On snake oil and personal experience..

Peter Daniel · 2004-03-29 3:25 am

It's been observed that some people are more inclined to experiment with some "exotic" concepts and don't automatically reject everything that is suggested to them, while others classify it as "snake oil".

Well, last night I was reading "Transforming the Mind" by His Holiness The Dalai Lama and this paragraph drew my attention, as I noticed certain analogy:

...you might think that it all sounds fairly rational and seems to make good enough sense. But what evidence do we have to show that these arguments are valid and that their logic is meaningful? Is there a proof we can observe or experience?
According to Sakya teachings (one of the four main schools of Tibetan Buddhism, PD), there are four valid factors of knowledge, namely valid scripture, valid treatises or commentaries, valid teacher, and valid experience.
In terms of their origin, of course, the valid scriptures were taught first, and the valid commentaries were elaborated on them later. Then, on the strengths of their study, valid teachers emerged who became masters of those commentaries. This led to their having valid experiences. However, from the point of view of the development of one's personal conviction it is suggested that this order is reversed - in other words, one must first begin with some kind of personal experience. If we take the case of reflecting upon the empty nature of phenomena, or the benefits of altruism, unless we have some taste or personal experience of the theme, that is, unless we have a glimpse of its truth, it is less likely that we will be inspired deeply enough to persist in our practice.
There are profound levels of realization, which I for one may not have, but there is also a beginning level which we all have. In my own case, whenever I contemplate on the virtues of compassion and altruism I feel deeply moved. But how can we know that such experiences are valid? One way is to look at the effects they have upon us. When we reflect on certain spiritual qualities and cultivate them, and when we begin to feel deeply inspired, this creates a sense of inner strength. This experience makes us more courageous, more expansive, and less prone to worry or insecurity. All those are indications of the validity of our experience.

It seems to me that those who interpret everything (they don't understand) as "snake oil", simply didn't experience that "glimpse of the truth" yet

Magura · 2004-03-29 3:53 am

Ive been making a few experiments during tests lately.

The biggest factor to me was the power of suggestion. Once i didnt know what was what and actually had to tell the difference, the result of most tests turned out random.

It was particulary bad during cable and capacitor tests (actually so bad that i have not dared making any conclusion to the taiwanese "super" caps i had to test) that i had to admit to myself that i could hear no difference, what so ever. Cables were the main reason for all the testing to begin with, during a discussion in another thread about the difference between silver and copper cables, i stated that i can hear difference between silver and copper cables....many objected to that. I made a test of a set of silver and a set of copper interconnects of exactly matching resistance and construction. I had a friend swapping the cables on the inputs of the amp, i had the remote to switch between two identical cd players connected with each a set of cables. In this situation i knew that one had to be silver, wich made it a 50-50, had it been done with a bigger number of cables, in order to make it possible to connect both cd players with the same type of cable, the results would have been even more obvious.....

Magura

Steve Eddy · 2004-03-29 4:01 am

Peter Daniel said:
It's been observed that some people are more inclined to experimant with some "exotic" concepts and don't automatically reject anything that is suggested to them, while others classify it as "snake oil".

Well, last night I was reading "Transforming the Mind" by His Holiness The Dalai Lama and this paragraph drew my attention, as I noticed certain analogy:

*snip*

It seems to me that those who interpret everything (they don't understand) as "snake oil", simply didn't experience that "glimpse of the truth" yet

Hmmm. Not quite sure what you're saying here.

Does the person who declares placing photographs of yourself in your freezer to improve the sound of your system "snake oil" lack understanding?

Has the person whose system sounds better after placing photographs of themself in their freezer caught a "glimpse of the truth"?

Sorry to bring up the frozen photographs again, just tyring to get some idea of what you're meaning by "truth."

se

Peter Daniel · 2004-03-29 4:09 am

It's up to you to interpret that anyway you want. It's a loose analogy and nothing really to be concerned about. Just something I felt could be interesting to others.

I'm not saying anything, it's only food for thought

Steve Eddy · 2004-03-29 4:44 am

Peter Daniel said:
It's up to you to interpret that anyway you want. It's a loose analogy and nothing really to be concerned about. Just something I felt could be interesting to others.

I'm not saying anything, it's only food for thought

Ah. I'd just stuffed myself with eggrolls before I read it. Perhaps that's why I didn't get it.

*bbbrruuuuuuuuuurrrrp!*

'Scuse me.

se

millwood · 2004-03-29 12:31 pm

Peter Daniel said:
Well, last night I was reading "Transforming the Mind" by His Holiness The Dalai Lama

I am not sure why anyone would trust Dalai Lama, a person at the helm of a regime that so brutalized his own people for many many years. A simple trip to Tibet and see the contrast between the monks and the average people should be sufficient to convince you he is no "holiness",

Peter Daniel said:
It seems to me that those who interpret everything (they don't understand) as "snake oil", simply didn't experience that "glimpse of the truth" yet

it seems to me that we shall find out what you were drinking and get some of the same stuff ourselves too.

Peter Daniel · 2004-03-29 3:25 pm

I was drinking water from a fountain

Prune · 2004-03-29 3:36 pm

This sort of lame *** eastern philosophy is no better than the new age crap we have over here. Written to sound deep and profound, in reality it contains not an iota of sense. It may be poetic, even artistic, but if you do manage to find some truth when reading it, it comes from your interpretation (vagueness allows the text to be interpreted to suit any view) and not because it was there.

chris ma · 2004-03-29 4:22 pm

Inspire, provoke to think, not instruction, nor order to follow. When I like to think for a bit I prefer movies like The Deer Hunter, when I just want to escape from reality I prefer The MASK or in the world of Skywalker.

Regards,
Chris

Peter Daniel · 2004-03-29 5:02 pm

Prune said:
This sort of lame *** eastern philosophy is no better than the new age crap we have over here.

Not better for what exacty?

Prune · 2004-03-29 5:33 pm

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking makes a philosophy good? If you believe the purpose of a philosophy is to fool oneself into a world view that one has a subjective preference for, then by all means, adopt an eastern view or whatever other religion or mysticism floats your boat. But of course, no philosopher belives that that is the role of a philosophy. Philosophy is a science, and thus the ones mentioned above fail by default at being valid philosophies. The goal of philosophy is 'pure' fact/truth, or the best approximation human knowledge allows.

Peter Daniel · 2004-03-29 6:02 pm

I was only asking what you meant by saying "no better" ( for what)?

Although you are fact and truth proposer, you already assumed what my believes and views are. What makes you thing you are correct in your assumptions?

Instead of confirming that first, you are already giving an answer.

Variac · 2004-03-29 6:03 pm

I believe that even here in the west there are different approaches to philosophy. Those such as Phenomenology acknowledge that there is no literal truth that can be applied to any situation, but that our context affects the truth as we percieve it. Quite relevent to audio I'd say...I don't think that all philosophers want to be considered "scientists" by a long shot.

to think that there is one Pure truth is pretty limiting- even for Western philosophers. Lots of philosophers think that truth is subjective, but they aren't espousing mystisism.

Prune · 2004-03-29 6:18 pm

to think that there is one Pure truth is pretty limiting

Yes, but in practice we assume a most likely truth and work with that. So while I'm somewhat of a nihilist at heart, that's not a practical philosophy to live by. In practice I guess I'm positivist, specifically assuming unity of science through reductionism. Let -> mean "reduces to"; then, Psychology -> Neurology -> Biology -> Chemistry -> Physics. I am very well aware of attacks on reductionism along the lines of multiple realizations, in case someone brings that up, but these are controversial and there are good counterarguments. Most scientists I know agree with reductionism, and even in philosophy I find scientists more reliable than philosophers (reminds me of a quote by Penrose about wearing his scientist's hat more often than his philosopher's hat, or something like that

).

Variac · 2004-03-29 6:35 pm

So you prefer scientists to philosophers. You are saying that you prefer to listen to scientists rather than philosophers. This implies that philosophers are not as "pure" as you have implied, since a lot of them don't seem to fully support your beliefs, so you reject them.

Reductivism is an incredibly powerful tool, but doesn't always work for every problem. sometimes the "whole" is also worth considering as to it's meaning rather than always chopping things into parts. Philosophy also delves into "meaning " and such, which involve human beings, which I'm sure you've noticed aren't that easy to catagorize ONLY as a sum of their parts.

I really don't want to discuss philosophy so won't respond further.
I think you should keep in mind the what you are saying are your "beliefs" and they may be different than others "beliefs" and perhaps some other peoples beliefs are truly as valid as yours.

johnferrier · 2004-03-29 7:03 pm

I'm missing something...what does the eggroll represent?

JF

Peter Daniel · 2004-03-29 7:04 pm

johnferrier said:
I'm missing something...what does the eggroll represent?

JF

Food for thought (with Eastern flavour)

Prune · 2004-03-29 7:10 pm

Reductivism is an incredibly powerful tool, but doesn't always work for every problem. sometimes the "whole" is also worth considering as to it's meaning rather than always chopping things into parts.

Reductivism is an art movement. I'm sure you meant reductionism. You fail to differentiate between reductionism the tool and reductionism the philosophy. I don't deny what you say, that looking at the whole is necessary too. The point of reductionism as a philosophy is that, while generally not practical, everything can be described at the low level of physical interactions. Whether such a description in the case of complex systems is useful (obviously not in the general case) is besides the point. We have multiple sciences because it is impractical to work without multiple levels of abstraction.
A corollary of reductionism is that a computer can in theory simulate perfectly anything, as long as it has the memory capacity to store the system's state in sufficient subatomic detail (because the laws of physics are computational, Penrose's claims to the contrary notwithstanding). If you could map out the neural connections of your brain (which won't be possible any time soon, Kurzweil's claims to the contrary notwithstanding), and simulated the system in a computer, it would work==think (and be just as conscious) as the real thing. Of course, that doesn't bring any understanding of consciousness at levels of abstractions that would, say, allow practical applications in psychiatry, etc. So reductionism as a philosophy is an argument for the unity of science, rather than a tool, as the latter has, as you pointed out, limited usefulness.

BTW, I disagree with your assertion that I implied philosophers were pure. I only implied that they were better than mystics. I regard scientist philosophers better than philosopher philosophers, because the latter sometimes tend to loose touch with reality, and some philosophical 'proofs' have been disproved by scientific discoveries.

Steve Eddy · 2004-03-29 7:37 pm

Peter Daniel said:
I was drinking water from a fountain

Was it pouring like an avalanche coming down the mountain?

se

Steve Eddy · 2004-03-29 7:49 pm

johnferrier said:
I'm missing something...what does the eggroll represent?

It represents the question whose answer is the answer to life, the universe, and almost everything. The question is "With what do you get eggroll"? When you can answer that question Weedhopper, it will be time for you to leave.

*GOOOOONNNNNNNNGGGGGGGG*

:yinyang:

se

On snake oil and personal experience..

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Disabled Account

Member

Disabled Account

Member

Member

Disabled Account

Member

diyAudio Editor

Disabled Account

diyAudio Editor

Member

Member

Disabled Account

Member

Member