example of this is the word 'not' that changes what a sentence means >>e.g. "I was in the garden" verses "I was not in the garden". >>> >>>Surprisingly, as moderator of several forums I see a lot >>of disputes occur because non-dyslexic people make this same error. But >>for non-dyslexics it is usually the result of skimming or reading too >>fast. This leads me to postulate that the main problem for dyslexics like >>me is very slow processing of textual information whereby if forced to read >>fast enough I imagine that non-dyslexics will start to make the same kind of >>errors. >>> >>>As for flipping 'd' and 'p' and other letters, I never >>had that problem. It is a normal part of our survival to be able to flip >>the scenery around, in a mirror fashion. That is why you can walk into the >>forest and the walk back and recognise the way you have to go even though all >>the scenery on the way back is reversed. I assume that people who never >>get lost in the bush are more likely to have d-b dyslexia than those who get >>lost easily. (I do not get lost easily but I do confound 'J' and 'g' >>readily...??) >>> >>>Thus my first assumption in the case of my dyslexia is >>slower processing. If it becomes too slow then it never completes but with >>self training, as in my case, it does complete but slower. One error which >>I had down as dyslexia I have since removed (from my personal inventory). >>That is, writing 'you' when 'your' is meant. This is probably the most >>common error that members of my groups make in theory own writing and >>frequently >>correct that error in the text before approving their message (I have a >>text-to >>speech reader read the text and that error is immediately evident). >>> >>>I don't know if any of that makes any sense. BTW >>the spell checker correct eight errors in the above paragraphs which gives >>some >>idea of the degree of dyslexia I currently have i.e. I have most probably >>fallen >>below diagnostic criteria and am now within the normal, spectrum :) >>> >>>Robert >>> >>>PS a further two errors in the last >>paragraph. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
