Hello Ryan,

That is very good important question! I while ago, I have been 
trying to memorise the corners of the cube visually, and that seemed 
to work fine... I always thought that making up big stories and 
images in your head was something for people that can't memorise 
very well. :). But now I found out that people that memorise a deck 
of cards in under a minute also use techniques like this, and it 
doesn't have to mean you are wasting time at all...

So how can that work? Why is it interesting to transform the 
information into a story with things that don't have anything to do 
with cubing?

Well, as for the method I am trying to learn now, (person, action 
and object method): when you are memorising, you are memorising 
things that the human brain is used to. All your life, you have been 
storing memories with people that you know well, that are doing 
things. That's just what your brain can automatically do. Storing 
images of people doing things in you head is more 'natural' ;) for 
the brain to deal with than a bunch of positions on a cube. That's 
why I think it will be feasable to use this system. (John Louis, am 
I right?).

- Joël.

--- In [email protected], Ryan Heise 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've been reading the various threads about memorisation, and have 
to
> wonder what is appealing about translating information from one 
domain
> into a completely unrelated domain in order to memorise it.
> 
> We have discussed memorising a cube using numbers, sentences and 
cards.
> Why not memorise the direct visual imagery that we get by looking 
at the
> cube? With training it should be possible to form memory 
associations
> based on the spatial relativity of same-coloured facelets, and 
observe
> shape outlines formed by these sets of facelets. This is how our 
brains
> are natively wired to perform visual analysis, anyway.
> 
> By the way, a sequence of 4 random chords (4 notes each) 
constrained to
> a range of just 2 octaves, contains more data than a single random 
cube
> position (if you only care about the data that allows you to solve 
the
> cube). If you can see visual patterns to the same extent that 
musicians
> hear auditory patterns, then a single random cube shouldn't take 
more
> than a few seconds to memorise.
> 
> Ryan
>






 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to