|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
80.177.28.171
In Reply to: RE: Consilience (long) posted by unclestu on April 08, 2011 at 17:02:28
>> “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.
Follow Ups:
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
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: