What do we hear when we change the direction of a wire?
Douglas Self wrote a devastating article about audio anomalies back in 1988. With all the necessary knowledge and measuring tools, he did not detect any supposedly audible changes in the electrical signal. Self and his colleagues were sure that they had proved the absence of anomalies in audio, but over the past 30 years, audio anomalies have not disappeared anywhere, at the same time the authority of science in the field of audio has increasingly become questioned. It's hard to believe, but science still cannot clearly answer the question of what electricity is and what sound is! (see article by A.J.Essien).
For your information: to make sure that no potentially audible changes in the electrical signal occur when we apply any "audio magic" to our gear, no super equipment is needed. The smallest step-change in amplitude that can be detected by ear is about 0.3dB for a pure tone. In more realistic situations it is 0.5 to 1.0dB'". This is about a 10% change. (Harris J.D.). At medium volume, the voltage amplitude at the output of the amplifier is approximately 10 volts, which means that the smallest audible difference in sound will be noticeable when the output voltage changes to 1 volt. Such an error is impossible not to notice even using a conventional voltmeter, but Self and his colleagues performed much more accurate measurements, including ones made directly on the music signal using Baxandall subtraction technique - they found no error even at this highest level.
As a result, we are faced with an apparently unsolvable problem: those of us who do not hear the sound of wires, relying on the authority of scientists, claim that audio anomalies are BS. However, people who confidently perceive this component of sound are forced to make another, the only possible conclusion in this situation: the electrical and acoustic signals contain some additional signal(s) that are still unknown to science, and which we perceive with a certain sixth sense.
If there are no electrical changes in the signal, then there are no acoustic changes, respectively, hearing does not participate in the perception of anomalies. What other options can there be?
Well no, standard practice would be have a third party do the blind test before you come to a conclusion. Even if a third party did a blind test and heard a difference it still does not follow that the difference is due to unknown signals and a sixth sense. That isn't how science works.
If someone wants to test a theory by jumping off a building to see if they will really die, do we praise their curiosity and be polite and civil? NO.
The only difference here is the outcome is not going to cause death. It does not make the pursuit any less flawed. We know jumping off a building will kill you. Everyone accepts it because it is painfully obvious. For a portion of the population with the knowledge and experience we know (not think), know, that wire direction in this case will be inaudible. We also know that blind testing must be used. Not think. Know.
If someone claimed to make a perpetual motion machine, do we blindly accept their claim, or do we first explain to them why that is impossible, and then, after they show their experiment, point out all the flaws? This is what we have done, but the person is still claiming their perpetual motion machine works while refusing to validating their work, effectively saying, "trust me". This is not respectful behavior.
The purpose of blind testing is to try and find truth without bias. It might not always succeed but it's a tool like any other. It doesn't have to be about selling things.
If someone wants to test a theory by jumping off a building to see if they will really die, do we praise their curiosity and be polite and civil? NO.
You act like Edison saying to the ignorant crowd that Tesla idea will kill people and they are evidently absurd... Who knows if his ideas are absurd?
What is the difference between Edison and you here?
Your blindtest impossible to realize here with a blunt rejection of the person ideas in this case are bad faith ...
Your accusation here BEG THE QUESTION....I can understand that your "knowledge" could not justify your belief, but accusing him of lying is absolutely in the actual sitruation totally inappropriate...Save by arrogance...
I will go walking my steam outside.....
If someone claimed to make a perpetual motion machine, do we blindly accept their claim, or do we first explain to them why that is impossible, and then, after they show their experiment, point out all the flaws? This is what we have done, but the person is still claiming their perpetual motion machine works while refusing to validating their work, effectively saying, "trust me". This is not respectful behavior.
dletch2For a portion of the population with the knowledge and experience we know (not think), know, that wire direction in this case will be inaudible. We also know that blind testing must be used. Not think. Know."
Yes I admire your absolute, unshakeable, steadfast belief, faith, and conviction you must feel secure, safe, and protected in a belief system that answers all questions, resolves all issues, and spare you from the risk, hazards, and unknowns of explorations, experimentation and learning but you will have to accept if not understand that others here have advanced beyond merely accepting, digesting, and embracing things we have only read. While admire your faith I do not envy the position it leaves you in.
djones51 Unless the so call differences that are heard from the wire direction in his tube amp were done with a CONTROLLED BLIND LISTENING TEST then the result are WORTHLESS.
Well no, standard practice would be have a third party do the blind test before you come to a conclusion. Even if a third party did a blind test and heard a difference it still does not follow that the difference is due to unknown signals and a sixth sense. That isn't how science works.
The purpose of blind testing is to try and find truth without bias. It might not always succeed but it's a tool like any other. It doesn't have to be about selling things.
djones51, your colleague has already switched to a placebo, and you're still offering blind tests. They can't give the right answer, don't you understand the logic?
"Let me remind you that at the moment we have found out that when the wire is reversed, there are absolutely no changes in the electrical signal occur. Thus, according to the laws of conventional physics, these changes are not present in the acoustic signal and we can not hear them.
Next thing is all known subjective tests including blind tests are designed to detect audible differences in the acoustic signal, but we already know that these differences do not exist.
So what else can we prove with blind tests in our situation?"
djones51, your colleague has already switched to a placebo, and you're still offering blind tests. They can't give the right answer, don't you understand the logic?
We understand perfectly well, that you cannot get the answer you want. The answers you have been given are correct, they are just not the ones you want. Truth will set you free.
Next thing is all known subjective tests including blind tests are designed to detect audible differences in the acoustic signal, but we already know that these differences do not exist
If they don't exist then I guess you have your answer.
Next thing is all known subjective tests including blind tests are designed to detect audible differences in the acoustic signal, but we already know that these differences do not exist
If they don't exist then I guess you have your answer.
I wouldn't ask if I have the answer. Do you find a mistake in my logic?
Can two cables even be the same? Is there a way to create an exact atomic structure, either left to right or right to left. What if you go to a deeper level than electrons? What if with time the structure aligns in a certain direction due to the constant flow and excitement of the particles? I think there's more to it than pure electrical signal that we can measure. Just some thoughts
djones51 If we have to leave out basic science like blind listening tests let's
also not delve into psuedo science "sixth sense" and unknown signals. So, we can't have placebo or imaginary signals or an unknown sixth sense. The answer is, it doesn't exist.
Wait. I gave a specific, logical reason why it is impossible to rely on a blind test in such a situation, and not just stated that "we have to leave out basic science like blind listening tests". I expected you to criticize the logic, not just say, "The answer is, it doesn't exist."
I’m sorry I can’t come up with a logical reason why we should believe in a sixth sense or if there are unknown signals in wires. I don’t even know where to criticize the ... I hesitate to say logic? That’s your conclusion isn’t it?
additional signal(s) that are still unknown to science, and which we perceive with a certain sixth sense.
djones51 I’m sorry I can’t come up with a logical reason why we should believe in a sixth sense or if there are unknown signals in wires. I don’t even know where to criticize the ... I hesitate to say logic? That’s your conclusion isn’t it?
additional signal(s) that are still unknown to science, and which we perceive with a certain sixth sense.
Yes, you quoted the conclusion, not the logical chain that led to that conclusion and I was not asking you to believe it. I was asking about a possible error in the logic that leads to this conclusion. starting with the audibility of a particular effect according to electrical engineering. Where exactly can there be a possible mistake?
I have pointed out the error that led to the conclusion.
However, people who confidently perceive this component of sound are forced to make another, the only possible conclusion
The error is your refusal to accept there could be another conclusion. Your error is accepting the belief of those who claim to "confidently perceive " there is a difference in the sound. In science you don't accept beliefs you test for proof. Until you acknowledge the fact that humans are easily fooled and have biases you'll never convince anyone outside those who already agree with your flawed methodology.
Your error is accepting the belief of those who claim to "confidently perceive " there is a difference in the sound. In science you don’t accept beliefs you test for proof.
Are you serious?
He himself listened to a difference with his directed wiring amplifier...
You are THE ONE with a belief...you believe it is IMPOSSIBLE....
Are you insane and unable to think by YOURSELF and only able to repeat the technological credo of some other here because he said so?
I myself have NO OPINION in this matter.... But i want to listen and discuss with someone who had an experience...Without putting him on a tribunal writing his own rule for the judgement...
Blindtest is a tool at most, not a PROOF of reality for complex phenomena....His experiment must be take at heart by someone else...And repeated....
Anyway a blindtest in this case is IMPOSSIBLE... It is not a cable sellers here...He will not give you a cable to verify.... ask Ted Denney for one...
I CANNOT have and HAD no opinion about wiring direction from a tube amplifier...I say it from the beginning but i am interested by the person who created the contour site yes...
YOU HAVE ONE OPINION, YOU ARE THE ONE WITH A BELIEF and no experience and no experiment ...
I have myself an opinion about the WAY to treat people tough ...Especially people who propose something related to decades of work, EVEN IF they are wrong.....It is called respect and fair listening...We are supposed to be equals human beings here speaking between themselves ...
A bias coming from a belief or an arrogant " knowledge" is not on the same footing than a bias coming from experiments...
These biases cannot be put on trial BEFORE experiments....
And in this case a blindtest CANNOT replace the experiment save for idiots or conditioned mind...
Are you able to think or you repeat dletch2 arrogance?
dletch2 I just read another thread where you reject with the back of your hand another person which was talking about his own design experiment with cables by the way... You have not improved in the last month contrary to my belief ....
Arrogance does not reflect intelligence only conditining of the working mind....Then your competence so great they are, and i dont doubt they are great, are also blinders ....
Must i repeat that this guy here did not sell cables.....
By the way he seems that our friend dletch2 need to refresh his knowledge about hearing... This is the post he wrote about pitch after my defense of Essien he characterize to be a fraud :
The brain is effectively a computer, I don’t think that is disputable and pitch, by definition at least is, quite literally, frequency. You can dispute how the brain computes, but still a computer.
now this is from this very interesting book of 2017 :
«Ohm’s and Helmholtz’s view of hearing as Fourier analysis, and THE CONFUSION OF FREQUENCY WITH PITCH, continued to permeate, if not dominate, thinking about hearing in the early twenty-first century, even though problems with the approach had been repeatedly demonstrated, and arguments against it published continually over a century and a half.» P16 in "the hear as a frequency analyser?"
Then perhaps if our friend is WRONG about pitch being equal to frequency and if his immediate judgement about someone research is so expeditive without even trying to study it for a few minutes, is it possible than his judgement about Anton_Stepichev experiments and ideas coming from the same arrogance perhaps are also wrong?
I will add another reference to enter the nail in his hole and this remark will contradict our friend about the fact that we are supposed to know WHAT PITCH IS WITHOUT DEBATE today, a view totally opposing the book of Essien our friend describe being a fraud and this world authority in the field Erik Heller:
«Since melody is based on pitch, there must be a pitch present—at least when it is called to our attention. There is no correct answer to whether a pitch is present in the sound of a wood block, since the human subject is the ultimate authority, by definition. If the pitch was not heard, it was not present.
It is difficult to reason in a detached way about subjective sensations. If two people are coming from a different place in that debate, then something obvious to one person might be vehemently rejected by the other. This is a recipe for debate going around in circles, and INDEED TODAY YOU CAN FIND THE SAME CONTROVERSIES that flared up in the mid-1800s.... The subject of pitch perception heated up in the mid-nineteenth century with a debate between physicists Hermann von Helmholtz and Georg Ohm on one side and Rudolf Koenig and August Seebeck on the other (figure 23.5). They went to extreme lengths to try to achieve control of sound sources in order to settle ambiguities of human hearing. At some risk of oversimplification, we can state in a few words what the controversy is all about: Are human beings essentially walking Fourier analyzers?
The debate continues today, although it is slightly more subdued.» P.549 Why You Hear What You Hear An Experiential Approach to Sound, Music, and Psychoacoustics by Eric J. Heller
These 2 writers are top notch acoustic world known researchers...The two dont equal pitch and frequency at all like Essien....
Then Essien is perhaps Not just a " fraud from a third class university from Nigeria"....like claimed our friend in a past post 😁
And if his judgements are so wrong and expeditive and his claim simplistic, like equating pitch with frequency, and reducing any human perception to be ONLY an impediment and less accurate than a simple measuring tool, PERHAPS he is also wrong about Anton-stepichev experiments...
I have no opinion myself but i like truth and truth is never a number...
Even if pitch could be reduced to frequency, which is absolutely demonstrated false and simplistic in these 2 books in some experiments in the last 50 years, the perception of pitch is a human subjective experience, and All science is based not on the technological reduction of human experience to a mathematical model like with A.I. for example but on the contrary science is the ultimate way to ENLARGE and UNDERSTAND human perception and experience.... Replacing human perception by A.I. is a technology irrealisable feat anyway which will never replace understanding and could not do it...
Confusing technology or a question about "what" or "how" with a deeper question about "why" is technological idolatry, a religious belief and not science at all...
True scientist can use blindtest but they dont promote this like if it was a science replacing experiment and a tool for defending "status quo" in research.... It is a statistical tool and a statistical tool is not science by itself save without taking enormous precautions about the "How" and "When" they will or would be used for ...
And what could be justified with dealing about a cables sellers claiming something, if the sellers wanted to; is not justifiable in this case.... He does not sell cable , he describe an idea and his experiments.... then this must be discussed and replicate by someone BEFORE any public blindtest.... Then we are very far here from a blindtest with a cable delivered by post....
Any other opinion is a belief, not an experiment....Or worst a scientist ideology....Eliminate your own bias and experiment yourself.... Or forgeot this thread and blindtest Ted Denney cable....He wait for that who knows....Or buy one and listen....
Is anton_stepichev wrong like Essien when he was claiming in his book that pitch cannot be reducible to frequency?
If so, guess who is wrong a second time perhaps ?
Contrary to you i respect people idea and experience and i have no opinion about Anton experiments... NONE...
His site is well designed and interesting, his idea original, and his thread here interestings and NOT ABOUT cable brand name pretense....
But i dislike religious zealots, in any field or any religion...It seems you are a zealot and you overestimated your knowledge at the expanse of ANYONE here....Anton is NOT the first victim....I have seen many....
By the way i am ignorant myself but i can learn and i can read ....
djones51 Until you acknowledge the fact that humans are easily fooled and have
biases you'll never convince anyone outside those who already agree with
your flawed methodology.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I know perfectly well that it's impossible. Read again the question of the topic, it is not about convincing those who do not hear, but about how you can explain audio anomalies to those who hear them and successfully use the knowledge in their systems.
For me and for many others, the direction of the wire is as commonplace as its absence is for you. Despite this, I believe that the ability to reason in educated, unbiased people should be the same.
I hope you have an imagination, assume that you have been dealing with the direction of the wire for many years, show it to friends and acquaintances, discover interesting patterns related to the direction, these patterns are successfully used by other people in their audio projects. All doubts about the reality of the phenomenon and many similar anomalous effects in audio have long disappeared. The only question left is, why do we hear (feel) something that isn't in the signal?
Naturally, I still don't know what it is, but logically, it can't be related to electricity, thus it can't be measured by electrical appliances and evaluated by blind tests.
So the question is: are there any errors in my logical chain (that I have already posted several times) if there is no doubt that when the wire is reversed, not only is it audible, but its sertain direction is fundamentally important for a more natural reproduction (perception) of music?
djones51 I've already told you , bias. Your error is ignoring it.
You need to go into politics, they appreciate people who, instead of answering a question, confidently say something out of place with a smart look. It is also obvious that you do not understand electronics and are afraid to express your opinion about it. This is my conclusion.
That's fine believe whatever you want. But the fact of the matter is unless you heard a difference under controlled testing better than chance no one will accept your findings except audiophiles that already believe all sorts of nonsense. Go post this same question on ASR see what response you get from experts on electronics.
Repeating thirty times a common sense evidence like " you dont take into account your own bias" instead of reading the facts is borderline bad faith...
What about your own bias when repeating this bias mantra to others for how many posts here?
This thread and the site of Anton are the most interesting thread in audio here i have ever read...
All the other thread are sparse useful trivial technical details about gear at best and at worst almost all socializing with no completely new ideas at all... Filled with DETAILS easy to found answers for in any other forums than audiogon or in a book...
It is so true, that save for sparse clues from others, i learned to install my system by myself almost completely...Because no one here adress it really...Save to sell costly "tweaks" and the costly products that will give the illusion of the BEST Hi-fi experience...
People most of the times partake opinions about their "taste " and best branded names products here...Or their obsession for or against cables sellers...And blindtest....And they called that science because they own voltmeter and James Randi Operational book....Or they vouch for the end of S.Q. because of one cable purchase...
It is one of the rare thread with new original ideas instead of few advices in electricity or electronic connexions of the gear easy to found anywhere...
I am astounded by the lack of interest, thinking, judgement, and good faith....I am ashamed by the bashing of something interesting by lack of brain and conditioned stupidity by EGO motives and short sights....And knowledge of the old and the trivial, parading like the only eternal truths...
I will repeat something simple you must think about that: we use water in many complex technology and study it and we know almost nothing about water....We use prime numbers distributions tools in cryptography sophisticated technology and we understand NOTHING about primes distribution... Maxwell equations described what Faraday observed by experiments but we understand nothing about electricity...The list goes on.... Only first of the class pupil by heart recitation of their lesson think they understand their child play....
Technology is tool for science not science....
«The universe is in front of their eyes and in themselves and idiots think they understand it»-Anonymus Smith
There's nothing new in this thread. A guy built a tube amp with a gap in the circuit to place a wire and reverse the wire. He measured no difference but claims to hear a difference without accounting for confirmation bias. You want to have a deep philosophical conversation on new original ideas then do so and quit complaining about my response to his questions.
There you go, good comments, we know almost nothing about water and nothing about electricity. Hopefully we know enough to not stand in water and work on electric lines.
Writing trivialities like fire is hot, bias exist, and walking on water is not possible are NOT arguments they are parrott matters...
Describing electricity is not understanding it....Even if the diagram equation is complex...
" Nobody understand quantum mechanics" Feynman
Then through the holes in our brain perhaps something new could appear.... WHY NOT ?
Because someone reducing pitch to be only a variation on frequency technology said so? Ideology is NOT fact....
Sorry but it is false...
Reducing human experience to some external facts is IMPOSSIBLE save for those who prefer to use blinders...
Physical acoustic science is a branch of physics, the neurophysiology of perception is not physics, the CORRELATION between the 2 is another science psychoacoustic... Pitch perception is ALWAYS a mystery for those who are able to think....
And for the time being, we are not robots and this distinction maintain itself....
Human perception is NOT always and ONLY an illusion to eliminate for the sake of some equations...
Again: no one can possibly know whether ANY given changes will make a difference, in their system and room, with their media and to their ears, without trying them for themselves. Anyone that knows anything about the sciences (Physics, in particular), realizes that something like 96% of what makes up/controls this universe, remains a mystery. Since the dawn of humanity; we've seen, heard, felt and otherwise witnessed phenomena, that none of the best minds could explain, UNTIL they developed a science or measurement, that could explain it. The Naysayer Church wants you to trust their antiquated science (1800’s electrical theory) and faith-based, religious doctrine, BLINDLY ("Trust ME!" = their credo). Theories have never proven or disproven anything. It’s testing and experimentation that proves or disproves theories. IF you’re interested in improving your system’s presentation, have a shred of confidence in your capacity for perceiving reality and the audacity to trust your own senses: TRY whatever piques your interest/curiosity, FOR YOURSELF. The faith-based, Naysayer Church HATES it when THAT happens!
And making a better joke will not solve anything for anyone...
Thanks i like this joke....
BUT ....
Reducing human perception of pitch to physical acoustic and to some technology and some limited theory about mathematical/physical frequencies to be the ONLY explanation of reality is not only wrong and simplistic , but it could be a fraud.... it is the reason why psychoacoustic is a scientific field by his own problematic....
THEN,
Nobody will put more grey matter in a brain that shut himself down....
And joke about a scientific fact and conflate it with the religious questions by derision....
What is pitch perception in human? what is his signifiance? And why we cannot reduce it to a technological problem, even if tomorrow we will produce an A. I. with perfect pitch....
This problem could be interesting like Anton question: why someone could perceive something unexplained by standared electrical theory and measures....
And perhaps the 2 questions are related....
A tool never replace understanding and meaning except for ..... fill the blank.....
This thread is not about someone who want to sells his cables, save for idiot or "scientist of scientism" who want to put the deep questions under trivial stupid answer : like a premature blindtest....
He does not sell cables , he comes here with experiments and questions...
He does not think that his questions will be put aside from the back of their hand by pure sheer arrogance and ignorance so evident , anyone could see it....
For those who think this is a cable marketing/blindtest thread go elsewhere...
read that : The Universal Sense How Hearing Shapes the Mind by Seth S. Horowitz,
Saying that all is illusion is completely non sense....
The presence of some "illusions" does not invalidate the meaning experience in hearing perception...
Your remark remind me of the yogi refusing to quit the road where an elephant in crisis was on course of collision with him and the cornak sitting on top of the elephant was crying to him to "quit the road and go out "....
After the collision, half dead, the yogi said to the cornack : nothing could happen to me because all is an illusion, save God... The cornak replied : the elephant is God but me crying to you to quit the road, i am also God....
what is an "illusion" ?
Is the rainbow an illusion?
"Scientism" reduction of deep problem to joke even a good one, is not my idea of thinking...
It isn’t a joke. It’s how vision works. What you actually ’see" isn’t really the elephant but a recreation of the elephant formed by our brain. It doesn’t mean the elephant isn’t there. Our perception is the illusion not the object. It’s one reason why eyewitness accounts are so inaccurate. You know it’s more of that sciencey garbage.
Could hearing be similar? Does our brain recreate what we hear from the information it receives from the auditory nerve?
So what Anton is in an illusion and you are not, because you believe that measuring tools are more "accurate" in an absolute sense than a thinking brain with his many senses....
The problem is simple:
Access to reality is not ONLY and MAINLY through tools or models, any tools model reality around some chosen dimension and parameter...Any tool draw a map....
Your own brain PARTICIPE to reality in a direct way like any living creature.... Tools are not related DIRECTLY to reality but through a privilieged road eliminating other dimensions and their parameters...
Your body/being is not a map even if a doctor could map some aspect, it is reality....
The brain does not only recreate in part but participe to what is around us....
The brain is not OUTSIDE the universe nor the universe outside of the brain... This is participation... The recreating part is linked to your own individuality, this imply a selection, a system of BIASES, that oriented your being in some direction in this world and in this body.....These biases are related in Hindou and buddhist perspective to karma....but this is another story....
In this perspective digestive metabolism and immune system for example are totally individualized....Hearing also...
But there is a common part between all these possible recreation and this common link is what i called participation...
This is why what is the more subjective is also a deep indication and information about objective reality...And vice versa....
These subjective/objective concept are NOT dualities they are first and last polarities...
The difference between the two is duality pertain to language, polarities to the cosmos....
Then when we listen to pitch, we live a subjective experience, and our brain create pitch in relation with something in the external reality , but this does not mean that pitch is a subjective illusion or something that must be reduced and could be reduced to acoustic physics and to ONLY frequencies or to only and mainly the external source who was conditioning the experience of pitch and melody.... The external source could be like wooden cubes hitting each other randomly and perceived by us like a melody or a set of tone pitch... ...
To this day the perception/creation of pitch is a mystery...
And reproducing it with A.I. tomorrow will not erase the problem...
Meaning is not someting living on the same level of reality than tool....
I wasn’t referring to mysticism or biases but how our vision works. It’s like the blind spot everyone has in their eyes, the brain fills in the information, you don’t really "see" what’s in that blind spot but the illusion the brain created from the surrounding information. The eye sees a table the optic nerve passes information it receives to the brain, the brain recreates the table from the information. Evolution created an amazing Rube Goldberg contraption for our sight. Our brain is very good at guessing what your eye misses, it's how we survived the Savannah.
I wasn’t referring to mysticism or biases but how our vision works. It’s like the blind spot everyone has in their eyes, the brain fills in the information, you don’t really "see" what’s in that blind spot but the illusion the brain created from the surrounding information. The eye sees a table the optic nerve passes information it receives to the brain, the brain recreates the table from the information. Evolution created an amazing Rube Goldberg contraption for our sight.
What i just say is not mysticism...
The book i just mention adress this problem of hearing and deception and is easy to read....
For the question of meaning, illusion or reality are inseparable....
But one thing must also be keep in mind.... The mind/brain does not work at all like a computer...
The reason is simple, there is no possibility at all to reduce consciousness to an algorithm...
Save negating consciousness and treating it like an illusion or an epiphenomenon in the absolute sense...
But negating the value of consciousness is an autodestruction of the meaning of life .....nihilism in the absolute sense, idolatry of technology.... This is transhumanism cultism....
All religions are cults. We’re born, live, die. That’s it. Consciousness is a byproduct of our large brains. Pretty simple.
I am sorry but no newspaper never help me to understand reality...cult are not only official or unofficial religions...Some scientist belief are also cultism.... Look at transhumanism.... The most powerful and growing cult ....It is not scientology but transhumanism...
Only hard deep books and mostly intuition and experience help me....No sheep walking behind cult leader...
And in this deep books no one confuse brain matter with consciousness...In my experience my brain is not me at all....Call that an illusion if this help you sleep better...Meaning is not a flow of proteins...The distribution of prime numbers is not a perceptive illusion or a fact coming from random atoms hitting each other.... It is the opposite physicist has discovered some links between energy distribution and the unknown dynamics of primes numbers... Meaning is not born from random atoms or toughts to die a meaningless death...Use your imagination more and less your logic.....
And nowadays it is easy to look for information that go beyond, this mantra: " were born,live and die"...
Love and thinking are not compatible with materialism....
And like i said pure materialism is a dead idea in science...Read Bernado Kastrup articles it is easy to read....
The best way to take a look at the universe was formulated by Blaise Pascal: bet on the more fecund idea... You lost nothing at worst and gain everything at best....
If you read his life you will see that he was not stupid at all....
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
