With the definition "the science of imaginary solutions" "An absurdist philosophy or pseudoscience studying things "beyond" metaphysics."
So suggesting I'm channeling this is not an ad-hom attack? Really sad!
Maybe next you'll move onto flat-earther, creationist, holocaust denier, who knows - they are all a set of ideas, not a person, right!
Last edited:
Unfortunately, mmerrill99 appears to do more damage to his cause than help it. Please don't assume he represents everyone who can hear more than what some on the more skeptical end of the spectrum might expect. And, no, wooden cable lifters and other silly things don't work. Some of us can easily agree on that.
Try dealing with any point I raised rather than some random evaluation of me, please?
Did I ever suggest that cable lifters have any audible effect? Are you attempting to attribute this view to me?
Did I ever suggest that cable lifters have any audible effect? Are you attempting to attribute this view to me?
Maybe you're not old enough to remember the 60's, channeling was a practice of meditation to connect with those that have passed away, etc. There is no personal attack in saying some ideas resemble those of someone else.
For instance telling someone that a special cryo-treatment of cables does not allow super-luminal signal propagation is telling them their idea is wrong, it is not a personal attack.
Why can't you bring yourself to be able to say to Waly or someone, "sure, some people believe they hear stuff that they don't and can't possibly, such as from wooden cable lifters." Isn't that true about some people?
Yes, it's absolutely true & I never said otherwise. The tactic of waly as I've observed on this thread, is rather than discuss the points being raised & research presented, instead to assign the most absurdist position to the 'other' in response. People slot right into the partisan attitude in these discussions - painting those that present research & perspectives on matters which contravene their own views, as the most extreme version of the 'other side' - just like you seem to be assuming about me.
Why not address this behavior in him & others as it's what causes the repetitive nature of this discussion
Why not address this behavior in him & others as it's what causes the repetitive nature of this discussion
Last edited:
No, I think we need to start by finding what we can agree on, and we should be able to agree that we believe some absurd things are not possible. I don't think there is anything at all to fear by doing that.
My position throughout this thread & others was/is to give pause to the stock/lazy/simplistic thinking that many have become stuck in. This has seldom been answered only to suggest that it is "all hypothesis"
Just because some of this research opens the possibility that there i smore to auditory perception than people here want to admit to because they are afraid that it will open the door to "absurdists" is typical of the tactic of denial of partisanship
Assuming that I represent the absurdist side of this hobby is just as mistaken as assuming I represent the other side
Just because some of this research opens the possibility that there i smore to auditory perception than people here want to admit to because they are afraid that it will open the door to "absurdists" is typical of the tactic of denial of partisanship
Assuming that I represent the absurdist side of this hobby is just as mistaken as assuming I represent the other side
Last edited:
You seem to be disposed more towards finding things to argue about than to agree about.
Also, it is normal for someone to tend to think they alone see reality as it truly is, but you appear to do so more strongly than most.
Also, it is normal for someone to tend to think they alone see reality as it truly is, but you appear to do so more strongly than most.
Rather than discussing me why don't you discuss the research that I have presented when I have made a point?
There are a number of people that seem to be clued into the points I've raised but if you consider that I view myself as the only one that sees reality as it truly is - I have a viewpoint & am willing to discuss it point by point - that's usually what goes on in forums & would be much more interesting than this type of discourse.
I'm not sure where discussion about other posters leads & what it achieves?
There are a number of people that seem to be clued into the points I've raised but if you consider that I view myself as the only one that sees reality as it truly is - I have a viewpoint & am willing to discuss it point by point - that's usually what goes on in forums & would be much more interesting than this type of discourse.
I'm not sure where discussion about other posters leads & what it achieves?
But placebo (or expectation- or confirmation bias) doesn't in fact work like that. The effect is just like the McGurk effect - its not that they believe (a huge red herring to bring in beliefs), rather that they hear. So that could be the reason he can't 'bring himself to say...' could it not?
If so, it would be nice if he would explain his reservation in those terms rather than completely rejecting any discussion aimed at finding shared agreement. In such a case, maybe we could reach some shared agreement with a little change in wording.
What wording would you be willing to agree to with Waly in order to start working towards some shared understanding of what people can and can't hear (in the sense that correlates with physical reality -- or, to put it another way, how can you tell who is someone who can be trusted to serve as a test instrument for an amplifier and who should you avoid based on what they claim to be able to hear? Should you rule out using people who hear wooden cable lifters? How about some other things? )
By the way, I am not suggesting you should be able to settle every possible question, just narrow down the area of disagreement and arrive at a more clear shared definition of what the exact remaining disagreement is. That is when we should probably get Jakob2 involved, to help sort out the science and needed research for that narrow(er) area.
By the way, I am not suggesting you should be able to settle every possible question, just narrow down the area of disagreement and arrive at a more clear shared definition of what the exact remaining disagreement is. That is when we should probably get Jakob2 involved, to help sort out the science and needed research for that narrow(er) area.
Last edited:
As far as I recall one person who extolled the auditory benefits of wooden cable lifters was the late Charles Hansen. Would I rule out a priori anything he said? Definitely not - I found him fairly convincing under cross-examination.
I trust myself & I've never tried cable lifters but would be shocked if they had an audible effect.
Not sure what you are trying to achieve with this consensus idea - why not ask waly what points that I have brought up which he disagrees with & we can have a worthwhile discussion. Or you could do the same - what do you disagree with that I have said?
Btw, are you a marriage counselor?
Not sure what you are trying to achieve with this consensus idea - why not ask waly what points that I have brought up which he disagrees with & we can have a worthwhile discussion. Or you could do the same - what do you disagree with that I have said?
Btw, are you a marriage counselor?
Last edited:
Sure. I would not rule out Charles from some listening tasks but maybe from others. In principle, he has shown that we would have reason to be careful if trying to use him as human instrumentation. It could be a little training about how to avoid perceptual error would help a lot. If it did, then maybe his trust-ability score could go up.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.