I am listeniog to 'on the road' by Jack Kerouac, Wikipedia states iut was wriiten in three weeks. That must havfe been like continusous writing and editing.

However, that is not the maion point.

What would you ecxpect the differences to be by listening to a book as opppesed to reading it?

Does the brain process the data differently?

Would you see the subjest and atmosphere differently, visualization?

Would you retain the information longerr or morte completely?

Are their real benfits to reading the actual text?

The main points are in bold.

Thanks

Also,

Whee do you get audio books from, for an ipod tyoe device? besides iTunes that is.

You can buy them on amazon

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/44/sr=53-1/sr=53-1/qid=1177254848/ref=tr_100311/104-4862157-0245558

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/69724/sr=53-1/sr=53-1/qid=1177254848/ref=tr_100311/104-4862157-0245558

...anyone?

Thanks/

you can even download them...

Does the brain process the data differently?

Would you see the subjest and atmosphere differently, visualization?

Would you retain the information longerr or morte completely?

Are their real benfits to reading the actual text? The answers to all of these depend completely on the audience, author, and text.

My opinion:

In general, if the author had a tin ear or the prose is dry, reading is faster -and the speed improves comprehension. You go at your own pace, and your brain handles the input better at its own pace and as fast as possible (less demand on memory in processing).

In most poetry (original language), or any prose in which the author had a good ear and the sound or rhythm matters, most people should read out loud or listen for the full effect. This makes more demands on memory, but provides a richer stream of information. Again - if the prose was not written by ear (so to speak) all you get by listening instead of reading is noise in a slower channel.

Some readers have better internal ears than others, and gain less by listening. Some people read by eye only, and gain a lot by listening to some prose.

Examples from ordinary popular books: All of Tolkein should be listened - unless you have a very good internal ear, you will miss a lot by reading in silence and at speed. They are good books to read to children.

None of Tom Clancy or John Grisham should be listened, by preference. You miss nothing, and possibly avoid losing track of the "plot", by reading in silence as quickly as possible.

Examples from classical lit: Moby Dick gains by being read out loud, Crime and Punishment in English translation (and translations from Russian to English in general) does not.

We're ignoring,of course, the quality of the readers in audio books. I can't stand most of them.

Just my opinion :)

I am listeniog to 'on the road' by Jack Kerouac, Wikipedia states iut was wriiten in three weeks. That must havfe been like continusous writing and editing. However, that is not the maion point. What would you ecxpect the differences to be by listening to a book as opppesed to reading it? Does the brain process the data differently? Would you see the subjest and atmosphere differently, visualization? Would you retain the information longerr or morte completely? Are their real benfits to reading the actual text?One thing's for sure: people who read learn how to spell. You ought to try it.

Examples from ordinary popular books: All of Tolkein should be listened - unless you have a very good internal ear, you will miss a lot by reading in silence and at speed. They are good books to read to children.

None of Tom Clancy or John Grisham should be listened, by preference. You miss nothing, and possibly avoid losing track of the "plot", by reading in silence as quickly as possible.

Examples from classical lit: Moby Dick gains by being read out loud, Crime and Punishment in English translation (and translations from Russian to English in general) does not.

We're ignoring,of course, the quality of the readers in audio books. I can't stand most of them.

That's interesting.

Seems as though while listening it is easier to lose concentration, unless my eyes are closed.

Mostly interested if the way data is processed audible\visual by the brain. Say like for Tolkein with his heavy reliance on visualization, would you "see" people, locations etc. even slightly differently than if you were listening to a narrator? Does the voice of the narrator influencing the way you visualize, whereas with reading of course there is no narration so it is just your eyes and your brain...unencumbered or more direct?

The book i mention in op is read by Matt Dillon, which is one reason i downloaded it.

itunes should have more and i don't want to pay at the yahoo site or audible.com

FraggleRocker,

guess i said something...

For those who do not know it (probably 90+% active here) the brain is MUCH faster at both reading and listening, with full comprehension, than either can normally occur.

In the case of reading, most of the time is normally required for the saccades, during which time all vision is blocked. (To prevent the world being perceived as a blur most of the time). If you display words, one or a few at a time (keeping solid angle of display fully on the fovea) on the center of a computer screen, where the reader is fixating (so no need for saccades), then everyone can read with comprehension at least order of magnitude faster. One test subject's upper limit of reading rate was not found, because of the need to have one blank "screen refresh" between word displays. - I forget the max refresh rate that was possible, but to be clear assume 30 frames/ second - then he was reading 15 words/second or 900 words/ minute.

Many "speed readers" can read faster, but they are not actually reading each word. You can stick same word in twice and they do not notice it, if reading fast or add a “non-sense” word in (but one that could be a word, like “bril,” but not “ibrl” as that will be noticed as “word error” and slow the reader down.).

In the case of hearing, you first process the speech to greatly shorten the duration of the vowel sounds and not only remove all spaces between words, but over lap them with some offsets, and then the brain understand as well as if this is not done. (It is also interesting that in rapid natural speech, there is also no separation between words and they do overlap in time some. I.e. the phonemes of next word are being produced before the phonemes of the last word are completed, but you perceive the words as clearly separated, if in your native language. If not your native language, even normal, moderately slow, speech is perceived, as it is. I.e. as a string of continuous sounds with no silent intervals between them.

Just as I state in my essay* on Free Will, ALL perception is an internal construction, part of what I call the brain's "real time simulation" in that essay. One does not perceive what the eye sees nor what the ear actually hears. Thus, in both speech and vision, one often clearly perceives words that were not said and objects that are not existing as perceived.
------------------------------------------
*http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1294496&postcount=52

I am listeniog to 'on the road' by Jack Kerouac
My favorite book!
I have read ti at least ten times, and given a copy to at least ten people.
Oddly, I don;t even have a copy of my own right now, because I gave them all away.

Are you listening to the Matt Dillon Version?
I like that one.

Matt does an exceptionally good job of imitating most of the voices of the real people the book was based on (I was particularly impressed with his William Burroughs) except he uses his own voice for the narrator, rather than trying to impersonate Jack. I know Jack's voice very well, so part of me was disappointed with that, and part of me was relieved, because I would be nit-picking (especially the parts that I have heard Jack read - I know his cadence and accents of particular words).

I drove 13 hours to Iowa to see the scroll he typed it up on in the three week frenzy of writing on the opening day of the tour.
Yeah, a bit obsessive, I guess.

Sorry, I am completely off-topic.

Carry on.

That's interesting.

Seems as though while listening it is easier to lose concentration, unless my eyes are closed.

I find it difficult to listen to a book, too old fashioned I guess. I find I get easily distracted unless my eyes are closed too.

My favorite book!
I have read ti at least ten times, and given a copy to at least ten people.
Oddly, I don;t even have a copy of my own right now, because I gave them all away.

Are you listening to the Matt Dillon Version?
I like that one.

Matt does an exceptionally good job of imitating most of the voices of the real people the book was based on (I was particularly impressed with his William Burroughs) except he uses his own voice for the narrator, rather than trying to impersonate Jack. I know Jack's voice very well, so part of me was disappointed with that, and part of me was relieved, because I would be nit-picking (especially the parts that I have heard Jack read - I know his cadence and accents of particular words).

I drove 13 hours to Iowa to see the scroll he typed it up on in the three week frenzy of writing on the opening day of the tour.
Yeah, a bit obsessive, I guess.

Sorry, I am completely off-topic.

Carry on.

Yes, it is the same Matt Dillon version. Do you know the year it was recorded?

Sam,

Thanls.

(Edit)-unedited

I see now that they eyes transfixed on words hasd some meaninf. This state signiofies what?

Expanding on this: hard to read but does it mean anything at all?

Sleep

What is it? You close your eyes and what happens? Your brain is reacting differently fram a waken state...why? cogniscience\consciousness? does the braian gradually enter this srtate...you play no part to enter this state, does it decide on it's own. The brain has now made a decision without your input.

Thank You.

Thanks to Billy also, i will read it again to fully grasp it.

i bet no oen can explaint that^

No one wants to explain sleep?

I googlked it but couldnt find what i was looking for. Regardless, what do you think happens?

Do fish sleep? I would say no, although it is assumed metabolic activity(http://www.fishbiology.net/) does slow down and can be observed in a closed environment quite easily, this can be perceived as lethargic. For one thing they have no eyelids and some never stop moving, reef fish however can stay relatively still\motionless.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99047.htm

Note: I realize this is now evolving into the broader biological scope, so move it to whevere it fit's best.

...Do fish sleep? I would say no, ...Yes, most do. Sharks have unique way to do so as they must continually swim to force the flow of water thru their gill slots (regular fish can "pump their gill flaps", but they can not) Sharks alternately sleep the two halves of their brain.

I have wondered to what extent each tells the other half what happened while it was sleeping. For example does R say to L when L awakens things like: "Boy I am glad it was you who was sleeping when that beauty swam by - what a knockout! I think she likes us." Or do they share a common memory bank? Both remembering what happen 24/7? - Sort like your two eyes only support one perception (Normally you do not even know which is now the "dominate eye.")

You would not belive the strange things I think about - comes from too much knowledge! BTW, IMHO, no one knows why most higher animals (fish included) sleep.

Hi Billy,

Isnt it impossible to klnoe if fish sleep? For one thing the ocean is more dangerous than even what land creatures would have to deal with. For reef fish they can hide in a rock but it only takes a second to get zapped with a poison tentacle.

For this reason most fish are naturally skittish, life on a reef is allways dangerous and sleeping would mean basically come eat me. But like i said they (reef fish) need time to adjust from darkness to light so i cannot say with 100% certainty that they do not sleep or at least entirely lose consiousness which i doubt.

Never heard that about sharks before, you are saying the brain is divided, one with the left side processing data from left efey and the right doing the same?

Apple's

Why do they tast so good? You pull them off a tree and they are ready to eat...what makes them tart and sweet at the same time? So the first time you see this red ball hanging from a tree is it saying eat me? WHY?

Watermelon

The grow out of the ground from a seed and they are then ready to eat. When you eat a watermelon you eat drink and wash your face at the same time.

King crab legs, Lobster and raw clams

You get your KCL's frozen, then you boil them crack em open dip into butter and eat. Why? Why doe this cobination work so good? same for lobster. Perfect color and texture when cooked...WHY?

Raw clams\oysters: Yoiu can eat them raw with lemon and they taste good that way, who was the first person to crack open a raw clam and brave enought to eat the sucker?

There will be one more post to this, that will be the big one. So feel free to answer these questions.

Thanlks

Hi Billy,

Isnt it impossible to know if fish sleep? ...With small ones and current technology, probably so. With suitable implant and EEG telemetry, no problem with bigger ones. BTW did you know some fish have receptors for four different colors and humans only three in the retina? My fishy way to make this slightly thread / reading related.;)

To me listening can be difficult because your perceptions are too schewed by the way the narrator reads it. I also can't remember or pay attention to things as well when I hear them as opposed to reading them, although I'm sure for other people it's the opposite. But all in all I feel that actually reading the text of a book creates a more intimate connection between you and what you're reading.

To me listening can be difficult because your perceptions are too schewed by the way the narrator reads it. I also can't remember or pay attention to things as well when I hear them as opposed to reading them, although I'm sure for other people it's the opposite. But all in all I feel that actually reading the text of a book creates a more intimate connection between you and what you're reading.

Thans Beryl. That is pretty much what i found, you reall cannot sit there for too long just listening and once you begin doiing something else...this is poor multitaksing capability.

About the connection (very important), even a movie can be connected to in an intimate way. I would say even moreso since three senses are being used. What interests me per listening\seeing is how they differ, if the connection is more intimate it would only be because of the shape of the characters or specifaclly famliarity with them. Additionally there is printed text and pixel text, for this we will concentrate on printed text.

Anyone know for sure if moreso is one word or two?
Anyone klnow if if should be italiciszed, and of what significance?

Try and overlook the spellkihng and uh grammer mistakes. It takes too long to get it right and now the sertver is nocking me off.

With small ones and current technology, probably so. With suitable implant and EEG telemetry, no problem with bigger ones. BTW did you know some fish have receptors for four different colors and humans only three in the retina? My fishy way to make this slightly thread / reading related.;)

I guess presently there is no way to know for sure. W do know that with some movement is 100% constant. As far as i know they do not sleep in any fashion we are familiar with.

About the connection (very important), even a movie can be connected to in an intimate way. I would say even moreso since three senses are being used. What interests me per listening\seeing is how they differ, if the connection is more intimate it would only be because of the shape of the characters or specifaclly famliarity with them.

Just about anything can be connected to intimately, but for me at least it's the most intimate in writing. It's not so much a matter of how many senses are getting involved - although, when fully into a book, I've been known to have all my senses mentally occupied - as a matter of how many people are involved. Considering the story (whether it be book, recorded book, or movie) as a person, and naturally the reader/listener/viewer as another person, it's a lot more intimate to me to read the book and make the connections just between the two of us, to have everything truly be as that connection would make. With a recorded book you have the narrator involved, and in a movie you have a full cast of actors and whatnot. That isn't to say that it isn't possible for me to be intimately connected to a movie or recorded book if everything falls in place properly, and that isn't to say that I can't enjoy a movie or recorded book even if I'm not intimately connected, but for me books remain the way to go.

...As far as i know they do not sleep in any fashion we are familiar with.I do not want to get into the "other brains / consciousness" etc. philosophy discussion, but most higher animal animals exhibit the same distinctly different EEG patterns we associate with various stages of sleep.

Possibility, by memory from an article in Poetry that impressed me years ago:

We moderns don't listen to epic poems - an experience once all but universal among human beings. It was universally described - among those for whom the experience was familiar - as an ecstatic one. It was taken seriously, for its power. This is strange, to us - easily dismissed as a peculiarity of the primitive - but these people were not so very different from us, even culturally at times.

These poems, in many and perhaps all cultures that had them, have some structural similarities: they all come in pairs of lines dealing with the same thought or description, usually rhymed and always correlated by sound and rythm, that each take about a second and a half to deliver aloud.

Slower languages, such as Mandarin, have fewer syllables per line, faster languages have more, the delivery time per line is very close among quite varied languages and peoples.

That delivery time happens to match the usual speed of processing by one half of the human brain.

The two halves of the brain deal with different aspects of a line of poetry, and this kind of poetry is made with attention to correlating patterns in aspects handled by each half.

So when listening to such poetry, the following sequence unfolds: the lexical meaning, visual implications, and other aspects handled by one side are processed, and the result sent across the brain stem to the other side, where it meets the tone and emotion and rythm and other aspects handled by that side coming in on the next line, and vice versa.

This resonant exchange across the callosum might be like pushing on a swing from each side. The sound meets the structure, the structure meets the sound, rhythmically for (often) hours. Whatever is happening, the cumulative effect is described as dramatic, explosive, etc. For thousands of years, it has been credited with enormous power and central importance in developing human character.

With small ones and current technology, probably so. With suitable implant and EEG telemetry, no problem with bigger ones.

Limited EEG activity does not imply sleep. Depends on how you define sleep. Usually we think of sleep as "closed-eyed," except for "active" sleep, and there is always a decrease in response to external physical stimuli. Has this been shown?