|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: Re: It's simpler than that. posted by Posy Rorer on March 19, 2007 at 18:13:33:
Hi Posy. This is your first post, I notice. Did May dig you up and get you to post in an effort to save face? If so, then she made a mistake, since she did a far better job defending herself than you have done defending her. I'm not going to waste much more time on this, but it won't take time to dispatch you and your specious arguments.>>The "mechanism" to which you are referring doesn't alter our surroundings. The hypothesis is that it alters our perception of our surroundings.<<
Yes, but there must still be a mechanism. My point--which is transparent--is that you cannot affect a person's 'perceptions' in the absence of some sort of mechanism to act ON THE MIND. I didn't say, nor did I intend to say, anything about the surroundings. May has already said that the Belt products work even if you don't know they're present, that even subconscious awareness is not required. So they influence the brain...how, exactly? By what mechanism do they influence your perceptions? Hence the "threat field" that I hypothesized.
It was May, not me, who introduced the idea that the cable was somehow a 'threat,' and that putting a cable on risers made it less threatening. I suggested the snake analogy only as a way of understanding the nature of the "threat"--since no other reasonable explanation was on offer. And your explanations make no more sense than hers--less in fact. Why would separating two things that didn't exist in our evolutionary history reduce the "threat"? In evolutionry terms their very existence, let alone their existence in proximity, are irrelevant. Why, for that matter, would a cable on carpet be perceived as a threat, while a stereo system, or the electricity that makes it work or floor polish, or the chemicals in the fabric or leather of your listening chair, or even musical instruments--none of which have existed for an evolutionarily relevant period of time--NOT be perceived as threats? It's an empty theory; it has no content. It seems to me nothing more than a feeble attempt at a theoretical explanation for which a far simpler explanation is available: the exhaustively demonstrated, ubiquitous fallibility of human perceptions. The rest is gloss.
Posy, you are ignorant, and you do May no favors by trying to defend her, even if she requested it. In our interactions she managed to maintain a certain nobility. So do her a favor and leave off. Let this die. I will waste no more time with this.
Jim Austin
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: It's simpler than that. - Jim Austin 20:17:23 03/19/07 (1)
- Re: It's simpler than that. - Posy Rorer 00:36:45 03/21/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
