 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.58.2.83
In Reply to: RE: Clark, just what "inconsistencies" have you found in nature? (nt) posted by SF tech on May 29, 2007 at 18:59:16
s
Follow Ups:
I can stand corrected. There is an ambiguity contained in the word inconstistency.
For example. The Cuckoo behaves consistently like a Cuckoo but parts of a Cuckoo's behaviour is not consistent with (is contradictory to) conventional biological theory. Whereas some parts of a Cuckoo's behaviour fits in with Thomas S Kuhn's general application of the word 'anomalies'.
However, in reply to SF tech's question "Clark, just what "inconsistencies" have you found in nature?" . For you, SF tech, to be actually asking that question in the first place means that you are not aware at all as to why so many scientists (including Rupert Sheldrake) are struggling to find answers for the anomalies they observe happening in Nature.
Many scientists are all having to look in the same direction because they cannot find explanations from within the various conventional theories for many of the things they have observed.
Rupert Sheldrake with his 'morphic resonance' concept - that as soon as anything exists, it has a 'morphic resonance pattern', that the more things that are identical the stronger is this 'morphic resonance pattern, that things which are identical are 'linked' and therefore 'know the existence of each other'.
Bohm's book "Thought as a System". - quote 'The whole society sharing thoughts - it's all one process....
Hence such as the investigations recently referred to by Geoff Kait.
The problem with many people in the world of audio is that they want audio (music, recordings, equipment, components - and finally the human being) to be a separate universe - separate - where all is already known - nothing unknown - therefore what is seriously concerning some other scientists has nothing to do with audio, with the human being and with listening to music !!
ALL is NOT known and that is where the struggle is taking place - in trying to gain a further and better understanding.
Regards,
May Belt.
"ALL is NOT known and that is where the struggle is taking place - in trying to gain a further and better understanding."
Perhaps as it pertains to hearing perceptions. However, as you indicated there is very little wiggle room for what constitutes an audio device.
Correct... However, advancement of knowledge occurs along a continuum. It *is* a struggle, and it is a difficult one. It is done using tools that have been established over time. When new tools become available, they are scrutinized and subject to review. The results are verified or discarded. This is the process. You want to stuff the holes in scientific theory with "paradigm shifting" ideas? Fine! Pull as many rabbits out of hats as you'd like. But it's not SCIENCE! It's called SPECULATION! Yes, it can be fun to speculate, but don't expect to be taken seriously by people who have done all of the hard work.
> > For you, SF tech, to be actually asking that question in the first place means that you are not aware at all as to why so many scientists (including Rupert Sheldrake) are struggling to find answers for the anomalies they observe happening in Nature. < <
Nothing could be further from the truth. I have a keen interest in the advancement of knowledge. Your "anomalies" are nothing more than a lack of total understanding. You don't give up on science just because it doesn't answer every question RIGHT NOW! Like I said above, it occurs along a continuum. If you do not understand that, then you're not interested in science... only speculation.
BTW, your "cuckoo analogy" has no relevance. The "anomalies" in its behavior can be explained with generally accepted scientific theories... no "morphic resonance" is required. Quit looking for mysteries where there are none.
> > > "BTW, your "cuckoo analogy" has no relevance. The "anomalies" in its behavior can be explained with generally accepted scientific theories... no "morphic resonance" is required. Quit looking for mysteries where there are none." < < <
As you, SF tech, obviously know the answers to some of the question some of the scientists are struggling to answer, perhaps you could direct Rupert Sheldrake and the other scientists to the particular pages in the scientific text books which give the answers which, you say, "explained with generally accepted scientific theories") regarding "anomalies" in the Cuckoo's behaviour. Perhaps then Rupert and the other scientists will be able to cease their struggle trying to find answers !!! One wonders why "these generally accepted scientific theories" have not been read by Rupert Sheldrake et al !!! One wonders why scientists are STILL saying in 1998 "Not only does (the female cuckoo) evict one of the bird's eggs from the nest, she also lays her own ON THE SAME DAY, and BY SOME EXTRAORDINARY BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM, varies the colour and shell pattern of it's egg so that it more or less matches those of the foster bird." Just why, SF tech, are the scientists STILL looking for this 'extraordinary mechanism' if (as you say) it is so readily known about.?
Yes, the scientists (and the everyday observer and his uncle) know that it HAPPENS, what they are struggling to find out is WHY, and HOW ? - hence Sheldrake's concept of morphic resonance !!! Sheldrake's concept of 'morphic resonance' is, in my opinion, the best stab yet at an explanation !!!
The information of the individual colour and pattern of the foster bird's egg shell CANNOT be in the Cuckoo's own genes and DNA coding (conventional theory) because the Cuckoo only makes it's mind up 24 hours beforehand which foster bird's nest (in any area) it is going to make use of !! So, SF tech, where IS this information ? Pray tell us !!
Sheldrake's concept of 'morphic resonance' is one serious avenue to explore. The concept that the 'information' of the foster bird's egg shell colour and pattern is out there, to use an old expression, 'in the ether', and the Cuckoo has the ability to 'tap into' whichever 'morphic resonance egg shell colour and pattern' it needs at any specific time is one good description of what might be happening - particularly if Sheldrake's concept can be used to explain other "anomalies" occurring in Nature !!
One way of understanding it quite easily is to appreciate that a radio does not have ALL the radio stations of the world WITHIN IT - but it has the ability to 'tap into' any radio broadcast which is 'in the ether' when required to.
I know ALL about speculation, and about how science works and that it is a continuum.
I know Alexander Fleming 'speculated' that 'something' must have got in through an open window and inhibited the growth of bacteria on culture dishes left exposed whilst he was on holiday. I also know that because of insufficient support from the medical community, the initial research had to stop. So, please don't try to convince everyone that science works in a steady, progressive, sensible, orderly fashion.
I know that Louis Pasteur 'speculated' that there was 'something in the air' getting at the wine he made and sending it 'off'. I also know that it took many years for others to understand what Pasteur was talking about.
How many more examples do you require to realise that science and scientific progress does not always work as you suggest. How can things (as you suggest) be "scrutinized and subject to review. The results verified or discarded" if completely ignoring 'speculation' is the order of the day for so many, so called, scientists ?
Regards,
May Belt.
Not every bit of speculation can or should be followed by intense research. There are many different types of criterion that can be used to separate wheat from chaff. To name a few: neccessity (the mother of invention), progression (one thing leads to another), and the almighty dollar (money makes the world go 'round). There are other motivations that come into play... some more noble than others.
May, I guess we just don't see eye to eye on which types of research are important. If you want to study the work of people like Sheldrake, far be it for me to try to stop you. I have grave doubts as to both the value and validity of such a pursuit.
As for explaining the behavior and biological mechanisms of the cuckoo, the obvious starting point would be Darwin. I think, however, that the very idea that the cuckoo is some sort of anomaly is erroneous. So called "anomalies" can be found everywhere in complex systems. If everything is an anomaly, then nothing is!
Thanks for sharing your point of view. Please elucidate further if you'd like.
;-)
I can be very particular about certain things. It drives her nuts. She constantly leaves drawers and cabinets open, and when I ask her to please shut them, she gives me a look like she's a gorilla, and I've just stolen her banana.
When she wants the banana, ferchrissakes GIVE IT TO HER! One day in the not to distant future, you might find yourself asking "Now how come she doesn't want the banana anymore"????
nt
> > I can be very particular about certain things. It drives her nuts. She constantly leaves drawers and cabinets open, and when I ask her to please shut them, she gives me a look like she's a gorilla, and I've just stolen her banana. < <
You should not assume it has anything to do with you nagging her about not closing the drawers (which in most relationships, it should be said, would be the woman's role). Occam's Razor tells us the simplest explanation is the most likely. In this case, it would be that you look like a female gorilla, and it's mating season.
Objective Audiophile 2007
Now if you could learn to apply Occam's razor to real problems of science, you'd be on to something... instead of playing with your creams and foils. I pity anyone who might have to cohabitate with someone who engages in such utter nonsense.
Oh well! Different strokes for different blokes.
You're welcome. As you see, my perceptive abilities aren't just limited to audio. Say, aren't you the knucklehead who wrote a screaming frothing profanity-filled rant at me the last time (the likes of which I have -never- done on AA), and later said -I- fought efforts to "civilize" the discussion in the FE threads?
> > Now if you could learn to apply Occam's razor to real problems of science, you'd be on to something... instead of playing with your creams and foils. < <
I already have been "on to something" for 20 years going. The creams and foils I "play" with -are- dealing with -real- problems of science, problems that affect our sensory perception. Even if they are problems you are trying your hardest to run away or hide from. Using Ockham's line as an excuse to stupidly dismiss complex phenomenon to where you can apply it to whatever prejudices happen to reflect your simple understanding of things, and obviate the need for empirical observation, is not a practice a real scientist, or a wise audiophile, engages in. Nor does it even follow what William Ockham advises.
If you feel the razor applies, then the question you are asked to answer is: "What part of the theory makes no difference to the observable predictions?". Not knowing anything about the theory or the predictable observations, I don't see you being able to -successfully- answer that question any time soon. And there's the problem. If you don't know anything about what you're talking about, you're not in a position to say what is and isn't "real". If the rule really was that everything you don't know (and have never researched) about science "simply doesn't exist but in the human imagination", due to your misinterpretation of a 14th century friar or because you can't think of a good reason why it should be otherwise, then I think what we'd end up seeing is the universe not existing either.
> > I pity anyone who might have to cohabitate with someone who engages in such utter nonsense. < <
Uh-oh. Gorilla rattling her cage. Now where did I put that banana..... oh, there it is in my pocket! Nope, that's not it....
> > Oh well! Different strokes for different blokes. < <
Not to mention different jokes for different folks!
Objective Audiophile 2007
I don't have the slightest interest in anything you have to say. Please feel free to ramble on. Some of the other inmates DO enjoy snickering at your idiocy. Me, I'm just tired of playing with you... Bye!
....when you keep responding. You know you might have a little more credibility if you didn't continue to troll me, or disparage me to others. Can you even refrain from responding any further, I wonder?
-Some of the other inmates DO enjoy snickering at your idiocy. -
I think insults like this are a sign of a lack of confidence in yourself and what you say, sftech. Just so you know, I don't snicker at -your- idiocy. I take it quite seriously. I even try to help you with it, but you fight every attempt to reduce your ignorance. Oh well, different strokes for different blokes, I guess.
--Me, I'm just tired of playing with you... Bye!--
But....wait.... that's my ball you're leaving with.
Objective Audiophile 2007
nt
nt
Oh, never mind.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
