Comments on: Images processed 60K faster? No! And more…

By: Clark

Clark — Fri, 08 Sep 2023 19:12:49 +0000

Zoe, for more on trying to track down the 60K topic, I’d look to Alan Levine (https://cogdogblog.com/2015/03/dialed-back-to-1982/). As to reading brain activity during reading, I don’t know about any such research, not because it doesn’t exist, but because it’s not an area I track deeply. I’d ask some reading or perception researchers. Good luck!

By: Zoe Lusth

Zoe Lusth — Wed, 06 Sep 2023 04:18:32 +0000

I heard this claim mentioned in documentary. I think it could be easy to create this data in a limited context. For example, an image of a dog vs. a lengthy description. Big increases sound impressive if the original is small number. For example, maybe they had to identify 20 attributes to “pass” and could go back to view the prompt until they did. i.e. re-reading vs. a glance.

All of this to say, this is why sources are so important. I was looking for one and found you.

But that isn’t why I am writing. I know there are a lot of studies around image reconstruction by measuring brain activity during a visual input. They are surprisingly good. My question is, have they tried this with reading? I have some theories on how this would turn out. I checked but couldn’t find anything.

By: Miguel Garcia-Mulet

Miguel Garcia-Mulet — Tue, 04 Feb 2020 12:19:51 +0000

If the 60,000 times faster claim were true, don’t you think we would have already come up with adequate diagrams and illustrations to accelerate school learning? I mean, it’s like looking at pictures turns our brains into quantum computers? We could have 9 year old Phd’s as our educational standard. Wow, at my age, I could have at least 7 doctorates and countless certifications! I probably would have fulfilled my secret life-long dream to be a robotic-rocket-submarine-and-gene-therapy designer by now. “Fake news” is not limited to the political arena alone; in fact quacks have been making ludicrous claims for centuries, legitimizing their claims with “science”.
Do people really believe this nonsense?

By: Alan Levine

Alan Levine — Tue, 28 Jan 2020 16:51:09 +0000

Thanks for tossing the signal flag, Clark. The 60000 times faster assertion is a zombie that will not die.

For the record the 3M reference often cited (I’ve seen it used in textbooks and research papers) is a PDF of a promotional brochure.

I have a direct email from Doug Vogel, the author of the 3M and the University of Minnesota study, who assured me his work had no connection to the claim.

I have it nailed back to a 1982 Business Week article by Philip Cooper
https://cogdogblog.com/2015/03/dialed-back-to-1982/

He currently teaches/works at MIT Sloan School. I’ve called/emailed but no answer. I’ve asked people in Boston to go knock on his door.

If anyone has the lead, it’s him. If you or anyone of your readers can nail this down, there is a huge $60 prize sitting on the table.