[TheBigCW]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jax /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am not, by the way, questioning your choice, or asking you to defend it...Just trying to make a point. In the same token, BigCW seems to think his stance as an Atheist is worth adding to his signature file, and speaks of reason and truth over faith (I'm interpreting a bit here). I have nothing at all for or against his choice of atheism, and of course this is not the place to discuss as much (which is probably why we don't see that many people posting their religious beliefs, or political opinions, or sexual preferences in their sig files). But, again, I would venture the majority of individuals on the planet live lives based in faith of something else... Something beyond what is the evident "truth" that such 'reason', BigCW speaks of, is based upon. Therefore a good part of the planet may see atheism as the 'wrong' choice. Does that make it wrong? Certainly not for BigCW, as well as a rapidly growing number of others!

There's no such thing as relative truth. You once again seem to be suggesting that people's perceptions have any swing on reality. However, opinions and ethics are opinion, not truth, i.e. no matter how hard you believe something that doesn't make it true. Beliefs can wildly vary, but science is unaffected by these beliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jax /img/forum/go_quote.gif No more than CW has of his own - it's what he chooses, it's what reason tells him...it's as obvious to him as Buddha may be to another. Is that "magic reality". Perhaps to some it may occur that way. Should we spend our energies sitting in judgment and trying to convince others of their misguided ways because it is dangerous living in "magical" reality and believing in Buddha, or in Jesus, or Muhammad, or __________, because it can't be proven by science? Do we need to convert the barbaric natives and save them all? Should believers not be driving cars to prevent accidents because they live in a magic reality? I don't think so.

Frankly comparing reason and religious views is preposterous. One is testable, deductible, and scientific. The other none of those. The difference between religion debates and cable debates is that one has actual, scientific, hard proof, while the other has deductive reasoning. As such these comparisons are completely useless. I do think we need to prevent newcomers to the audiophile and head-fi community from being misled, as well as preventing those more senior in said communities from being misled. It's a public service, if anything. Being misled out of money is very, very, very bad. Very bad. In case you don't know, I think it's very bad.

It's sometimes difficult to understand your posts, as they seem to drift through somewhat unrelated topics that are rather loosely connected.

P.S. I often add amusing quotes or statements in red font to my signature. (Previously I had a humourous statement somewhat along the lines of "Voted Best Head-Fi member by TheBigCW quarterly", and before that I had lyrics from a CCR song) The atheist bit in my signature was merely to complement the quote, establishing my position as a skeptic.

 

[adrift]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBigCW /img/forum/go_quote.gif Frankly comparing reason and religious views is preposterous. One is testable, deductible, and scientific. The other none of those. The difference between religion debates and cable debates is that one has actual, scientific, hard proof, while the other has deductive reasoning.

Again, I don't believe this is true. Last time I made an objection to this I had a post deleted and then was banned for a week when I re-posted the post assuming it was a website glitch. So I'm going to avoid that here. but there are some decent theology based forums (both believer based and skeptical based) where open debate is done using hard and soft science to argue both sides convincingly. Again, faith doesn't need to be blind... In fact, I think its only worth its salt when its informed.

 

[jax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBigCW /img/forum/go_quote.gif There's no such thing as relative truth. You once again seem to be suggesting that people's perceptions have any swing on reality. However, opinions and ethics are opinion, not truth, i.e. no matter how hard you believe something that doesn't make it true. Beliefs can wildly vary, but science is unaffected by these beliefs.

I never said anything about a "relative truth". I am suggesting our experience of the world is how we individually interpret the truth. The truth does not change. The truth is not bad or good. It just is. We make it into something bad or good. Without a human thought there is NO bad or good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by =TheBigCW /img/forum/go_quote.gif Frankly comparing reason and religious views is preposterous. One is testable, deductible, and scientific. The other none of those. The difference between religion debates and cable debates is that one has actual, scientific, hard proof, while the other has deductive reasoning. As such these comparisons are completely useless. I do think we need to prevent newcomers to the audiophile and head-fi community from being misled, as well as preventing those more senior in said communities from being misled. It's a public service, if anything. Being misled out of money is very, very, very bad. Very bad. In case you don't know, I think it's very bad. It's sometimes difficult to understand your posts, as they seem to drift through somewhat unrelated topics that are rather loosely connected. P.S. I often add amusing quotes or statements in red font to my signature. (Previously I had a humourous statement somewhat along the lines of "Voted Best Head-Fi member by TheBigCW quarterly", and before that I had lyrics from a CCR song) The atheist bit in my signature was merely to complement the quote, establishing my position as a skeptic.

Again, many testable, deductible and scientifically proven things are later on proved to be entirely false. What's to say our means at hand of proving such things will not be proved faulty yet again a century from now. Again, things that numbers and graphs and technical proofs may imply, could occur entirely differently when put to test in real life, judged by human perceptions. Music is in the realm of the emotions, and is therefore highly subjective. It goes to follow that the vehicle that brings it to us may be judged from a similarly colored perspective. Preferences are entirely subjective when it comes to this stuff. If you want to go just by the numbers I would suggest you might be missing out on all kinds of other possibilities, but I respect your choice. From your stance, your mission of saving the poor newbies from the very very very bad people (yep, I got it) trying to steal their money, what I envision is the missionary trying to save the natives from their own misguided, ignorant and primitive beliefs. I find the idea silly myself. Sure, by all means, share your opinion. Make fun too, we could all use a laugh! But what I'm getting from your statements here is a myopic mission that implies you have all the answers for everyone...that the world is either black or white, right or wrong with nothing in between.

Yeah, sorry, I do tend to drift about a lot. I wish I could were more adept and translating my thoughts to words. I'm aware of it, but it's the best I can do.

Thanks for clarifying your sig file. I do enjoy the interjection of humor into all aspects of life! Carry on!!!

 

[ib1dance]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man /img/forum/go_quote.gif I posted a response to criticism I received for my last post on 'burden of proof'. Both have gone from the thread. Is a forum administrator able to explain why that is? Thanks.

Ha so you have noticed that these posts are heavily censored by moderators .

Easy answer.Don't bother reading head-fi.org posts because these posts are highly Subjective and moderated.

Having wrote that I'm still reading these posts!.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ib1dance /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ha so you have noticed that these posts are heavily censored by moderators . Easy answer.Don't bother reading head-fi.org posts because these posts are highly Subjective and moderated. Having wrote that I'm still reading these posts!.

It is the first time I have come across such moderation.

 

[ib1dance]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jax /img/forum/go_quote.gif A scoop of vanilla ice cream in a bowl may mean something entirely different to you than it does to me. -XTC

Ok first of all your not being logical at all and this kind of sentence proves it when you write in the context of 'Meaning'.

In fact your admitting your not being logical and to that point their is no point in reasonable thinking logic people in trying to persuade you or counter your statements with sense.

A scoop of vanilla ice cream in a bowl is exactly that.Besides getting side tracked with language and the labels we use to identity physical matter and how we as individuals perceive that matter.It still remains 'A scoop of vanilla ice cream in a bowl'.

Ice cream and the bowl and everything connected to it are Physical in nature.Because of this you,me and every other human being (lucky enough with natures grace) can touch & taste it.Just because we as human beings have a unique sense of identity thus will taste that ice cream in a infinite myriad of ways does not alter the physical facts of life and what that ice cream in reality is made up of.

Only a ignorant ( but possible nice and kind ) person would argue against logic because they have not being able to comprehend logic.Logic is the base on what the brain is founded upon.Logic is sense and it is only through using our 5 sense's :-

Hearing
sight
touch
smell
and taste ( yum! chocolate ice-cream )

That we can determine what is real and what is of the imagination.
Having learnt this most valuable of lessons ,we as humans can then enjoy relative safety,knowing that for example we are made of flesh and bone ,So we need to take adequate care of ourself s. And relative happiness because we can free our fantasy's without danger of our active imaginations making us all follow religiously some crack pot dream that ultimately tears the human community apart.

The Truth does set you free and can bring us together as a world community.

 

[ib1dance]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prog Rock Man /img/forum/go_quote.gif It is the first time I have come across such moderation.

mm..? me too on this forum but 2 of my posts on this thread I posted yesterday have been removed .

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Moderators, is there a fault? Or if not would you at least tell us why posts are being removed. Thanks.

 

[jax]

Quote:

Only a ignorant ( but possible nice and kind ) person would argue against logic because they have not being able to comprehend logic.Logic is the base on what the brain is founded upon.Logic is sense and it is only through using our 5 sense's :- Hearing sight touch smell and taste ( yum! chocolate ice-cream )

You've misunderstood me here, and sorry for not being more clear. Yes, of course vanilla ice cream in a bowl is always going to be just that. But for each individual that may bring up an infinite variety of responses....positive, negative, neutral, etc. It may just be a bowl of vanilla ice cream, but to me that might be "yummy", as you put it, and to you it may be quite dreadful and remind you of the wake of your father and bring up bad thoughts....while to a traveling bushman of the Kalahari, it may be a very confusing thing altogether (e.g. "The Gods Must be Crazy"). Always it remains the same bowl of vanilla ice cream. How it is interpretted, how it is experienced may be entirely unique to each individual.

Hope that clarifies my point.

 

[jax]

BigCW - I have a question, simply out of curiosity based on the drive and zeal of your stated mission. I've only heard you mention cables, so I'll just keep my query to that subject since you seem to feel strongly about it. Can you tell me what cables you've tried and what comparisons you've made of them, and in what sort of systems, in order to come to the tightly held beliefs you maintain? I'm just curious what experiences you are coming from to have such a strong drive regarding these matters.

 

[ib1dance]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jax /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am suggesting our experience of the world is how we individually interpret the truth. The truth does not change. The truth is not bad or good. It just is. We make it into something bad or good. Without a human thought there is NO bad or good.

Spot on.Yes the Truth is not a mutable factor . Believing something other than the Truth will not alter the actual Truth.

That though is contrary to how a creationist will think in order to hold onto their view.

A creationist believes and is taught that it is the power of believing or faith that ultimately when the time comes decides spiritual reality.And ultimately many creationists throughout human history have tried to alter their environment ( reality ) to suit their particular religious views and their place in the world.

A evolutionist believes and hopefully learns rather than just being taught, that because all reality 'is' of a physical nature, something that we are born into.So we live in order to make the most of what nature has given us and accept that simply some things are possible like a healthy environment for all, whist others are merely fantasy like living after the brain is dead.

A creationist will Argue that everyone has a different point of view and their view of creationism is a valid one.

A evolutionist will understand that everyone has a different point of view which in essence is simply the consciousness ,their self awareness which is a manifested reality of the physical brain -- including the idea or perception of a spiritual reality .

 

[jax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by adrift /img/forum/go_quote.gif Again, I don't believe this is true. Last time I made an objection to this I had a post deleted and then was banned for a week when I re-posted the post assuming it was a website glitch. So I'm going to avoid that here. but there are some decent theology based forums (both believer based and skeptical based) where open debate is done using hard and soft science to argue both sides convincingly. Again, faith doesn't need to be blind... In fact, I think its only worth its salt when its informed.

I cannot speak for the moderators, of course, but I can venture a guess having been involved with various forums over many years. You can talk till your fingertips are numb about such off-topic subjects (provided in the appropriate forum section and not hijacking a thread) as watches, cars, movies, and other benign subjects. But start to touch upon religion, politics and other topics that represent some very personal choices and you will likely be poking a hornets nest of potential responses and heated discussion that is not popular on a forum that is supposed to remain civil, friendly and of course on-topic. There are numerous places online to have such discussions, but I expect the moderators on an audio forum will only allow so much leeway there before they start to use their title to keep the discussions on track. Just a theory mind you. I have no idea what you posted, and obviously you probably should refrain from repeating it if it was removed, and or take it up directly with the moderator in question if you have strong objections.

In the realm of the discussion at hand; has anyone read the book, This is Your Brain on Music? You folks who are into the science of this stuff might find it interesting reading. For those who may not want to take the time to use the link, here's a couple of blurbs from the Amazon listing:

Quote:

From Publishers Weekly Starred Review. Think of a song that resonates deep down in your being. Now imagine sitting down with someone who was there when the song was recorded and can tell you how that series of sounds was committed to tape, and who can also explain why that particular combination of rhythms, timbres and pitches has lodged in your memory, making your pulse race and your heart swell every time you hear it. Remarkably, Levitin does all this and more, interrogating the basic nature of hearing and of music making (this is likely the only book whose jacket sports blurbs from both Oliver Sacks and Stevie Wonder), without losing an affectionate appreciation for the songs he's reducing to neural impulses. Levitin is the ideal guide to this material: he enjoyed a successful career as a rock musician and studio producer before turning to cognitive neuroscience, earning a Ph.D. and becoming a top researcher into how our brains interpret music. Though the book starts off a little dryly (the first chapter is a crash course in music theory), Levitin's snappy prose and relaxed style quickly win one over and will leave readers thinking about the contents of their iPods in an entirely new way. (Aug.) Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition. From School Library Journal Adult/High School–Levitin's fascination with the mystery of music and the study of why it affects us so deeply is at the heart of this book. In a real sense, the author is a rock 'n' roll doctor, and in that guise dissects our relationship with music. He points out that bone flutes are among the oldest of human artifacts to have been found and takes readers on a tour of our bio-history. In this textbook for those who don't like textbooks, he discusses neurobiology, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, empirical philosophy, Gestalt psychology, memory theory, categorization theory, neurochemistry, and exemplar theory in relation to music theory and history in a manner that will draw in teens. A wonderful introduction to the science of one of the arts that make us human.–Will Marston, Berkeley Public Library, CA Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

 

[adrift]

jax, I'm a bit confused by some of your responses here, and maybe they're more thought experiments than anything, but comparing things like our subjective experience to a bowl of ice cream or to good music doesn't seem to be in the same league as experiencing what very well may be phantom phenomena from expensive cables. The ice cream is real. It can be experienced phenomenally, and its characteristics can be gauged and measured. The minute differences in sound reproduction claimed by cable advocates may not be real at all (the characteristic differences, as far as I know, have not been measured (outside of anecdotal claims)). How do we account for a subjective experience to something that may not actually exist (cannot be proven with the senses) without getting into some sort of mystical or transcendental discussion (which I don't think really applies to this situation)? Your response to perceived differences in cables is that the perception its subjective, but that doesn't seem to follow.

 

[jax]

Quote:

The ice cream is real. It can be experienced phenomenally, and its characteristics can be gauged and measured.

How do you measure and quantify the taste of vanilla ice cream in a meaningful way that applies to everyone's experience of what that taste is? Even if you came up with a device that generated specific data and spit forth some conclusion, Jack may still love vanilla ice cream, while Jill can't stand the flavor. It is no different with music...well, I take that back, different senses are involved, but the principal is the same. It is no different with phenomena that cannot be explained with the devices that humans can come up with to justify such absurd notions because they need to have things neatly quantified and compartmentalized. The human experience of what you call "reality"....the truth...is entirely filtered through the experience and senses of the individual. Again...the numbers your objective, scientific devices might yield to distinguish a SS amp from a SET amp would indicate that distortions abound in the SET amp. Yet I have loved listening to music from such a device. This kind of experience has me believe that there is much more to life than what we can explain in numbers, graphs, and machines. Yes, your scientific objective device will indicate the SET amp yields more 2nd order harmonic distortion than the SS amp, for instance. But who is to say that that kind of distortion may not actually be very pleasing and enjoyable to someone who may not prefer at all the option of odd-order distortions presented by an SS amp? Vanilla. Chocolate. Blondes. Brunettes. Solid state. Tubes. Crunch your numbers and plot your graphs until the cows come home. You can not plot how an individual may respond to any of those things in any kind of meaningful way.

 

[hectuero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jax /img/forum/go_quote.gif As far as I can tell, everything just is. Logic and reason are entirely fabrications of the human mind. None of this stuff has any meaning at all except what we, as individuals ascribe to it. What that meaning becomes is often entirely unique to the individual. A scoop of vanilla ice cream in a bowl may mean something entirely different to you than it does to me.

The ice cream analogy doesn't make any sense here. The ice cream itself doesn't change, only the subject's interpretation of it can. The meaning of electrical signals traveling through a cable is irrelevant to the subject, as they are not only unable to perceive them (until they themselves are interpreted by the headphones/speakers/etc) but also that it doesn't prove that a different cable would result in a different electrical signal at the other end. Unless you can measure a difference, it's not there (unless our understanding of electricity is fundamentally flawed) and the difference you're hearing is just the placebo effect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jax /img/forum/go_quote.gif Music is in the realm of the emotions, and is therefore highly subjective.

The flaw with that statement is not in its truth (it is true), but in its validity in the context of this discussion. Whether one likes music or not is mostly subjective (though there are also objective reasons behind "good" music, but I won't go into the theory of music now). Likewise, the reproduction of music by different methods is mostly (but not entirely) subjective; however, determining if something changes the reproduction of sound is not subjective, and is entirely objective. For example: it can be completely and entirely decided scientifically if a different cable has an effect (and if that effect is audible) on the sound. What it may not be able to determine, though, is whether that effect, if it exists, is beneficial or detrimental, that is subjective (though could be objective if it was based on some proven psychoacoustic theory).

Thus, you can't use subjective observations alone to back up the claim that cables can or do make a difference in the sound reproduction.