Home FAQPage 2 of 2

FAQ  1  2

Q021.   In my streams there are often animals. Is it OK to describe the same animals over and over if that is what I am seeing?

Describe what you get. If the phenomenon persists to the point where you think it's getting in your way,
  1. Ask your own faculties why you keep getting these animals and see what happens. And/or

  2. Ask your own faculties what you need to deal with here to bring whatever's going on to a good completion. And/or

  3. Examine the animal, asking what you can notice about him that you haven't caught before.
Return to question index

Q022.   Can I freenote audiotapes and books, or does it have to be a lecture?

Freenote your observations and perceptions on anything and everything. Get in the practice of using it on many different things and in many different contexts, and you'll find lots more extra awareness enriching everything you experience, not only the things you freenote on.

Return to question index

Q023.   I have been having some trouble isolating valuable images. They have been of the day-dreaming, garbage variety and of no discernible use. Does this effect fade with practice?

That effect does tend to fade with practice and will fade faster if you ask questions of your Image-Stream with the intention that your faculties will surprise you with what they show you in ingenious answer. This process will evolve even faster still if you use the High Thinktank procedure.

Return to question index

Q024.   When I am not able to receive complete images, I fill them in from my own imagination, creating a picture of a tree, a path, etc... I feel that this is forcing the images. Is this something that I should not be doing?

Practice objectively describing just what you're seeing, whether with inner imagery or, for awhile, also with outer imagery ("that squarish object I think might be a barn is red— on this side, at least"), practicing describing only your actual sensory impressions and not your surmises. Sometimes that is hard to do, but doing it will make you powerfully more perceptive in all venues!

If it's very hard to do, just go very fast in your onrushing description so when you turn to your imagination to fill in the picture, you're going so much faster than you can think of what ought to be there, and for the time being that will be almost as developmental for your brain and perception as true Image-Streaming.

After accumulating some hours of this, though, if it's still a problem, you might ask your own faculties — via Image-Streaming or via High Thinktank — what's the best way to get on into the best core of this procedure.

Return to question index


Q025.   How does Image-Streaming fit with the practice of meditation, in which you avoid images or thoughts and focus solely on breathing?

These are very different, therefore complementary, and I recommend doing some of both to get the benefits of both.

I do have some questions regarding both the philosophy underlying eastern meditation's instruction to discard the imagery as just more of the Maya or illusion to be dispensed with as one pursues some more fundamental reality, and the effects of such a practice, since the best minds of the cultures where such practice predominates have been pulled out of society and out of the contributions they could have been making to their world.

The philosophy — surely there must be some purpose to our being here in this possible illusion, with something to be learned from it, or all this existence has been the most ludicrously colossal waste of time and attention ever literally dreamed up! There must be something to learn from this material world around us and, by extension, also from our imagery which, as we've been finding so consistently, does instruct us to such advantage in this world.

Return to question index


Q026.   Hyperzine A (a Chinese herb) increases growth of dendrites. Does it increase the intelligence-boosting ability of Image-Streaming?

I don't know. I'm very reluctant to set up an external chemical dependency which is difficult to free oneself from afterward. If you use this artifice, it should be combined with an intensive period of brain development and exploratory brain-use, so that those dendrites have something useful to do and reason to remain after the chemical artifice is gone.

Return to question index

Q027.   I heard some exercises could be replaced with various other procedures, including breathing techniques. What are they?

Mainly two, though these are far less than can be obtained through the mammalian diving response by actual held-breath underwater swimming. These two are:
  1. Baggie breathing — re-breathing your breath in a small bag to conserve CO2. This is the "masking" procedure used by some clinics to repair some of the effects of brain damage, and is also used by LaMaze and other coaches of women headed into labor, as a contingency, should the mother-to-be hyperventilate.

  2. Sip breathing — exhale as completely as you can, then hold, until you begin to feel that you have to do something about it. Then take in a small sip of air without letting anything out, and hold again, until you begin to feel that you have to do something about it. Then take in another small sip of air and hold again.... keep going by these delayed small sips of air, without letting anything out, conserving your CO2. You can go about twice as long this way conserving your CO2 as if you were simply holding your breath.

    When you've worked up to full lungs, hold that for as long as you reasonably can, force in a little more and hold that... until you pretty well have to let go, then let go.

Everything done within reason, nothing to extremes and not when driving. Advantage of this method is that it also exercises and stretches respiratory capacity (though held-breath underwater swimming does even this better). Pack a good many such cycles into just a few successive days, to cumulatively stretch your Carotid arteries and keep them from rebounding back shut.


Note:  When doing the underwater method, remain still. This allows the breathing reflex to kick in and you'll know when you need to come up for air. Swimming while holding your breath will use up your oxygen very quickly as the muscles need it. You can learn more about this method in the online e-books.

There are tradeoffs. Moving around generates CO2 faster, and experientially may generate more feedback. Japanese inventor Nakamata probably gives himself more time underwater by sitting still. Generally speaking, I don't see a major advantage either way, because of the tradeoffs. There may be strong advantage one way or another, differing from one individual to another. Use whichever method lets you build the most CO2 effect most comfortably within the safe limits of a supervised pool.

Return to question index


Q028.   I read that cutting off the supply of oxygen to your brain for 3 minutes or longer, results in neuron death — brain damage. So wouldn't holding your breath for such a long period of time be harmful?

Quick answer: — You don't use up much of the oxygen in your lungs, just a few percent from each breathful. Holding it in there for the CO2 will still be supplying oxygen to the brain — at almost the same rate for a good while, because of the expansion of the Carotid arteries to compensate.

Return to question index

Q029.   I'm a student. Is there anything I can do to increase my IQ in 6 weeks? I have three hours' free time each day that Iím willing to spend on an intelligence-raising procedure.

Three recommendations—
  • The two strongest general brain-builders I presently know of are Image-Streaming and

  • The program for respiration-span/breathing-span and circulation to the brain in Two Guaranteed Ways to Increase Your Intelligence.

  • Learn and practice a few rounds of Borrowed Genius. See if you can capture a feel for the desired proficiency and carry it with you into different working circumstances, and into your test.
Several additional recommendations:
  • Clarification and calming — learn and practice the Calm Breathing Patterns. To accumulate even an hour or so of such process (in several shorter chunks of time) should make a considerable difference for you.

  • Freenote and/or Windtunnel on some of the concepts of the subject(s) you are studying.

  • If there is time, then also do a round or so with Toolbuilder — see if you can "go" to where everyone, even a dunderhead, is so proficient at that subject that over here they'd be considered geniuses at it. Go to and through the point of experience or process that makes that the case there — you may invent a new educational or training method all your own for this subject.

    Return to question index

Q030.   Are the results from Image-Streaming permanent? You say the human brain has an IQ over 300. If this is true, what barriers prevent us from reaching that?

So far as we've been able to ascertain—
  • The benefits from Image-Streaming appear to be permanent.

  • Whether 300 IQ or 3000 IQ, our present IQ tests get quite inaccurate the higher the level they are measuring, so we won't know until better tests are devised.

  • The barriers are mostly normative pressures in a context where the vast majority of people are being raised or have been raised in far from optimal intellectual conditions. Expanding on one element of this point:

    — We grow and learn mainly from feedback on our own activities. It is often inconvenient for parents, siblings, neighbors, classmates, teachers, etc., to provide appropriate feedback on individual children's interests, initiatives, perspectives and excitements.

    Return to question index


Q031.   In the Reinert studies of Southwest State University physics students, why was the Kolb inventory used instead of a standardized test like SAT, GRE, Stanford-Binet IQ, or some other IQ test?

I agree with you regarding standardized tests. That was not the only area in which the Reinert study fell short; before the study could be continued, the university closed down its entire Department of Physics and Chemistry (for "reasons of economy" — with Reinert's among the best-attended classes in the whole school), preventing the answering of many questions which could have been asked of the study.

Chuck [Charles Reinert] was a physics professor, with no help from anywhere else in the school, and definitely not the psychology department. He used the Kolb because he happened to have it lying around. In a way I'm glad he did, because that particular outcome raised interesting questions it might not have occurred to me or us to ask otherwise.

A few more comments on Image-Streaming and IQ:

  • Not all or even most of the extended results will show up on IQ tests, because most of the tests have too low a ceiling and thus are insensitive to improvements; and because most of what's happening with Image-Streaming improvements consists of skills other than that of petty puzzle-solving, which is how even the tests that do measure higher discriminate someone with an IQ of 240 from someone with, say, 210. This is to be expected when the test takers so very strongly outstrip the intelligence of the people who designed the tests.

  • You will find other gains from Image-Streaming to outweigh those from intelligence.

  • Why not go ahead and run your own test? Especially when the procedure is provided in complete detail for free, in Image-Streaming. In a world of hyped claims and many disappointments, you just might find yourself pleasantly surprised.

    Return to question index

Home | FAQ 1  2

©2004 Project Renaissance