Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

The whole idea of morphic fields - these "organizing fields" or "information fields" ...how should I phrase it? - takes a little bit of getting used to.

Yeah, like starting with "getting used to seeing absolutely no evidence or support for the idea", you say, eh?

What evidence do you have that there's "absolutely no evidence or support for the idea"?

Maybe he did what I did. Looked and found none.

So what I hear you saying then is, if both of you goofs scratch your heads and wonder about something you know nothing about, and the information on that subject hasn't followed you home and hopped into bed with you, you feel okay to declare after that, that "there's absolutely no evidence or support for the idea"? You do realize that neither of you have even an inkling of what actual scientific research is about, don't you?

Quote:
If you find either feel free to post it.

No. Not that I couldn't, but you and James have a lot to learn about audio, and it won't help either of you to encourage you both to continue to be intellectual slackers. You, but James in particular have done this time and again; making claims and conclusions about things you have no background on, and done no research in, all the while expecting your opponents to bear the burden of your education. The information is out there. If either of you are interested, make the effort to learn about it. Only then will it have any meaning. (And NO, Scott, Wikiing your way through it, or Googling a page on Sheldrake out of "Skepdic's Dictionary" is NOT the kind of research I'm talking about). If you're not interested, that's okay too. Just don't make ignorant claims and conclusions when you don't have enough information to do so. Bear in mind, science and nature will not wait for either of you to play catch up.

Quote:
But really, what does morphic fields have to do with anything on this thread?

I find it helps to drop a kernel of popcorn every few feet. Then, if you walk backwards, you can find your way back. Hint: May showed the way. Kaitt did restate.

Quote:
It seems Geoff dug up an odd ball hypothesis that happens to have the word 'field' in it. what next? I'm not going to sit through Field of Dreams. I'm not going to search for missing people in the corn field. I'm not going to field a baseball.

Geoff knows all about "reactionaries". So he won't give you information he knows you're not ready for, because that won't do anyone any good. That's why you're mystified about his hypothesis, and talking about corn fields and baseball fields. BTW, is there a reason why you omitted "Mrs. Fields"?

Quote:
What about those "friendly energy fields?" WTF is that supposed to represent in real world terms?

You can change the energy field. Mess with the Mekon. That's where it gets interesting. It changes all the time, no matter what you do, think or say. But those who are conscious and aware of them and know how to influence them, change the fields to something of a benefit, as opposed to a detriment. Hence, "friendly".

Quote:
Why must the "reason" given be "plausible" within your group of known "plausible reasons" when the totality of your knowledge is limited to a very small portion of what might actually be happening in the physical world? If the mechanism - as Scott likes to call it - is only plausible by attaching it to your known/accepted scraps of all the knowledge available, how do you expand your knowledge to include something that might not fit into what you already know? Or do you not bother?

You're sounding very much like another member here who insisted everything must fit into what he already had prior knowledge of and could measure with tools. Since he was so absolutely certain his knowledge and tools were sufficient to prove anything, what didn't fit into his basket of accepted facts was simply discarded and ridiculed without being given the opportunity to question what he actually knew or how far his knowledge could lead him. He was and remains unable to take a step beyond where he stood yesterday.

That is, I would think, the very definition of being close minded.

Jan,
I think you misunderstand me and who I am or what I do.

Quote:
What if someday it is common knowledge that it is not the Teflon or the L/C/R values but it is actually the color of the device? What step beyond conventional knowledge would you say is required to come to that conclusion? Not whether you accept the conclusion within the limitations of what you now know, but within the framework of what might actually occur.

Anything is possible. However, I already know that the construction of the 'better' cable is different from a typical coax cable, so the LCR (impedance) is the first thing that would differ, and the most obvious difference. Anyone who has taken the first course in electronics would know this.

Suppose we can correct for the difference in impedance between the Teflon cable and the PVC cable, despite their difference in construction, and the audible differences disappear. What would you conclude?

As for approach, one looks at the most likely differences first, and then eliminates them if those are not the explanation. If after analysis that the difference in LCR explains all the difference heard, then we're done. If not, we have to look deeper.

Maybe we look at the Teflon vs. PVC. And yes, we might even look at the color, as any plastic of different color usually has colorant added to the base material. It may not be color itself but the added material which could come in differing colors. Of course, one has to be open to new ideas when conventional explanations fail. In this case, we have not exhausted the conventional avenues yet. We do not need to invoke extraordinary forces if conventional ones may suffice.

If I turn the argument around, and ask someone to explain why a common cable or a fuse would sound different when the direction is reversed, what is their explanation? If no explanation, we would go right back to asking questions as to what is different in the two orientations of the fuse or the cable and eliminating things that don't explain the phenomenon, if one is sure a difference exists (that has to be demonstrated first).

In my case of a fuse vs. a wire, different wire types also sounds different from each other as well as the fuse. How do I demonstrate that I didn't imagine what I heard? I asked my friend to help me by submitting to a SBT - and he passed 100%, for the fuse vs. one wire type. Although I said this is non-scientific, it does provide some support to my claim that I did not just imagine the difference. The next step would be to define the differences and how they are associated with the wire or fuse, for example.

Quote:

So what I hear you saying then is,

You hear what you want to hear. Who cares?

Quote:
>>If you find either feel free to post it.>>

No. Not that I couldn't,

Nope, you couldn't and that is why.

Quote:
>> But really, what does morphic fields have to do with anything on this thread? >>

I find it helps to drop a kernel of popcorn every few feet. Then, if you walk backwards, you can find your way back. Hint: May showed the way. Kaitt did restate.

Whatever works for ya dude. If you like popcorn dropped by May and stepped on by Geoff, Bon apetite.

Quote:
It seems Geoff dug up an odd ball hypothesis that happens to have the word 'field' in it. what next? I'm not going to sit through Field of Dreams. I'm not going to search for missing people in the corn field. I'm not going to field a baseball.

Geoff knows all about "reactionaries".

Of course. He is one. what does that have to do with anything?

Quote:
So he won't give you information he knows you're not ready for, because that won't do anyone any good. That's why you're mystified about his hypothesis, and talking about corn fields and baseball fields. BTW, is there a reason why you omitted "Mrs. Fields"?

No. that would have been a good one.

Quote:
What about those "friendly energy fields?" WTF is that supposed to represent in real world terms?

You can change the energy field. Mess with the Mekon. That's where it gets interesting. It changes all the time, no matter what you do, think or say. But those who are conscious and aware of them and know how to influence them, change the fields to something of a benefit, as opposed to a detriment. Hence, "friendly".

I see now! Yoda taught you well.

Quote:
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole idea of morphic fields - these "organizing fields" or "information fields" ...how should I phrase it? - takes a little bit of getting used to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yeah, like starting with "getting used to seeing absolutely no evidence or support for the idea", you say, eh?"
Well, ya can't see it if ya don't try, can ya? Are you waiting for a rock to fall on your head?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sorry, you make the claim, you conjure up the rock."
Uh, what is it exactly that you think I'm claiming?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why don't you tell us.
Oh, and there's still no rock on the floor."

I asked you first.

Still no rock, and don't ask me to read your mind. What is your claim. Your claim, stated in a clear, simple, testable, and verifiable fashion, please.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole idea of morphic fields - these "organizing fields" or "information fields" ...how should I phrase it? - takes a little bit of getting used to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Yeah, like starting with "getting used to seeing absolutely no evidence or support for the idea", you say, eh?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, ya can't see it if ya don't try, can ya? Are you waiting for a rock to fall on your head?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sorry, you make the claim, you conjure up the rock."
Uh, what is it exactly that you think I'm claiming?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why don't you tell us.
Oh, and there's still no rock on the floor."
I asked you first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Still no rock, and don't ask me to read your mind. What is your claim. Your claim, stated in a clear, simple, testable, and verifiable fashion, please."

For anyone interested in reading up on morphic fields, AKA "organizing fields" or "information fields," there's information aplenty on-line. There's also the local library and amazon.com, you know, whatever resources one can muster when approaching an unfamiliar subject.

There was competition with a $10,000 award for the best experiment to prove or disprove the theory of morphic resonance. The results of the Tarrytown competition are provided in much detail on pages 189-196 in Sheldrake's book, "The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and Habits of Nature." Actually 3 prizes were awarded in the Tarrytown competition (first. second and third) for *proving* the theory of formative causation (morphogenic resonance).

The panel of judges for Tarrytown Competition were: Professors David Bohm of U. London, David Deamer of U. Cal. Davis, Marco de Vries of Erasmus U., Rotterdam, and Michael Ovenden, U. of British Columbia. There was actually a tie for first place; both winning experiments involved words in foreign scripts. The Tarrytown competition was announced in 1982; date of awards June 1986 in New York.

>>> "An interview with Rupert Sheldrake, PhD, Cambridge biologist and author, in which he talks about morphic fields, or "happy fields" as we like to call them." <<<

I take issue with you on that expression, "happy fields", Geoff. Using it panders to Scott's lack of understanding !!! I do appreciate you might have used it as sarcasm but the more you use the word 'happy', the more HE has the excuse to use it !!

I am sure that the earliest of creatures (our remote ancestors !!!) would not understand "happy or sad" energy signals but I AM sure that they would know all about "friend or foe" energy signals and about "danger or reassurance" energy signals !!

I can best bring in some quotes from one of Richard Dawkin's books :-

>>> "When our remote ancestors lived in the sea, many of our biochemical and metabolic processes became geared to the chemistry of the sea - and our genes became a description of marine chemistry........ It is in this indirect sense that our DNA is a coded description of the worlds in which our ancestors survived. And isn't it an arresting thought ? We are digital archives of the African Pliocene, even of Devonian seas, walking repositories of wisdom out of the old days. You could spend a lifetime reading in the ancient library and die unsated by the wonder of it........ Where the gene pool of species is sculpted into a set of models of ancestral worlds, the brain of an individual houses a parallel set of models of the animal's own world. Both are equivalent to descriptions of the past, and both are used to aid survival into the future...... Following the Cambridge physiologist Horace Barlow, we would say that the store cupboard in the brain contains images from the ancestral past of the species. " <<<

Either we (human beings - evolved from ancient ancestors) ARE sensitive to 'stress' energy signals (watch out, there's danger about) or we are not. If we ARE, then surely, logically, we could also be sensitive to 'reassuring' energy signals (it's OK, you can relax, the danger has gone away) ? And, I am not meaning visual or hearing, or touch, or taste, or smell signals - because the earliest of creatures existed long before those senses (as we know them) ever evolved.

The more scientists have to try to find explanations for what is going on around them, the more they are having to lean towards 'things must somehow be linked', and towards 'past evolutionary experiences governing what we are and what we do' !!!!

More quotes :-

In Barlow's concept,
>>> "a type of computer model, programmed by past experience and continuously updated by new sense data from millisecond to millisecond, are running inside the skull of every swimming fish, every galloping horse, every echo-ranging bat." <<<

Quote from Tom Danley "21st Century Science" 5th April 2007.
>>> "The reason I posted the link to this site originally was because of what they represent and to provoke thinking. They have proven to scientific satisfaction, a number of things about "mind / matter" connections that had long been thought to be imaginary by "main stream science". <<<

It would be nice if such groups COULD provoke thinking - that is 'provoke thinking' in enough people to make a significant difference !!

>>> "We have also Bohm's book "Thought as a system" saying, in effect - "The whole society sharing thoughts - it's all one process"." <<<

>>> "It pays to remember the rhythm by which science has always advanced: first comes the admission of the existence of inexplicable phenomena; only then can theories be advanced to explain them.
---Richard Lehnert " <<<

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

What evidence do you have that there's "absolutely no evidence or support for the idea"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Maybe he did what I did. Looked and found none."

Same old story - Skeptic claims to find no evidence that would prove himself wrong. Doh!

But you guys can't hold a candle to John Maddox, former editor of Nature.

from Wikipedia - John Maddox

"When the book A New Science of Life by British biologist Rupert Sheldrake was published in 1981, proposing the theory of morphic resonance instead of DNA as the basis for shapes and behavior in nature, Maddox denounced it fiercely in an editorial titled "A book for burning?"[5] He elaborated in a 1994 BBC documentary on Sheldrake's theory: "I was so offended by it, that I said that while it's wrong that books should be burned, in practice, if book burning were allowed, this book would be a candidate (...) I think it's dangerous that people should be allowed by our liberal societies to put that kind of nonsense into currency. It's unnecessary to introduce magic into the explanation from [sic] physical and biological phenomenon when in fact there is every likelihood that the continuation of research as it is now practiced will indeed fill all the gaps that Sheldrake draws attention to. You see, Sheldrake's is not a scientific theory. Sheldrake is putting forward magic instead of science, and that can be condemned, in exactly the language that the popes used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reasons: it is heresy."

Quote:

Quote:

So what I hear you saying then is,

You hear what you want to hear. Who cares?

You do. Otherwise, you wouldn't go into these little temper tantrums every time you think someone is misinterpreting you. Which is understandable, because as you contradict yourself continually, no one can interpret you correctly. You wrote: "I. Looked and found none", re: morphic fields. Then after declaring your failure to find evidence, you and James declared there is none. The classic skeptologist's flub. You imply this was interpreted incorrectly, in lieu of actually showing how it was, because you realize it can't be interpreted any other way, and you can't successfully argue my point. If my pointing out how you and James are on an intellectual lunch break, and irresponsibly dismissive of everything you are ignorant of in audio makes you angry and defensive, so be it. You're more likely to realize the error of your ways through anger and defensiveness, than you are by my applauding the concerted efforts of both of you to remain as ignorant as you have managed to, throughout the years.

Quote:

Quote:
>>If you find either feel free to post it.>>

No. Not that I couldn't,

Nope, you couldn't and that is why.

You were right. As usual, I couldn't find any evidence that you have any knowledge of what you're arguing about. But unlike you, at least I tried.

Quote:
>> But really, what does morphic fields have to do with anything on this thread? >>

Quote:
I find it helps to drop a kernel of popcorn every few feet. Then, if you walk backwards, you can find your way back

Whatever works for ya dude.

So, does being lost and confused work for you?

Quote:

Quote:
It seems Geoff dug up an odd ball hypothesis that happens to have the word 'field' in it. what next? I'm not going to sit through Field of Dreams. I'm not going to search for missing people in the corn field. I'm not going to field a baseball.

Geoff knows all about "reactionaries".

Of course. He is one. what does that have to do with anything?

It has everything to do with everything. You're being your "reactionary" self throughout this post, with your ad hominem responses. It is what reactionaries do when their rigid belief systems are challenged.

Quote:

Quote:
What about those "friendly energy fields?" WTF is that supposed to represent in real world terms?

You can change the energy field. Mess with the Mekon. That's where it gets interesting. It changes all the time, no matter what you do, think or say. But those who are conscious and aware of them and know how to influence them, change the fields to something of a benefit, as opposed to a detriment. Hence, "friendly".

(stated in mock Yoda voice): "I see now! Yoda taught you well."

I take it by "Yoda", you mean James Jhonston. Who not only thinks he's "Yoda", but talks to himself as well. It looks like you're doing the same here, because I'm having more and more trouble these days telling the two of you apart. I have an idea, though. What if one of you wore a blue engineer's cap, and the other agreed to wear a red one?

Quote:
Sheldrake is putting forward magic instead of science, and that can be condemned, in exactly the language that the popes used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reasons: it is heresy."

Uh.... wasn't Galileo proven right?! Geebus o' criminey. I can see why he's the former editor.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheldrake is putting forward magic instead of science, and that can be condemned, in exactly the language that the popes used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reasons: it is heresy."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh.... wasn't Galileo proven right?! Geebus o' criminey. I can see why he's the former editor.

Oooops, well ya know what they say about science and religion.

Scott asked;

Quote:
What about those "friendly energy fields?" WTF is that supposed to represent in real world terms?

And jj posted;

Quote:
One is not responsible for another's inability to understand the simplest basics of hearing, signal processing, or perception.

Scott posted;

Quote:

Maybe he did what I did. Looked and found none.

And jj posted;

Quote:
One is not responsible for another's inability to understand the simplest basics of hearing, signal processing, or perception.

So, there you have it, Scotty, we are not repsonsible for your lack of perception or understanding. We can dismiss your non-proof as simply anecdotal and realize you have not read the PWB pages or paid attention to anything May has posted. You are a uniquely dishonest player and a complete fraud.

LOL! Sheldrake!

Ranks somewhere BELOW phrenology.

At least astrology tries to relate its bunk to an actual universe...

You are better of, intellectually, with this guy than Sheldrake...

Sheldrake, LMFAO!

Scott, get ready for 10,000 word BS posts from May and Jan...

"They all laughed at Edison, and also at Einstein...So why should I feel sorry
If they just couldn't understand
The idiomatic logic
That went on in my head..."

Please.

Quote:
Jan,
I think you misunderstand me and who I am or what I do.

WTL, I don't think you understood my post.

Quote:
Maybe we look at the Teflon vs. PVC. And yes, we might even look at the color, as any plastic of different color usually has colorant added to the base material. It may not be color itself but the added material which could come in differing colors. Of course, one has to be open to new ideas when conventional explanations fail. In this case, we have not exhausted the conventional avenues yet. We do not need to invoke extraordinary forces if conventional ones may suffice.

But that was my point. Merely accepting convention as being "sufficient" to fulfill the quest might lead you to miss what is extraordinary. We already have one lazy mind on this thread, we do not need another. We already believe we know that LCR and colorants might affect the conditions of the wire. There is no great next step taken by accepting these results as the only answer possible or real. What if none of those were the real answer to what we needed to resolve on order to finish the puzzle? What if there was no possible answer to be found by examining the wire itself but the results remained provable by anecdotal evidence from several observers?

Quote:
You're sounding very much like another member here who insisted everything must fit into what he already had prior knowledge of and could measure with tools. Since he was so absolutely certain his knowledge and tools were sufficient to prove anything, what didn't fit into his basket of accepted facts was simply discarded and ridiculed without being given the opportunity to question what he actually knew or how far his knowledge could lead him. He was and remains unable to take a step beyond where he stood yesterday.

That is, I would think, the very definition of being close minded.

Quote:
If I turn the argument around, and ask someone to explain why a common cable or a fuse would sound different when the direction is reversed, what is their explanation? If no explanation, we would go right back to asking questions as to what is different in the two orientations of the fuse or the cable and eliminating things that don't explain the phenomenon ...

But you are still relying on what you already know to get you to where you think you ought to be. You are still only looking in one drawer to find your keys because you remember finding your keys in that drawer once before.

Quote:
The next step would be to define the differences and how they are associated with the wire or fuse, for example.

And, if by using your already existing knowledge of that one drawer that you know had at one time contained your keys nothing you could define, compare or contrast explained what you had proven to be true, you would do what? How would you take the next step beyond what you already know to be conventional laws and rules? Just telling me you would define the differences and "how they are associated with the wire or fuse" leaves you very much constricted by a narrow window of conventional perception.

WTL, I believe I do understand who you are, what you do and how you go about doing it.

My post was not about remaining where you have taken root or how you presently search for your keys.

Quote:
You hear what you want to hear. Who cares?

If you don't care, Scotty, stop spending time here. You may leave now since there's nothing that you care about that we are discussing and for you to continue pretending you do care would be quite dishonest on your part.

Bye-bye, mr. man.

Quote:
You were right. As usual, I couldn't find any evidence that you have any knowledge of what you're arguing about. But unlike you, at least I tried.

ROTFLMF'ingAO!!!!!

I'll bet Scotty didn't get the joke.

Quote:
Scott, get ready for 10,000 word BS posts from May and Jan...

We post those, Buddha, to give you time to finish the bottle.

The Prime Minister of the Tang Dynasty was a national hero for his success as both a statesman and military leader. But despite his fame, power, and wealth, he considered himself a humble and devout Buddhist. Often he visited his favorite Zen master to study under him, and they seemed to get along very well. The fact that he was prime minister apparently had no effect on their relationship, which seemed to be simply one of a revered master and respectful student.

One day, during his usual visit, the Prime Minister asked the master, "Your Reverence, what is egotism according to Buddhism?" The master's face turned red, and in a very condescending and insulting tone of voice, he shot back, "What kind of stupid question is that!?"

This unexpected response so shocked the Prime Minister that he became sullen and angry. The Zen master then smiled and said, "THIS, Your Excellency, is egotism."

Quote:
>> Who cares?>>

You do.

No. You amuse me but I don't care what you you think about anything. I enjoy playing with our Bulldog too. But I don't ask him for advice on audio.

Quote:
>>Nope, you couldn't and that is why.>>

You were right.

Of course I am right. Duh.

Quote:

>>>You can change the energy field. Mess with the Mekon. That's where it gets interesting. It changes all the time, no matter what you do, think or say. But those who are conscious and aware of them and know how to influence them, change the fields to something of a benefit, as opposed to a detriment. Hence, "friendly". >>>

>> I see now! Yoda taught you well.">>

I take it by "Yoda", you mean James Jhonston.

No, I mean Yoda. You are talking about the force so I figured you learned all that crap from Yoda. I guess no one ever explained that it was just a movie. Hey, keep on tellin yourself that you really can "influence those friendly energy fields with your conscious."
Who knows, maybe we'll see you running through the swamps with your mentor on your back (they sell them pretty cheap)and a light sabre in hand (maybe you can splurge and get a deluxe version with life like sound effects).

Quote:

Quote:
You hear what you want to hear. Who cares?

If you don't care, Scotty, stop spending time here. You may leave now since there's nothing that you care about that we are discussing and for you to continue pretending you do care would be quite dishonest on your part.

Bye-bye, mr. man.

Sorry I pose such a threat to your belief system.
not really sorry

That was quite a leap there, Scotty, and even less of a defense of your honesty. Hope you feel better about yourself after that - 'cause I still think you're a dishonest fraud.

Anything on the "mechanism" yet?

Quote:
One is not responsible for another's inability to understand the simplest basics of hearing, signal processing, or perception.

It would be wise of you to cease your misrepresentations of what is "mainstream", what the "ieee thinks"

You got some problems James. First you have to prove IEEE was wrong in their statement, which you cannot and have not done (That makes 4 national organizations now, including the Acoustical Society of America (ASA), Association of Research in Otolaryngology (ARO), and American Physical Society (APS).

OPPPs, I guess those national organizations are not mainstream science are they. Once again we see you making big time statements while your real intentions speak louder.

So James proudly posts that he has presented several times to IEEE and won the prestigious James L. Flanagan award. But he conveniently leaves out IEEE's comments about signal degradation which helps business because of its lower bit rates, cheaper parts/designs etc,

while the public gets the shaft because of degraded signal quality . No wonder J_J conveniently left out this important information, and that he is a major factor as to why the signal quality the public receives is inferior to what could be.

Same thing with your inability to understand the simplest basics of hearing, signal processing, or perception in "Interesting Papers" string and ask Dr. Kunchur questions string.

Once again (including inferior 16/44) we see James/J_J/woodenville supporting big business while the customer gets the shaft with inferior signal quality.

Quote:
That was quite a leap there, Scotty, and even less of a defense of your honesty. Hope you feel better about yourself after that - 'cause I still think you're a dishonest fraud.

I'm crushed

Quote:
Anything on the "mechanism" yet?

I've been asking anyone and everyone to give a real world explanation as to WTF 'freindly energy fields" is supposed to mean. It exists in name only as far as I can tell. Can't offer a test of a brand name for who knows what.

I bet you aren't smart enough to know that the Belts are claiming "friendly energy fields" are the mechanism of cause for the percieved improvements their products give the listener. you are probably waiting for me to talk about some sort of lever or machine because you don't know all the uses of the word "mechanism."

Quote:
I've been asking anyone and everyone to give a real world explanation as to WTF 'freindly energy fields" is supposed to mean. It exists in name only as far as I can tell.

Arises from the same kind of belief structure that means "better sounding is bad" and "the mainstream is not the mainstream".

Some people call it imagination, some call it delusion, some call it inadvertant self-deception, but whatever it is, it's never shown up in a controlled setting, Sheldrake's included.

Quote:

Quote:
I've been asking anyone and everyone to give a real world explanation as to WTF 'freindly energy fields" is supposed to mean. It exists in name only as far as I can tell.

Arises from the same kind of belief structure that means "better sounding is bad" and "the mainstream is not the mainstream".

Some people call it imagination, some call it delusion, some call it inadvertant self-deception, but whatever it is, it's never shown up in a controlled setting, Sheldrake's included.

Yeah, and it goes farther back. I have to ask about verifying a "collective unconscious" before I start worrying about a "morphic field." Sheldrake seems to be building one speculation on another speculation.

Sheldrake transcends things like testability or disprovability.

Faith based tweaking is a logical offshoot of this religion.

Quote:
I have to ask about verifying a "collective unconscious" before I start worrying about a "morphic field."

I guess it's some kind of Jung idea.

It will be interesting to see how one would propose to extract that from the gigantic noise built into human perception.

IQ has been going up steadily worldwide

I could have told you that.

Quote:
I bet you aren't smart enough to know that the Belts are claiming "friendly energy fields" are the mechanism of cause for the percieved improvements their products give the listener. you are probably waiting for me to talk about some sort of lever or machine because you don't know all the uses of the word "mechanism."

You provided a link to "mechanism", don't you remember?

Ooops, memory isn't your strong suite is it?

So, Scotty, why do you keep fishing around for someone to feed you infomation on Belt and morphic fields? It's all there in the pages you claim to have read. You did read them, right? You didn't just copy/patse what you thought was proving your point when it wasn't at all, did you? 'Cause this sure sounds like that's all you did;

Quote:
I've been asking anyone and everyone to give a real world explanation as to WTF 'freindly energy fields" is supposed to mean. It exists in name only as far as I can tell. Can't offer a test of a brand name for who knows what.

LOL, Scotty, LOL! You still don't have the words right. Kinda like asking if anyone knows how to get to Cleveland when you really meant to ask for directions to St. Louis.

ROTFL!

Why don't you just go do some reading on your own? That's not too much to ask of a make-up person who claims to have done lots of research. Once you read what's actually there, you might be in a better position - not quite so dishonest not quite so deer-in-the-headlights - to be in this discussion.

As is - nahhhhh! you're just a dishonest fraud.

Now I suppose you could just take your lead from your BFFF and deny anything jj denies. That's worked out so well for you so far, hasn't it?

Look, even Buddha knows this shit better than you do. When it reaches the point this Buddha is your spiritual guide, it's time to hang up the corkscrew.

Give it up, Scotty, you're out of your league on this one. You've been whistlin' past the graveyard all this time and now the boogeyman's gonna get ya.

Booooh!

I've perfected what I like to call "The Prayer For Better Sound."

In keeping with the ethos of this type of tweak, I will sell it, but it comes with a confidentiality agreement so people won't give it away without proper fiscal renumeration back to me, the guy who invented this divine sonic enhancement.

PM me if you want to go where no tweaker has gone before.

Guaranteed to work, or I'll call you a troll!

Quote:

Quote:
>> Who cares?>>

You do.

No. You amuse me but I don't care what you you think about anything.

That's it, Master Scott! Fight! Fight against any and all new ideas they try to throw at you! Fight like your life dependend on it! (For it may very well).

Quote:
I enjoy playing with our Bulldog too. But I don't ask him for advice on audio.

Well, in your case, I don't see how it could hurt.

Quote:

Quote:
>>Nope, you couldn't and that is why.>>

You were right.

Of course I am right. Duh.

Yes, and I'm sorry to have doubted that you really did take a series of "Fake Your Way Through Life"

Quote:
You provided a link to "mechanism", don't you remember?

Yep. I do remember that. That doesn't mean I expected you to understand it though. You can lead a horse to water....

Quote:
Ooops, memory isn't your strong suite is it?

Probably not....

Quote:
So, Scotty, why do you keep fishing around for someone to feed you infomation on Belt and morphic fields?

Belt and morphic fields? I thought Belt's fields were "friendly" and filled with energy not "morphic." You had such a tizzy fit over me calling them "happy" instead of "friendly" and now Geoff posts a link to morphic fields (no energy in that name by the way) and now "friendly energy fields" are morphic fields? well if geoff posts it you believe it, no? I mean you believe in Brilliant pebbles and the teleportation tweak, no?

Quote:
It's all there in the pages you claim to have read. You did read them, right?

Yep. Please feel free to cut and paste that which you are refering to. I don't see anything there at all other than an unsupported claim about friendly energy patterns. If you are so certain that i am missing something please fill me in.

Quote:
You didn't just copy/patse what you thought was proving your point when it wasn't at all, did you? 'Cause this sure sounds like that's all you did;

what are you babbling about? Do you even remember what it was in response to?

Quote:
LOL, Scotty, LOL! You still don't have the words right. Kinda like asking if anyone knows how to get to Cleveland when you really meant to ask for directions to St. Louis.

Really? How so? Please explain.
Better yet, feel free to use the correct words and then explain WTF they are supposed to mean. It seems you are getting your panties in a bunch because I am mis-quoting Humpty Dumpty. Are you one of those guys who gets all bent out of shape when the customer orders Coke and all you serve is Pepsi?

Quote:
Why don't you just go do some reading on your own?

I read on my own all the time. Never ran across anything that supports the happy er um friendly, relaxing, comforting, nicey nice energy fields, er um patterns that the Belt's are asserting are the mechanism of their products' ability to make a system sound better.

Quote:
That's not too much to ask of a make-up person who claims to have done lots of research. Once you read what's actually there, you might be in a better position - not quite so dishonest not quite so deer-in-the-headlights - to be in this discussion.

well jeez, since I am a mere makeup artist who can't find shit to support the Belts' claims why don't you help me out here? If you want people to believe this stuff best not to keep it a secret. Fill me in. Let the cat out of the bag. Tell us WTF the Belts are talking about. Then we can talk about how the claims can be tested. that is what you want isn't it? (of course not)

Quote:

Now I suppose you could just take your lead from your BFFF and deny anything jj denies. That's worked out so well for you so far, hasn't it?

I guess when one has nothing to support their beliefs one has to make it about something else. Why do you want to talk about JJ and me? Why *don't* you want to talk about the claims made by the Belts?

Quote:
Look, even Buddha knows this shit better than you do. When it reaches the point this Buddha is your spiritual guide, it's time to hang up the corkscrew.

You sure do like to talk about the people rather than the audio. why is that?

Quote:
Give it up, Scotty, you're out of your league on this one. You've been whistlin' past the graveyard all this time and now the boogeyman's gonna get ya.

I don't whistle past graveyards. Nothing scary about them if you don't believe in ghosts. you would like me to give it up though wouldn't ya? Are your lips too chapped from whistling?

Just so ya know, Scott, you are arguing with someone who thinks three pieces of thread placed in the windowsill will change the sound of your system.

He won't comment on the benefits of a fly landing in the area, though.

Back to the sentence by sentence thing again, eh, Scotty?

Maybe you should call one of your BFFF's and talk about who dissed you in the school cafeteria today.

Ahhh, Booood-ha!, it must be quite a life to have a memory no deeper than a shot glass and a sense of integrity no more honorable than Scotty's.

Quote:
Just so ya know, Scott, you are arguing with someone who thinks three pieces of thread placed in the windowsill will change the sound of your system.

He won't comment on the benefits of a fly landing in the area, though.

You really have cased this joint.

Quote:
Back to the sentence by sentence thing again, eh, Scotty?

Maybe you should call one of your BFFF's and talk about who dissed you in the school cafeteria today.

You seem far more interested in me than in audio. I get it.

Quote:

Quote:
Back to the sentence by sentence thing again, eh, Scotty?

Maybe you should call one of your BFFF's and talk about who dissed you in the school cafeteria today.

You seem far more interested in me than in audio. I get it.

Well, he can't attack your substantive statements, he has no substance to attack with, so he has to focus on ad-hominem attacks.

It's like our own "Karl Rove of Audio" here who insists black is white, mainstream is far out, and good is bad.

>>> "I read on my own all the time. Never ran across anything that supports the happy er um friendly, relaxing, comforting, nicey nice energy fields, er um patterns that the Belt's are asserting are the mechanism of their products' ability to make a system sound better." <<<

So, Scott, you read ALL the time ?? Then I don't understand WHY you cannot understand what so many others CAN understand !!

Way back in the UK, during the late 1980s and early 1990s, audio journalists were understanding and explaining about the word 'better' sound. The system sounds 'better' yes because we (human beings) can resolve the information available 'better' but 'better' does not mean that, all of a sudden, by doing something unusual, one can PROVIDE ADDITIONAL information to the information which is already there. THIS was understood and explained, on many occasions, in the UK audio magazines, so "you read ALL the time", do you, Scott ???

To quote one journalist from Hi Fi Review November 1990.:-

>>> "What PWB is saying, it is necessary to remember always, is that something is getting in the way of our appreciation of a sound which is there: the primary Belt effect is to remove obstacles to this. What then happens to me and others I know - is that the sound becomes accessible, it, as it were, welcomes one in and becomes more friendly and easy to listen to." <<<

Oh, dearie me, THAT word 'friendly' again.!!!!

The sound is improved because an adverse effect has been reduced, therefore more of the already available information can be better resolved - hence the subjective description "the sound is much better"

If I gave it in a 'seeing' example as opposed to a 'hearing' example, it would be like you looking through a window at a room full of beautiful antiques but you did not know there were beautiful antiques because the room was full of (adverse) fog - adverse conditions in the room !! This 'fog' is leaking through various vent holes in the room. I find a technique which can block up those vent holes, one by one, and suddenly you begin to SEE just what beautiful antiques are there, in the room. You say the expression "Oh, that is much better, I can see much better" But, the word 'better' is only because I have removed adverse effects - the beautiful furniture has been there all the time !!! Nothing changed the beautiful furniture !!!

How many times in descriptions of 'sound improving' have you read the sentence "The improvement I heard was like "a veil being lifted" ??? Oh, sorry, Scott, I forgot. Those are 'anecdotal' observations - only valid for the person experiencing them.

If you have experienced the same thing yourself, then you would immediately understand what they mean by the description "a veil being lifted". If you have never experienced such a thing, then you won't have a clue what people are meaning, what people are describing. Is that why you so often resort to 'mockery' ??

Now, Scott, you say "you read ALL the time", so how did you miss the following ?????
From findings released by the Institute for Applied Physics at the University of Bonn (2002):-

>>> "When a leaf or a stem is sliced, the plant signals pain (or perhaps dismay) by releasing the gas ethylene over it's entire surface........ The team also thinks plants warn each other about approaching danger. The "alarm signal" is a chemical message transmitted between individual plants." <<<

HOW much 'ethylene' do YOU have in products in your listening room, Scott ?????? You don't know Scott ? You never thought about it, Scott.?? But you like to appear that you think about everything !! Just why can't you, Scott, be sensing those "alarm signals" those "alarm chemicals" from all that ethylene.?? What ethylene you say ? I don't know of any ethylene in my listening room. How dare May Belt say that there could be "alarm signals", "alarm chemicals" in my listening room that I don't know about ??

And ethylene is not the only 'stress' chemical in Nature. Yet another one is created by the 'glow gene' which, when introduced into a plant, is activated when the plant is stressed in some way. The plant's sky-blue glow comes from a protein called aequorin which a type of jellyfish manufactures naturally.

If you have never READ anything about "alarm signals" in the form of chemicals then how could you understand that there could be such things in your listening room, that you MIGHT be reacting to them (sensing them) and going under tension because of 'sensing' them ? If you don't understand "alarm signals", "alarm chemicals", then, obviously, you cannot understand that there could also be, in Nature, such things as "reassuring signals", "reassuring chemicals"

Maybe what you won't like from that (science) paragraph I quoted are words (simple descriptive words used by SCIENTISTS !!!!! - how DARE they !!!) like "pain", like "dismay". You could have a field day with their paper, couldn't you Scott. Keep you occupied for years challenging their use of simple, descriptive words !! Presumably if they ever found what could be called "reassuring chemicals", produced by plants or creatures, to convey that the 'danger has gone away' and the SCIENTISTS then used simple descriptive words like "friendly", "relaxing", "comforting", "nicey nice", WOW, they would really be 'hauled over the coals' by you, wouldn't they ??

I don't understand the continual mockery from you when I used descriptive words like 'friendly' and 'reassuring' when scientists in Applied Physics use the descriptive words like "pain" and "dismay" in plants. Correction. I DO understand your mockery !!!!

What don't you understand that so many others ARE understanding ???? Could it be that THEY read 'more than you do', even though you say you "read ALL the time" ??

So, what word or words are you going to react to in this 'posting' Scott ?? Both you and j j reacted to the words "anecdotal confirmation" in an earlier 'posting' of mine. With that I meant those people I had quoted were CONFIRMING 'hearing similar improvements in the sound' (although anecdotal) to what others had been (anecdotally) describing from doing the same technique !!

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

>>> "But that was my point. Merely accepting convention as being "sufficient" to fulfill the quest might lead you to miss what is extraordinary. We already have one lazy mind on this thread, we do not need another. We already believe we know that LCR and colorants might affect the conditions of the wire. There is no great next step taken by accepting these results as the only answer possible or real. What if none of those were the real answer to what we needed to resolve on order to finish the puzzle? What if there was no possible answer to be found by examining the wire itself but the results remained provable by anecdotal evidence from several observers?" <<<

That is the whole problem, Jan. If the answer is NOT to be found by examining the wire (LCR and colorants), then the insistence on the "exceptional evidence", other than anecdotal evidence from several observers, is what changes a discussion into a 'slanging match' !! I am not meaning WTL here !!!!

It then always reverts back to the usual demand for "evidence stated in a clear, simple, testable, and verifiable fashion". When anecdotal evidence is usually ALL we have to go on in the beginning. But, they don't like 'beginnings' do they ? They want the warmth, safety and security of the 'comfort blanket' - of it being already written down in the text books, already proven !!

The list of the 'tweaks' (techniques) I give and people's reactions to those 'tweaks' are CLUES !!

One of the CLUES is to look at the chemicals used in the insulation material surrounding the wire. Different chemicals, different effects, ALSO different sounds - BUT NOT affecting the signal travelling along the wire, and NOT affecting the acoustic air pressure waves in the room !!!

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

Quote:
Snip....
One is not responsible for another's inability to understand the simplest basics of hearing, signal processing, or perception.
Snip...

It would be good for a lot of readers (many Stereophile subscribers probably read these forums but do not post) including myself if you could expand on this within the context of research theory/models and also behavioral experiements/scientific-engineering measurement tests.

At least it would put more weight and context behind the assertation of what is defined as simple/basic in these terms.

Cheers and thanks
Orbs

I am not in the least interested in you as a person, Scotty. I am utterly astounded by the unique dishonesty and complete fraud perpetrated by you, Bood-ha! and jj - though I have known Bood-ha! long enough to realize he will be dishonest at the slightest promise of a cut foil wrapper and becomes increasingly so as the bottles empty. It's what Bood-ha! does here on this forum. Ask him for evidence of his statement about the threads - you'll see.

Since you are so careful to not believe anyone's anecdotal evidence I would say don't trust Bood-ha! for anything. But you are too stupidly partisan to accept any of my advice about forum members I've seen in action for years and that would leave you with just jj and his sockpuppet Xeno who doesn't seem to be warming to your butting in on his BFFF territory.

You're in a bit of a pickle, Scotty. Nobody likes you (not even your hoped for BFFF), May is the only one nice enough to not insult you outright and Boood-ha! is giving you advice. You should hope for a massive coronary to brighten your day.

Quote:
Well, he can't attack your substantive statements, he has no substance to attack with, so he has to focus on ad-hominem attacks.

It's like our own "Karl Rove of Audio" here who insists black is white, mainstream is far out, and good is bad.

Which "substantive statement" of Scotty's would that be, jj? The multiple times he has misunderstood "mechanisms"? Even when he posted a link to definitions of "mechanisms"? The time he couldn't remember for five minutes what he claims to have read on the PWB pages? Or, the one where he claimed to have done "lots of research" but doesn't name anything he's done? Or, possibly, the numerous times he insisted May explain "WTF"?

Take your pick, I know it's hard to decide with Scotty what's not just substantial BS excreted out of his backside.

jj, this "he can't attack your substantive statements" is one of your copy/paste fall backs that you apply like air freshener in your toilet. How many times have we seen the words when they mean nothing more than they do here? Why not just call me a stalker and be done with it? Insist I perform a groveling apology to you for showing Scotty to be the fraud that he is. He is, after all, your new wannabe BFFF.

Show me something of substance from Scotty and it will be an easy task to prove it wrong - we've all managed quite well at that so far without even breaking a sweat. I'll leave the "attacking" to you - at that you are the mainstream.

Which raises the question, why are you hanging around with the likes of Scotty? Things that tough in mainstream sock-puppetry?

Now, in case you've really drifted far afield here, no one in this thread other than you has been disussing the "mainstream". So shake it off, jj, have some coffee and get on the bus - Pronto! No one here is interested in the floating down the river on an innertube staying in the "mainstream" that gives us more compressed files and "just good enough" thinking. And Scotty wouldn't know what end to put in the innertube if you supplied him one - to him it would just be more dismissive anecdotes that people actually benefit from their use.

When you get ready to actually discuss something that is not in the mainstream that provides lower fidelity at lower cost you let us know. Till then, we'll just carry on without your precious input.

BTW, how many times and on how many forums have you already used that "Karl Rove of audio" line? Sheesh! jj, you need to get out in some fresh air, you're really starting to smell like rotten eggs.

Quote:

Quote:
Snip....
One is not responsible for another's inability to understand the simplest basics of hearing, signal processing, or perception.
Snip...

It would be good for a lot of readers (many Stereophile subscribers probably read these forums but do not post) including myself if you could expand on this within the context of research theory/models and also behavioral experiements/scientific-engineering measurement tests.

At least it would put more weight and context behind the assertation of what is defined as simple/basic in these terms.

Cheers and thanks
Orbs

Your use of language is quite telling.

When you say "At least it would put more weight and context behind the assertation of what is defined as simple/basic in these terms." you show that you don't know what the scientific process is. What is "simple" or "basic" is not "defined", for instance, it is what understanding has reached the level of accepted understanding, and while it may be basic, may not be "simple" at all. The mere combination of those two words exposes a host of mistakes.

Yet you have the chutzpah to tell me what my expertise is, without taking a position of your own, or even suggesting you have one that you could support.

You're a troll.

Now, as to education, since you've stated quite clearly that you are unwilling to respond to anything I write because you can't withstand basic scientific dialog, why should I bother to try in your case.

In other folks' cases, well, I have done a rather large bunch of tutorials for beginners and workshops for those more advanced in the science. These people, however, by their attendence are showing a willingness to learn, as opposed to falsely state the expertise of the person giving the tutorial, for example, which is only one of the many places you, personally, are shown wanting. What is more, you have failed completely to do your own homework, there is a discussion of key observations and facts regarding human memory on this web site, one that has gone mostly undiscussed, that covers the issues in the OP for this thread like a blanket. Your statement of "
It would be good for a lot of readers (many Stereophile subscribers probably read these forums but do not post) including myself if you could expand on this within the context of research theory/models and also behavioral experiements/scientific-engineering measurement tests.
" is both mistaken and leading, in this regard, because you're asking for a free multi-week tutorial to be presented into an audience already proven to be malicious (not necessarily referring to you there), uninterested, and willing to engage in base insults rather than accept the most simple, basic principles of either the mathematics or the empirical conclusions, and finally that engages in repetitive, malicious harrassment that contains intentional defamation and willfully misleading falsehoods regarding past discussions.

Teaching into that audience is, frankly, throwing pearls before swine.

Perhaps, since you have insinuated that you have such superior expertise to mine that you are able, without research, to tell me what my expertise is, you should undertake this Promethian task, Orb?

Well, heave to, mate.

Christ on crutches, jj, your posts get old!

Are you just constantly constipated or what?

Geez, Jan, kinda harsh. You get more bees with honey.

Quote:
Christ on crutches, jj, your posts get old!

Are you just constantly constipated or what?

I think someone put something in his Ovaltine. You just gotta laugh. For only James Jhonston could write an angry 5,000 word diatribe on why he refuses to respond to a very polite request to simply elaborate on the nonsense claims he makes, to clarify for other readers. And only a career troll like him, who has been trolling this forum since March, could have the "chutzpah", to use his term, to call someone who is actually trying to discuss on topic, a "troll".

Quote:

Quote:
Christ on crutches, jj, your posts get old!

Are you just constantly constipated or what?

I think someone put something in his Ovaltine. You just gotta laugh. For only James Jhonston could write an angry 5,000 word diatribe on why he refuses to respond to a very polite request to simply elaborate on the nonsense claims he makes, to clarify for other readers. And only a career troll like him, who has been trolling this forum since March, could have the "chutzpah", to use his term, to call someone who is actually trying to discuss on topic, a "troll".

Yes, calling people trolls is Geoff and Jan's bailywick!

How dare J_J usurp their prerogative!

LOL!

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Christ on crutches, jj, your posts get old!

Are you just constantly constipated or what?

I think someone put something in his Ovaltine. You just gotta laugh. For only James Jhonston could write an angry 5,000 word diatribe on why he refuses to respond to a very polite request to simply elaborate on the nonsense claims he makes, to clarify for other readers. And only a career troll like him, who has been trolling this forum since March, could have the "chutzpah", to use his term, to call someone who is actually trying to discuss on topic, a "troll".

Yes, calling people trolls is Geoff and Jan's bailywick!

How dare J_J usurp their prerogative!

LOL!

Well, you know, he's clearly insinuating that he knows a lot more than I do, but now he wants ME to explain an entire 3 quarter mass of subject matter to HIM?

Sounds kinda trollish to me, eh?

I mean, he's got the authority to tell me everything I know and what I don't, but now HE wants ME to teach HIM?

Err.... ERROR_J_AXIS_REACHED

Quote:
Well, you know, he's clearly insinuating that he knows a lot more than I do, but now he wants ME to explain an entire 3 quarter mass of subject matter to HIM?

Uh, no, that's not what he asked you to do.

Quote:
I mean, he's got the authority to tell me everything I know and what I don't, but now HE wants ME to teach HIM?

I believe he was hoping to get you out of your constipated Ovaltine lifetime and into an actual discussion. But you're right - in a very sad sort of way - anyone who's had any dealings with you whatsoever should have known that wasn't going to happen.

Quote:
Sounds kinda trollish to me, eh?

What!!! you want me to tell you what you think?!!!

Whata'troll!

Wassup, Bood-ha!?! The liquor stores not open yet in your part of the world?

Quote:
Geez, Jan, kinda harsh. You get more bees with honey.

More bees with honey, eh? And what do I use if I want to get rid of the bees?