PEAR?

Weren't they closed in 2007 after 28 years of finding nothing?

http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN07/wn021607.html

Cheers, John

Quote:
Dear John, I hate to judge before all the facts are in, but Bob probably didn't, uh, look hard enough.

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html

Hi Geoff
Did you look at the publication dates at the link you provided?

One published in 2006, three in 2005, two in 2004, and not a thing in the years 2007, 2008, or 2009.

If you click on the link "Future" on the website, you get this:

PEAR has now concluded its experimental operations at Princeton University. After nearly three decades of systematic empirical study....

It would appear that Bob Park is entirely correct with respect to the demise of PEAR. The fact that somebody has re-issued a 1987 book and are calling it an "update" just means somebody's trying to recoup investment. Can't blame em...

Cheers, John

So this is the future of remote controls? No need even to flex those few finger and arm muscles not already atrophied, eh? And everyone thought all those folks in the Matrix were forced into being hooked up to the machines power plant? Au contrare, in the future we will volunteer.

Quote:

Quote:
Dear John, I hate to judge before all the facts are in, but Bob probably didn't, uh, look hard enough.

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html

Hi Geoff
Did you look at the publication dates at the link you provided?

One published in 2006, three in 2005, two in 2004, and not a thing in the years 2007, 2008, or 2009.

If you click on the link "Future" on the website, you get this:

PEAR has now concluded its experimental operations at Princeton University. After nearly three decades of systematic empirical study....

It would appear that Bob Park is entirely correct with respect to the demise of PEAR. The fact that somebody has re-issued a 1987 book and are calling it an "update" just means somebody's trying to recoup investment. Can't blame em...

Cheers, John

Pear found a lot of different things and described a multitude of anomalies.

Your mental orientation, John, seems to center quite strongly around the Copenhagen interpretation of science, discovery and reality, which states (paraphrasing) that reality only exists if science has quantified and measured it in a specific way, with a predefined set of rules. Pardon me, but such a statement is quite ridiculous.

Point being, that PEAR found an incredible number of things, but they are things that rationalists and realists cannot psychologically wrap their heads around. Too threatening to their mental basis.

What we end up coming to (to follow the logical trail of the origins of such a mental orientation) , is a mental design and deep psychology issue that scientists and specifically those who dwell in realism cannot emotionally or psychologically accept and this is affecting their ruminations on the conceptual aspects of complex reality. This fully blocks their capacity to explore these complex and involved ramifications for the interpretation and descriptive for emergent science.

Thus, IMO, your statement that Pear found nothing at all- when in fact they found considerable information and data of a powerfully anomalous nature. The kind of things that the intrepid person can explore but the realist is constricted and internally turned away from, unknowingly, via the the very emotional basis of human thought. An emotional set and orientation that blocks them from attempting to fathom such things. The psychological blockage of the realist is so endemic to their mental state that they cannot even fathom what the hell I'm talking about. Impasse - all deep in their mind, not mine, or that of the folks who constituted PEAR, or the likes of Hal Puthoff.

Too bad for them. Too bad for you, John. You tilt at this windmill all the time, and we've had numerous arguments on the DIY Audio forum of this specific nature and I have outlined the core issues in front of you in multiple ways and shapes, vectors, over and over yet you still tilt in the exact same way. This should point out to you that there is an internal interpretation issue surrounding your acceptance of types of data sets, and all that is associated with them. Your internal definition of reality and how your balance your psychological origins against it is deeply connected to this issue and I have said so over and over again. Yet the blockage is of the type that disallows for this understanding to enter your conscious thinking patterns and methodology of logical analysis.

Once again, my favorite quote about engineers, created in the middle ages, when the term engineer was created, which is : "Hoisted by his own petard".

You can't see it, your ass is getting in the way.

What I'm saying is that there are books on the shelf, entire libraries of them that can help you get past this internal phenomenon you are dealing with. You just have to get yourself to read all of them and attempt to integrate and sift through their data sets. It becomes near impossible to do so when your mental faculties are frightened to death of what you might find. And, since the internal mental voice that we use to process and create logic by is an emotionally based hindbrain function, we find that logic and limits on such are created by emotions. Which comes down to the thing about getting you to pick up the book first and then accepting the data sets so you can sift through them.

Sooner or later when we explore the concepts and considerations of the fabric of reality that science propose it is exploring, we find things that very seriously challenge our concepts of internal nature that give us a point in which to stand, psychologically. Logic is specifically not the only formative factor of human existence --it stands, turtle like, on the back of the emotional basis of human existence and is thus swayed and colored in the extreme by our base and unspoken inner turmoils and origins.

Scientist --get thee to a nunnery. See a psychiatrist.

Quote:
Dear, John, I was not arguing that PEAR was not ended a couple years ago - everyone knows that. What Bob - and you - seem to be ignoring is the wealth of data PEAR generated during their existence.

I see things published.

I do not see any indication whatsoever that what they published had any scientific merit. My definition of "merit" is simply that which is repeatable, testable, and verifiable, without regard to my beliefs or desires. If any corroboration comes along that verifies anything they have published, that'd be great.

As for data, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Anything written under the "guise" of science must be rigorously tested by people who were not the article authors...that is normal, and is needed to separate science fiction from science fact.

Quote:
Have you read any of the publications? I thought not.

Whoa. kinda quick to judge there, eh Geoff?

Quote:
So, your statement suggesting that PEAR did not produce anything during their 28 years of existence is simply false - with a bullet.

Actually, if you read the link I posted, you would have seen that it was Bob Park who stated that. I was kind enough to provide the link to his statement, just as you were kind enough to link to the PEAR website.

There is a distinction between producing words on paper, and producing content which is worthwhile. Correlation does not prove causality. Many people either forget this, or do not understand it.

Why was PEAR "de-existanced" if it was producing?

Cheers, John

Quote:
Point being, that PEAR found an incredible number of things, but they are things that rationalists and realists cannot psychologically wrap their heads around. Too threatening to their mental basis.

Actually, they were closed out because the check writers found no output which merited continued funding..and guess what? I had nothing to do with that decision...

It is also a fact of life that there will be many who attack those of other viewpoints by attacking the people who disagree, spouting such things as ""but they are things that rationalists and realists cannot psychologically wrap their heads around""... In other words, attack the person, not the idea.

Know anybody who does that??

Quote:
Too bad for them. Too bad for you, John. You tilt at this windmill all the time, and we've had numerous arguments on the DIY Audio forum of this specific nature and I have outlined the core issues in front of you in multiple ways and shapes, vectors, over and over yet you still tilt in the exact same way.

Honestly, you talk too much. This post is a good example. Pages and pages of non-linear speak, where it would be far more concise to limit your personal attacks to say, a paragraph or so??

I love these "engineers are stupid, engineers are dumb, engineers are "whatever"... All posted using a technology put together by....hmmmm....engineers?

Go figure.

Cheers, John

ps...ya know, that was kinda dumb of you. Incorrectly attributing Bob's statement to me...didn't you read the link?

I think you gotta switch to decaf there...

Happy Holidays...

Once again, John , you avoid the core issue. I will not go down this road again with you.

However, I will say that of all the people whom I tried to get to look at such internal issues, whom I engaged on the DIY audio forum on this specific subject, your responses have always been the least inflammatory The point about the impasse in the mind, however, remains intact. Even if your position is moderated via a less inflammatory interactive with others, your internal impasse is seemingly there and and is as solidly intractable as it was on day one of the discussion.

It should be noted that a narrow polarized viewpoint has no other choice than to create a narrow and polarized reality.

Quote:
Once again, John , you avoid the core issue.

And what was the core issue??? Blind acceptance of all that is written? Or, blind acceptance of what YOU tell me to accept?

Quote:
I will not go down this road again with you.

Wow. That was easy..

Thank you.

Cheers, John

Quote:
"Why was PEAR "de-existanced" if it was producing?"

Because they all retired (from Princeton). Including the Dean of the Princeton Engineering School, who was the head of PEAR. Make sense?

Good, you researched it. I already knew this..

Tenure is a double edged sword, isn't it?

And...an ENGINEER???? sheesh, just ask KBK about them things...

Pray tell why was the program stopped by the loss of a few individuals?? Surely those who wrote the checks saw that the program was far bigger than the individuals??? No??

Geoff, it's just so much fun pinging you...

In reality, funding comes, funding goes...and many times it has no relationship with merit.

Have a happy holiday Geoff..

Cheers, John

Quote:
"Why was PEAR "de-existanced" if it was producing?"

Pray tell why was the program stopped by the loss of a few individuals?? Surely those who wrote the checks saw that the program was far bigger than the individuals??? No??

Geoff, it's just so much fun pinging you...

In reality, funding comes, funding goes...and many times it has no relationship with merit.

Have a happy holiday Geoff..

Cheers, John

Read my post here:

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=79455&an=0&page=0#Post79455

It is most definitely tied to such things. Reality is obviously more complicated and interconnected than the average logical analysis will allow for, which is why the truth of it emerges slowly, over may years with large and complex data sets that can take years to sift through. The answers themselves, when reached - are overwhelmingly and breathtakingly simple.

The given individual's lack of capacity, the given internal blockage to acceptance of the conceptual basis has always been the heart of the issue. I am only overly verbose and/or blathering to those who won't look. Many others find considerable merit in what I say and find considerable food for thought and exploration. Meaning, they can accept what the organized letters on the page attempt to communicate. You, however, do not seem to. Thus it can appear as so much irrelevant blather.

In subjects which we have an interest in, we will explore and engage in analysis of complex and varied data sets. We will go through the analysis and find something that warms our little hearts. If this was not so, we would have no exploration of science. We do 'science' because we find it pleasurable. No other reason.

When the data sets threaten the mental position then we do not explore, and we ridicule or force a 'prove it' mode upon the other person (if any) that may be involved in the discourse or analysis, and we will actively search for a negative response -for them, for the opposing view. We search for that negative view to be realized as it satisfies our emotional core, in the same way our heart is warmed by things that reinforce our worldview. This is how logic can be dashed against the rocks via emotional involvement and control of our given faculties of analysis.

A key point of intrepid exploration of science and cutting edge phenomena, is that - one cannot be afraid of smashing one's paradigm to pieces, and having to rebuild it again.

I keep speaking the psychological issues regard this subject as this is the crux of the matter. Not the logic, not the data sets, not the indicated directions of the data, nothing of that nature.

Just the psychological issues. That is the whole ball of wax that surrounds this particular subject matter.

Specifically, that old saw about the complete and real question must be correctly framed and understood before the answer can unfold.

Quote:
John - Glad to see you're now agreeing with me that PEAR disbanded, not because they didn't produce anything, as you suggested, but simply because the principals retired.

Actually, I didn't agree with you. I simply pointed out that grants and funding in general are difficult to get and maintain.

Imagine if an entire mathematics or art program at a university closed up shop because one person retired. Programs which are considered to have merit will continue onward regardless of one, two, or more individuals.

The fact that PEAR dissolved when some retired says a lot about how it was viewed.

Quote:
"""In reality, funding comes, funding goes...and many times it has no relationship with merit."""

I know a Strawman when I see it, Part II.

You must be kidding. A statement on my part, providing for the possibility that PEAR was killed for reasons not related to merit, and you are stupid enough to call that a strawman?

You certainly need to read slower, dude..don't shoot a gift horse in the mouth.. (how's that for a norm crosby..)

Cheers, John

Quote:
Read my post here:...

You have GOT to be kidding me.

Please try try try, to keep your "you are an un-enlightened, idiotic engineer-buffoon because you don't agree with me " posts down to something less than the size of "War and Peace".

You've already made it painfully clear that you will attack the intelligence of anybody who doesn't agree with you..

Do so in two sentences or less.. think "green" posts...less energy to write, less energy to read.

You said you'd stop this nonsense...keep your word.

Cheers, John

Quote:

Quote:
Read my post here:...

You have GOT to be kidding me.

Please try try try, to keep your "you are an un-enlightened, idiotic engineer-buffoon because you don't agree with me " posts down to something less than the size of "War and Peace".

You've already made it painfully clear that you will attack the intelligence of anybody who doesn't agree with you..

Do so in two sentences or less.. think "green" posts...less energy to write, less energy to read.

You said you'd stop this nonsense...keep your word.

Cheers, John

PEAR has been debunked so many times this is just tiresome.

What's more, your correspondent here KNOWS it's been debunked. Yet here we go, with the disinformation, and the griefing.

It would appear your correspondent is just opposed to learning, as opposed to anti-learning. Wonder why.

And I here I thought the thread was about lamps for couch potatoes... Come to find out it's about quantum Silly String dynamics getting all tangled up with ones self-image and delusions of reality...

I think I'll go listen to some music. Might help with the headache this forum is inducing.

Quote:
Come to find out it's about quantum Silly String dynamics

String theory is actually really interesting. Jim Gates gave a lecture here on it. He was an excellent lecturer, and kept the audience interested.

And the audience was shall we say, a tough one to please.

Cheers, John

Quote:

Quote:
Read my post here:...

You have GOT to be kidding me.

Please try try try, to keep your "you are an un-enlightened, idiotic engineer-buffoon because you don't agree with me " posts down to something less than the size of "War and Peace".

You've already made it painfully clear that you will attack the intelligence of anybody who doesn't agree with you..

Do so in two sentences or less.. think "green" posts...less energy to write, less energy to read.

You said you'd stop this nonsense...keep your word.

Cheers, John

After all this time, you still moss the point, john. It's not an attack of those who disagree, it's an attack on the incapacity to form logic, logic based on a larger data set. If you don't include all the relevant data, you cannot formulate the question to find the answer.

I accuse you of limiting the data set to create a condition of a preordained answer. An answer that satisfies an emotionally based position, and that you are unaware of it's impact on your logical discourse. That has always been the complaint, from day one. The point that it cannot be recognized by you is the key consideration.

It comes back to that thing I've said on this forum and two others for nearly a decade, which is that: The more difficult and impossible the problem to solve, the more fundamental the mistake in the formulation of the question.

I accuse you of being so self limiting that you cannot even get to the point of understanding the basic existence of the quandary in any shape or form. Thus the "hoisted by one's own petard".

You are seemingly a bit pissy with my original stance and statements in this thread, and that is understandable, and I do regret that. But for the two of us, this is (feels like) round 20 or so.

I accuse you of ignoring the vast and requisite number and types of points in the data set that would allow one to see the questions clearly and to then see the answers. I accuse you of being blocked by the fundamentals of your own mind, the idea of formation of logic and thought, within the confines of your bean. Some questions require more stick rubbing and neural complexity than you allow them, John.

Linear math, thought, and scientific exploration as stated in it's modern form, are not the arbiters of reality - they never were.

I accuse you of -fundamentally-... being afraid.

The kind of situation where one's ass does an end run around one's logical faculties. And when the very formation of thought in the brain arises OUT OF the emotions, out of the murmurs and rustling of the subconscious and the hindbrain, then the coloration of all logical and thought formation is not only possible but it is fundamentally guaranteed.

For if all these sorts of things are correct, John, where the hell does that leave you? It leaves you with a life direction torn down and into nothing, torn to pieces. And that is staggering, for anyone.

You are not unique in this. Most of the linear thinkers in the scientific world are of a similar mental structure, as is most of mankind.

Quote:
When one deals with our anti-tweak, anti-audiophile brethren, he should perhaps keep in mind these timely tidbits from the Introduction to Zen and the Art of Debunkery.

Wonderful!

I was wondering when you'd start the commercial message about tweaks.

Nice lead in!

The Tarot cards predicted this, precisely. They are also quantum devices, when used by the right operator.

Not arbiter of anything, Geoff.

I was actually impressed by your initial restraint as you built toward the inevitable turn toward this becoming a marketing thread.

Otherwise, it would have been an "Open Bar" topic, so it was obvious from the start where you'd go.

This thread was almost - almost - something outside your usual limited repertoire! Nice save, bringing it back home like you did.

Quote:
When one deals with our anti-tweak, anti-audiophile brethren, he should perhaps keep in mind these timely tidbits from the Introduction to Zen and the Art of Debunkery.

Your insinuate that anti-tweak is anti-audiophile is false, and constitutes defamatory behavior toward every scientist interested in audio.

I suggest that you refrain from such offensive, disgusting statements in your marketing literature, like that quoted above.

Quote:

In subjects which we have an interest in, we will explore and engage in analysis of complex and varied data sets. We will go through the analysis and find something that warms our little hearts. If this was not so, we would have no exploration of science. We do 'science' because we find it pleasurable. No other reason.

When the data sets threaten the mental position then we do not explore, and we ridicule or force a 'prove it' mode upon the other person (if any) that may be involved in the discourse or analysis, and we will actively search for a negative response -for them, for the opposing view. We search for that negative view to be realized as it satisfies our emotional core, in the same way our heart is warmed by things that reinforce our worldview. This is how logic can be dashed against the rocks via emotional involvement and control of our given faculties of analysis.

A key point of intrepid exploration of science and cutting edge phenomena, is that - one cannot be afraid of smashing one's paradigm to pieces, and having to rebuild it again.

With respect, the problem with the above argument is that it's one giant 'get out of jail free' card.

No matter how many facts or arguments are marshaled on the other side, one can always respond with "You're just being emotional."

Of course scientists are people, subject to foibles, ambitions, blind spots and the rest. But you can't use that as proof that something exists.

s.

Again....You have GOT to be kidding me.

Keep your posts to a reasonable level. I don't even read your posts anymore...just a sentence or two.

You need to learn how to get your point across...more words does not mean more content..

Quote:
After all this time, you still moss the point, john. It's not an attack of those who disagree, it's an attack on the incapacity to form logic,...

Again, attack the individual...

Please learn how to convey thoughts in a sentence or two.

And learn how to speak to others, not down...

Cheers, John

I don't speak down to you John, you aren't showing your capacity for logic enough respect.

"We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity.... Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do."

Ben Rich, former Head of the Lockheed Skunk Works, in a lecture shortly before he died

Those who refuse to open their minds, no explanation of any kind will ever suffice.

For those who have the capacity to open their minds, no explanation of any kind is ever required.

It can't be dumbed down John. Why you ask for that is beyond me - except it isn't really. I just told you how the mind is wired, how thoughts arise in the mind. As stated, I said you would be incapable of seeing that or dealing with it, as it intrinsically requires and the very initiation of the point of turning the mind and looking toward instead of away....it requires the the change in the mind to begin, first. The core of the mind walks away from it and provides any emotionally shaded logic and contoured thought that is required to slip the lie by the mind. Realizing this is key to dealing with things that make us uncomfortable, specifically the things that we would find would tear down our world view and drastically decrease our mental and psychological comfort.

I've already told you want you need to know and need to be able to get a grip on it, and this, more than a few times..now..across TWO forums, no less. Same blindness. Different forum.

It's not me John, it's not the data, it's not the logic, it's not the ideas, it's not a con, it's not an issue of logical function. It's in your head. ok? It's in your head.

Quote:
I don't speak down to you John...

No? Well, let's look at this post.

Quote:
you aren't showing your capacity for logic enough respect.

So, while I may be able to think logically, I'm certainly not showing it.

Quote:
Those who refuse to open their minds, no explanation of any kind will ever suffice.

So, I am closed minded so cannot ever understand..

Quote:
As stated, I said you would be incapable of seeing that or dealing with it

So I don't have the intellectual capability?

Quote:
I've already told you want you need to know and need to be able to get a grip on it, and this, more than a few times..now..across TWO forums, no less. Same blindness. Different forum.

So, I "can't get a grip on it" I am "blind" to it.

Quote:
It's not me John, it's not the data, it's not the logic, it's not the ideas, it's not a con, it's not an issue of logical function. It's in your head. ok? It's in your head.

What's in my head, you are clueless about. You endlessly run on about why I do not "see the light", why I am incapable of "understanding" anything you want me to believe. All this, entirely based on NOT WHAT I SAID, but on what you are trying to tell me I believe.

You seem content to read any claptrap out there, and if it is couched with enough esoteric terms, you clamp onto it as gospel.

Some people have by virtue of education, or intelligence, or both, have learned to question what they read, and not blindly accept it, like "lemmings". (I do not care if it came from a tenured prof at Princeton.)

You have not demonstrated within your writings, an indicator which would separate you from the "lemmings".

Quote:
It can't be dumbed down John.

Sure it can. What part of "correlation doesn't mean causality" do you not understand? What part of "reproduceability by others" do you not understand?

Poorly quoted out of context:

Quote:
"We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity.... Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do."

Ben Rich, former Head of the Lockheed Skunk Works, in a lecture shortly before he died

Silly kid. We already ARE travelling between the stars. The guys at JPL are STILL amazed that they are receiving data past the heliotrope. The systems were not designed to last that long in the environment.

Cheers, John

I've read a little on the mind lamp and it seems like an intriguing toy. Pity it doesn't actually do anything . By that I mean it does not perform any work or function that could be considered 'useful'

I will concede that it does serve one very useful purpose and that is to provide the likes of Geoff Kait, May Belt and KBK with all the evidence they need for the absolute efficacy of any tweak they read about or invent. It also reinforces their position at the top of the audiophile evolutionary ladder from where they pour scorn on those who will not "open their minds"

KBK used all the same rhetoric on me when I challenged him on the Teo "liquid" cables that he was involved with. I proved beyond all doubt that the cables as constructed were electrically inferior to similar dimensioned copper cables. I'll spell that for KBK, i-n-f-e-r-i-o-r. This of course cast me as a non-thinking dunderhead who can't open his mind to the swirling possibilities of Audio Pseudo-science (KBK has a doctorate in Audio Pseudo-science BTW. From his many meanderings on this site I conclude that he has a quiver of paragraphs numbering in the hundreds that he simply cuts and pastes into his replies, thus achieving an almost perfect level of nonsense. This is the same nonsense that sells tweaks and is of crucial importance.

The lordly tone laced with scientific name dropping has to be mastered if the gear is to be shifted.

Kait, well, what can one say. I feel a bit sorry for the bloke actually. I think he started Machina Dynamica as a dare and it's got away on him. He might even have begun to believe what he claims for his products

And May, dear May. Rupert Sheldrake has got a lot to answer for hasn't he.

It comes down to this on the Stereophile forums. If your first reaction to some tweak or nonsensical product is instant acceptance, regardless of the claims made by the manufacturer, you'll be welcomed with open arms by the likes of Kait, May and KBK and you can all discuss the quantum nature of the resonant electromagnetic sub-nano particle behaviour of the underlying crystalline meta-structure that creates the emotive core matrix leading to the perceptible sweetening of the bass notes coming from the second oboe. If however, you apply a little bit of scepticism (or a lot) and you desire answers of a physical nature as to why the tweak/accessory leads to the perceptible sweetening of the bass notes coming from the second oboe, you will be hounded by the aforementioned and others. Your ability to use reason and ask questions will be derided and you'll eventually tire of the avalanche of meaningless words pouring from the keyboards of the believers. At which point THEY WIN!!!!!!! and they're all primed up and ready to shoot down the next person who has the temerity to challenge their knowledge of all things ethereal.

Just a tip Geoff, there's no need to quote my entire post just to add your meaningless frippery at the end. A waste of bandwidth dear chap....

>>> "If however, you apply a little bit of scepticism (or a lot) and you desire answers of a physical nature as to why the tweak/accessory leads to the perceptible sweetening of the bass notes coming from the second oboe, you will be hounded by the aforementioned and others. Your ability to use reason and ask questions will be derided...... " <<<

It is absolutely amazing how knowledgeable some people claim to be about complete strangers and what level of scepticism they might or might not have !! It is absolutely amazing how such as you Fresh Clip believe you are the ONLY ones who are sceptic - who are the ONLY ones who desire answers of a physical nature desire as to why some 'tweaks' can improve the 'sound' !! If you are referring to me in the paragraph I have quoted I actually go out of my way to ask people to 'reason things out for themselves' !!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>> "If your first reaction to some tweak or nonsensical product is instant acceptance, regardless of the claims made by the manufacturer, you'll be welcomed with open arms by the likes of Kait, May and KBK " <<<

Who, other than such as you Fresh Clip, can REALLY believe that most people have INSTANT acceptance of all 'tweaks' or nonsensical product ??? This presumption on your part is unbelievable and, I might say, appears extremely arrogant. !! As though YOU are the only one blessed with scepticism and intelligence !! Believe me (or not as you choose Fresh Clip) there has been NO ONE more initially sceptical or disbelieving than Peter and I regarding so many of the things we have discovered. You cannot be one of the most skilled engineers in audio - (Peter) - working within conventional electronic and acoustic theories for the first 30 years of his audio working life, aiming constantly for the best sound he could possibly obtain, NOT TO BE absolutely devastated, one day, to find he had the best sound he had ever had in his life - not from 'treating' his 'state of the art' equipment but from 'treating' the central heating radiator, the wall lights, the piano in the corner of the room, the brick fireplace, the perspex lid of the turntable etc, etc !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John Atkinson described his own confrontational surprises extremely well during the open discussion at the 2009 Montreal Show :-

>>> "There are things that boggle my mind in High End audio. There are things that I would like to think I understand (from a technical and engineering point of view) and then something happens which completely blows my mind and it doesn't fit the world view. " <<<

The important part of John's sentence is "and then something happens which completely blows my mind" !!!

I will use only myself as an example and describe something which might put things in context for you. I DO NOT give all 'tweaks' instant acceptance but I can recognise when someone else describes seeing (hearing) similar things to what I have seen and heard.

To give an example out of the world of audio because it seems to be the subject of 'hearing' and audio which provokes the most reaction and antagonism in some people.!

Going back 100 years, if I PERSONALLY had seen fossils of sea creatures at the top of mountains and fossils of other creatures in the rock layers at the bottom of extremely high cliffs and these observations make me aware that the earth MUST BE older than the 6,000 years others were claiming, if I then see different people, in different places, at different times, describing different fossils of sea creatures in different but equally extremely old rock layers and, from their observations, THEY have come to the conclusion also that the subject of the age of the earth has to be looked at again, THEN I would recognise, and understand, what THEY are describing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nothing to do with accepting BLINDLY what others describe, what others believe, what others claim !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If, Fresh Clip, you yourself have NOT experienced something in audio and sound "happening which completely blows your mind and it doesn't fit the world view", then you have not experienced it. Obviously, then, you cannot understand what John and so many others are talking about !! But that does not mean that you should automatically revert to insults and mockery !!

The great scientist Michio Kaku describes it well in one of his books - he describes the people living in a Two Dimensional world as the Flatlanders. He describes how some of the Flatlanders suddenly find themselves in the world of Three Dimensions and, when they go back to the Two Dimensional world and try to describe the wonders they have just seen, the other Flatlanders cannot understand what is being described to them. Only the few other Flatlanders who had been into the world of Three Dimensions would recognise what was being described to them.

More and more people (in the world of audio) are discovering that "there is something adverse taking place in the modern environment which can affect the 'sound' but which cannot be explained from within conventional electronic and acoustic theories". Many are having to revert to referring to it simply as "electronic smog".

In exactly the same way as 100 years ago a few Doctors and Surgeons were AWARE - from their own experiences !!! - that there were what they called 'germs in the air'. They may not have known what those germs were, how many different germs there were, which germs could affect which patients and could only describe their own methods of trying to 'deal with those germs' but, once AWARE, could discuss such a subject with others who had had equal and complimentary experience.
On the other hand there was such as Dr Hughes Bennet, Professor of Physiology who demanded:-
"Where are the germs ?, Show them to us and we will believe . Has anybody seen these germs ?"
and some other Doctors using a silly catch-phrase when they came into a sick room,
"Shut the door quickly, or Professor Lister's germs will get in".

And in July 1882, at the 3rd annual meeting of the America Surgical Association - the anti-Listerians were in the majority, some publicly rejecting the germ theory.

Do not presume, Fresh Clip, that I do NOT have the same (or more) scepticism or intelligence as you !!

>>> "I will concede that it does serve one very useful purpose and that is to provide the likes of Geoff Kait, May Belt and KBK with all the evidence they need for the absolute efficacy of any tweak they read about or invent. It also reinforces their position at the top of the audiophile evolutionary ladder from where they pour scorn on those who will not "open their minds" <<<

I do NOT pour scorn on people. On the contrary, I treat everyone as having a considerable amount of intelligence !! But, yes, I DO ask people NOT to have closed minds - NOT to have permanent blinkers on when considering other people's listening experiences. The general usage of Blinkers on such a race horse is to PREVENT the race horse from being distracted by what is going on around them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The racehorse does not have the choice whether to wear Blinkers or not - but YOU do have that choice !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:
I've read a little on the mind lamp and it seems like an intriguing toy. Pity it doesn't actually do anything . By that I mean it does not perform any work or function that could be considered 'useful'

I will concede that it does serve one very useful purpose and that is to provide the likes of Geoff Kait, May Belt and KBK with all the evidence they need for the absolute efficacy of any tweak they read about or invent. It also reinforces their position at the top of the audiophile evolutionary ladder from where they pour scorn on those who will not "open their minds"

KBK used all the same rhetoric on me when I challenged him on the Teo "liquid" cables that he was involved with. I proved beyond all doubt that the cables as constructed were electrically inferior to similar dimensioned copper cables. I'll spell that for KBK, i-n-f-e-r-i-o-r. This of course cast me as a non-thinking dunderhead who can't open his mind to the swirling possibilities of Audio Pseudo-science (KBK has a doctorate in Audio Pseudo-science BTW. From his many meanderings on this site I conclude that he has a quiver of paragraphs numbering in the hundreds that he simply cuts and pastes into his replies, thus achieving an almost perfect level of nonsense. This is the same nonsense that sells tweaks and is of crucial importance.

The lordly tone laced with scientific name dropping has to be mastered if the gear is to be shifted.

Kait, well, what can one say. I feel a bit sorry for the bloke actually. I think he started Machina Dynamica as a dare and it's got away on him. He might even have begun to believe what he claims for his products

And May, dear May. Rupert Sheldrake has got a lot to answer for hasn't he.

It comes down to this on the Stereophile forums. If your first reaction to some tweak or nonsensical product is instant acceptance, regardless of the claims made by the manufacturer, you'll be welcomed with open arms by the likes of Kait, May and KBK and you can all discuss the quantum nature of the resonant electromagnetic sub-nano particle behaviour of the underlying crystalline meta-structure that creates the emotive core matrix leading to the perceptible sweetening of the bass notes coming from the second oboe. If however, you apply a little bit of scepticism (or a lot) and you desire answers of a physical nature as to why the tweak/accessory leads to the perceptible sweetening of the bass notes coming from the second oboe, you will be hounded by the aforementioned and others. Your ability to use reason and ask questions will be derided and you'll eventually tire of the avalanche of meaningless words pouring from the keyboards of the believers. At which point THEY WIN!!!!!!! and they're all primed up and ready to shoot down the next person who has the temerity to challenge their knowledge of all things ethereal.

Spot on Fresh Clip. The amount of insanity here is beyond belief.......or should I say IS the belief system here. By the way NOT responding to any silly replies by the inmates here so flame away, I just don't care

Thanks David. You know, when you have tweakers on the forum in the Kait and Belt league, you're in trouble.

A simple Google search of PWB, Geoff Kait, or May Belt will show the amount of support these people and their products have outside the rarefied atmosphere of the loony end of the "high end".

For the record May, yes I concur that many scientific discoveries have been ridiculed and attacked by the establishment. This side of herd mentality is unavoidable when you ask people to shift their thinking in giant steps. However, many of those giant steps have been painfully researched and proven to be fact. Many of these discoveries have changed the world and enabled massive leaps of understanding beyond the original idea. What you and your Husband have "discovered" seems to do nothing more than produce a subjective improvement in the "quality" of audio coming from a domestic HiFi set. No other benefits of any nature have been proven. The fact that the one single benefit lives inside the head of the listener makes it of very dubious value where great ideas/inventions are concerned. When you show someone a product of PWB, maybe the "Quantum Clip", I and many other people see a cheap alligator clip, a length of twisted wire and a small neodymium magnet glued to the end. I laughed out loud the first time I saw it. Then the explanation of its workings added more hilarity to the situation.

Now I am not in the position of being able to tell you what to think or perceive so I'll accept the astounding effects that you perceive as being real to you. From my own perspective however, until I see some sort of real world confirmation of the effect of this "device" I will continue to refuse the idea that an assembly such as this with three dollars or less worth of components could do anything other than give you a nasty pinch on your finger.

Show me something outside of your head that proves it's efficacy! How about a *shudder* double blind test? Randi will accommodate you

Then when your assertions are proven you will be able to include yourselves in the glowing hall reserved for ahead-of-their-time thinkers like Galileo and Darwin.

"99.9999% of what affects our reality will be undetectable by our senses. Man must learn to think for himself, rather than follow blindly what he has been taught." - Buckminster Fuller

Science advances, Funeral by Funeral" - Max Planck

This science is pouring out of the walls, out of the wood work, it's flooding science and technological endeavors so powerfully that the newest generations and thoughts are being wiped out by even newer ones that are far more advanced. We are adapting new ideas and new understandings at a rate that is so fast, that even the most aware manufacturers and forward thinking people and companies find that their 'hard' (actual new thinking) ideas and new devices are outdated before they hit the ground. The pace of change is out accelerating the pace of change. It's coming hard and fast.

The things being done with the Super Hardon Collider were outdated before they even began contemplating it.

"As many historians and researchers of Nazi secret weapons have repeatedly pointed out, when the advancing Allied armies rolled into the collapsing Third Reich, Teams of special intelligence officers where in the vanguard, entering Germany's many secret research facilities, and literally suctioning ever conceivable technological advance, patent, and document..out of the Reich in what would go down as the largest technology transfer in History. As they did so, they were confronted with a vast and bewildering array of secret weapons projects encompassing everything from exotic conventional technologies, such as prototype digital computers, semi-conductors, miniaturized klystron tubes, phased radar arrays, heat and infrared-seeking missiles, television guided missiles, wire guided missiles and torpedoes, acoustic homing torpedoes, U-boats that could cruise at sustainable speeds of 21 knots, and radar stealth materials, to technologies that were not only exotic but downright bizarre and seemingly only the stuff of science fiction: Acoustic and electromagnetic 'death rays', foo fighters, allegations of flying saucers, super dense metal alloys, sonic oil distillation and refinement, electric rail guns, wind and vortex cannon, and on and on and on the list could go."

As well as dye lasers being used for isotope separation, for the manufacturing of ultra pure plutonium. This was where the US got it's fissile materials. The US government is on record as stating in all ways possible (research reports, government reports, all reports associated with the Manhattan project, the Generals, the White House records --all of it) say that at the end of the war, before they dropped those bombs, they had only enough fissile material to create 1/2 of a single bomb, and had no idea what to do,and that it would take years to accumulate enough material. 1.5 months later, when the war in Europe had ended... they suddenly had enough for two bombs, and more. They got it from project paperclip, the CIA run program that brought 5000 scientists back from Germany, along with their technologies and directions. All funneled into dark government projects involving corporations. from that moment on, all people who looked into such things..began to die. It's been that way ever since. Kill what they can't own or control. Typical small minded human animalism.

As an example, Victor Schauburger. Ridiculed, Right? Well, he is on record as working, unwillingly, I might add, for the Nazi's on secret projects on overunity propulsion and anti gravity, using his versions of gear that were based what would be Maxwell's original hydrodynamic based 20 equations in 20 unknowns that makes up the full Maxwell's equations. The equations which were only recently made available, I might add, ad that until that recent time, Maxwell's full works would fetch over $5000 a single copy.** Max Planck? Not really. Victor brought results. Max? Not much. So - no work for Max. In the early 50's Victor was convinced to come to America and to show his technologies to a select group that was supposed to represent the government. Instead he ran into private corporations that stole his passport and threatened death for him and his family. They took everything from him and just before he died, mere weeks later he said to his son, 'They have taken everything from me!'

...And another few hundred cases like this.

These technologies were confiscated, the CIA was formed via the Dulles brothers and all this technology was funneled into dark research projects run by corporations, outside of government oversight, for many of the cases.

But the lid is coming off.

You seemingly want your answers in tiny bites that go in the direction you want them to go. The answers are huge and complex and at the same time..in the end, quite simple.

In essence, psychologically speaking...I guess you just put your self out on the Ice, John.

Thanks for all your help, sincerely. But if you can't adapt..well...c'est la vie. I can only knock on the door so hard and in so many ways. There is a definite paper and technology trail out there, you just have to get yourself to look. If you want to be out there on the ice, well...that's up to you.

**Maxwell's equations in the modified, edited form... were used for Einstein's general and special relativity. Which is why they function....sort of. But not really. Which is why,as I stated, that when Einstein really looked into this, he came up with his unified field theory of 1928, which was and is a physical torsion tensor system that utilizes the full 20 equations, with the asymmetry and resultant vectors intact (that Heaviside and Lorentz removed)...and it bridges the gap between Newtonian and quantum considerations in a practical and engineerable way.

Which is why it is so difficult to find this work. You would think that the 'unified' musings of a man so important to science would be easily available to be used as hints on where to go, so to speak. Note that they are not.

The asymmetry ~MUST~ exist, otherwise time would not exist or be unidirectional - with the past permanent and the future open.

All of this is coming out as when the East Germany collapsed, the East Germans, with the Russian influence,..had not been as careful as the Allied side when it came to cleaning out all pockets of information and data from the old Reich and similar. The researchers of such things poured into the area and found much to contemplate and much to verify the crazy sounding stories that had been circulating in the West for so long. Now the research is becoming more complete and cross correlated with facts, government records, etc....and all of this is coming out.

What does this have to do with a 'mind lamp'? Everything. All in and on the same ball of wax. In areas you don't want to go, John.

I must once again... be vile.

KBK the history you quote here is a superb example of thoroughly researched and proven science. Just because the Brits or the Yanks weren't even close to the levels the Germans had perfected means nothing with respect to your usual argument.

The monotonous direction of your posts is that we should not dismiss anything on the basis that it is not proven or understood. Subjective assessments of the effect/device are always valid. Correct?

So on that basis, the Quantum Clip is a device that improves the sound quality emanating from a domestic HiFi set. We know that this is true because we have subjective results from people who have used the device.

In the area of HiFi tweaks, this is all that is required when we speak of tests. People say they hear a difference, therefore the product works and therefore the science (no matter how concocted)is proven also. Wrong!

The scientific discoveries, unknown to the Allies, that came out of Germany were all real. They weren't subjective anecdotes from people who thought they'd seen nuclear science working. You can get that kind of stuff from the janitor.

I need to teleport out of this thread, my intelligent chip is overheating

Quote:
I must once again... be vile.

KBK the history you quote here is a superb example of thoroughly researched and proven science. Just because the Brits or the Yanks weren't even close to the levels the Germans had perfected means nothing with respect to your usual argument.

The monotonous direction of your posts is that we should not dismiss anything on the basis that it is not proven or understood. Subjective assessments of the effect/device are always valid. Correct?

So on that basis, the Quantum Clip is a device that improves the sound quality emanating from a domestic HiFi set. We know that this is true because we have subjective results from people who have used the device.

In the area of HiFi tweaks, this is all that is required when we speak of tests. People say they hear a difference, therefore the product works and therefore the science (no matter how concocted)is proven also. Wrong!

The scientific discoveries, unknown to the Allies, that came out of Germany were all real. They weren't subjective anecdotes from people who thought they'd seen nuclear science working. You can get that kind of stuff from the janitor.

I need to teleport out of this thread, my intelligent chip is overheating

Did I imply that one should take anything at face value? At each juncture I nicely fail to provide information trails and I fail to provide hard evidence.

1:Proof of over-unity or similar..if the right people believe you....in my investigations of such things (Discovery, publicity and death) will get you killed, usually in less than a week. If one is well known, usually in less than 48 hours - something will happen. This is the overwhelming reason you never hear from these people who announce such things and refuse to back down. Most of them are dead. This dearth of information allows you to form the opinion that the crackpot must have been put away, or maybe he was sued, jailed, or whatever.

Paul Pantone is an interesting case. He was illegally jailed and put away in a mental asylum for 3.5 years and nearly died there. He says he was repeatedly asked to sign papers and make agreements to sell of his patents and be silent forever, and he refused. He never backed down. His family finally managed to gain the help of some state (?) politicians or judges (can't quite remember) who looked at the situation and and did realize that he was incarcerated in very dubious/illegal circumstances and managed to gain his release.

Paul Pantone's sin was to figure out the technical details of implementing a method of vaporizing gasoline and various additives (mountain dew! sugar,yes,sugar), including water to dilute gasoline by up to 90%..and to run standard gasoline motors off that mix, with no polluting output, no mechanical failures and no real drop in output. That was his sin, he found a way to kill the gasoline market by a minimum of 75%, in America alone. If that is not enough to make corporations kill him, I don't know what is. He's lucky to be alive. My point here is that science is not settled, it never will be. The problem with science it that it's pundits attempt to put the arrow of the direction of science into the ground like an unmovable object and then anchor it's direction so it can never deviate from it's path. Yet they have no idea where it is going. Point being, is that the anchoring scenario that they are engaging is doomed to failure on all fronts, as adjustments will always be needed as the flightpath and final direction is an unknown.

2: Those who may attempt to understand, will do the research themselves, no help is necessary nor is it warranted, for if one is pre-disposed to disbelieve, no amount of supplied information will ever be looked at.

Once again this can and does have a lot to do with human psychology that surrounds things like the mind lamp. The idea that there are things that we do not, as a society or cultural group, do not understand. And that some must vilify that which they do not understand. This is a severe mistake on the part of those who like to let such things go, to not be involved. If you fail to engage those who attempt to sideline or control discussion via negativity and weakness of position (predicated on the given mental state), you will fail to have position to work from,for their rust never sleeps.

You have to understand that all of the science of the Third Reich came out of the Thule society(the entire apparatus of the Nazi's was based on this society!!), which was based on collecting ancient manuscripts and information on ancient technologies..as well as opening portals to other dimensions and communications with other beings. Basically.. ALL that you see mentioned in my post, that was real and verified over 60 years back (imagine where they are now!)..and was based on research of the occult and, most specifically....alchemy and alchemists.

One has to put in the time in a coherent manner so that those who MIGHT take a look, will venture to do so.

Science advances funeral by funeral. Battles for the mind of mankind are won...individual by individual.

The problem is the psychology of man and his origins, that of the base animailistic rote learning system that allows the autonomous system to integrate with the intellect...and the autonomous system interjects it's stand point in the formation of logic via it's running of the base levels of mental thought formation: Dogma appears, tied to the ego and it's origins. Then the understanding that the ego is not actually you ....it's your autonomous system-interjecting.

Quote:
snip

Kait, do you not know how to use the forum quote function, or do you just enjoy being a "rebel"