Isolation Ward

From ebony pucks to magic foil, mystical and controversial tweaks.

Return to Isolation Ward

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Biofeedback or Muscle Testing to measure tweaks

24.121.23.193
Posted on February 12, 2013 at 19:09:38
Nirmala
Audiophile

Posts: 168
Location: Arizona
Joined: December 4, 2002
 Has anyone ever thought of measuring the listener to test the effect of various tweaks? You could use subtle biofeedback to see if some kinds of subtle tweaks created more or less stress in the listener's body.

Mark Levinson did something like this back when he was promoting the Bobcat software as described a ways down this page: http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/he2005mh/1.html

He used muscle testing and seemed to show that regular PCM digital music would make someone's muscle go weak, but with the Bobcat software engaged the same person's arm would be strong. Maybe someone could do some muscle tesing with various tweaks. Or an even more elegant solution would be some kind of physiological biofeedback measurement such as galvanic skin response or heart rate variability that can show higher or lower levels of stress. Any biofeedback specialist/audiophiles out there?

If a tweak affected measurable physiological processes in the body, it does not seem that big a leap from there to suggest that they might also affect a person's hearing. And there are many physiological processes that are a lot easier to measure than hearing. Although it might also be interesting to actually do hearing tests with and without tweaks applied to the testing room. Any audiologist/audiophiles out there?

Maybe this has been discussed before, but it seems that there might be a way to test the farthest out tweaks that is reproducible and all of that. And it would not be too hard to make the tests blind to some degree.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Biofeedback, posted on February 12, 2013 at 22:00:26
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 The one drawback I can see is the variability of human nature and sensitivites. For example it is well documented that practicing something like zen can prfoundly alter the body's breathing rate, pulse and pressure. It has also been used for pain management, a most nebulous facet of human nature to measure.

One does not necessarily need to practice zen to achieve a zen like state, some individuals simply have the proclivity towards it.

while I can sympathize with the quest to measure a tweak or an aural change. the fact is the range of human sensitivities far exceeds out test instrumentation. In 30 seconds of listening a skilled listener can pick up more parameters than a room full of instrumentation, let alone have the time to set up those instruments and pass a weighted judgement simultaneously.

The human body is simply a marvel, IMHO. Just like the wine, beer and cigar afficianadoes. the sensitivities can vary greatly and be specialized for a certain sensory perception. At any music department on the collegiate level you will find classes, generally mandatory, called aural training for their music majors. Taking them is a revelation: often extremely skilled and gifted musicians can not hear ( althought the classes generally are limited to the facets which involve music: pitch, rhythm, and such).

Still the fact that there are classes for aural training, is indicative of something we need to realize: hearing can be trained. Everyone will still retain those aspects which they would consider most important, after all no one knows your own taste better than yourself.

For those who do not hear, or perhaps more accurately, do not deem the experience important, that would be one condition. For others who are more anal (I count my self in this category), sometimes seemingly minor changes can bring ecstacy. But IMHO, that is simply expressing the range of human nature.

C'est la vie. as they say. If the change is important to you, who cares about what others think? Your perception and your enjoyment is the primary goal.

Stu

 

RE: Biofeedback, posted on February 13, 2013 at 07:08:09
Nirmala
Audiophile

Posts: 168
Location: Arizona
Joined: December 4, 2002
 Thanks Stu for your thoughtful reply. I do find that people's sensitivities vary greatly. I have often wondered if the testing companies do for new pharmaceuticals really proves anything about their safety. A product is determined to be safe if only a small percentage of users have side effects, but if you happen to be one of that small percentage, then it does not matter to you that most people can use the drug safely. It is possibly something like an allergy that means some people react more. Maybe the women who had bad reactions to silicone breast implants were allergic to silicone, but they could not "prove" that the silicone caused their problem because wide ranging studies showed most women did not have reactions.

So in a similar way there might be people who are sensitive to the effects of a particular tweak and others who are not. But it seems that if there was some measurable physiological response in someone or a group of people who were sensitive that showed up repeatedly, at least that would offer evidence to the sceptics that there was something going on.

Personally, I am not that worried about convincing sceptics, but if someone wanted to find a way to prove that there was something going on, this might be a way to do it. If it worked, you might even be able to collect a million dollars from Randi! Although I guess he keeps changing the rules for his challenge.

 

Except for the cost, posted on February 13, 2013 at 11:44:23
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 one interesting test may be a fMRI. It will literally measure brain wave activity and if there was something occurring, a fMRI would disclose the brain activity that would accompany it. Of course listening to a real speaker while in an MRI machine would be , uh...., a bit difficult, but one could employ other means. (can't even use headphones as the magnetic field would cause big trouble).

Dan Levitan in his book This is Your Brain on Music, uses the fMRI to analyze the brain activity when listening to music. The scale of the brain involvement in listening to music is quite amazing, much more so than if simply reading, for example. The brain functions also incorporate other functions, including the area which which controls vision, for example. I believe more research in this arena is neccessary and interesting as perhaps the higher "sensitives" may have their brain wired such that perhaps a greater brain involvement is part of the process (not saying that they are smarter or implying anything like that at all).

To that end, Oliver Sachs wrote a book entitled Musicophilia, which recounts psycho-physiological cases involving music. It is extrememly fascinating and shows that music is inherent in many brain functions, but often subdued in normal living functions. He covers iondividuals who could be called idiot savants and well as a doctor who got struck by lightning and shortly afterwards started hearing music endlessly.

The PBS video involving the Philadeplhia Orchestra members titled the Music from Within interviewed one member who displays kinesthesia. She sees colors when she hears music, and the colors are definitely correlated to the notes she hears. This just one of many historical cases, and not everyone sees the same colors for the same notes.

As for the pharmacological example you mention, I have several acquaintances in the biomed research sector. It is a bit frightening to hear them talk candidly. Since many newer pharmaceuticals are genetically aimed, and some companies deliberately ignore research on minority groups which they feel can not afford their potential services. After all, there is no law stipulating that they must, but it is a frightening glimpse of the new reality, especially one which allows the private sector to determine the direction of new research.

In fact one of the frightening things they mentioned was that "cures" are no longer actively sought, since a long term medical treatment is economically more viable for the drug developer..... Very scary.....

I believe the only way for audio tweaks is to continue on. Anectdotal evidence while scientifically unacceptable, still has some effect if enough individuals can perceive the effect. There are some even on this forum, who I have nothing but the highest respect for, who can not hear certain tweaks.

That being said, I recall demonstrating a few tweaks to a engineering society at our local universtity and everyone could hear what I demonstrated, even though none, including their professors, could offer any rational explanation for the effect.

At a later, more private demo, one professor grumbled that I had coached them into listening to a particular aspect of music so that the demo was not truly valid. Still as I pointed out, he could still hear what I had coached them to listen for and that he could still hear it, so I do not believe that the coaching was a psychosomatic issue.

For many tweaks, I find this to be the case. One particular aspect of music is altered, but it may be lost amidst the totality of the musical experience. It is much easier listening to a instrumental trio than an entire symphonic orchestra.

Another factor would be the simple enjoyment and need for music. These qualities vary considerably among individuals also and also determines the "need" and "desire" for tweaks. One ex girl friend I had once exclaimed: "I can still hear the words just as well as before". The nuances of the vocal presentation and the back up instrumentation were simply not important to her.


of course YMMV


Stu

 

RE: Except for the cost, posted on February 13, 2013 at 12:40:16
Nirmala
Audiophile

Posts: 168
Location: Arizona
Joined: December 4, 2002
 Another strange bit of research involved making voiceprints of the frequencies in a person's voice. Like a fingerprint, everyone's voice print is unique in that there are missing frequencies. The researchers then played music with a person's missing frequencies enhanced, and there were noticeable therapeutic benefits. Another way, we may all be sensitive in different ways to music.

Here is a site that seems to be doing something along these lines:
http://www.biowaves.com/Info/WhatIsSound.php

I used to play around with a homemade sound table which was a massage table with large subwoofers built into it. That was a unique way of introducing vibrations into the body, and would sometimes bring me to tears because the positive feelings evoked were so powerful. However, I did find that my body acclimated and so the effect became less profound over time.

 

RE: Except for the cost, posted on February 13, 2013 at 12:44:23
Nirmala
Audiophile

Posts: 168
Location: Arizona
Joined: December 4, 2002
 And thanks for the tip about evaluating tweaks using simple arrangements of music. I sometimes have selected complex music for testing because I love it when a complex piece of music is so well resolved that it sounds natural and uncongested. But maybe I am "shooting for the moon", and should test my tweaks with simpler pieces of music to catch subtler effects that might be there, but that I would miss listening to the complex music.

 

Ahhhh...., posted on February 13, 2013 at 13:09:49
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 In music they call it overtones. You can play the major notes in a chord with, say, one missing, and the interaction of those notes present will often induce the missing notes. Some will claim it is merely the brain function seeking to fill that missing parameter, however.

I sort of believe it may be in the mind but it also can be a reality in that sympathetic resonance can create these overtones. You can hear this in the notes of a piano, when you hold the sustain pedal.

Don't know if you ever played in a wind ensemble, but in the Chester Overture there is a brass choir where if everyone is in precise tuning, you can hear these overtones coming through. Talk about chicken skin music....In many pieces you may hear it but since the music is continuously moving you may not hear it. In the case I mention our conductor tuned everyone in the breass choir and then played that section note by note so everyone could hear the overtones.

In that sense, music can truly be greater than the sum of the parts.

Your sound table is interesting also. I once ( accidentally) touched a -300 volt line and received a shock that was so unique I touched the line again. The minus three hundred volts did not hurt, but gave me a most peculiar jolt ( not that I would recommend it to anyone) that coursed through my bones. It was not painful but gave a most unique vibration which longered for minutes afterwards almost like a deep massage therapeutic session.

In speaking to an orthopedic surgeon long after, he told me that they have a therapy whereby they insert what looks like an accupuncture needle into broken bones and connect it up to -15 volts in order to promote bone growth.

There is something about negative voltage which to the human body is very unique. It would bear investigtion and research, IMHO.

Stu

 

RE: Biofeedback or Muscle Testing to measure tweaks, posted on February 13, 2013 at 16:57:32
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Not exactly bio-feedback. Brain measurements.

The significant point is that sound waves affect brain state in ways that are not necessarily conscious.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Biofeedback or Muscle Testing to measure tweaks, posted on February 14, 2013 at 08:08:39
geoffkait
 I hate to judge before all the facts are in but I have a sneaking suspicion the OP is referring to tweaks that go bump in the night, you know, things like the reef knot -- things unrelated to sound waves or audio signals.

 

RE: Biofeedback or Muscle Testing to measure tweaks, posted on February 14, 2013 at 09:31:03
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "I have a sneaking suspicion the OP is referring to tweaks that go bump in the night"


I do some yogic exercises that take care of these things, various postures, visualizations, concentrations, breathing exercises and mantra recitation. Instruction is free, but it takes years of daily practice to master.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Biofeedback or Muscle Testing to measure tweaks, posted on February 14, 2013 at 10:39:02
geoffkait
 Does yoga improve the sound? Just curious what yoga has to do with the price of spinach.

 

Absolutely Hilarious, posted on February 14, 2013 at 14:14:10
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 coming from someone who supposedly has read through the PWB website


 

Color yourself confused, posted on February 14, 2013 at 14:39:21
geoffkait
 I'm from Missouri. Show me where yoga is mentioned anywhere on the PWB web site. I dare you.

 

Lack of logic here, BIG time, posted on February 14, 2013 at 14:59:07
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 Yoga is using the physical to enhance a particular frame of mind. Maybe what you wrote on Tweaks is true: You really can't understnd the Eastern philosophies.

But then your cognitive reasoning skills have always been in severe doubt.

 

If you want to impress me..., posted on February 14, 2013 at 15:31:52
geoffkait
 with your keen insighst to PWB concepts from an Eastern point of view you need only to bring up Masaru Emoto, who has a long and distinguished career studying written messages' influence on water ice crystal formation. You know, mind-matter interaction.

That you were unable to provide any mention of yoga on the PWB web site is duly noted.

 

Poor baby......., posted on February 14, 2013 at 16:01:36
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 desperately looking for approval.

Check the title of the thread: biofeedback. Jeez if you can't make the connection between Yoga and biofeedback, you are totally lost....

I've read Emoto, BTW. and I would suggest you go back and read him again. He has a couple of books out, IIRC, BTW....

Also I have absolutely no desire to impress you, but I do notice you bandy about names and philosophies like you actually understand them, when the reality is that you seem to know squat:

Did you even know that Bohm at the latter part of his life was a near disciple of Khrishnamurti? I wouldn't call him a disciple because Bohm was too smart to be that, but if you think Krishnamurti's philosophy was related to Feng shui, it simply displays the depth of your ignorance.


LOL !

 

Uh, Stu, posted on February 14, 2013 at 16:27:34
geoffkait
 Better go back and read the OP again. The OP suggests biofeedback for measuring certain tweaks. You know, the kind of tweaks that always seem to give you a giant case of the ass.

You've read Emoto and Bohm and the PWB website. You just didn't understand them. Isn't that really the most important part? Smiley face

Tony, who brought up yoga, thought we were talking about acoustic waves. Lol

 

Your reading comprehension simply sucks., posted on February 14, 2013 at 18:41:17
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 And sucks BIG time. You're just lucky most posters are way more polite than you deserve.

PWB suggests that many tweaks work upon the human organism: very much akin to biofeedback. OP suggests that using biofeedback measurements could determine the viability of certain tweaks. However, since certain practices, including yoga, can alter the biological factors of the individual, that would compromise the testing procedure.

QED.

And FWIW, May has been a strong proponent of the external influences of possible environmental factors (chemical, for example) affecting the individual perception. She has long proclaimed the information is already in the stored format and these influences (tweaks, that is) can simply clear the human perception, if I read her correctly.

Sheesh! You drop names like you actually read their writings, when the truth is your apparent knowledge isn't worth diddly. You certainly like to maintain that illusion however false that may be.

I believe Tony understands far more than you do

 

Ironic, isn't it?, posted on February 14, 2013 at 22:43:15
geoffkait
 Here you are lecturing me on PWB when you have steadfastly and stubbornly refused to accept any of the arguments presented by May over the years, choosing instead to cling to your outdated belief there MUST be some conventional explanation to what May says and what PWB says on their web site. Prime suspect - RFI/EMI. You see RFI/EMI behind every rock.

"If I read her correctly..." -- that's hilarious! You haven't read anything she said correctly. Let me remind you of your profound insights for Crystals and clocks: "They channel RFI." "They wick away RFI." Hahahaah!

If you are now rejecting all of your previous arguments in favor of May's explanations, let me know. But I suspect you are just being argumentative and intellectually dishonest.

 

Reading comprehension failure again, posted on February 15, 2013 at 11:43:58
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 I pointed out that YOU are not being consistent with your support of PWB. That I understand what May has been saying reveals that I, at least, read and ponder about what she has to say. That I do not accept her explanations does not mean that I do not understand what she is attempting to put forth. You, on the other hand, have put forth such outlandish "explanations" that even PWB does not support them, or , at least, I have never seen any substantiation in print.

The fact that you can not comprehend what is written on the Asylum further substantiates my claim. You simply have been jumping to conclusions not substantiated by the written word, avoiding any support for your outlandish claims, and simply accusing everyone else of the errors in logic that YOU commit. When cornered, you simply avoid the issue at hand and write insults, trying to provoke the OP.

That's a real mature attitude and the true reflection of a self proclaimed "rocket scientist", LOL!

I may not agree with Rupert Sheldrake's theory but right now I am reading Sheldrake's The Presence of the Past, which, instead of persuading me to Sheldrake's point of view, further reinforces my belief that he is wrong, simply because he ignores many facets of modern physics.

In the case of David Bohm, I have already read a biography plus the book Synchronicity by F. David Peat, a long time collaborator with Bohm. Sheldrake, incidentally occupies only a few pages in the book and is pretty much discounted by Peat.

Peat is also co editor with B. Hiley in the book titled Quantum Implications, essays in honour of David Bohm. This is a fascinating compilation and includes essays, including the mathematics, from diverse people such as Feynman ( Negative probabilities), Prigogine, Bell, Penrose and a total of 30 respected men of science.

I may not believe in Sheldrake or his theory, but it doesn't mean I avoid reading up about him and his so called collaborator Bohm (your implication, and apparently far from the actual reality).

A working knowledge of an opposing view point does not constitute support or acceptance. It merely indicates a willingness to understand what the opposition is attempting to say.

Too bad I can't say the same for you, or rather, that you can't display the same attitude.

 

I'm very impressed, posted on February 15, 2013 at 12:50:30
geoffkait
 You really do think you know everything.

Reminds me a little of Firesign Theater's, "How Can You Be in Two Places at Once When You're not Anywhere at All."

You wrote,

"I may not agree with Rupert Sheldrake's theory but right now I am reading Sheldrake's The Presence of the Past, which, instead of persuading me to Sheldrake's point of view, further reinforces my belief that he is wrong, simply because he ignores many facets of modern physics."

Our old friend the Backfire Effect rears its ugly head. It's always nice to hear from you folks out there that know all the ins and outs of modern physics. Cough, cough. I assume you're referring to such choice facets of modern physics as channeling RFI with magnets and wicking away RFI with crystals. Cough, cough

You wrote,

"In the case of David Bohm, I have already read a biography plus the book Synchronicity by F. David Peat, a long time collaborator with Bohm. Sheldrake, incidentally occupies only a few pages in the book and is pretty much discounted by Peat."

Someone discounted Sheldrake? Gee, color me shocked. You seem to have conveniently overlooked the fact that Bohm was a judge of the panel of experts for the Contest that proved Morphic Resonce is real. You probably just blanked out temporarily.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, posted on February 15, 2013 at 15:18:44
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 You mean the very contest that Sheldrake later refutes ? Did you miss the part where I stated that F. David Peat worked with Bohm and even collaborated on a book with Bohm? Yeah, the man has no credibility since he only worked with Bohm for many years in Ottawa.


hahahahahahahaha.....



You may, for just once, attempt reading the material your favorites write as you are a most pristine example of the backfire effect in action: not even bothering to read the view points of the opposition. If I don't know, I do research and sometimes even experimentation when possible.

Again, I never claimed I know all, just having read a bit more than you do, but then reading comprehension is definitely not your strong suite is it?

hahahahahahahaha

 

That's pretty silly, posted on February 15, 2013 at 16:13:40
geoffkait
 Let me know when Sheldrake refutes Morphic Resonance? Who cares if he refuted the contest, if that's even true? It's not like it was HIS contest.

 

Lets see...., posted on February 15, 2013 at 17:58:23
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 A,B,C,D,E,F, G, that's how the alphabet starts....

A couple posts up you refer to the contest that Bohm judged which supposedly "proved" Morphic resonance. This is the very same experiment which Sheldrake, himself, has written about later and has stated is flawed and therefore not applicable.

The very same experiment that I pointed out has severe flaws in its base suppositions although the full details were not clearly available initally to me (I had to look it up and even then details of the exact nature of the conducting of the experiment were not very clear).

You wrote on this very forum that I was obviously wrong and that the results were perfectly fine. And then I read further on an internet paper published by Sheldrake, retracting the "proof" assumed by this very experiment. I believe I referred to the article and the chapter in which the refutation was made in the original thread.

But WOW ! What a perfect example of your backfire effect you have made, and are still making. Still refusing to abandon a "proof" that the originator of the the experiment has publically retracted because of serious flaws in its suppositions.

In addition to reading, logic does not seem to be a very strong point of your education, or perhaps its more the reasoning part that is missing.

Poor baby, this discussion, if there ever was any dialogue, is perfectly useless but primarily because you have closed your mind, again a perfect illustration of the backfire effect.

hahahahahahaha

 

So what?, posted on February 16, 2013 at 03:44:33
geoffkait
 You can't even provide a link or cut and paste what the heck you're talking about. Who cares if Sheldrake objected to some procedure or even the test that won the contest. Sheldrake was not refuting his theory. You do see the difference, don't you? (That's a rhetorical question, no need to answer).

The plain fact is that Sheldrake himself has not refuted his own theory of Morphic Resonance. Just because a theory is difficult to prove doesn't mean that it is not true. That's the whole point of his book, Presence of the Past, that Sheldrake certainly realizes the theory is difficult to prove but that there is considerable evidence to support it. Naysayers like yourself are fond of ignoring evidence and whining, "where's the proof?" You're just being superstitious.

 

RE: Your reading comprehension simply sucks., posted on February 16, 2013 at 09:01:17
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "I believe Tony understands far more than you do"

No comment. I don't want to become collateral damage. :-)

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Actually, I agree, posted on February 16, 2013 at 09:53:19
geoffkait
 Tony, you know far more than I do about yoga.

 

Poor baby, posted on February 16, 2013 at 13:13:17
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 Sheldrake refutes the experiment you claim is proof of his theory. Note I never said his theory was incorrect, but there is sufficient writings to show that David Bohm, the noted physicist, never fully endorsed Sheldrake, no matter how much you want to claim that it is so.

As such, despite your addled reasoning:

1. There is NO proof of Morphic resonance, and as a matter of fact Sheldrake himself says any such proof may not be possible.

2. To quote Bohm's name as actively supporting morphic resonance, does NOT match the information contained in Bohm's body of work.

3. Some of the examples in Sheldrake's book run contrary to, say, the work of Francis Crick. Certainly the molecular formation of the crystals mentioned falls actually in support of current thoughts of quantum theory, and has no relation to morphic resonance, since the electron quanta is what really determines the molecular formation, and which is also very predictable. If you are saying that quantum theory is a manifestation of morphic resonance, then so be it, but then with the quantum theory many things are explainabe, aren't they?

4. You desire validation so much you take an experiment put forth by Sheldrake and when later refuted by the man, you still claim that it is "proof" of his theory? Please reread your backfire effect article on wikipedia, as that seems to be your primary source of information. If that is not the backfire effect in operation, I don't know what would serve as a better example.

As for the precise quotes and such , I don't bother to memorize data which has no further use. That info was given in a previous thread on Morphic resonance on this very forum, BTw, and you were an integral part of tht particular discussion. However, it is a tribute to your reading comprehension that you retain no memory of that thread. IIR , and if you care to look it up, it was contained in a web based book on Sheldrake's website. But then why bother, if you didn't accept the refutaion back then why should you change your mind ?


BACKFIRE EFFECT.......


hahahahahaha

 

This is your mind on drugs, posted on February 16, 2013 at 15:00:52
geoffkait
 You never said his theory is incorrect? You just did a couple of posts ago. I'm afraid your memory thing is kicking in again. Allow me to refresh your memory.

You wrote,

"I may not agree with Rupert Sheldrake's theory but right now I am reading Sheldrake's The Presence of the Past, which, instead of persuading me to Sheldrake's point of view, further reinforces my belief that he is wrong, simply because he ignores many facets of modern physics."

So, which is it - his theory is correct, his theory is incorrect, or you're just confused? I know, you'll try to keep an open mind. LOL. How does it feel, being the Poster Boy for the Backfire Effect, you know, what with "instead of persuading me to Sheldrake's point of view, further reinforces my belief he is wrong." The very definition of the Backfire Effect...now you can say you learned at least one thing today.

 

Duhhhh....., posted on February 16, 2013 at 15:54:53
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 lack of reading comprehension skills again:

I wrote I do not agree with his theory, with the implication that no "proof" was forthcoming nor revealed. You, on the other hand, are proclaiming "proof" when in fact there is none, and that so called "proof" you proclaim was refuted by the originator of the theory himself. That is pretty pathetic, and, as I have pointed out, the backfire effect's primary example would be YOU.


Not agreeing with a theory has nothing to do with right or wrong in reality. I believe there are many other much more rational explanations for his supposed examples and, as a matter of fact, many of his examples are not universally true. A theory is just that, a theory, a presumed supposition. Proof is another animal entirely. I can disagree with the theory because I do not see sufficient proof. You on the other hand see proof when there is NONE. Just because you can see no other causality, does not constitute "proof", simply a refusal to open your mind.

LOL !

Einstein's theory remained simply a theory for many years, until visual confirmation was made during an eclipse. There were many doubters before the visual observation backed his prediction. The fact that there was visual and photographic confirmation which fell in the mathematically predicted range and that there were no other plausible explanations would constitute proof for me.

Sheldrake has nothing to show. Geoff Kaitt has nothing to show, but, at least, Sheldrake is MAN enough to admit the failure of his experiment. I have far more respect for Sheldrake because of the admission.

 

Theory and Practice, posted on February 17, 2013 at 08:48:42
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "Not agreeing with a theory has nothing to do with right or wrong in reality"

If you had said "in practice" instead of "in reality" then I might have agreed with you. However, the use of the word "reality" has connotations that do not consort with my epistemology. Also, "right" and "wrong" have unnecessary personal and moral connotations. Who is to say what is right and what is wrong? Do I detect resort to authority in your argumentation? (At least you aren't using disputatious words such as "claim" and "evidence".)



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

I believe we are , posted on February 17, 2013 at 12:24:44
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 on the same page, and, yes, I do agree I should have worded it better.

what I meant was a theory is simply that: a statement with no necessary means of proof. If there is no proof, there is no right or wrong to the theory.

I believe part of the issue is with the popular vernacular.
Einstein's theory of relativity, while it was once a theory, has moved far beyond and has been proven, and perhaps may be better stated as the laws of relativity. But the popular parlance keeps it just as the theory.

As far as theories are concerned, I really make no judgement, but some kind of proof is what I desire. If proof to the contrary is presented, fine with me. Early on, in astrophysics, my mental state was such that I prefered Hoyle's steady state theory, probably becasue of the sense of security it gave. The Hubble red shift and cosmic noise and such, rapidly changed my mind, though, as the evidence they revealed became public.

Those aspects (and others)could not be explained by the steady state theory, or, if it could, were too convoluted to really be practical.

It is when experimental evidence is presented as factual, when the actual basis for the experiment is at question and thus the results, that I get a bit upset. This is particularly true when there are other, much more simplistic explanations. It's even worse when the statistical analysis even based on the flawed supposition is very small. Couple that with no publication in any major scientific journal and you have a recipe for potential disaster.

Sheldrake himself has admitted that trying to present "proof" may be an impossibility, and yet he tries and fails, not surprisingly. As a biologist he gives anectdotal "evidence" or perhaps more accurately examples. There are other explanations and the most readily availble and more "scientific" ones are due to the quantum nature of the molecular bonding. Those are predictable and consistent.



Of course, YMMV

Stu

 

Definitely felt muscle relaxation listen to cj, posted on May 27, 2013 at 15:18:30
ph5y
Audiophile

Posts: 178
Location: DC
Joined: October 30, 2010
 This sounds like bs but the first time I heard an all tube cj rig with a TT playing an analog lp I could just feel the tension draining out of my body. I'm not saying the best ss gear is irritating but there is certainly SOME and maybe even MOST in certain price brackets. The tube gear just made the music more enjoyable even if it wasn't more spectacular.
It's never too late to turn back the clock.

 

RE: Definitely felt muscle relaxation listen to cj, posted on May 28, 2013 at 08:51:22
May Belt
Manufacturer

Posts: 681
Location: Leeds UK
Joined: March 16, 2005
 >>> "This sounds like bs but the first time I heard an all tube cj rig with a TT playing an analog lp I could just feel the tension draining out of my body. I'm not saying the best ss gear is irritating but there is certainly SOME and maybe even MOST in certain price brackets. The tube gear just made the music more enjoyable even if it wasn't more spectacular." <<<

Can I reply to your comment by bringing in Tony Lauck's earlier reply.

>>> "The significant point is that sound waves affect brain state in ways that are not necessarily conscious." <<<

Can I now be allowed the audacity to alter Tony's reply by adding:-

"The significant point is that both the environment and sound waves can affect brain state in ways that are not necessarily conscious"

By that I mean that it COULD BE us (human beings) reacting differently to the very presence of such as tubed gear in the environment (in comparison with the presence of ss gear) rather than us reacting to a particular sound created by the tubed gear versus ss gear.

That that very reaction could affect brain state in ways that are not necessarily conscious.

Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.

 

"...that very reaction could affect brain state in ways that are not necessarily conscious.", posted on November 11, 2013 at 12:58:11
Kal Rubinson
Reviewer

Posts: 12436
Location: New York
Joined: June 5, 2002
 Right. And a lot of what we believe are our conscious perceptions and awareness is the product of those unconscious processes.

 

Page processed in 0.032 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]