So The Sky Is Blue Or, Is It?
Hi,
And all that time I thought I wasn't religious....
For your information, I only believe in facts, and then some, not necessarily in what I think.
Source: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=belief&x=14&y=14
Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
- opin·ioned /-y&nd/ adjective
synonyms OPINION, VIEW, BELIEF, CONVICTION, PERSUASION, SENTIMENT mean a judgment one holds as true. OPINION implies a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute <each expert seemed to have a different opinion>. VIEW suggests a subjective opinion <very assertive in stating his views>. BELIEF implies often deliberate acceptance and intellectual assent <a firm belief in her party's platform>. CONVICTION applies to a firmly and seriously held belief <the conviction that animal life is as sacred as human>. PERSUASION suggests a belief grounded on assurance (as by evidence) of its truth <was of the persuasion that everything changes>. SENTIMENT suggests a settled opinion reflective of one's feelings <her feminist sentiments are well-known>.
Main Entry: be·lief
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
synonyms BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof <an unshakable faith in God>. CREDENCE suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent <a theory now given credence by scientists>. CREDIT may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof <gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness>. synonym see in addition OPINION
Guess that's CRAP too, uh?
Cheers,
Hi,
And all that time I thought I wasn't religious....
For your information, I only believe in facts, and then some, not necessarily in what I think.
Source: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=belief&x=14&y=14
Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
- opin·ioned /-y&nd/ adjective
synonyms OPINION, VIEW, BELIEF, CONVICTION, PERSUASION, SENTIMENT mean a judgment one holds as true. OPINION implies a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute <each expert seemed to have a different opinion>. VIEW suggests a subjective opinion <very assertive in stating his views>. BELIEF implies often deliberate acceptance and intellectual assent <a firm belief in her party's platform>. CONVICTION applies to a firmly and seriously held belief <the conviction that animal life is as sacred as human>. PERSUASION suggests a belief grounded on assurance (as by evidence) of its truth <was of the persuasion that everything changes>. SENTIMENT suggests a settled opinion reflective of one's feelings <her feminist sentiments are well-known>.
Main Entry: be·lief
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
synonyms BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof <an unshakable faith in God>. CREDENCE suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent <a theory now given credence by scientists>. CREDIT may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof <gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness>. synonym see in addition OPINION
Guess that's CRAP too, uh?
Cheers,
fdegrove said:
Hi Frank, I think reviewers describe the change they heard re the Shaktis as "more focus," "more air," "more musical enjoyment." My sense, likewise, is that any change wrought by the devices is probably subtle.
I wanted to pick up on your comment that ABX testing is probably unsuitable to hearing subtle audio effects. Earlier in this thread, Jan spoke about the role expectations play, even physiologically, in the way the ear/brain perceives sound. Another poster (Andy C?) responded by telling of his tendency to wince at a certain point in a recording where his LP version of which used to skip. I've experienced this "expectation" at subtler levels in discerning differences between resistors, capacitors, inductors etc which I have placed into a circuit of which I am already familiar, ie, which, using expectation terminology, has already built up a set of sound or playback expectations in me. I've noticed in the component upgrading process that what I first "hear" when I hear an audible effect (Bybees provide a good test case for this) is more along the lines of a feeling, which might be called a certain, say, relief from strain, or a lightening in the presence of the music played. This relief from strain I almost invariably describe as lowered noise floor, greater air, greater transparency, etc---language similar to what reviewers of Shakti stones use.
So I think and have long experienced that "expectations" play a large role, though not the only role, in judging between components. To extend this discussion a little, discerning subtle differences in sound is a more time-involved process, IME, than, say, discerning differences in taste between different wines. Not so long ago, I had little idea what differentiated good from not so good wine. In the past two years, I have attended several wine tastings, and in that short period of time have learned to distinguish not only between various grapes (Merlot and Cabernet still confuse me), but to know what differentiates a good from a very good from an excellent wine. That learning period contrasts with the time it took me to discern and reliably pinpoint audible effects.
So far as the accuracy of my audio discernment skills, I have no doubt that I can hear audible differences replacing as little as a component in the audio chain. I recently replaced two iron-core inductors in my speakers with Jensen paper-and-wax inductors and not only I but my wife heard the difference, she not being schooled in the minutiae of audio upgrades. But here's the catch, so far as I've experienced: give me a speaker of which I'm not familiar, give me five minutes to listen to it (ten? twenty?), swap out iron-core inductors with air-core Jensens and I don't have confidence I could hear the difference. Why? Because I would not have had enough time to literally get a feel for the speakers.
Video effects, on the other hand, are entirely different. I have replaced capacitors in older TVs, and literally no-one familiar with the TV did not comment .... "wow!"
Further to the difference between audio and video effects, I once had an old Marantz solid-state amp that had red LED distortion lights on it. Into the power supply of this amp I placed several small-value teflon caps. I think the power supply ran at +/- 40VDC, with correspondingly huge electrolytics (it was a 200W amp) in comparison to which the teflon caps were miniscule (a couple of microfarads). Very interestingly, I immediately noticed: greater air, far better bass, more headroom, seemingly greater power, better high frequencies. Others who knew me at the time couldn't hear the effects to the extent I could, but they could see the effects as the distortion LEDs blinked at a much higher rotation (at least 30 degrees) of the volume control. This video version of the audio effects was easy to demonstrate in ABX fashion ... a no brainer.
Konnichiwa,
I think, therefore I am.
I am, therefore I think.
Religion is opium for the masses.
This whole thread is stricly, purely and completely about religion, by any sensible definition one cares to use.
And most (all?) participants in the thread are invested into a particular religion to a point where the possibility of admitting their religion is actually wrong (Do not worry or be alarmed, by DEFINITION all religions are wrong, you either KNOW the divine or you DONT, believe or faith does not in the LEAST come into it) falls into a category of a lack of moral affordability for the position stating such.
I care funk all if you are roman catholic, evangelical, Jah's wittness, orthox cristian or jew, reformed jew, sufi, ishmaeli, suni or shiite, buddhist, zen buddhist, daoist, laoist, completly deraged, maxist, leninist, agnostic, gnostic, communist, anarchist, archist, capitalist, republicrat or democan, theist or atheist.
I do not even care if you believe the MEST (Matter Energy Space Time) Universe is real or illusion. You qualify as a clinical case of irrationalism, BECAUSE YOU PREFER TO BELIVE over KNOWING.
Can we for Funk's sake (okay, make that Funk, Jazz, Classical, Romantic, Barock, Rock and Herbie Hanckocks sake) just jettison all this useless ballast, consign moral affordability to the scrapheap of temporal junk it belong onto and get on WITH THE ACTUAL BUSINESS AT HAND (and not just in audio?)?
PLEASE?
Pretty Please?
All of you, please re-evaluate and evaluate your views and consider the point where scepticism becomes irrational believe (look up the spanish inquisition as an example what believe is capable of) and equally where a genuine conviction become fanaticism (look up the spanish inquisition as an example what fanaticism is capable of) and release ourselves from the prisons of our craniums?
You are all lifers in the prison of your heads, don't you think it's bleedin time for a prison revolt?
Remember, we ARE the universe, percieving the universe, creating the universe we percieve. Why settle for sloppy third hand junk, when YOU (yes, that means YOU over there in the cheap seats) can have IT ALL?
Well, suit yourselves.
As the Marsh Artabs used to say (before Saddam "resettled" them with money and guns from the US Government):
"The nature of rain is the same, but it makes thorns grow in the marshes and flowers in the gardens."
Sayonara.
ON WAKING UP - [url]http://www.spiritwalk.org/demellowakingup.htm[/URL]
Good morning, smell the coffee.
I think, therefore I am.
I am, therefore I think.
Religion is opium for the masses.
This whole thread is stricly, purely and completely about religion, by any sensible definition one cares to use.
And most (all?) participants in the thread are invested into a particular religion to a point where the possibility of admitting their religion is actually wrong (Do not worry or be alarmed, by DEFINITION all religions are wrong, you either KNOW the divine or you DONT, believe or faith does not in the LEAST come into it) falls into a category of a lack of moral affordability for the position stating such.
I care funk all if you are roman catholic, evangelical, Jah's wittness, orthox cristian or jew, reformed jew, sufi, ishmaeli, suni or shiite, buddhist, zen buddhist, daoist, laoist, completly deraged, maxist, leninist, agnostic, gnostic, communist, anarchist, archist, capitalist, republicrat or democan, theist or atheist.
I do not even care if you believe the MEST (Matter Energy Space Time) Universe is real or illusion. You qualify as a clinical case of irrationalism, BECAUSE YOU PREFER TO BELIVE over KNOWING.
Can we for Funk's sake (okay, make that Funk, Jazz, Classical, Romantic, Barock, Rock and Herbie Hanckocks sake) just jettison all this useless ballast, consign moral affordability to the scrapheap of temporal junk it belong onto and get on WITH THE ACTUAL BUSINESS AT HAND (and not just in audio?)?
PLEASE?
Pretty Please?
All of you, please re-evaluate and evaluate your views and consider the point where scepticism becomes irrational believe (look up the spanish inquisition as an example what believe is capable of) and equally where a genuine conviction become fanaticism (look up the spanish inquisition as an example what fanaticism is capable of) and release ourselves from the prisons of our craniums?
You are all lifers in the prison of your heads, don't you think it's bleedin time for a prison revolt?
Remember, we ARE the universe, percieving the universe, creating the universe we percieve. Why settle for sloppy third hand junk, when YOU (yes, that means YOU over there in the cheap seats) can have IT ALL?
Well, suit yourselves.
As the Marsh Artabs used to say (before Saddam "resettled" them with money and guns from the US Government):
"The nature of rain is the same, but it makes thorns grow in the marshes and flowers in the gardens."
Sayonara.
ON WAKING UP - [url]http://www.spiritwalk.org/demellowakingup.htm[/URL]
Good morning, smell the coffee.
Konnichiwa,
Yes, reviewing and writing about what one hears (even in the most possibly subjective context) is difficult, made worse for l'anglaise by the fact that the english language (never mind the american one) lacks both depth, pecision and layers of abstraction, a fact observed and written about by orwell in 1984, if in the context of Newspeak....
Now, as someone who has been occasionally called upon to render a view (I do not hold opinions as such, I express view but behind it all I prefer to KNOW) I appreciate the difficulty to render in a form of english acceptable to (or ignored by) editors ones observatiosn once they pass from the obvious ("The speaker A had much MORE trebles and bass than speaker B but the added trebles and bass where wearisome and ill defined") to the "semi-subliminal" ("I found myself listening to music more and enjoying it more than I ever did before, despite the fact that the amplifier was deficient in the rendition of fine details and the absolute trebles and lacked bass control").
Even in German (a surgical language in my opinion though in that sense less ideal than greek or hebrew or perhaps that which we now call sanskrit are more ideal) it would be difficult to express such concepts, one we proceed from the gross to the subtle. The knowledge of fine wines, sexual partners and the live performance of music extends back millenia, so one expects a certain setteling down of vocabulary, ideas and processes. Compared to this Audio recording and reproduction are very much immature and questionable.
The real question is, do we care about music, it's recording and reproduction or do we care about "being right all the time"?
Sayonara
serengetiplains said:
Yes, reviewing and writing about what one hears (even in the most possibly subjective context) is difficult, made worse for l'anglaise by the fact that the english language (never mind the american one) lacks both depth, pecision and layers of abstraction, a fact observed and written about by orwell in 1984, if in the context of Newspeak....
Now, as someone who has been occasionally called upon to render a view (I do not hold opinions as such, I express view but behind it all I prefer to KNOW) I appreciate the difficulty to render in a form of english acceptable to (or ignored by) editors ones observatiosn once they pass from the obvious ("The speaker A had much MORE trebles and bass than speaker B but the added trebles and bass where wearisome and ill defined") to the "semi-subliminal" ("I found myself listening to music more and enjoying it more than I ever did before, despite the fact that the amplifier was deficient in the rendition of fine details and the absolute trebles and lacked bass control").
Even in German (a surgical language in my opinion though in that sense less ideal than greek or hebrew or perhaps that which we now call sanskrit are more ideal) it would be difficult to express such concepts, one we proceed from the gross to the subtle. The knowledge of fine wines, sexual partners and the live performance of music extends back millenia, so one expects a certain setteling down of vocabulary, ideas and processes. Compared to this Audio recording and reproduction are very much immature and questionable.
The real question is, do we care about music, it's recording and reproduction or do we care about "being right all the time"?
Sayonara
Hi,
That's very true...The more subtle things aren't always easy to spot in an unfamiliar system/environment.
The video/TV analogy does work to some extent but not universally as some tweaks applicable to audio simply won't have any effect on video/TV and vice versa.
Holy KOW errr... KYW you're just a prisoner like the rest of us, believe me, no one is above it.
To some people water is just water, wine is just wine and a car is just a car. So what, I hear you say?
Strange enough they seem somehow envious of someone elses' sensory capabilities when they're told it just ain't so for all of us.
I wonder why some of them feel so strongly compelled to convince us we're just like them....
Back to the Shakti it is then...someone is going after that million bucks...
Cheers,
That's very true...The more subtle things aren't always easy to spot in an unfamiliar system/environment.
The video/TV analogy does work to some extent but not universally as some tweaks applicable to audio simply won't have any effect on video/TV and vice versa.
Holy KOW errr... KYW you're just a prisoner like the rest of us, believe me, no one is above it.
To some people water is just water, wine is just wine and a car is just a car. So what, I hear you say?
Strange enough they seem somehow envious of someone elses' sensory capabilities when they're told it just ain't so for all of us.
I wonder why some of them feel so strongly compelled to convince us we're just like them....
Back to the Shakti it is then...someone is going after that million bucks...
Cheers,
Konnichiwa,
Another believe.
Now one more believe for you. And maybe, if you believe ME rather than yourself....
That which percieves is above that which is percieved.
(statement of fact here)
You are all prisoners by CHOICE, simply because you BELIEVE (absolutely inaccuratly) that this, which percieves is subordinate to that which is being percieved. Put the funking horse before the cart, tear the roof of dah sucka and free your booty, your mind WILL follow. Chose to disbelieve and remove the exterior conditioning.
"For now we see through a glass, darkly."
(Most modern renderings arem less poetic "we see in a mirror, dimly,")
Sayonara
fdegrove said:
Another believe.
Now one more believe for you. And maybe, if you believe ME rather than yourself....
fdegrove said:
That which percieves is above that which is percieved.
(statement of fact here)
You are all prisoners by CHOICE, simply because you BELIEVE (absolutely inaccuratly) that this, which percieves is subordinate to that which is being percieved. Put the funking horse before the cart, tear the roof of dah sucka and free your booty, your mind WILL follow. Chose to disbelieve and remove the exterior conditioning.
"For now we see through a glass, darkly."
(Most modern renderings arem less poetic "we see in a mirror, dimly,")
Sayonara
Fellows, we are talking about the following:
Which are supposed to be placed on top of speakers thusly:
These are supposed to produce a good effect on your listening system. This is a commerical product, which costs actual money. It is sold to individuals, who are seeking to benefit from it in their own personal listening.
We have heard that ABX testing is not the way to go here.
Since the whole purpose of this product is to enhance an individual's listening experience, can someone propose a test for an individual that proves some benefit for an individual? Maybe not 100% of the time, but above random?
Because if such a test is theoretically impossible, is it fair for Shakti to market these products for people to use in their individual sound systems, designed for their individual listening?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Which are supposed to be placed on top of speakers thusly:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
These are supposed to produce a good effect on your listening system. This is a commerical product, which costs actual money. It is sold to individuals, who are seeking to benefit from it in their own personal listening.
We have heard that ABX testing is not the way to go here.
Since the whole purpose of this product is to enhance an individual's listening experience, can someone propose a test for an individual that proves some benefit for an individual? Maybe not 100% of the time, but above random?
Because if such a test is theoretically impossible, is it fair for Shakti to market these products for people to use in their individual sound systems, designed for their individual listening?
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Apologies if I am misinterpreting your ramblings and randowm quotes
, but if you're saying that any form of belief is bad, how do you deal with events that happen outside of your immediate awareness or in the past? Or in fact, anything that you are unable to sense first-hand, from the origins of the universe to exactly what's happening to the electrons in a length of wire.
kelticwizard said:
Purchase a pair, put them in your audio set-up, listen for a few months, remove them, see if you notice a difference. If the purchase price is straining to you, you are playing in the wrong back yard. You might, furthermore, want to check out what audio reviewers have said about the component to see if they put any stock in it working.
Life is very simple after all, and far above random.
Konnichiwa,
No, what I am actually saying is this:
"In this world, there are two kinds of people-those who Get It and those who Don't. If the meaning of this is not immediately obvious to you, count yourself as one of the latter."
Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst
Sayonara
arniel said:Apologies if I am misinterpreting your ramblings and randowm quotes
No, what I am actually saying is this:
"In this world, there are two kinds of people-those who Get It and those who Don't. If the meaning of this is not immediately obvious to you, count yourself as one of the latter."
Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst
Sayonara
I just got off the phone with Kramer at the James Randi Educational Foundation. I explained to Kramer my concerns that devising a test to win the JREF $1M prize using Shakti stones probably was not possible because the mechanism at play in the Stones probably is a form of EMI filtering, which is not a paranormal mechanism. Demonstrating that EMI filtering creates audible effects does not demonstrate the existence of the paranormal etc, ergo no cash prize.
I then explained, by analogy, that upgrading components in an amplifier can create audible effects for known or at least plausibly scientific reasons. I suggested that the American military, for instance, uses $100 resistors in their cruise missiles, because those resistors, among other things, allow for a cleaner, less distorted electrical throughput. In the realm of audio, cleaner throughput can render audible differences, which has caused some audio types to use expensive resistors and other electronic building blocks.
I then suggested that audio cables are normally shielded to reduce EMI interference, and that a reduction of EMI in this instance can be quite audible.
Kramer evidently understood my concern that, if what we're dealing with in the case of Shakti stones was something of the nature of "upgraded resistors" or "cable shielding"---that is, a scientifically explainable audible effect---then we would have a problem devising a test. So he then conferenced James Randi onto the line.
James explained to me that to win the $1M, all a person needs to do is to "demonstrate the existence of the paranormal," which he then described as an observable effect for which there is no known explanation. I then ran through with him my concerns that the Shakti stones work, assuming they do work, on the basis of known scientific laws, that the stones contain inside them magnets and such, and that they work in a fashion not too dissimilar to using a grounded piece of aluminum foil (he reference to aluminum foil was from James Randi).
James Randi then suggested he's currently xraying some stones to find out if there's anything inside them. I suggested he simply break them apart, but the stones are evidently on loan. He then told me that when someone claims that a stereo is improved by placing these stones "in the same room" as the stereo, that claim has no explanation (and is presumably, then, a claim for a paranormal effect).
Those of you who thought I offering giving "semantic" "lawyerly" evasions by suggesting a test using Shakti stones could not win the $1M are wrong. You were also wrong in suggesting that James Randi, due to his high intelligence, could not have misunderstood what the claim for Shakti stones was about. Reread my and John Curl's posts. Phone the Foundation yourselves if you need more than my report above.
I then explained, by analogy, that upgrading components in an amplifier can create audible effects for known or at least plausibly scientific reasons. I suggested that the American military, for instance, uses $100 resistors in their cruise missiles, because those resistors, among other things, allow for a cleaner, less distorted electrical throughput. In the realm of audio, cleaner throughput can render audible differences, which has caused some audio types to use expensive resistors and other electronic building blocks.
I then suggested that audio cables are normally shielded to reduce EMI interference, and that a reduction of EMI in this instance can be quite audible.
Kramer evidently understood my concern that, if what we're dealing with in the case of Shakti stones was something of the nature of "upgraded resistors" or "cable shielding"---that is, a scientifically explainable audible effect---then we would have a problem devising a test. So he then conferenced James Randi onto the line.
James explained to me that to win the $1M, all a person needs to do is to "demonstrate the existence of the paranormal," which he then described as an observable effect for which there is no known explanation. I then ran through with him my concerns that the Shakti stones work, assuming they do work, on the basis of known scientific laws, that the stones contain inside them magnets and such, and that they work in a fashion not too dissimilar to using a grounded piece of aluminum foil (he reference to aluminum foil was from James Randi).
James Randi then suggested he's currently xraying some stones to find out if there's anything inside them. I suggested he simply break them apart, but the stones are evidently on loan. He then told me that when someone claims that a stereo is improved by placing these stones "in the same room" as the stereo, that claim has no explanation (and is presumably, then, a claim for a paranormal effect).
Those of you who thought I offering giving "semantic" "lawyerly" evasions by suggesting a test using Shakti stones could not win the $1M are wrong. You were also wrong in suggesting that James Randi, due to his high intelligence, could not have misunderstood what the claim for Shakti stones was about. Reread my and John Curl's posts. Phone the Foundation yourselves if you need more than my report above.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.