| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Instead of having brought "fear" into the debate, I guess we could have benefitted from using the term "alert" instead. This is the actual state where we sense things unknown to our conscious mind as far as I know.
This is why it was interesting, this went beyond experience as the visual fall test was used on infants with the condition.
This comes back to my point that once infants can determine depth perception and/or discrepency such as crawling on solid air (due to not understanding glass so could possibly be argued fear of the unknown in some situations) they refuse to cross the deeper width, however the infants with the condition did not care.
Now it may be possible to argue the case about the infants still learnt about falling even when study was careful in infant selection.
But then there are other possible studies that tie in with predisposed fear such as the additional links.
This condition is really rare, from what I remember they do not feel pain even for lethal damage.
So their upbringing requires not only special attention but also some sort of cognitive training to help them adapt to various scenarios that can cause damage or kill them.
Anyway the study was quite awhile ago, just wanted to add that it may be possible some fears are not learnt from experience, as possibly indicated at a high level by those links.
That is not saying there is a wide range of instinct/fears applicable though to this mechanism, and I am sure more still needs to be done in studies.
Cheers
Orb
Edit:
Ah well if lucky it may appear on House M.D. its wierd enough condition
[quote "Instead of having brought "fear" into the debate, I guess we could have benefitted from using the term "alert" instead. This is the actual state where we sense things unknown to our conscious mind as far as I know."
Quite often, Keld, it is other people who introduce the word 'fear' into the discussion, just as Elk has done. He has just interpreted my "signing off on the environment as safe." as a being a case of having "fear" until the environment can be signed off as 'safe' i.e = then no fear.
Whereas I see us (human beings) acting no differently to my illustration of a body's temperature (that is why I am using that particular comparison) - that is monitoring constantly their environment and if they cannot 'sign it off as safe', then they go under tension and remain under tension until they can !!
So, I quite agree with you. The word "alert" is far more appropriate. One would never use the expression being 'constantly fearful' to describe the body's constant monitoring of the temperature of it's environment - one would use the words - being 'constantly on the alert'.
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Thank you. Alert is the state you'll need to survive, for instance in the wild on your own. Fear will just get you killed. 1) You don't think rationally and 2) you keep sending out feromones or whatever they are called.
Transferred to audio listening, alert will let you hear everything you can possibly hear, but fear will occupy your mind and keep you away from any good experience(-s).
It is known that being in a state of calmness and collectedness, you have easier access to the subconscious mind, and all the information hidden there. In a state of the opposite (fear?) you have only one goal: To survive, and the most primitive part of your brain is more active than any other part, releasing lots of adrenaline. Not a good state to listen to audio, perhaps unless you like death metal.
It is my understanding through much experimentation and reading that the Belt devices operate because the individual is in a constant state of anxiety, for lack of a better word. I'm not talking about the anxiety we feel when we have a deadline coming up at work or the car just ran out of gas on the highway, but something that is deeper, more primal. Of course, we are not conscious of the anxiety I'm referring to, which is an inherited response to danger, because that is our normal state - unless perhaps we have the luxury of living on a deserted island somewhere. So, when we sit down and listen to music it sounds pretty much as it always does, not too bad. We are not aware of any anxiety since it is below the conscious mind. Yet, at the same time, there might be a little bit of suspicion, perhaps, that the sound should be better than it is. This nagging suspicion remains even as we improve things, obtaining better and better components, speakers, cables, room tweaks, etc.
Now, I know what you're thinking, what is causing this anxiety that's preventing us from hearing the sound properly? Well, there are a great many reasons for the anxiety. If there were only one or two then things would be manageable. Heh heh The fact that there are so many reasons for the anxiety is precisely why there are so many Belt products - more than 60! Each Belt device - by and large - addresses a separate cause or issue related to the type of anxiety I'm referring to -- the more of these various causes of primal anxiety that are addressed, the better the sound becomes. The sound is in the room all the time, we just cannot hear it fully or properly because the subconscious mind is continually detecting cues of danger -- let's call them [false positives.
Generally speaking, the anxieties are produced by the sensing of an INTRUDER, an interloper, a home invader. This highly refined sensitivity to DANGER that humans developed as a survival mechanism very early during the Dawn of Man allowed him to sense and react appropriately to the dangers of predators such as saber tooth tigers and bears.
Furthermore, it is the sensing of danger that produces the fight or flight response, AKA acute stress response, and this fight or flight response diminshes and distorts the human's sensory perceptions as his other skills such as escaping or fighting take priority.
As the listener is "reassured" that everything is OK, using Belt devices, that there's no imminent threat of being eaten or other danger, his natural primal anxiety is diminshed and his sensory perception improves. He does not "feel" anything as all this "inherited evolutionary behavior" is below his conscious mind.
"On the plains of the Kalahari you don't have to be able to outrun a lion, you just have to able to be a little bit faster than the slowest guy."
"You can't kill kill." - Charles Manson
I can't say I disagree. With this Generally speaking, the anxieties are produced by the sensing of an INTRUDER, an interloper, a home invader. I thought you were speaking of spouses, lol
I hate to judge before all the facts are in, but I suspect you've got more to be anxious about from the air conditioner guy... if you know what I mean.
True! Not to mention the cable guy!
No offense intended. It was an honest question.
You specified non-organic as man-made. From your list of materials, including plastics, it appeared to me that you were listing man-made products that affect perception. The fact that they are man made is the common trait among them.
So, what man-made products negatively affect our perception of sound and what is the mechanism?
For example, is it your opinion that plastics affect our perception? How? What is the mechanism?
Synergistics claims the Acoustic ART products directly affect the physical sound in the room. They also claimed these affects can be measured by conventional means. Thus, with respect to the ACoustic ART products, they should be making standard measurements, such as of a room's frequency response, decay rates, etc. before and after inclusion of the products. Nothing out of the ordinary.
Do you have a suggestion as to what else should be measured that would reveal the impact of the devices?
{Regarding evolution: There is noting in evolutionary theory that posits that a plant or animal will evolve to the point it cannot get sick, poisoned or injured. Rather, characteristics that assist survival and reproduction are favored by natural selection.)
Thanks, Geoff. Great summary of your understanding of Belt theory.
The phrase "a constant state of anxiety" seems to me to be a phrase well suited to the Belt concept of "signing off on the environment as safe."
It is statements such as this that makes me think of fear. A threat of being eaten induces fear of a specific danger - not a generalized existential angst.
This is where the theory does not make sense to me on its face.
In each of these cases the invader or saber tooth tiger is consciously sensed by seeing him, hearing him make noise, smelling his foul odor, etc. These specific warnings provide specific knowledge that allows the person to react appropriately: Run,! Fight,! Investigate and see if it is a threat,! etc.
He can't react to "non-specific anxiety;" in these circumstances - he'll get eaten. Further, if he doesn't consciously know of the threat he won't act at all - dinner time!
Here is what I don't understand. How does the theory get from:
1) anxieties/concern resulting from specific sensed knowledge of particular dangers needed for survival,
to
2) generalized persistent anxiety of which we are wholly unaware which is triggered by various man-made objects, such as bar codes?
How does this leap occur? How does this second condition favor survival and reproduction for it to be evolutionarily favored?
This has got to be an audiophiles number one fear!
EXACTLY. Elk. Why would it ?
We are now back to the very point where Peter and I started along a particular path 30 plus years ago !!!
The very same question we had to ask OURSELVES then - back 30 years ago was - Why would it ????????????
To me, Elk, that is like you saying "How can we conclude I am using energy to maintain a constant body temperature ? Perhaps it just is ?"
There isn't much that JUST IS, Elk !!!!!!!! It may APPEAR to be "just is" - whereas there is a lot of activity 'going on behind the scenes' as it were !!
I can't believe someone who claims to be a scientist (your quote below) :-
Would use the sentence "Perhaps it just is " !!!!!!!!
THAT is the whole problem, Elk, the belief that "Perhaps it just is"
The belief that the body is just sitting there, passively twiddling it's thumbs, until someone jabs it with a stick saying "Hey mate, wake up, the temperature of the environment has just changed"
It is this 'lack of thinking' which is the whole problem i.e not seeing the body as ACTIVELY and constantly monitoring it's environment !!!
It isn't a case of "Perhaps it just is"
Haven't YOU just made MY point for me ???????????? To re-word your sentence slightly to how I would say it - "Would not any animal be monitoring their environment constantly"
Don't tell me we are getting there ? I think the major problem, Elk, is that you are not seeing us (human beings) as just slightly more advanced animals, the result of millions of years of evolution !! With so much of our activity based on what we have inherited over millions and millions of years and yet having to 'cope' within a modern environment.
You are still not understanding. The 'second condition' as you put it is not there to 'favor survival or reproduction' it is there by "default". The 'second condition' happens because the inherited survival instinct is functioning - is monitoring the environment exactly as it is programmed to do - and because of what is in the modern environment the inherited survival instinct cannot make sense of all that it is monitoring. And, if it cannot make sense of all that it is monitoring, then it remains under tension until it can. And, if certain things like SOME plastics (different mixtures of different chemicals) are actually presenting "danger signal" into the room, then 'tension' it is !! In other words, evolution is working as it should, as it is programmed to do - i.e monitoring the environment every millisecond of every second of every minute of every hour of every day !!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Let me see if I can carry on trying to form the basis of some sort of understanding. And I do mean 'basis' - we are still at such a low level of a discussion !!
Continuing to look at the skeleton Concept 1, and to begin to out some bones on it.
Say, hypothetically, we (human beings), up until 150 years ago, had always lived in caves which had a relatively constant temperature throughout the year. So, we (and our bodies) had been used to only having to use (say) 10 units of energy in order to maintain a constant body temperature of 37 C. THIS situation was what could be regarded, then, as normal !!!!!
However, 150 years ago all the caves became full, no others were available, so human beings had to now begin to live on the open plains, in baked mud dwellings, with open apertures.
In those circumstances, now with constant fluctuating environmental temperatures, the body had to now use (say) 25 units of energy in order for it to carry out it's evolutionary 'programming' of maintaining a constant body temperature of 37 C. So, in the year of 2010, this situation (of needing to use 25 units of energy) is now NORMAL !!! We have known nothing different !!! We are used to it. We are coping, yes, but at what cost ????
Surely there is an understandable difference in living in caves and only needing to use 10 units of energy to maintain a constant body temperature and 150 years later living on the open plains, in baked mud dwellings with open apertures and having to now use 25 units of energy to do the same thing ??? Yes, we would still be 'coping' - but at a cost !!
Again, hypothetically, gradually, over those past 150 years, people gained more knowledge about food and produced both a science of Food technology and people specialising in that area, knowing what foods provided what energy - i.e. Expert Food technologists.
One day, (say) in 2010, someone describes how, after fitting some panes of glass and blocks of wood in the open apertures of their dwellings, they find that they suddenly have far more energy available, to do the things they enjoy doing !!
The Food technology people, steeped in their science of food technology, shriek "It's not possible, you can't get more energy from panes of glass and blocks of wood. If you want more energy you have to eat more FOOD or eat certain specific foods depending on whether you want sudden spurts of energy or prolonged energy. What you are suggesting is ridiculous. You can't get more energy from panes of glass and wooden blocks !! You must have imagined it !!!"
If the food technology people have not experienced what was being described, for themselves, probably because it sounded so ridiculous that they never actually tried, then they would not understand what others were describing. If they stay within their narrow 'food technology' expertise, dismiss other people's experiences, and never find the need to try to explain WHY some others were claiming to suddenly have more energy available - from EXACTLY the same food they have always been eating - then it is not surprising that they can remain so 'closed in mind'.
For the people who HAVE experienced suddenly having more energy from fitting panes of glass and blocks of wood in the open apertures, THEY have to begin to "think" - to try to explain WHY !!!! Because the answer is not in the Food Technology text books, even though the subject is about 'more energy' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because it is the human being who is "having the more energy", you have to begin to consider just WHAT is the 'human being' programmed to do, by evolution, which could explain what was being claimed ?
So, in the situation described you have:-
1) Some Food technologists who have not tried the technique of fitting panes of glass and wooden blocks in the open apertures to gain an increase in energy because, to them, the suggestion appears ridiculous.
2) Some Food technologists who HAVE tried the technique but their experience is that they register no increase in energy available.
3) Some Food technologists, fully conversant with that science but who HAVE tried the techniques, HAVE registered having far more energy available, know that their specialist Food training is not explaining WHY, so have to search other areas to find some kind of explanation.
The answer they COULD, POSSIBLY come up with is :-
After millions and millions of years of evolution, the living environment had begun to change around 150 years ago. In 2010, things had not improved, in fact things (the temperature variations of the environment) had got much worse from how it had been 150 years ago. But, this environment (in 2010) had become the NORM - human beings had been managing to 'cope', yes, - but in 'coping' were paying a 'price' !!! The price of constantly having to use 25 units of energy to maintain what evolution (what Nature) had imposed on them - i.e. The necessity to maintain a constant body temperature of 37 C !!!!
No one can suddenly claim that "Oh, the fluctuations in temperature does not affect ME. I am immune from such evolutionary pressures. My living environment is hunky, dory - without fitting panes of glass and wooden blocks in the apertures - no problems in that respect."
The temperature of the environment IS affecting us ALL !! Some people MAY deal with the fluctuations in temperature by using the food route (the traditional way) - i.e having more hot (or cold) food, hot soups in the cold, cold salads in the heat, but make no mistake, we would ALL be having to 'deal with' the problem one way or another. But, try telling the Food technologists that you could ALSO achieve having more energy - from exactly the SAME food - by fitting panes of glass and wooden blocks in the open apertures and you will be met with ridicule, mockery, disbelief and attack !!!!!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
One very important thing (IMO):
We don't invent windows and walls to gain or conserve more energy, we do it because we are cold, and because it feels better to be warm! The catalyst is well-being - as always. Same in audio and in everything else.
Otherwise an interesting example. It's very much a fabricated example, but never the less it shows a point, to which I have to agree. At least seen in the big picture.
Some people are more relaxed/calm/cool/collected/un-alert than others, but we cannot just click a switch and stop acting like the cavemen we basically are. We still have the reptile brain! Besides I am certain we still have all the same mechanisms as the proto human, some may be weakened, but I bet they are all still there.
Yes, it is a fabricated story. I make no apologies for using a story to get a point across. The great Richard Feynman would tell a story at the drop of a hat, as does the scientist Michio Kakoo.
By that I am not claiming to be a scientist I am just using the same tactic because it happens to be a good tactic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By the way, I am fully aware of WHY we invented windows and doors !!
The other point I was trying to make with my story was using the example that 150 years ago the environment was different to the modern environment now. We somehow coped then, and we are coping now - but at a greater cost !!
And, that if you want explanations, you sometimes have to look out of your own specialised knowledge.
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Exactly, and I also agree there is a cost to coping in a very complex world. Just take a look at how difficult it is to have neighbours!
I accept for purposes of discussion that some experience a difference in sound perception in the presence of plastic packaging. I have not had this experience.
No. It is not the same as body temperature.
I have brown hair; my neighbor, red. Neither expends more energy as a result of hair color. This doesn't mean it isn't without cause. We know it is a result of genetics. But as far as energy expenditure goes, "it just is."
Similarly, basic personality traits (e.g., calmness) have causes (genetics, family, etc.) but personality does not require expending energy.
Of course, someone that gesticulates with his hands and talks a lot spends more physical energy than the taciturn - but this is because of the movement, not the basic personality trait.
I understand the argument.
But how do we know that the body is monitoring for unseen, unheard, unfelt, unsmelled, untasted objects?
How does it sense these things?
If this monitoring helps us avoid/respond to danger - how did ancient dangers (tigers, bears, whatever) trigger these unconscious responses?
How did ancient respond to these ancient dangers, sensed only unconsciously?
That is, what is the mechanism and how was this evolutionarily favored?
No, I did not "specify" non-organic as man made. Here's what I posted ...
I also said ...
You are mixing up my words and coming up with ideas that do not represent what I have put in print. In that post I didn't "specify" any of those products affect perception and I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. Once again, here's the original post ...
Do you see the words "perception" or "man made" in there? You see what you care to see and not what is present. Could this possibly be the root of your misunderstandings?
Why didn't you simply answer my questions instead of asking me more questions? Why do you never answer a question I ask you?
Here's the rest of the question I asked ...
I don't know what to make of conversations with you, Elk.
I already alluded to the fact that sensing can be performed by the mind - mind-matter interaction. In order to outsmart predators man had to develop other abilities -- in addition to the five ordinary senses. Perhaps you have not had the experience of knowing when someone is staring at you, but if you have you might recall how that works. You have the odd sensation, perhaps an anxious feeling, that someone is staring or looking at you, and when you turn around, perhaps absent-mindedly, you observe that someone IS actually staring at you. This is an example of a sense that is not touch, hearing, smell, vision or taste.
It is an excellent question. The short answer is that the bar code is sensed (but not via the 5 ordinary senses) as an intruder (false positive). It is sensed by the mind. It is sensed not only by the listener but by anyone else in the room. Obviously, the bar code is not a real intruder. The reason a bar code is detected as an "intruder" is because the bar code is linked to a great many other similar bar codes in the world, thousands if not millions of them. The sum of all of the bar codes creates an information field, or morphic field. It is this field that is sensed. As if it were an intruder. Information fields, unlike electromagnetic fields, do not attenuate over distance. Cutting out the bar code and cutting it up - or treating the bar code appropriately - breaks the LINK of that bar code to the world-wide morphic field, reducing the anxiety a little bit, a noticeable amount, that the bar code information field produced. The more bar codes that are treated or destroyed the less impact the world-wide field will have on the listener - and the better the sound will become. On a rainy day there's nothing quite as rewarding as locating all bar codes in the house and either cutting them up or treating them.
Epilogue: A similar thing happens with a telephone book - the names and numbers in the telephone book are linked (morphically) to all other similar telephone books in the city as well as other usages of the names/numbers, e.g., bank statements, checks, etc. An easy experiment to try is remove ALL telephone books from the house, place them on the front steps or anywhere outside the building. Then listen to some favorite recordings. See if you don't think the sound is much improved. If there is any doubt, bring the telephone books back inside and listen again.
Ta-ta for now
Either you Do understand, Elk and you are being deliberately obtrusive. It is often a technique used by people who don't want to be made to think !
Or you don't understand !!!
I don't either. YOU, Elk, (as a scientist) should be telling US all this information.
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
http://www.ncse.info/
The way I understand this the NCSE is an advocacy group. Their intent is to combat - on a political level - the teaching and promotion of "intelligent design" - creationism. As a board member you do not need to be well versed in evolutionary theory. Is that right, Elk?
I'm not attacking you - being from Texas and knowing the convolutions of the Texas State Board of Education's far right wing(nut) politics I applaud the effort of the organization from what I see. But you do not need to be a "scientist" or even an anthropologist, sociologist or biologist to be on the board any more than the board members of a regional theatre need to be a director, actor or technician in theatre and in most cases are not.
National Center for Science Education? Any relation to James Randi Educational Foundation? Hmmmmmm....
No need to be snarky, geoff. The center appears to be a legitmate group, just not folks who, as a group - certainly not in the case of the Board of Directors, have to be studying evolution. I think Elk eluded to that in his original message. My question was more to Elk's reference to his position within this group. Other than he gets to ask some cool people some neat questions, why should this be a credential for his understanding of evolution? I'm not trying to put him on the spot, just trying to understand his starting point when he makes statements like, "I have discussed the Belt hypothesis of 'unknown, unrealized, unperceived fears and their resolution through unsensed soothing devices' and the potential impact of such devices on human perception. There is nothing to support such an idea."
I do think Elk tends to misinterpret what is put in front of him and he also has a tendency to make up his own points of debate such as, "... while one may have a spider phobia it is triggered by the knowledge of a spider in the room."
I'm not trying to play any games with Elk, just trying to understand how someone goes about not truly understanding, not answering questions and then jumping to conclusions such as, "You specified non-organic as man-made. From your list of materials, including plastics, it appeared to me that you were listing man-made products that affect perception. The fact that they are man made is the common trait among them", when none of that has been stated and certainly none of that has been "specified".
With the same exasperation as May expresses towards Elk, I don't think a conversation can go forward until I have some idea how he reaches the conclusions he does just to tell me what it is I have (not) said.
Me, snarky? To be serious, it appears from what I can tell the NCSE has an agenda, that agenda is to discredit any point of view that conflicts with their own. To this extent, NCSE is no different from any other foundation which is promoted on the basis of Scientific Truth - e.g., James Randi Educational Foundation. This is exactly the basis of Elk's arguments - that his knowledge and interpretation of the truth and, by extension, the truth of the NCSE, is superior to other (conflicting) interpretations of the truth. For example, if someone mentions Sheldrake, morphic fields or mind matter interaction, I suspect there would be some strong disagreement - at a minmum, some dismissive pooh-poohing - from the anthropologists and evolutionists at NCSE. Kind of like Elk has done, acting more or less as an extension of NCSE. The next step for NCSE: go after controversial audiophile tweaks to prove that their truth is superior to the intelligent designers. Follow?
No, I don't understand how you managed to draw the conclusion the ncse "has an agenda, that agenda is to discredit any point of view that conflicts with their own" just by looking at their webpage. To debate this we're going to go off deep into the woods but you seem to be deciding what the ncse is saying just as much as Elk wants to tell May and me what we're saying when we definitely aren't saying what he's assuming. I would think any organization that output the incorrect assumptions and conclusions that Elk manages wouldn't stand a chance against the serious opposition present in something like the Texas State Board of Education who have a very definite ultra-conservative, evangelical (i.e., get Thurgood Marshall and Thomas Jefferson out of the textbooks and replace them with Newt Gingrich and John Calvin) agenda. Does the ncse have an agenda? Sure, everyone and every group has an "agenda" of some sort. Does the ncse's agenda matter to this discussion? I don't think so and IMO it's unfair to attack them when they are not on this forum.
Elk states he is on the board of the organization. No idea whether he has any standing on the board or is just a board member who occasionally attends meetings when he's not busy with something else. IMO it's a stretch to say you see in the group an agenda to discredit the opposition and, therefore, by "extension" of being a board member Elk is also in the business of discrediting his opposition. This is putting us back in Glenn Beck territory of if Hitler had a mustache and Mother Theresa also had a mustache it follows that Mother Theresa is Hitler; http://www.thedailytube.com/video/23769/nazi-glenn-beck-gets-gassed-by-lewis-black And this seems to me to be just another pre-emptive move to discredit any member of the ncse who even suggests what you want to believe might not be the whole truth. In other words, believe me and not him. Hellllloooooo, B/Beck!
I'm not defending Elk's positions or his decision making process but I think you're denunciation of the organization and by consequence Elk's desire to "discredit" ... ? ... whatever! is a stretch too far. Show me proof that Elk is acting "more or less as an extension of NCSE" and maybe I'll be more receptive to your argument. As is I just see Elk's mention of the ncse as another argument from authority that doesn't really exist or provide any credence to his words since his output IMO tends not to match the input that has been provided no matter who provides the input.
National Review Criticism of NCSE's mission to Stamp Out Creationists in Schools:
NCSE Mission to Stamp out Creationism in Schools
Well, it matters when someone uses the argument that being a member of the board of an organization set up specifically to use Scientific Truth as a weapon to defeat the legions of ignorant rat bastards out there somehow gives him a leg up when it comes to arguing the pros and cons of controversial tweaks.
Of course Elk is trying to discredit the opposition, why else would he be a member of the board?! He finally came out of the closet, as it were, and revealed his close affiliation to the NCSE, as if that's supposed to seal the deal in his attempts to discredit controversial tweaks.
OK, so you're using the National Review, which was started by William F. Buckley, to begin your attack on the NCSE. No agenda there, right?
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/
Then you use an article written by John West to attack the NCSE. John West is linked to the Discovery Institute which has as its agenda the teaching of Creationsim and the abolishment of all "anti-religious" teaching of evolution. Do I have that right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF9B6b2SVoI
Here's one of his articles (emphasis my own)...
Uh? What happened to this, geoff? It was here just a minute ago, posted by you.
Dear Jan,
IGIV Drug Trials have given much hope to those suffering with Alzheimers. Preliminary research has been promising in terms of atrophy and rate of cognitive decline.
Sincerely,
your pal.
I admit being a little torn about posting the last piece but I'm gald you saw it.
A little torn?!
It's propoganda! Meant to feed the mindless bigots who do not do their own thinking.
I thought you were better than that.
Your argument is very persuasive.
Remind me, which side are you on?
Don't smirk at me, geoff, you're the one who began all this with your accusations. Remember, I asked you that same question awhile back and I believe you said only that your comments may have been misinterpreted. Ever since that point you seem to have a bug up your butt about me.
What "side" do you want me to be "on", geoff? You're acting like a petulant little child who isn't getting his way. I haven't disagreed with your stance on any significant point regarding audio. I've disagreed with your conclusions regarding Elk and his attachment to an institution, they border on McCarthyism IMO when you know what someone is thinking simply by knowing (less rather than more) who they associate with. I've also thought little of your boogeyman "proof" the ncse has an agenda when you use decade old articles generated by and solely representing the opinions of a highly politicized organization to attack a group that in and of itself is not represented on this forum. I can see nothing in what you've presented from the National Review or the Discovery Institute to indicate Elk is "discrediting" your thinking, or that of any other individual, simply by his associations with the ncse nor can I find anything to indicate the ncse will be coming after "controversial audio tweaks". I do find propoganda to be distasteful no matter which "side" it comes from and I'm all for doing your own thinking no matter which side you happen to be on. In this case, I think you should have done some more thinking before you headed down this road and had to delete a post you felt "torn" about presenting.
Now, does that put me on the opposite side you would prefer?
.....................
Jan Vigne
All for thinking for yourself
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201006280008
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201006280008
What we don't know is how Elk is PERSONALLY handling the concept that we (human beings) are programmed by evolution to be reading/sensing/monitoring our environment every millisecond of every second of every minute of every hour of our lives.
Elk has earlier focussed on us monitoring purely with the five senses as we know them now, i.e sight, smell, touch, hearing and taste. But I maintain that the necessity to read/sense/monitor the environment constantly was established and in place long before thosefive senses, as we know them, ever evolved.
Logic alone tells us that many of the earliest of creatures must have been successful in reading/sensing/monitoring their environment - because many of them survived - to replicate that successful ability - and we are here now - with that inheritance !!
Regards,
May Belt.
P.W.B. Electronics.
May, are you suggesting we, as evolved human beings, have "X" amount of energy to devote to perception? If so, it is then your position that we are busy devoting "xy" amounts of that energy to receiving and decoding information not gathered by our commonly referred to "five senses"?
(BTW, how's your trip going?)
Since we apparently are drawing "sides" and building "companies" here, I wonder if eric is at all familiar with the Belt thinking. Eric, you would appear to be a candidate for discussion here since you seem to take a rational approach to your audio system.
Well, I guess we'll never know what's going on in Elk's mind as he appears to have gone the way of whatshisname, the dude with all the black ops conspiracies...Elk is not an unpleasant one, but persistent; not too angry, not too smirky. But definitely not on the bus.
"You're either on the bus or off the bus."
"Everyone has to be somewhere."
In all my years on this forum I have never been able to figure out what bus pass Elk has been using.
Perhaps Elk rides on top of the bus?
Or under?
Elk, are you out there? Could you explain a few things so this thread can continue?
What I am trying to point out is that exactly as we (human beings) are programmed to be reading/sensing/monitoring the temperature of our environment every millisecond, we are also programmed to be reading/sensing/monitoring our environment, checking each millsecond's reading with the previous readings in order to be able to 'sign off our environment as safe' !! I further maintain that we are unable to do this (i.e sign off our environment as safe) in the modern environment and therefore remain under tension. That remaining under tension means that there will be 'stress chemicals' being produced in our brains.
Regarding your question about the five senses. I also maintain (still using my story of monitoring the temperature of the environment) that the earliest of creatures MUST HAVE ben able to read/sense/monitor the temperature of their environment successfully LONG BEFORE the five senses as we know them now ever evolved.
I have no idea where any of the sensors are or even how many we might have which are monitoring the temperature of the environment on our behalf in order to maintain a constant body temperature of 37 C but logic tells us that we have them !!!!! Somewhere !!!
Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.
Are we expending energy to maintain this monitoring and tension or is there some other mechanism you're referring to? The "stress chemicals" perhaps? If I understand the process correctly, we burn more calories when we are under extremes of temperature or in a tense environment. If it is just the stress chemicals, what are they doing that affects our perception?
Going back a ways to restart a conversation ...
Humans are programmed to perceive meaning in music and we hear music even where it does not exist. Listening to a grove full of cicadas you can hear the rhythms, the call and response and the syncopations in the beating of hundreds of individual pairs of wings. It's doubtful the insects are aware of any of those elements we associate with music but we subconciously perceive those same elements we find in Charlie Parker to the harmonious consonance we hear coming from a bunch of bugs. Just as humans are programmed to see faces in inanimate objects; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/11/unexpected-faces-in-inani_n_609474.html we can't help but find our subconcious mind at work when we hear or experience what we call "Western music".
We're probably all familiar with the major and minor sound in music and possibly the effect of the "blue" note which was banned from music as being "The Devil's Note" due to its perceived effect on human desire. If you can listen to John Lee Hooker's syncopation in "Boogie Chillun" and not tap your feet, you're probably half dead. Moving from the I to the IV to the V chord adds tension while moving from the V to the I chord provides resolution to our expectations. Listening for the 1-3 vs the 2-4 beat might be an interesting experiment for someone familiar with rock and roll and certainly anyone listening to jazz; http://tripatlas.com/Downbeat Anyone using modes in music is playing on the subconcious associations present in all Western cultures.
If you've heard a cartoon soundtrack where the violins sound comical and later the violins sound menacing, you're experiencing the modes at work on your subconcious. So, does it matter? It can't help but matter.
The problem, Jan, is knowing who CAN 'go along with' the concept of reading/sensing/monitoring the environment every millsecond.
Who thinks it is "most likely"
Who thinks it is "quite likely"
Who thinks it is "likely"
and Who thinks it is "not likely".
Because THAT concept is basic to further underswtanding.
I especially used the hypothetical story of monitoring the temperature of the environment to get across :-
1) A concept that soemthing could have changed around 150 years ago. In my temperature story, it was that the minimal fluctuation in environmental temperature changed 150 years ago to increased fluctuations in environmental temperatures causing us (human beings) to have to use more energy - because of how our bodies had been programmed by evolution.
2) That someone's experiences of suddenly having more energy from inserting panes of glass cannot be explained by teh Food technologist's expertise in Food - however great their knowledge of food and which foods provide energy. Understanding had to be sought "outside their box" when others were describing having more energy !!
This hypothetical example was to illustrate how it has it's comparison with the audio industry. How many who have expertise in electronics and acsoutics claim to know all about 'sound' and yet others are describing hearing changes in their sound which the 'experts' cannot explain !!
In my (temperature) story I used the example of having to use more energy to deal with a changed living environment but I am not particularly also implying having to use more energy now to 'deal with' the modern environment in comparison with 150 years ago.
The crucial part is the basic evolutionary requirement of reading/sensing/monitoring our environment every millisecond of our lives !!
Going back to my 'temperature' story.
For the body to detect a change happening in the temperature of the environment, a reference point - a reference memory of stabilitgy has to be there, in the first place - for any change to be registered as a change.
For example. For the body to detect at 12.00 that the temperature in the environment has changed, there has to have been a memory of the temperature being static/stable at 11.59, at 11.58, at 11.57 !! Otherwise no change can be detected at 12.00. Then, at 12.00, sensing a change, the body does what it is programmed to do.
Now, extending that concept to reading/sensing/monitoring the living environment in order to be able to 'sign it off as safe', exactly the same situation has to be in place - there has to be a memory of static, stable 'readings' !!
In other words, there has to be static,stable 'readings' at 11.57. at 11.58, at 11.59, and at 12.00 for us (human beings) to be able to constantly 'sign off our environment as safe'.
MY concept is that, in the modern environment, there is TOO MUCH movement, so NO static/stable 'readings' can be established !!
And, as Nature dictates, via evolution, if NO stability can be registered then we remain under tension until stability c\an be registered. And remaining under tension means that some associated 'stress chemicals' will be created in the brain.
To be continued (I can only get access to the internet intermitantly where we are centred on holiday).
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Keep on trying!
Regards Keld
Slightly off topic, but what isn't on this thread-
I'm beginning to think people are losing thier emotional responses to musical modes. Recently I helped some friends pick music for thier wedding. They got married at the Basilica here in Minneapolis and were given a well-produced menu CD of all the music options that the staff at the church could provide for thier ceremony. To help them out, I went through the CD's and then made some suggestions. We then sat down to listen to the pieces together so they could hear the pieces I thought might work.
I played for them a number of pieces for the processional and recessioanl that were clearly in a Major mode. However they thought a few of these pieces sounded mad or angry. This really surprised me. I think they both responded to the orchestration and timbre of the pieces instead of the music's modality. They consistently thought that large, loud and tonally brash works, while still in major, sounded angry to them.
I think that popular music in general is moving further and further away from linking modality and emotion in the way other Western music does. My guess is that the musical modes may have some intrinsic quality on effecting human emotion, but much of it is learned and conditioned. It makes me wonder if we might someday lose our emotional reactions to Major and Minor modes in the same way the general population has lost its sympathy for the ancient modes of the Greeks and Mediaeval music...
Or if we're losing our (soft) emotions in general?
Pages