What actually is placebo? It just doesnt make sense

[Redcarmoose]

Yes, I'm entirely predictable in that regard. My mother just needed one friend she likes telling here about crystals, to accept pseudoscience properties as truth. That's not to say cultural influences don't exist, but they certainly aren't formatting everybody to the same mental mold. At best, because repetition is hard to distinguish from truth inside the brain, it makes people less likely to question what has surrounded their upbringing.

A more scientific approach helps remove some cultural influences, like so many other biases going against a common search for truth.

I'm probably on a small soapbox, but only because I had a regular upbringing like every American, then in my 30s I was exposed to all this subject matter that they never talked about in school. So you could imagine (me) going to a Community College after High School then........years later finding Barns and Noble (a book store) which had whole wings of books about other subjects..........not talked about in school. So I was curious. And yes the World is wonderfully diversified, in that there are all kinds of beliefs.

Of course this is Sound Science, but at the same time the question about "What actually is placebo? It just doesnt make sense". I'm simply stating that way before recorded music that humans were transported to another mental realm (via forces) and the sonics of music. That music was a tool and still is a tool for mental states to change. To change to a place far from what we at first thought of........in the USA, at least for me anyway? In fact getting to the understanding of these mental states may in fact answer some of the Placebo questions.

You would think I would know more about the subject of these mental states, but I don't. I have no desire to be a Priest or a Clairvoyant. Such research (to a question or a problem, or just a needed ritual) is easily obtainable, just like from a regular Western Dr. or Lawyer, but just like the Dr. or Lawyer you often pay, at least a donation.

 

[2leftears]

Of course this is Sound Science, but at the same time the question about "What actually is placebo? It just doesnt make sense". I'm simply stating that way before recorded music that humans were transported to another mental realm (via forces) and the sonics of music. That music was a tool and still is a tool for mental states to change. To change to a place far from what we at first thought of........in the USA, at least for me anyway? In fact getting to the understanding of these mental states may in fact answer some of the Placebo questions.

Sure, but now you are talking about music and its emotional impact on people, not the science of sound waves and the associated engineering of transduction, recording, processing and reproduction of sound waves.

Maybe that is a more a topic for discussion in the Music forum.

 

[gregorio]

This is not an argumentative (response) post in any fashion. I could describe 100s of such stories. And in the end I chose two or three to simply formulate the path I’m on in relation to the topic.

Even if you could describe thousands or millions of such stories, how is that not an “Argumentum ad Populam” fallacy? And therefore, you “formulated the path you’re on in relation to the topic” based on a fallacy!!

A magic guy with a top-hat and hypnosis as an explanation is understandable and typically the style of explanation you would get from Westerners.

Why just from Westerners, you think there are no scientists or rational thinking people in the East?

Truly this in the end comes down to spirituality and I’m not sure such a topic is even permitted here on the thread?

If you have reliable evidence which demonstrates that spirituality actually exists AND THEN, have reliable evidence “this in the end” does actually come down to that spirituality, then yes, “such a topic” is permitted here in the Sound Science forum. Otherwise it’s just BS based on a fallacy, it is therefore is NOT acceptable in a science discussion forum and incidentally is also NOT “Truly”.

What does this have to do with audio? It is just perception can be a very convoluted and unstable thing to pin-down.

In answer to your question: “It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with audio”!!

What you’re talking about is perception, NOT audio, and for some bizarre reason you do not (and will not) understand the difference. Let’s say I have a car in yellow metallic paint, maybe I perceive it as yellow metallic, maybe someone else will perceive it as more like gold, some might see it as more reddish, others as more greenish, a colour blind person might see it as light grey. Your problem is, you somehow think that’s a function of the car, rather than just the perception of those looking at it. If you think about it, that must be crazy because it would mean the car is magically changing it’s colour according to who is looking at it. How would the car even know that a different person is looking at it, let alone change it’s colour accordingly? And how would you explain both me and a colour blind person looking at the car at the same time, how could the car be both yellow and light grey simultaneously? How is it even possible that an adult capable of thought wouldn’t know/understand any of this?

G

 

[Redcarmoose]

Even if you could describe thousands or millions of such stories, how is that not an “Argumentum ad Populam” fallacy? And therefore, you “formulated the path you’re on in relation to the topic” based on a fallacy!!

Why just from Westerners, you think there are no scientists or rational thinking people in the East?

If you have reliable evidence which demonstrates that spirituality actually exists AND THEN, have reliable evidence “this in the end” does actually come down to that spirituality, then yes, “such a topic” is permitted here in the Sound Science forum. Otherwise it’s just BS based on a fallacy, it is therefore is NOT acceptable in a science discussion forum and incidentally is also NOT “Truly”.

In answer to your question: “It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with audio”!!

What you’re talking about is perception, NOT audio, and for some bizarre reason you do not (and will not) understand the difference. Let’s say I have a car in yellow metallic paint, maybe I perceive it as yellow metallic, maybe someone else will perceive it as more like gold, some might see it as more reddish, others as more greenish, a colour blind person might see it as light grey. Your problem is, you somehow think that’s a function of the car, rather than just the perception of those looking at it. If you think about it, that must be crazy because it would mean the car is magically changing it’s colour according to who is looking at it. How would the car even know that a different person is looking at it, let alone change it’s colour accordingly? And how would you explain both me and a colour blind person looking at the car at the same time, how could the car be both yellow and light grey simultaneously? How is it even possible that an adult capable of thought wouldn’t know/understand any of this?

G

It seems my response to this post was eradicated by the mods. Cheers!

 

[gregorio]

It seems my response to this post was eradicated by the mods. Cheers!

Discussing religion is not allowed in any forum, it’s against the TOS and as faith is pretty much the opposite of science, then it’s particularly unwelcome here!

G

 

[Redcarmoose]

Discussing religion is not allowed in any forum, it’s against the TOS and as faith is pretty much the opposite of science, then it’s particularly unwelcome here!

G

Not true many of the worlds best scientists believed and believe in a higher power, they were not and are not always agnostic or atheist.

 

[XTF1]

Not true many of the worlds best scientists believed and believe in a higher power, they were not and are not always agnostic or atheist.

Just for fun…..
The world best scientists can be counted on a single hand. I counted 3. Two of them, i.e. many, believe in….. (whatever you want).

How does it make @gregorio statement not true? Having 2 believers in the very large science community is still pretty much the opposite of science.

 

[Redcarmoose]

Just for fun…..
The world best scientists can be counted on a single hand. I counted 3. Two of them, i.e. many, believe in….. (whatever you want).

How does it make @gregorio statement not true? Having 2 believers in the very large science community is still pretty much the opposite of science.

 

[gregorio]

Not true many of the worlds best scientists believed and believe in a higher power, they were not and are not always agnostic or atheist.

“Faith” is what you use to believe in something when you don’t have a good reason (reliable evidence/proof). So how is my statement “Not true”, you think science is based on not having any reliable evidence/proof or the exact opposite? Whether some scientists have faith in certain beliefs is irrelevant, because I’m talking about science, not scientists, so either you don’t know the difference between the two or your argument is just another strawman. And if that’s not enough, your strawman is false anyway because as a group, scientists are more likely to be atheists than pretty much any other demographic!

You did not address a single point I made and instead, your response to the accusation of presenting fallacies, is yet another fallacy and a false one at that! How does that make any sense, even to you?

G

 

[Redcarmoose]

“Faith” is what you use to believe in something when you don’t have a good reason (reliable evidence/proof). So how is my statement “Not true”, you think science is based on not having any reliable evidence/proof or the exact opposite? Whether some scientists have faith in certain beliefs is irrelevant, because I’m talking about science, not scientists, so either you don’t know the difference between the two or your argument is just another strawman. And if that’s not enough, your strawman is false anyway because as a group, scientists are more likely to be atheists than pretty much any other demographic!

You did not address a single point I made and instead, your response to the accusation of presenting fallacies, is yet another fallacy and a false one at that! How does that make any sense, even to you?

G

So wait your accusing me of not addressing your posts when my post was erased by mods? Again........................ this subject has in large been talked about on internet forums since the internet started, no need to continue, I'm out.

 

[gregorio]

So wait your accusing me of not addressing your posts when my post was erased by mods?

You’re joking? Your post was erased for citing/discussing religion, are you really claiming that you cannot address accusations of employing fallacies, making up BS and not knowing the difference between a physical object and a the perception of it, in a science discussion forum without citing/discussing religion?

this subject has in large been talked about on internet forums since the internet started, no need to continue, I'm out.

You making up BS, arguing with fallacies and not knowing the difference between a physical object and the perception of it has “been talked about on internet forums since the internet started”? And you’re still making up BS, using fallacies and haven’t learned that difference? Oh dear lord!

G