|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.253.179.5
I'm lucky in that I do volunteer work for our local Friends of the Library. WE process four to five pallets of books in preparation for our annual booksale, all donations. Among the mountains of Da Vinci Codes and Nora Roberts and Daniel Steele an occasional interesting book pops up. This weeks find ( I read them and return the book after wards, after all they are used already), is E.O. Wilson's Consilience: his appeal to a multi aspect approach to science and life. I'm not finished yet,being only a hundred or so pages into the book, but a lot of what he advocates is directly applicable to the audio field.
Stu
Follow Ups:
work, Disturbing the Universe. Written almost 20 years before Wilson, much of what Wilson writes is already in Dyson's work, including the examination of genes and culture, although Dyson may actually go further than Wilson. It is also fascinating because Dyson's discussion of nuclear energy hits the Fukushima disaster right on the head.
Stu
Wilson's book was written in '98 or '96, and is an appeal to the ecology of climate change to great extent. Not surprising as Wilson's claim to fame has been the authoritative he work he did on ants.He has also written or co authored a book on genes and culture. Again interesting as although acknowledging the individual variance in human diversity (genomes and remember his book was written before the human genome was mapped out) it believes that the epigenetic evolution is what leads or at least influences human culture (the sum total of the various effects of the human genome, say the incest taboo). His works I believe have strongly influenced the works of Stephen Gould and Richard Dawkins ( Dawkins is interesting:" when theorizing about the possibility of a "God" gene to a Rabbi, the Rabbi replied, "why shouldn't God have had inserted such a gene into humans?").
What I find more fascinating is his multi faceted approach to any subject.
In my thinking ( not directly associated with Wilson's, but inspired by Wilson), we need to do the same with audio.
One can loosely segregate the advancement of audio into four sections:
Technology/engineering...............Culture
environmental.............................biologyImagine a cross hair separating the four sections. All sections are equally important in the achievement of superb audio, but good sounds come from an interaction of all four ( simplistic, I know, and there may be more sections).
The technology and engineering is the easier part: it is the part most of us are very familiar with: the design and manufacture of our typical components. Amplifiers, transducers and their kind, with published numerical measurements deemed as being important.
Environmental includes, obviously, the acoustical environment in which we place the component the technology has produced. Quite obviously it includes the listening room, the "treatments" applied to the room and such, again are fairly common audiophile fare.
It should also include the electrical/magnetic environment which is also imposed in that room. In modern environments, with advent of TV, radio, wifi, cell phones and such, the airwaves are flooded with an invisible pollutant, which can adversely affect sound.
One solid state manufacturer and designer once told me that his oscilloscope did not have enough frequency response although it went into the gigahertz range. He claimed that his power supply always drew a bit more than than theoretical draw of the circuit and attributed it to RF oscillation, and it is increasingly an issue because more of the modern transistor designs are being designed with digital amplification which requires very high frequency response. The ultra high frequency response, he believes, leads to subharmonics being generated which then leads to a "bleaching" out of certain frequency ranges within the audible spectrum.
As a corollary, use of the Enacom and Walker devices on speaker cables certainly warms up the sound when grounding out the ultra high RF frequencies.
The biology we are also very familiar with also. The condition of the mechanical portions of t our biology: the cochlea, tympanic membrane and such, but also the neural pathways into the brain.
Less known and obvious is the function of the brain itself. Here the works of Oliver Sachs are quite interesting in an analysis of the role of the brain and its sections in the interpretation of sound and the role of certain parts of the brain. His book "Musicophilia" is highly recommended although I do admit others on this forum have long been aware of his writings. Here, May Belt seems to be particularly interested, especially when she makes the claim that her devices are ac ting upon the human brain ( consciousness, is how I interpret the statements).
The culture part is something I believe, being immersed in, we tend to ignore. Being a world wide forum, there are definite cultural differences in how we perceive sound. Ask to parody an English speaker most Americans come up with "Bond, James Bond", a slight lowering of the voice. Asked for a French speaker the Peter Seller's Inspector Clouseau emerges. Any one listening the the NHK broadcasts following the massive earthquake and tsunami can not be struck buy the fact that the male Japanese newscasters tend to have a higher pitched broadcast voice.
Remember the late 60's when there was a "West Coast" sound as compared to the "East Coast" sound?
For classical listeners, orchestras of the 50's and 60's also tend to have a cultural shift. German orchestras had a very distinct sound from the French which had a much reedier sound and that often prominent vibrato ( think Maurice Andre, Gervase de Peyer). Italian, English and American orchestras had their own kind of sound also. Compare Capitol Beatles to EMI Beatles records and there is a sonic difference also.
These days with the advent of mass media, radio, TV , the ipad and such there is a far greater degree of homogenization, but there is still a slight difference culturally.
There may be more influences in how we, as individuals, perceive sound, but these are some underlying factors as we search for "perfect" sound. It is my belief that an understanding of all factors is important in the quest for "perfect" sound.
One noted speaker designer once asked that if perfect phase and timing and frequency response were the goals of all speaker designers, shouldn't there be a convergence of sound at a certain price point? The fact that even $100K speakers can sound radically different indicates that the designers are on very different planes when technically they should all sound very similar.
At any rate, comments are welcome and as usual YMMV.
Stu
PS. As an addendum Wilson, insists on using the known and established laws of math and physics.
Edits: 04/08/11 05/06/11 05/06/11 05/06/11
Software.
Stu
> > “The biology we are also very familiar with also. The condition of the mechanical portions of t our biology: the cochlea, tympanic membrane and such, but also the neural pathways into the brain.” < <
The problem with that statement, Unclestu, is that people THINK that we are familiar with the biology of the areas you have mentioned, but the reality is that there is still much unknown !!!!!
The thinking about the hearing mechanism has changed maybe three times since I have been seriously interested (some 30 years) !!!!!
> > “Less known and obvious is the function of the brain itself. Here the works of Oliver Sachs are quite interesting in an analysis of the role of the brain and its sections in the interpretation of sound and the role of certain parts of the brain. His book "Musicophilia" is highly recommended although I do admit others on this forum have long been aware of his writings. Here, May Belt seems to be particularly interested, especially when she makes the claim that her devices are ac ting upon the human brain ( consciousness, is how I interpret the statements).” < <
I first became interested in Oliver Sachs very, very many years ago after he had written his book “The man who mistook his wife for a hat”
I am currently reading an extremely interesting book “The Tell-Tale Brain” by the eminent neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran.
I read E O Wilson’s book “Consilience” some years ago and even earlier than that his book “Sociobiology”.
I will give, later, my ‘slant’ on his book. But, the striking differences I find between the way E O Wilson writes and the way V.S. Ramachandran writes I will outline now.
In my (next) answer to you regarding E O Wilson’s book I refer to anomalies which scientists come across and how these anomalies are ‘coped with’ by different scientists. Thomas Kuhn was extremely good on describing different people’s reactions to anomalies and just HOW those different REACTIONS can shape science !!!!!
I found, as you mention, that yes, E O Wilson can refer to anomalies in what you call
> > “his multi faceted approach to any subject” < <.
But, in comparison with V.S. Ramachandran’s approach, E O Wilson refers to anomalies ( or other people’s findings in general) and then leaves them in the background and continues with his genetic determinism
You see, Unclestu, when certain scientists come across or are faced with anomalies and those anomalies point them in a different direction, they find that THEY, then, cannot go back to how they thought before – and certainly cannot continue to write a book in the way they had thought before !!!!
For example. Many. Many years ago, when some scientists believed ( and wrote) that the spread of cholera was caused by the foul smell (the Miasmata), when it began to be pointed out to them how one Doctor (Dr Jon Snow) had shown that in one particular street the incidences of cholera were extremely high on ONE side of the street only (when everyone in that street (both sides) obviously breathed the same foul air!!!!) and Dr Snow insisted in having the handle removed from the communal water pump – and the spread of cholera was halted in that street. After such a realization that things were not as those particular scientists had thought, they then could no longer continue to write in the same way they had before !!! The world, for them, had changed. But, unfortunately, only for some of them. Many many years LATER, when the Panama Canal was being built, the contractors asked the funders for money to provide clean water for the workers because there was a serious outbreak of cholera. They were told NO, because the spread of cholera was caused by the ‘foul smell’ – the Miasmata – not by contaminated water, so NO money to clean up the water supply !!!!!
But, I found that E O Wilson could do just that – i.e continue writing in the same manner even AFTER referring to other’s concepts and other things which were giving clues which should have been given far more serious thought !! As I pointed out before – just as David Bohm (and others) have been giving serious thought to !!!!
And, as VS Ramachandran.says (as one of those scientists who DOES LOOK SERIOUSLY at the clues which present to him) :-
> > “It is a fundamental element of the scientific process that when data are scarce or sketchy and existing theories are anaemic, scientists must brainstorm.
We need to roll out our best hypotheses, hunches and hare-brained, half- baked intuitions and then rack our brains for ways to test them. You see this all the time in the history of science.” < <
Now, regarding your reference to how I view audio matters.
> > “she claims her devices are acting upon the human brain ( consciousness, is how I interpret the statements).” < <
I do not claim that our devices and techniques work DIRECTLY on the human brain !!! Watch my lips carefully. I say that they work on the environment – on things in the environment - the things which we (human beings) are reacting to. The ‘things’ are adverse - not because they are adverse in themselves (such as plastics, chemicals etc) but because we (human beings) cannot resolve them enough to be able to sign off our environment as ‘safe’ !! And, evolution has dictated that if we cannot sign off our environment as ‘safe’, then we must remain on alert (under tension) until we can !! And, what might that ‘tension’ be creating ? Stress chemicals in the brain ?? And what might those stress chemicals be doing in the brain ?? To the hearing mechanism and to the way the musical information is ‘handled’ on it’s journey to the working memory ??? Where that information has to be identified by the working memory so that the working memory can present a ‘sound picture’ to the brain ??
I suggest you stand back and look at the extremely long discussions going on regarding crystals and the observed effect on the sound of the presence of various crystals in the listening room !! Which people are having difficulty in explaining !!!
And to look again at V S Ramachandran’s approach to looking at anomalies.
> > “It is a fundamental element of the scientific process that when data are scarce or sketchy and existing theories are anaemic, scientists must brainstorm.
We need to roll out our best hypotheses, hunches and hare-brained, half- baked intuitions and then rack our brains for ways to test them. You see this all the time in the history of science.” < <
Changing the subject slightly, I find V S Ramachandran’s thought process on such as the “phantom limb” syndrome absolutely fascinating !!
YOU will already be aware that what the crystals are doing or NOT doing (with regard to sound) are presenting some anomalies !!!!!
Why not look at the anomalies in a different way ? Looking at them in a different way does NOT alter the actual PRESENCE of electromagnetism, RF, microwave activity etc in any way - nor does it lessen the STRENGTH of the electromagnetism, RF, microwave activity etc in any way - but it can change the way one understands why the anomalies are happening !!
I have greater respect for such as the neuroscientist A V Ramachandran when he can humbly state :-
> > “ I’ve learned, over the years, to listen to what people say” < <
Than I have for such as Jim Austin who can dismiss others’ observations and experiences with :-
> > “(some reviewers) seem eager to prostitute themselves for the latest preposterous product.” < <
and
> > “some prominent industry folks have consistently failed to maintain a sufficiently skeptical posture” < <.
I have said, over and over, to you that I do not challenge your many observations regarding you hearing changes in the sound. What I challenge is your desire (insistence ???) to explain everything as “having an effect on the audio signal” or “having an effect on the acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations in the room”
Some of the anomalies cannot be explained within those narrow contexts, so one is left with – surprise, surprise – anomalies !!
THOSE are the challenges !! facing the world of audio, and as you well know, dismissing people’s experiences as merely “auto-suggestion”., “the placebo effect”, “bias” etc is the lazy way out !!
When you make the following statement, Unclestu, you sound as though you are suggesting that E O Wilson is the main person to ‘read’ – don’t bother with the others
> > “When you write something better than the time conversion trash you post on the internet maybe you may approach 1% of Wilson's intellect. The man's no Velikosvky. At any rate, it is quite apparent that his ideas are too far above your level.” < <
Especially when you quote E O Wilson’s book as being subtitled “The Unity of Knowledge”.
And this when so many other scientists are so obviously struggling to try to explain ‘what on earth is going on’ Why are THEY bothering if the Unity of Knowledge has already been written.
Like E O Wilson’s concepts and writing, listening experiences in audio seem to fit conventional thinking – until, that is, anomalies appear !!!!!!! It is HOW those anomalies are dealt with which is interesting !!
Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.
I agree with Geoff. E.O. Wilson’s emphasis is that “genes are everything” !! Even Richard Dawkins who I have a great deal of respect for (and who is into genes in a big way) wishes E.O. Wilson would not be SO deterministic.
Yes, genes have a role and quite often a serious role. Yes, E.O Wilson gives the odd reference to certain anomalies but they are ‘cursory’ acknowledgements and references to those anomalies soon fade into the background.
Whereas other scientists see the SAME anomalies as ‘clues’ to ‘something else going on’ other than E.O. Wilson’s concept that the genes are the primary and dominant force even, in his opinion, governing such as behaviours of nations, communities large groups of people etc !! Such as Wilson assumes (or is seriously suggesting) that innate behaviour is ‘programmed’ or ‘coded’ in the DNA. There MAY be some innate behaviour coded for – but surely not so overall that a whole book is devoted to such.
Other scientists see the anomalies as pointing to the genes not actually always being the primary and dominant governing factor but as (a lot of the time) being possibly a ‘receiver’ ‘tuned into’ ‘information fields’ !! More like a circuit of a radio. The actual radio circuit cannot produce, on it’s own, just by existing, all the radio broadcasts of the world. It is passive in that respect. Until the circuit is activated by external ‘influences’ – until it receives the radio broadcasts from around the world - then the world, from within it, “sings”
From E.O. Wilson’s deterministic viewpoint the genes coding for the ‘simple eye’ will make a ‘simple eye’.
But other scientists have found otherwise. THEY have found an anomaly. When the genes coding for a ‘simple eye’ are introduced into an organism which uses a ‘compound eye’ – the genes for the simple eye DO NOT make a simple eye – they will make a ‘compound eye’ !!!
Such anomalies cause SOME scientists to realize the need to expand THEIR thinking further and away from the conventional !!
And, once many of them have expanded their ‘thinking’, they find it impossible then to go back to their original way of thinking i.e. As deterministic in their thinking as they had been before !!
They have to begin to think along the lines of :-
1) If the genes which code for a ‘simple eye’ (say hypothetically ABCD) are introduced into an organism which uses a ‘compound eye’, WHY isn’t a ‘simple eye’ created from those very same genes ?
2) In the host organism which has the genes to code for a ‘compound eye’ (hypothetically AABBCCDD), could those genes also have a coding to dominate other genes ? In other words, could the coding AABBCCDD dominate over the coding ABCD ? Which means that the genes coding for a simple eye (ABCD) are NOT as deterministic as E.O. Wilson would suggest. E.O. Wilson’s ‘determinism of the effect of genes’ would have the genes for a ‘simple eye’ ALWAYS creating a simple eye (or certainly far more than a Maybe they will or Maybe they wont).
3) Could the genes for both simple eye (ABCD) and compound eye (AABBCCDD) be merely the basic circuitry primed for ‘tapping into certain specific ‘external information fields’ ??
4) Very much like my example of a radio receiver’s circuitry. The basic circuitry of a radio does not have the information of a particular radio broadcast within it but has the ability, given the correct (or important circumstances) to tap into the ‘information field’ it needs to ? Like needing to ‘tap into’ the specific weather/shipping forecasts if you are wanting to sail on the high seas !!
5) That in the case of the genes coding for the ‘simple eye’ within a host organism which uses a compound eye – the ‘outside information field’ for a ‘compound eye’ could be “swamping” that organism’s circuitry and therefore THAT is the major information the ‘simple eye’ genes ABCD might be receiving and being influenced by?
6) In other words, the genes coding for the ‘simple eye’ are NOT everything - other things are influential?
7) This then brings into consideration and criticism any heavily deterministic outlook !!
8) And, a “genes are everything” outlook is heavily deterministic !!
When one (someone calling themselves a scientist) is aware of such anomalies, then SURELY they cannot then write a book around the concept that “genes are everything” and that genes can even govern and be the basis of behavioural attitudes of large groups of people, communities, even Nations !!!!
> > “His (Wilson’s) use of examples straddle many fields and thinking” < <
Of course Wilson uses examples of other fields and thinking – he cannot ignore them, but those references fade into obscurity fairly quickly and he is then back to his main theme - ‘genetic determinism’.
If the genetic coding for a ‘simple eye’ cannot create a ‘simple eye’ in all circumstances, then it would appear rather simplistic to generalize that genes could play a significant role and be a governing factor in such as the behavioural patterns of large groups of people, large communities etc !!
It would be like suggesting that there is a gene for Royalist (hierarchical) behaviour and another gene for Republican (egalitarian) behaviour.
To explain the SAME people still with the SAME gene switching over allegiances to the opposite side (but, obviously, not acquiring the opposite gene !!!) when necessary – that then brings into the discussion Richard Dawkins “memes” (ideas) concept !!!! (That outside ideas could be stronger than genes) Which then brings into the discussion how scientists follow and investigate different and sometimes conflicting ideas – which is then away from certain ‘genes’ dominating the scientists and what they (the scientists) might do.
Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.
I find many instances where Wilson openly admits that genes are NOT everything. I believe you are overgeneralizing in this instance. While Wilson claims that there may be a predilection towards certain events and occurrences, he also make a rather passionate argument for biodiversity.
Stu
May, you might be interested to know "Consciousness and the Source of Reality, the PEAR Odyssey" was finally published last month and is available on Amazon. I am casually aquainted with Brenda Dunne, one of the authors. Of course by now everyone knows PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) folded its tent after 28 years; their interests are now handled by an independent group, IRCL.Cheers
Edits: 04/09/11 04/09/11
"One noted speaker designer once asked that if perfect phase and timing and frequency response were the goals of all speaker designers, shouldn't there be a convergence of sound at a certain price point? The fact that even $100K speakers can sound radically different indicates that the designers are on very different planes when technically they should all sound very similar."Actually, any given $100 K speakers can sound radically different under different conditions, depending on what electronics are used to drive them, which cables and power cords are used, what room the speakers are placed in, room treatments, if any, employed, how long the speakers have been broken in, how long the rest of the system has been broken in, the quality of commercial power, CD treatments employed, if any, and many other factors. It shouldn't really surprise anyone that not only can relatively inexpensive speakers outperform expensive ones under certain conditions or that expensive speakers, for example in the $100 K range, can sound radically different from each other. It happens all the time at the high end audio shows, much to everyone's frustration. And the reasons it happens have precious little to do with how the speakers are designed, with the technical competance of the designers. The harsh reality is there's simply no Absolute Sound on which speaker technology or anything else in the audio system can converge.
Case in point, I heard the $100 K Rockport Hyperions at CES on Day One. The Hyperions were brand new, with no break in time. The expensive tube electronics used to drive the Hyperions were also brand new out of the box, and not broken in, and most likely same for the cabling. (Why manufacturers continue this practice at important shows is quite bizarre). in any case, the sound on day one was very unimpressive - no soundstage, no dynamics, no life... just blah. But when I returned to the same room three days later, after the system had been broken in continuously for three days, the sound was radically different. The sound was dynamic, full of life and much more musical. So, here was a situation when the same $100 K speakers sounded radically different - in the same room and same system. And the reason had nothing at all to do with speaker design.
Edits: 04/09/11
Thanks Stu, picked it up at the library yesterday and will give it a gander, if not a goose.
Rick
PS: Also went to a 'bead show/fair', fairy?, something like that on the same outing. The admission was a bit steep but I've yet to make the ebay plunge and was interested to see what their clientele was like. I found a bunch of Chinese vendors hawking polished rocks on strings and luckily one of them could almost speak English and sold me some of the 'recommended' stones to try. Their clientele sort of surprised me, I was expecting a bunch of scantily clad 'alternate lifestyle' people but they were all old folks like me. You know, the hell of it is I bet that they were not merely the sort of people that I was expecting but rather were the very same folks that I remember from thirty years ago. What's happened to us???
From a review of O.E Wilson's book, Consilience:"As to the logical error, even if a particular behavior were universal, there are alternative explanations to its having a genetic basis. In fact,even if a trait is biological it is not necessarily the result of direct lines of genetic inheritance. There is a phenomenon, well known to biologists, undoubtedly including Wilson, called evolutionary convergence."
"Convergence is illustrated, for example, by the variety of relatively unrelated species that can fly. These include birds, insects, and bats. Since these species do not have a common flying evolutionary ancestor, the fact that they all fly cannot be the result of common genetic inheritance, but rather that similar environmental conditions sometimes allow the evolution of similarly adapted features. And this evolution can happen independently many times in various evolutionary branches. Furthermore, on rare occasions even sheer coincidence can play a role, since chance and causality are both aspects of nature."
"Similarly for human behaviors, such as fear of snakes. This fear (wherever it exists) can just as easily be explained as a response learned as a result of repeated experience with harmful snakes in one society after another. It is logically flawed to imply, as Wilson does, that the only possible (or even most likely) explanation for a widespread (or even universal) human behavior is that it is genetically inherited. But this implication constitutes the main thrust of his speculative assertions and faulty logic throughout the book."
***********************************
It appears that many great thinkers, including E.O. Wilson, conclude human and animal behaviors can be explained by the simple sonclusion, "it's in the genes." Can I suggest this conclusion is simply a cop out; much deeper explanations for human and animal patterns of behavior, things that are usually referred to by biological scientists as "instinctive" or "inherited in the genes," can be found in the theories of Rupert Sheldrake, PhD Biology, Cambridge, the most controversial yet convincing layout of his theory of morphic resonance and the especially the influence of human evolution on the brain and behavior being, of course, The Presence of the Past. While pretending to be Unification Theory of multi scientific disciplines, the O.E. Wilson book actually gets us no further than what can best be described as the conventional wisdom, the explanation that is easily accepted by the ordinary man: "It's in the genes."
Better and deeper theses of the operation of the mind are also presented in Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind and the works of David Bohm, a student of Oppenheimer.
University of London physicist David Bohm (1917-94) developed the theory that our universe consists of physical and metaphysical (= spiritual/divine/God/etheric/astral etc - whichever term you prefer) dimensions which are interwoven. This is hard enough to accept when we are accustomed to regarding our sensory physical experience of the world as being "it" i.e. being a complete and objective experience of reality.
However, Bohm went even further. He proposed that each small unit of the weave of the universe contains all the information possessed by the entire universe. This would be really hard to swallow except for what we know about holograms. If a hologram of a flower is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half still contains the entire image of the flower. If the cut halves are cut are cut up into smaller pieces, each tiny piece of the holographic film will always contain a smaller, but complete, version of the original whole flower image.
Edits: 04/02/11 04/02/11
your opinion on a review of the book. rather than actually reading what Wilson wrote?
LOL!
Stu
Why not? Reviews save time. I got the picture, did you? LOL
That opinion, is indicative of your thinking. Ignore the original, read a review and base all your ideas on the review, which may not even be true or even simply taken out of context, as it obviously is, from what I have read thus far.
E.O. Wilson, BTW, is a far more eminent and respect "scientist" than you will ever be. His use of examples straddle many fields and thinking and, in some ways, would have supported some of your ideas and approaches.
Again you miss the boat. Too bad, but apparently that is a fairly accurate assessment of your mind, O Master of the fourth dimension.
Stu
When you get around to reading the entire review and the book get back to me. E.O. Wilson is just another "it''s all in the genes" defender, no great shakes, more like old and in the way. The only thing he's straddling is a fence.
You're beginning to sound like the Muslim who reviewed the New Testament. Bigoted and you haven't even bothered to read the book. If that is the reflection of your thinking, then you are no scientist.From his book, which I haven't finished yet: Impressive as universals may be, it is risky to use them as evidence between genes and culture": pg 149. Page 154: " As a cautionary prelude to an answer, let me again stress the limitations of the genetics of human behavior as a whole."
However, I can see how some religious fundamentalists would vehemently disagree. A number of years ago, some geneticists were exploring the idea that being homosexual may be genetically linked. Their entire funding was cut, not because the research was bad, but because, if that was found to be true, the anti gay stance by the church would have no foundation.
E.O. Wilson's book is subtitled the Unity of Knowledge. What I have read so far shows the thoughts of a man who is dedicated to a multidisciplinary approach to an understanding and making sense of the world around us. Human sensory perceptions, language, genes, environment, mathematics, physics, and then some are all an integral part of that understanding. In my reading thus far, he presents a balanced approach, advocating certain theories and presenting evidence to support his thesis, but at the same time presenting caveats.
When you write something better than the time conversion trash you post on the internet maybe you may approach 1% of Wilson's intellect. The man's no Velikosvky. At any rate, it is quite apparent that his ideas are too far above your level.
Stu
PS Wilson, BTW, does discus evolutionary convergence.
Edits: 04/05/11
"E.O. Wilson's book is subtitled the Unity of Knowledge."
Geez, that's kind of a pompous subtitle for a book, doncha think?. A Unified Field Theory for Philosphers.
"What I have read so far shows the thoughts of a man who is dedicated to a multidisciplinary approach to an understanding and making sense of the world around us."
I'm glad someone is.
"Human sensory perceptions, language, genes, environment, mathematics, physics, and then some are all an integral part of that understanding."
Oh, boy, that's kind of what I was afraid of. LOL
"In my reading thus far, he presents a balanced approach, advocating certain theories and presenting evidence to support his thesis, but at the same time presenting caveats."
I certainly hope he presents a balanced approach. After all, the subtitle of his book is The Unity of Knowledge. Let me know if you get to the parts about the theory of morphic resonance or Bohm's Implicate Order.
Caveats are OK, as long as they're not too pushy. LOL
Cheers, GK
I am reading the book and his original words and thoughts. You must have a subscription to Reader's Digest.
Stu
I'm so glad you are reading his original words and thoughts. I hope your head doesn' t explode from all those original words and thoughts. I'm waiting for the E.O. Wilson for Dummies to come out, myself.
Sidenote - am I seeing things or is Enophile out of rehab and stalking me again?
Allowing a book into his apartment would alter the information field and diminish the sound quality of his imaginary Hi Fi.
On the plus side, he saves lots of money on music and movies....he just reads the reviews and forms an opinion.
Winning!
Quotes from David Bohm, the eminent quantum physicist
> > “One of the early interpretations of the nquantum theory I developed was in terms of a partical moving in a field - the quantum potential . Now the quantum potential had many of the properties ascribed to morphogenetic fields and chreodes, that is, it guided the particle in some way. Now the interesting thing is that the quantum potential energy had the same effect regardless of it’s intensity, so that even far away it may produce a tremendous effect; this effect does not follow an inverse square law. Only the form of the potential has an effect, and not it’s amplitude or it’s magnitude. So we compared this to a ship being guided by radar; the radar is carrying form or information from all around. It doesn’t, within it’s limits, depend on how strong the radiowave is. So we could say that in that sense the quantum potential is acting as a formative field on the movement of the electrons........So there would be a wholeness about the system such that the formative field could not be attributed to that particle alone; it can be attributed only to the whole, and something happening to faraway particles can affect the formative field of other particles........So I think that if you attempt to understand what quantum mechanics means by such a model you get quite a strong analogy to a formative field.” < <
More from David Bohm on his vision of a world of “unbroken wholeness”:-
> > “The universe was a vast dynamic cobweb of energy exchange, with a basic substructure containing all possible versions of all possible forms of matter. Nature was not blind and mechanistic, but open-ended, intelligent and purposeful, making use of a cohesive learning feedback process of information being fed back and forth between organisms and their environment. Its unifying mechanism was not a fortunate mistake but information which had been encoded and transmitted everywhere at once.” < <
David Bohm has postulated that all information was present in some invisible domain, or higher reality (the implicate order) but active information could be called up, like a fire brigade, at time of need.
David Bohm’s last sentence is the one I really like – “that all information was present in some invisible domain, or higher reality (the implicate order) but active information could be called up, like a fire brigade, at time of need.” !!
David Bohm is not the ONLY scientist beginning to see that “the information is there, to be called up when needed” !!!! He is not the only scientist having to begin to realize that the world (Nature if you like) is not neatly packaged as 19th and 20th Century science would have you believe !! And, we (human beings) are in the middle of all this !!
Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: