The Resistance Reigns Victorious

[Margaret von B.]

The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets and seems to be
awfully quiet.
Howard exited in total disgrace, "one last time".
Pinkerton claims to just spill over from RAT.

It's getting downright boring here.

Anybody want to champion a new amp that simply sounds better?
Maybe a new power conditioner that increases system resolution?
The top 20 reference recordings list?
The best and worst audio buy of a lifetime?

Or maybe better and more exciting ideas than I can think of at the moment?

Anybody?


Cheers,

Margaret

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Margaret von B." > wrote:

> The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets and seems to be
> awfully quiet.

Still getting his dose on the live-sound group.

> Howard exited in total disgrace, "one last time".
> Pinkerton claims to just spill over from RAT.
>
> It's getting downright boring here.
>
> Anybody want to champion a new amp that simply sounds better?
> Maybe a new power conditioner that increases system resolution?
> The top 20 reference recordings list?
> The best and worst audio buy of a lifetime?
>
> Or maybe better and more exciting ideas than I can think of at the moment?
>
> Anybody?

The new John Hiatt cd release is an SACD-hybrid DSD recording, with
multichannel. Anyone heard it? All I've heard is the stereo cd-layer
"Master of Disaster," which sounds good but kinda thick in the middle.
Cool song.

Stephen

[Margaret von B.]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Margaret von B." > wrote:
>
>> The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets and seems to be
>> awfully quiet.
>
> Still getting his dose on the live-sound group.
>
>> Howard exited in total disgrace, "one last time".
>> Pinkerton claims to just spill over from RAT.
>>
>> It's getting downright boring here.
>>
>> Anybody want to champion a new amp that simply sounds better?
>> Maybe a new power conditioner that increases system resolution?
>> The top 20 reference recordings list?
>> The best and worst audio buy of a lifetime?
>>
>> Or maybe better and more exciting ideas than I can think of at the
>> moment?
>>
>> Anybody?
>
> The new John Hiatt cd release is an SACD-hybrid DSD recording, with
> multichannel. Anyone heard it? All I've heard is the stereo cd-layer
> "Master of Disaster," which sounds good but kinda thick in the middle.
> Cool song.
>
> Stephen

I'll just have to order that one. I've been mostly listening to my G2 iPod
with Portapros and Stax SRM-001's so ultimate sound quality has taken
backseat to outdoors life. Combined with my cool wireless do-it-all I feel
20 years younger. Consequently, I recommend that you check out Nightwish and
especially their song, "Ever Dream". I saw them with my niece in San Antonio
and have been a fan ever since. Heavy metal with an opera singer at the
helm. Don't let the accent bother you, it'll grow on you after a while.

Cheers,

Margaret

[Robert Morein]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message
...
> The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets and seems to be
> awfully quiet.
> Howard exited in total disgrace, "one last time".
> Pinkerton claims to just spill over from RAT.
>
> It's getting downright boring here.
>
> Anybody want to champion a new amp that simply sounds better?
> Maybe a new power conditioner that increases system resolution?
> The top 20 reference recordings list?
> The best and worst audio buy of a lifetime?
>
> Or maybe better and more exciting ideas than I can think of at the moment?
>
> Anybody?
>
My audio buddy A/B'ed two signal level cables for me. One was a
twisted-pair, encased in Kapton, gaudy, pretty. The other was the typical
fire hose. Both cables were in the 3 - 6 foot range of length.

It was plain and simply evident that that the Kapton encased cables sounded
much brighter than the firehose. This is at odds with all that my scientific
thinking has conditioned me to expect. Were I a 'borg, I would simply
discount what I heard. But I choose not to do that. Instead, I simply put a
question mark next to one of my previously held beliefs, and bookmark it for
future investigation.

Isn't that the right thing to do?

Arny, it's time for you to relieve yourself in my direction..
Howard, it's time to take a dump.

[George Middius]

Margaret von B. said:

>The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets and seems to be
>awfully quiet.

Arnii's ass is powerful.


>The best and worst audio buy of a lifetime?

Best: I got some M&K speakers on closeout a few years ago. I paid less than 20%
of list price.

Worst: An Acurus preamp that was very difficult to use and no bargain at any
price.

[Margaret von B.]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Margaret von B. said:
>
>>The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets and seems to be
>>awfully quiet.
>
> Arnii's ass is powerful.
>

Calm before the ****storm...

>
>>The best and worst audio buy of a lifetime?
>
> Best: I got some M&K speakers on closeout a few years ago. I paid less
> than 20%
> of list price.
>

Denon DVD-5000 all format player. PITA to use to be honest, but as good as a
digital player needs to be. G2 iPod has to be a close second.

> Worst: An Acurus preamp that was very difficult to use and no bargain at
> any
> price.
>

Counterpoint SA-220 mosfet/tube hybrid amp. Three times my Apogees drove it
to fireworks, the last time it took out my wallpaper and carpet. I threw it
in the dumpster and the dealer gave me a Krell at his cost because he felt
bad.

Cheers,

Margaret

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Margaret von B." > wrote:

> I recommend that you check out Nightwish and
> especially their song, "Ever Dream". I saw them with my niece in San Antonio
> and have been a fan ever since. Heavy metal with an opera singer at the
> helm. Don't let the accent bother you, it'll grow on you after a while.

Google was *not* my friend for this, but I found some samples here and
there. One was Scorpionesque, not bad, but not operatic or heavily
accented. The others? probably not the same band...

Stephen

[Margaret von B.]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Margaret von B." > wrote:
>
>> I recommend that you check out Nightwish and
>> especially their song, "Ever Dream". I saw them with my niece in San
>> Antonio
>> and have been a fan ever since. Heavy metal with an opera singer at the
>> helm. Don't let the accent bother you, it'll grow on you after a while.
>
> Google was *not* my friend for this, but I found some samples here and
> there. One was Scorpionesque, not bad, but not operatic or heavily
> accented. The others? probably not the same band...
>
> Stephen

Try
http://www.nightwish.com/

and go to the files. There's an MP3 under the Century Child album.

Cheers,

Margaret

[Steven Sullivan]

Margaret von B. > wrote:
> The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets and seems to be
> awfully quiet.
> Howard exited in total disgrace, "one last time".
> Pinkerton claims to just spill over from RAT.

Ever see references to RAO elsewhere online or in
the audio press?

Invariably it's referred to with distaste, contempt,
or derision. Has been for years now. Even in forums
where subjectivists 'reign'.

Give yourself some credit for that, "ma'am".

And if you think it would change at all if you, Middius and
other malignancies were the only ones posting here, you're
even more pathetic than you seem. You're part of the problem,
not the solution.


--

-S
"You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big
secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it
on Rio'

[Steven Sullivan]

Robert Morein > wrote:

> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
> ...
> > The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets and seems to be
> > awfully quiet.
> > Howard exited in total disgrace, "one last time".
> > Pinkerton claims to just spill over from RAT.
> >
> > It's getting downright boring here.
> >
> > Anybody want to champion a new amp that simply sounds better?
> > Maybe a new power conditioner that increases system resolution?
> > The top 20 reference recordings list?
> > The best and worst audio buy of a lifetime?
> >
> > Or maybe better and more exciting ideas than I can think of at the moment?
> >
> > Anybody?
> >
> My audio buddy A/B'ed two signal level cables for me. One was a
> twisted-pair, encased in Kapton, gaudy, pretty. The other was the typical
> fire hose. Both cables were in the 3 - 6 foot range of length.

> It was plain and simply evident that that the Kapton encased cables sounded
> much brighter than the firehose. This is at odds with all that my scientific
> thinking has conditioned me to expect. Were I a 'borg, I would simply
> discount what I heard. But I choose not to do that. Instead, I simply put a
> question mark next to one of my previously held beliefs, and bookmark it for
> future investigation.

Wonderful idea. So, how do you plan to investigate it in the future, to rule out
the undeniably possibility that you were imagining the difference?



--

-S
"You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big
secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it
on Rio'

[Margaret von B.]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message
...
>
> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Margaret von B." > wrote:
>>
>>> I recommend that you check out Nightwish and
>>> especially their song, "Ever Dream". I saw them with my niece in San
>>> Antonio
>>> and have been a fan ever since. Heavy metal with an opera singer at the
>>> helm. Don't let the accent bother you, it'll grow on you after a while.
>>
>> Google was *not* my friend for this, but I found some samples here and
>> there. One was Scorpionesque, not bad, but not operatic or heavily
>> accented. The others? probably not the same band...
>>
>> Stephen
>
> Try
> http://www.nightwish.com/
>
> and go to the files. There's an MP3 under the Century Child album.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Margaret
>

Forgot to tell you that while you're waiting for your CD to arrive, eMule
has plenty of their stuff. :-)

Every now and then we accidentally access Arnii's version of Google, that
worthless liar.


Cheers,

Margaret

[Bret Ludwig]

RAO is 10% audio and 90% adolescents wanting everyone else to believe
theirs is the largest-without whipping them out for real. I guess no
one wants Margaret to think it's a smorgasbord.

[Margaret von B.]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> Margaret von B. > wrote:
>> The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets and seems to be
>> awfully quiet.
>> Howard exited in total disgrace, "one last time".
>> Pinkerton claims to just spill over from RAT.
>
> Ever see references to RAO elsewhere online or in
> the audio press?
>
> Invariably it's referred to with distaste, contempt,
> or derision. Has been for years now. Even in forums
> where subjectivists 'reign'.
>
> Give yourself some credit for that, "ma'am".
>

Good point, we do deserve credit! Entities like you just cannot help
sticking their noses in here, no matter how many times it has been broken.
:-)

> And if you think it would change at all if you, Middius and
> other malignancies were the only ones posting here, you're
> even more pathetic than you seem. You're part of the problem,
> not the solution.
>

Ahem, could someone please interpret my latest posts on Howard to this dolt.

>
> --
>
> -S
> "You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big...

OK Sulliborg, let's keep it R-rated here!

Cheers,

Margaret

[Robert Morein]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> Margaret von B. > wrote:
> > The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets and seems to be
> > awfully quiet.
> > Howard exited in total disgrace, "one last time".
> > Pinkerton claims to just spill over from RAT.
>
> Ever see references to RAO elsewhere online or in
> the audio press?
>
Ever see references by us to elsewhere online or to the audio press?


> Invariably it's referred to with distaste, contempt,
> or derision. Has been for years now.
But we accept no advertising :)

> Even in forums
> where subjectivists 'reign'.

Of course. The forums you mention are moderated, and they moderate out the
TRUTH.

> Give yourself some credit for that, "ma'am".

I give her honor as well.
>
> And if you think it would change at all if you, Middius and
> other malignancies were the only ones posting here, you're
> even more pathetic than you seem. You're part of the problem,
> not the solution.
>
Mr Sullivan,
The behavior that you regard as offensive indicates you regard yourself
as a member of "polite society". However, history shows that "polite
society" has screwed at least as many people as the "bubbas" and "bubettes"
you find here. The words exchanged here have no bearing on the admiration we
bestow on each other, although it is true I'd like Arny to have a six pack
of carbonated hemlock with my compliments.

Howard, come back! My steel-toed boots are tarnishing!

[George Middius]

Sulliborg clenches harder than ever.

>Wonderful idea. So, how do you plan to investigate it in the future, to rule
>out the undeniably possibility that you were imagining the difference?

My solution would be to choke a 'borg. What would you do, other than banging
your head against the wall?

[ScottW]

Margaret von B. wrote:
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Margaret von B. > wrote:
> >> The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets and seems to be
> >> awfully quiet.
> >> Howard exited in total disgrace, "one last time".
> >> Pinkerton claims to just spill over from RAT.
> >
> > Ever see references to RAO elsewhere online or in
> > the audio press?
> >
> > Invariably it's referred to with distaste, contempt,
> > or derision. Has been for years now. Even in forums
> > where subjectivists 'reign'.
> >
> > Give yourself some credit for that, "ma'am".
> >
>
> Good point, we do deserve credit! Entities like you just cannot help
> sticking their noses in here, no matter how many times it has been broken.
> :-)
>
> > And if you think it would change at all if you, Middius and
> > other malignancies were the only ones posting here, you're
> > even more pathetic than you seem. You're part of the problem,
> > not the solution.
> >
>
> Ahem, could someone please interpret my latest posts on Howard to this dolt.

which one... the one where you expressed remorse for your behavior?
or when you pined for his return?
or when you express dismay at the boredom you suffer without him?
or when you suggest a quest to Aus in search of a replacement Howard?

I give 50-50 odds Howard is actually enjoying himself right now but
poor Margie is definitely having a crisis. Humidity getting to you
dear?

ScottW

[Robert Morein]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein > wrote:
>
> > "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets and seems to
be
> > > awfully quiet.
> > > Howard exited in total disgrace, "one last time".
> > > Pinkerton claims to just spill over from RAT.
> > >
> > > It's getting downright boring here.
> > >
> > > Anybody want to champion a new amp that simply sounds better?
> > > Maybe a new power conditioner that increases system resolution?
> > > The top 20 reference recordings list?
> > > The best and worst audio buy of a lifetime?
> > >
> > > Or maybe better and more exciting ideas than I can think of at the
moment?
> > >
> > > Anybody?
> > >
> > My audio buddy A/B'ed two signal level cables for me. One was a
> > twisted-pair, encased in Kapton, gaudy, pretty. The other was the
typical
> > fire hose. Both cables were in the 3 - 6 foot range of length.
>
> > It was plain and simply evident that that the Kapton encased cables
sounded
> > much brighter than the firehose. This is at odds with all that my
scientific
> > thinking has conditioned me to expect. Were I a 'borg, I would simply
> > discount what I heard. But I choose not to do that. Instead, I simply
put a
> > question mark next to one of my previously held beliefs, and bookmark it
for
> > future investigation.
>
> Wonderful idea. So, how do you plan to investigate it in the future, to
rule out
> the undeniably possibility that you were imagining the difference?
>
In my opinion, scientific investigations in field of audio has been hampered
by the relatively small economic importance, compared to virtually every
other field of electronics. After all, the end result is merely pleasure, or
the lack of it.

I could attach one of my LeCroy 9361 scopes, which have a spectrum analyzer
function, and feed the cable with pink noise. It would be necessary to do
that at my buddy's place, with the equipment hooked up. However, I don't
think I have a suitable pink noise generator. Perhaps I should look for one
on eBay. In any event, it might not duplicate the loading of the driving
equipment, since I don't remember if the cables were compared between the
player and the preamp, or the preamp and the power amp.

I don't have any timeframe for this possible activity.

[Robert Morein]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> RAO is 10% audio and 90% adolescents wanting everyone else to believe
> theirs is the largest-without whipping them out for real. I guess no
> one wants Margaret to think it's a smorgasbord.
>
Their "what" is the largest? Please be specific.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Margaret von B." > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Margaret von B." > wrote:
> >
> >> I recommend that you check out Nightwish and
> >> especially their song, "Ever Dream". I saw them with my niece in San
> >> Antonio
> >> and have been a fan ever since. Heavy metal with an opera singer at the
> >> helm. Don't let the accent bother you, it'll grow on you after a while.
> >
> > Google was *not* my friend for this, but I found some samples here and
> > there. One was Scorpionesque, not bad, but not operatic or heavily
> > accented. The others? probably not the same band...
> >
> > Stephen
>
> Try
> http://www.nightwish.com/
>
> and go to the files. There's an MP3 under the Century Child album.

There's my problem: searching the wrong name.

That's more like it! My recent theatrical experience has left me oddly
nostalgic for prog-pop, even Steinman-style. The accent is not a problem
and I am peculiarly receptive to hearing a rock singer who actually
sings 'mixed.' Tolkienesque song title, too.

From the singer's page: "Place you'd like to go: Exotic, small island
somewhere far, far away. No tourism, no Finns. Only silence."

SPI off-season? Finnish. I had a prof who took a position at the
Sibelius Academy.

Stephen

[Margaret von B.]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Margaret von B." > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Margaret von B." > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I recommend that you check out Nightwish and
>> >> especially their song, "Ever Dream". I saw them with my niece in San
>> >> Antonio
>> >> and have been a fan ever since. Heavy metal with an opera singer at
>> >> the
>> >> helm. Don't let the accent bother you, it'll grow on you after a
>> >> while.
>> >
>> > Google was *not* my friend for this, but I found some samples here and
>> > there. One was Scorpionesque, not bad, but not operatic or heavily
>> > accented. The others? probably not the same band...
>> >
>> > Stephen
>>
>> Try
>> http://www.nightwish.com/
>>
>> and go to the files. There's an MP3 under the Century Child album.
>
> There's my problem: searching the wrong name.
>
> That's more like it! My recent theatrical experience has left me oddly
> nostalgic for prog-pop, even Steinman-style. The accent is not a problem
> and I am peculiarly receptive to hearing a rock singer who actually
> sings 'mixed.' Tolkienesque song title, too.
>
> From the singer's page: "Place you'd like to go: Exotic, small island
> somewhere far, far away. No tourism, no Finns. Only silence."
>
> SPI off-season? Finnish. I had a prof who took a position at the
> Sibelius Academy.
>
> Stephen

There's another interesting, somewhat off-beat product of Sibelius Academy.
A lovely person.

http://www.ullasuokko.com/

And of course we all know Esa-Pekka.

I think Tarja's exotic "small" place is Buenos Aires. Maybe SPI one day, who
knows... ;-)

Cheers,

Margaret

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Margaret von B." > wrote:

> There's another interesting, somewhat off-beat product of Sibelius Academy.
> A lovely person.
>
> http://www.ullasuokko.com/

Mmm. Flute.

> And of course we all know Esa-Pekka.

LA boy! There are several very good pianists: Olli Mustonen, for one.

> I think Tarja's exotic "small" place is Buenos Aires. Maybe SPI one day, who
> knows... ;-)

Maybe catching a tour date would be more likely...

Stephen

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Robert Morein > wrote:
>>
>> > "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets and seems to
> be
>> > > awfully quiet.
>> > > Howard exited in total disgrace, "one last time".
>> > > Pinkerton claims to just spill over from RAT.
>> > >
>> > > It's getting downright boring here.
>> > >
>> > > Anybody want to champion a new amp that simply sounds better?
>> > > Maybe a new power conditioner that increases system resolution?
>> > > The top 20 reference recordings list?
>> > > The best and worst audio buy of a lifetime?
>> > >
>> > > Or maybe better and more exciting ideas than I can think of at the
> moment?
>> > >
>> > > Anybody?
>> > >
>> > My audio buddy A/B'ed two signal level cables for me. One was a
>> > twisted-pair, encased in Kapton, gaudy, pretty. The other was the
> typical
>> > fire hose. Both cables were in the 3 - 6 foot range of length.
>>
>> > It was plain and simply evident that that the Kapton encased cables
> sounded
>> > much brighter than the firehose. This is at odds with all that my
> scientific
>> > thinking has conditioned me to expect. Were I a 'borg, I would simply
>> > discount what I heard. But I choose not to do that. Instead, I simply
> put a
>> > question mark next to one of my previously held beliefs, and bookmark
>> > it
> for
>> > future investigation.
>>
>> Wonderful idea. So, how do you plan to investigate it in the future, to
> rule out
>> the undeniably possibility that you were imagining the difference?
>>
> In my opinion, scientific investigations in field of audio has been
> hampered
> by the relatively small economic importance, compared to virtually every
> other field of electronics. After all, the end result is merely pleasure,
> or
> the lack of it.
>
> I could attach one of my LeCroy 9361 scopes, which have a spectrum
> analyzer
> function, and feed the cable with pink noise. It would be necessary to do
> that at my buddy's place, with the equipment hooked up. However, I don't
> think I have a suitable pink noise generator.

Why not just download a free one? Then burn it to CD and play it back
through whatever system has the cables you want to check.

Perhaps I should look for one
> on eBay. In any event, it might not duplicate the loading of the driving
> equipment, since I don't remember if the cables were compared between the
> player and the preamp, or the preamp and the power amp.
>
> I don't have any timeframe for this possible activity.
>
>
I'm pretty sure it will be never, since you lack discipline and would rather
just shoot yourself in the foot.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> RAO is 10% audio and 90% adolescents wanting everyone else to believe
>> theirs is the largest-without whipping them out for real. I guess no
>> one wants Margaret to think it's a smorgasbord.
>>
> Their "what" is the largest? Please be specific.
>
Figures you wouldn't know.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Margaret von B. > wrote:
>> > The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets and seems to
>> > be
>> > awfully quiet.
>> > Howard exited in total disgrace, "one last time".
>> > Pinkerton claims to just spill over from RAT.
>>
>> Ever see references to RAO elsewhere online or in
>> the audio press?
>>
> Ever see references by us to elsewhere online or to the audio press?
>
>
>> Invariably it's referred to with distaste, contempt,
>> or derision. Has been for years now.
> But we accept no advertising :)
>
>> Even in forums
>> where subjectivists 'reign'.
>
> Of course. The forums you mention are moderated, and they moderate out the
> TRUTH.
>

Utter bull****, they moderate out the flames, morons still post their
nonsense about how everything sounds different when they can see it so why
bother using only their ears.

>> Give yourself some credit for that, "ma'am".
>
> I give her honor as well.
>>
>> And if you think it would change at all if you, Middius and
>> other malignancies were the only ones posting here, you're
>> even more pathetic than you seem. You're part of the problem,
>> not the solution.
>>
> Mr Sullivan,
> The behavior that you regard as offensive indicates you regard yourself
> as a member of "polite society". However, history shows that "polite
> society" has screwed at least as many people as the "bubbas" and
> "bubettes"
> you find here.

So may we refer to you as BubbaBob from now on?

The words exchanged here have no bearing on the admiration we
> bestow on each other, although it is true I'd like Arny to have a six pack
> of carbonated hemlock with my compliments.
>
It seems that the more productive thing would be for you to consume such a
beverage, since you seem to be hell bent on making yourself look foolish on
a nearly daily basis. Except for the times when you make yourself look like
a vile pig.

> Howard, come back! My steel-toed boots are tarnishing!
>
Take them out of your ass.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>[snip]
> I'm pretty sure it will be never, since you lack discipline and would
rather
> just shoot yourself in the foot.
>
Not the foot, please. I'm an avid jogger.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >> RAO is 10% audio and 90% adolescents wanting everyone else to believe
> >> theirs is the largest-without whipping them out for real. I guess no
> >> one wants Margaret to think it's a smorgasbord.
> >>
> > Their "what" is the largest? Please be specific.
> >
> Figures you wouldn't know.
>
Figures, you wouldn't have.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
[snip]
> >
> It seems that the more productive thing would be for you to consume such a
> beverage, since you seem to be hell bent on making yourself look foolish
on
> a nearly daily basis. Except for the times when you make yourself look
like
> a vile pig.

The title of this thread is "The Resistance Reigns Victorious".
We have severely hurt two of your ilk.
You are someone of no significance, with no message, a wagging acid tongue,
a mouth of spittle but no voice.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey:

> > a vile pig.

Mickey, what's up with that? I thought I was your vile pig. <G>

> The title of this thread is "The Resistance Reigns Victorious".
> We have severely hurt two of your ilk.
> You are someone of no significance, with no message, a wagging acid tongue,
> a mouth of spittle but no voice.

Mickey can laugh at Stynchblob, RAO's only Holy Roller. That alone makes him
less preposterous than his idol the Krooborg.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
> [snip]
>> >
>> It seems that the more productive thing would be for you to consume such
>> a
>> beverage, since you seem to be hell bent on making yourself look foolish
> on
>> a nearly daily basis. Except for the times when you make yourself look
> like
>> a vile pig.
>
> The title of this thread is "The Resistance Reigns Victorious".
> We have severely hurt two of your ilk.
> You are someone of no significance, with no message, a wagging acid
> tongue,
> a mouth of spittle but no voice.
>
>
How big was that telescope?

[[email protected]]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said to duh-Mikey:
>
>> > a vile pig.
>
> Mickey, what's up with that? I thought I was your vile pig. <G>
>
I can't have 2?

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
> [snip]
>> >
>> It seems that the more productive thing would be for you to consume such
>> a
>> beverage, since you seem to be hell bent on making yourself look foolish
> on
>> a nearly daily basis. Except for the times when you make yourself look
> like
>> a vile pig.
>
> The title of this thread is "The Resistance Reigns Victorious".
> We have severely hurt two of your ilk.

Deluions noted. Howard never spoke for me, I never thought he was anything
but a hinderence. In fact he's more like you than you can imagine, aside
from the fact that he actually had a job.

> You are someone of no significance, with no message, a wagging acid
> tongue,
> a mouth of spittle but no voice.
>
>
Now you sound like you're describing yourself again.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
[snip]
>
> > You are someone of no significance, with no message, a wagging acid
> > tongue,
> > a mouth of spittle but no voice.
> >
> >
> Now you sound like you're describing yourself again.
>
You have inferior intelligence. You really aren't worth bothering with. Your
barbs are dull.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> > Now you sound like you're describing yourself again.

> You have inferior intelligence. You really aren't worth bothering with. Your
> barbs are dull.

No. Really? ;-)

Mickey is the almost always the first to resort to IKYABWAIs. I've told him
several times that instead of trying to duel in wittiness -- a game in which
he has a huge handicap -- he would be better off writing another love letter
to Arnii. Especially now that Ferstler has abandoned him.

Did you know Mickey is against public roads, public utilities, and public
schools? I don't mean in the NIMBY sense. He's against them as a matter of
principle. One can't help but notice that he has an automobile that he
drives on public roads, he has children whom he sends to public schools, and
of course he uses electricity from the public grid. And yet he'll tell you
all the big bad government exceeded "their" authority by undertaking these
infrastructure projects.

[Arny Krueger]

"Margaret von B." >
wrote in message

> The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets
> and seems to be awfully quiet.

Never had any sockpuppets, ever.

[George Middius]

The Krooborg tries boasting in Krooglish.

>> The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets
>> and seems to be awfully quiet.

>Never had any sockpuppets, ever.

Thanks Mr. Kroofeces for admitting you're too stupid to create a sockpuppet.

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
> > > Now you sound like you're describing yourself again.
>
> > You have inferior intelligence. You really aren't worth bothering with.
Your
> > barbs are dull.
>
> No. Really? ;-)
>
> Mickey is the almost always the first to resort to IKYABWAIs. I've told
him
> several times that instead of trying to duel in wittiness -- a game in
which
> he has a huge handicap -- he would be better off writing another love
letter
> to Arnii. Especially now that Ferstler has abandoned him.
>
> Did you know Mickey is against public roads, public utilities, and public
> schools? I don't mean in the NIMBY sense. He's against them as a matter of
> principle. One can't help but notice that he has an automobile that he
> drives on public roads, he has children whom he sends to public schools,
and
> of course he uses electricity from the public grid. And yet he'll tell you
> all the big bad government exceeded "their" authority by undertaking these
> infrastructure projects.
>
So that's why Mickey is stuck in a rut :)

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
> [snip]
>>
>> > You are someone of no significance, with no message, a wagging acid
>> > tongue,
>> > a mouth of spittle but no voice.
>> >
>> >
>> Now you sound like you're describing yourself again.
>>
> You have inferior intelligence. You really aren't worth bothering with.
> Your
> barbs are dull.
>
Not as dull as your understanding of electronics or people, or science.

You refuse to use the scientific method, you got the size of the telesocpe
wrong, you've become nearly criminally hostile over usenet comments, you
claim to hear things you can not., and you don't seem to have ever had a
job.

Compared to you, I'm a one man party.

[[email protected]]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
>> > Now you sound like you're describing yourself again.
>
>> You have inferior intelligence. You really aren't worth bothering with.
>> Your
>> barbs are dull.
>
> No. Really? ;-)
>
> Mickey is the almost always the first to resort to IKYABWAIs. I've told
> him
> several times that instead of trying to duel in wittiness -- a game in
> which
> he has a huge handicap -- he would be better off writing another love
> letter
> to Arnii. Especially now that Ferstler has abandoned him.
>
Ferstler was never really on my side, I found his comments laughable most of
the time, although his intentions were vastly more pure than yours.



> Did you know Mickey is against public roads, public utilities, and public
> schools? I don't mean in the NIMBY sense. He's against them as a matter of
> principle.

Imagine that, being against things that the government has a **** poor
record of doing well.

One can't help but notice that he has an automobile that he
> drives on public roads,

I don't have much choice do I? Being in favor of privitization doesn't make
it a contradcition if I use what I've already helped pay for

he has children whom he sends to public schools, and
> of course he uses electricity from the public grid.

See above.

And yet he'll tell you
> all the big bad government exceeded "their" authority by undertaking these
> infrastructure projects.
>
At the Federal level for sure. At the state level that's a bit different.

It's probably difficult for you to understand bu it's not so much about
these things being legal, but about them being proper for government to do.
Perhaps if the government did the things it's supposed to do well, it
wouldn't be so aggravating. The simple fact is that the government doesn't
take enough care of the police, the courts and the military, especially when
Liberals are in charge, those are among the first things they want to take
money away from. Worse then they lie about things like putting 100,000
police officers on the street. But then, lying is what Libs are all about.

[[email protected]]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> The Krooborg tries boasting in Krooglish.
>
>>> The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets
>>> and seems to be awfully quiet.
>
>>Never had any sockpuppets, ever.
>
> Thanks Mr. Kroofeces for admitting you're too stupid to create a
> sockpuppet.
>
Thanks mister ****head for admitting that you have had many sockpuppets.

[Steven Sullivan]

Robert Morein > wrote:

> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Robert Morein > wrote:
> >
> > > "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets and seems to
> be
> > > > awfully quiet.
> > > > Howard exited in total disgrace, "one last time".
> > > > Pinkerton claims to just spill over from RAT.
> > > >
> > > > It's getting downright boring here.
> > > >
> > > > Anybody want to champion a new amp that simply sounds better?
> > > > Maybe a new power conditioner that increases system resolution?
> > > > The top 20 reference recordings list?
> > > > The best and worst audio buy of a lifetime?
> > > >
> > > > Or maybe better and more exciting ideas than I can think of at the
> moment?
> > > >
> > > > Anybody?
> > > >
> > > My audio buddy A/B'ed two signal level cables for me. One was a
> > > twisted-pair, encased in Kapton, gaudy, pretty. The other was the
> typical
> > > fire hose. Both cables were in the 3 - 6 foot range of length.
> >
> > > It was plain and simply evident that that the Kapton encased cables
> sounded
> > > much brighter than the firehose. This is at odds with all that my
> scientific
> > > thinking has conditioned me to expect. Were I a 'borg, I would simply
> > > discount what I heard. But I choose not to do that. Instead, I simply
> put a
> > > question mark next to one of my previously held beliefs, and bookmark it
> for
> > > future investigation.
> >
> > Wonderful idea. So, how do you plan to investigate it in the future, to
> rule out
> > the undeniably possibility that you were imagining the difference?
> >
> In my opinion, scientific investigations in field of audio has been hampered
> by the relatively small economic importance, compared to virtually every
> other field of electronics. After all, the end result is merely pleasure, or
> the lack of it.

> I could attach one of my LeCroy 9361 scopes, which have a spectrum analyzer
> function, and feed the cable with pink noise. It would be necessary to do
> that at my buddy's place, with the equipment hooked up. However, I don't
> think I have a suitable pink noise generator. Perhaps I should look for one
> on eBay. In any event, it might not duplicate the loading of the driving
> equipment, since I don't remember if the cables were compared between the
> player and the preamp, or the preamp and the power amp.

> I don't have any timeframe for this possible activity.

Pink noise files are available on the web. Or any number of test CDs.
But the quesiton of whether you really *heard* a difference (versus one you
could measure) might not be solved by your approach. We can of course measure
small differences between cables that are far beyond our ability to hear them.
If your scope test showed a comparably 'large' difference, you'd
be onto something.

But otherwise, I'm afraid that if you are of a scientific disposition,
you'll have to control for sighted bias. Your experience was entirely in
line with a scientifically-supported belief: that sighted comparisons will
often yield perceptions of difference. If you really are scientifically
minded, you'd know that your comparison method was simply unsuited for
verifying audible difference, and was indeed rather likely to result in a
perception of difference. It's not scientific to put a question mark
besides the scientific belief that two cables of similar RCL will be
audibly indistinguishable, based on your experience.


--

-S
"You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big
secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it
on Rio'

[Steven Sullivan]

> wrote:

> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Margaret von B. > wrote:
> >> > The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets and seems to
> >> > be
> >> > awfully quiet.
> >> > Howard exited in total disgrace, "one last time".
> >> > Pinkerton claims to just spill over from RAT.
> >>
> >> Ever see references to RAO elsewhere online or in
> >> the audio press?
> >>
> > Ever see references by us to elsewhere online or to the audio press?
> >
> >
> >> Invariably it's referred to with distaste, contempt,
> >> or derision. Has been for years now.
> > But we accept no advertising :)
> >
> >> Even in forums
> >> where subjectivists 'reign'.
> >
> > Of course. The forums you mention are moderated, and they moderate out the
> > TRUTH.
> >

> Utter bull****, they moderate out the flames, morons still post their
> nonsense about how everything sounds different when they can see it so why
> bother using only their ears.

Ah, but perhaps Mr. Morein does not consider such beliefs TRUTH. That
would be a sign of progress, of sorts.

Anyway, the fact is that no one is 'moderating out' the TRUTH about *RAO*,
anywhere.





--

-S
"You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big
secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it
on Rio'

[Clyde Slick]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
>
> Anyway, the fact is that no one is 'moderating out' the TRUTH about *RAO*,
> anywhere.
>

Depends upon whose version of the truth



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[sam]

" > wrote
>>
> Thanks mister ****head for admitting that you have had many sockpuppets.

Why would George use sockpuppets? He posts every day and he's proud
of what he posts.

Now if you're someone like Malesweski, he uses a sockpuppet because
he doesn't have the balls to stand behind the **** he posts.

[[email protected]]

"sam" > wrote in message
...
> " > wrote
>>>
>> Thanks mister ****head for admitting that you have had many sockpuppets.
>
> Why would George use sockpuppets? He posts every day and he's proud
> of what he posts.
>
> Now if you're someone like Malesweski, he uses a sockpuppet because
> he doesn't have the balls to stand behind the **** he posts.
Now let me try and figure out which one s more disgraceful.

[Robert Morein]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein > wrote:
[snip]
>
> Pink noise files are available on the web. Or any number of test CDs.
> But the quesiton of whether you really *heard* a difference (versus one
you
> could measure) might not be solved by your approach.

The difference was so significant to me, I incline to think that proper
instrumentation would show it.

We can of course measure
> small differences between cables that are far beyond our ability to hear
them.
> If your scope test showed a comparably 'large' difference, you'd
> be onto something.
>


So you're saying that even if measurements show that the cable has more
extended frequency response, which is what my ears tell me, something isn't
kosher? When the measurements and the subjective

> But otherwise, I'm afraid that if you are of a scientific disposition,
> you'll have to control for sighted bias. Your experience was entirely in
> line with a scientifically-supported belief: that sighted comparisons will
> often yield perceptions of difference. If you really are scientifically
> minded, you'd know that your comparison method was simply unsuited for
> verifying audible difference, and was indeed rather likely to result in a
> perception of difference. It's not scientific to put a question mark
> besides the scientific belief that two cables of similar RCL will be
> audibly indistinguishable, based on your experience.
>
Of course it is.

Modern scientific philosophy is is nothing like what you think. Ask any
university physicist: modern scientific philosophy believes in nothing. A
theory is useful only to the extent it predicts phenomena. The terms "true"
and "false" are no longer useful in physics. Interpretation in words of a
physical theory in words is never an accurate representation of what the
theory means; it is only done for the nonscientific public.

You are attempting to apply scientific theory to perception. However,
perception comes under the ambit of the "soft sciences". The soft sciences
are distinguished from the hard sciences by incomplete definition of the
system under study, and lack of a quantitative model. William James
"Psychology", and Bertrand Russell's "A Theory of Mind", were written
without the slightest understanding of the workings of the brain. Even
today, with SQUID (Superconducting Quantum Interference Device)
instrumentation, brain modeling is incomplete. For example, the brain
process which causes consciousness has not been identified. Debate continues
on whether thought involves quantum phenomena.

Various statistical techniques have been developed which supposedly quantify
perception. Unfortunately, as Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn lies,
and statistics." Statistics, when applied to perception, are damn lies,
because they erase every perceptual phenomena that could exist, except for
the mean and the deviation. By contrast, when a physicist or electrical
engineer works with statistics, he uses an accurate mathematical model of
the system to derive a predictor. Many predictors exist, but the term
"Kalman Filter", which may be familiar to you, is the optimal linear
predictor.

Don't tell me what "scientifically minded" means. First of all, it means to
be skeptical. Second, it means to be prepared and open to the unexpected.
Thirdly, it means to accept the question mark, rather than falsely "put
paid" because one must have an answer.

Persons not schooled in scientific philosophy frequently interpret it to
mean that "dogma" supercedes the "question mark", or the state of not
knowing. Dogma is one of the false gods of pseudoscience; one that plagues
audio because it doesn't receive the attention of first-rate minds.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> > [snip]
> >>
> >> > You are someone of no significance, with no message, a wagging acid
> >> > tongue,
> >> > a mouth of spittle but no voice.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Now you sound like you're describing yourself again.
> >>
> > You have inferior intelligence. You really aren't worth bothering with.
> > Your
> > barbs are dull.
> >
> Not as dull as your understanding of electronics or people, or science.
>
> You refuse to use the scientific method, you got the size of the telesocpe

That's "telescope", not "telesocpe", you fool.

[ScottW]

Robert Morein wrote:
>
> That's "telescope", not "telesocpe", you fool.

At the risk of irony.....
Who's the fool, the typo source or the pointless bickerer?

ScottW

[Robert Morein]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
>
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> Margaret von B. > wrote:
> > >> > The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets and seems
to
> > >> > be
> > >> > awfully quiet.
> > >> > Howard exited in total disgrace, "one last time".
> > >> > Pinkerton claims to just spill over from RAT.
> > >>
> > >> Ever see references to RAO elsewhere online or in
> > >> the audio press?
> > >>
> > > Ever see references by us to elsewhere online or to the audio press?
> > >
> > >
> > >> Invariably it's referred to with distaste, contempt,
> > >> or derision. Has been for years now.
> > > But we accept no advertising :)
> > >
> > >> Even in forums
> > >> where subjectivists 'reign'.
> > >
> > > Of course. The forums you mention are moderated, and they moderate out
the
> > > TRUTH.
> > >
>
> > Utter bull****, they moderate out the flames, morons still post their
> > nonsense about how everything sounds different when they can see it so
why
> > bother using only their ears.
>
> Ah, but perhaps Mr. Morein does not consider such beliefs TRUTH. That
> would be a sign of progress, of sorts.
>
I am a moderate. Moderate opinions do not receive much attention. Arguments
tend to be between extremists.
RAO is dominated by two groups. One group denies the validity of all
opinions that are not the results of experiments conducted according to
their stringent standards. Large numbers of people involved in this hobby do
imagine differences that do not exist.

People are influenced by style and expectation; some more than others; some
not at all. In fact, a recent study of the personality types of buyers
detected two groups: one group is stylish and unneurotic; the other has
functional preferences, is not influenced by style, and tends toward
neurosis. Much of the problem of rao is that people do not understand that,
whatever standard they think they are upholding, they are expressing their
personality types. Arny Krueger and Mikey behave the way they do, and
Middius the way he does, not because of their beliefs in audio, but because
their personality types are different.

All through our lives, we make choices based upon observations that are not
known to be true or false, but, depending upon our states of mind, our
experiences, and our prejudices, are judged one way or another at a specific
moment in time. It is important to understand some things that are crucial
to our survival, or wellbeing. But many other optional choices are made
according to probabilities, not certainties. What to eat, what to wear,
which route to take, what book to read, what school to send one's kids to,
and so forth.

Thank you for acknowledging that I do not claim it is fact that the cables
sound different. However, it may be unworthwhile for my purposes to
determine the truth to the extent that I could call it a fact. I could do
further impromptu experimentation, and, for my own purposes, determine
whether one cable would be more useful to me, in the same way that I make
all the other uncertain decisions in my life. I could share this information
on rec.audio.OPINION, as my opinion, not as FACT.

Some people fail to discern that there is a cost to determining everything
which is not known exactly. We have to decide where to spend the effort. To
demand to know the absolute truth about everything, if if it is knowable, is
a drain on life itself.

People who develop systems of thought or action, and seek to impose them on
other people, frequently lack a perspective on life as a whole. There is a
compromise between objectivism and subjectivism. People who do not see this
are blinded by their personality types. Many of these people favor dogma and
certainty, which are themselves handicaps when confronted by novel or
incongruent information.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > " > wrote in message
>> > hlink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> > [snip]
>> >>
>> >> > You are someone of no significance, with no message, a wagging acid
>> >> > tongue,
>> >> > a mouth of spittle but no voice.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> Now you sound like you're describing yourself again.
>> >>
>> > You have inferior intelligence. You really aren't worth bothering with.
>> > Your
>> > barbs are dull.
>> >
>> Not as dull as your understanding of electronics or people, or science.
>>
>> You refuse to use the scientific method, you got the size of the
>> telesocpe
>
> That's "telescope", not "telesocpe", you fool.
>
>
Like you never typed anything wrong, That's what you do when you know
your're wrong, pick on the typos?

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > >> Margaret von B. > wrote:
>> > >> > The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets and seems
> to
>> > >> > be
>> > >> > awfully quiet.
>> > >> > Howard exited in total disgrace, "one last time".
>> > >> > Pinkerton claims to just spill over from RAT.
>> > >>
>> > >> Ever see references to RAO elsewhere online or in
>> > >> the audio press?
>> > >>
>> > > Ever see references by us to elsewhere online or to the audio press?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >> Invariably it's referred to with distaste, contempt,
>> > >> or derision. Has been for years now.
>> > > But we accept no advertising :)
>> > >
>> > >> Even in forums
>> > >> where subjectivists 'reign'.
>> > >
>> > > Of course. The forums you mention are moderated, and they moderate
>> > > out
> the
>> > > TRUTH.
>> > >
>>
>> > Utter bull****, they moderate out the flames, morons still post their
>> > nonsense about how everything sounds different when they can see it so
> why
>> > bother using only their ears.
>>
>> Ah, but perhaps Mr. Morein does not consider such beliefs TRUTH. That
>> would be a sign of progress, of sorts.
>>
> I am a moderate. Moderate opinions do not receive much attention.
> Arguments
> tend to be between extremists.

Because extremists at least have convictions, you have nothing.

> RAO is dominated by two groups. One group denies the validity of all
> opinions that are not the results of experiments conducted according to
> their stringent standards.

Only when they don't match what's known about reality.

Large numbers of people involved in this hobby do
> imagine differences that do not exist.
>
> People are influenced by style and expectation; some more than others;
> some
> not at all. In fact, a recent study of the personality types of buyers
> detected two groups: one group is stylish and unneurotic; the other has
> functional preferences, is not influenced by style, and tends toward
> neurosis. Much of the problem of rao is that people do not understand
> that,
> whatever standard they think they are upholding, they are expressing their
> personality types. Arny Krueger and Mikey behave the way they do, and
> Middius the way he does, not because of their beliefs in audio, but
> because
> their personality types are different.
>

Quack! I beleive what I believe, because there is relaible evidence for it.

> All through our lives, we make choices based upon observations that are
> not
> known to be true or false, but, depending upon our states of mind, our
> experiences, and our prejudices, are judged one way or another at a
> specific
> moment in time. It is important to understand some things that are crucial
> to our survival, or wellbeing. But many other optional choices are made
> according to probabilities, not certainties. What to eat, what to wear,
> which route to take, what book to read, what school to send one's kids to,
> and so forth.
>
> Thank you for acknowledging that I do not claim it is fact that the cables
> sound different. However, it may be unworthwhile for my purposes to
> determine the truth to the extent that I could call it a fact. I could do
> further impromptu experimentation, and, for my own purposes, determine
> whether one cable would be more useful to me, in the same way that I make
> all the other uncertain decisions in my life. I could share this
> information
> on rec.audio.OPINION, as my opinion, not as FACT.
>
But you're too lazy to bother, mostly because you already know the likely
answer.

> Some people fail to discern that there is a cost to determining everything
> which is not known exactly. We have to decide where to spend the effort.

I choose to spend my effort where it makes the most difference.

To
> demand to know the absolute truth about everything, if if it is knowable,
> is
> a drain on life itself.
>

And pointing to dubious differences in cable sound is also a drain. One
sense that the only reason ou do such things, is to stir the pot.

> People who develop systems of thought or action, and seek to impose them
> on
> other people, frequently lack a perspective on life as a whole. There is a
> compromise between objectivism and subjectivism.

No, there's what's real and what is not real.

People who do not see this
> are blinded by their personality types. Many of these people favor dogma
> and
> certainty, which are themselves handicaps when confronted by novel or
> incongruent information.
>
That let's me out, because I don't hold onto any idea that can be shown to
be inccorect. When teh facts contradict reality, then clinging toan idea
because it gives you a sense of certainty is foolish and pointless.


>
>
>

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...

>>
> That let's me out, because I don't hold onto any idea that can be shown to
> be inccorect.

If irony could build roads without eminent domaiin.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> > >
> >> > > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> >> > > ...
> >> > >> Margaret von B. > wrote:
> >> > >> > The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets and
seems
> > to
> >> > >> > be
> >> > >> > awfully quiet.
> >> > >> > Howard exited in total disgrace, "one last time".
> >> > >> > Pinkerton claims to just spill over from RAT.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Ever see references to RAO elsewhere online or in
> >> > >> the audio press?
> >> > >>
> >> > > Ever see references by us to elsewhere online or to the audio
press?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >> Invariably it's referred to with distaste, contempt,
> >> > >> or derision. Has been for years now.
> >> > > But we accept no advertising :)
> >> > >
> >> > >> Even in forums
> >> > >> where subjectivists 'reign'.
> >> > >
> >> > > Of course. The forums you mention are moderated, and they moderate
> >> > > out
> > the
> >> > > TRUTH.
> >> > >
> >>
> >> > Utter bull****, they moderate out the flames, morons still post their
> >> > nonsense about how everything sounds different when they can see it
so
> > why
> >> > bother using only their ears.
> >>
> >> Ah, but perhaps Mr. Morein does not consider such beliefs TRUTH. That
> >> would be a sign of progress, of sorts.
> >>
> > I am a moderate. Moderate opinions do not receive much attention.
> > Arguments
> > tend to be between extremists.
>
> Because extremists at least have convictions, you have nothing.
>
> > RAO is dominated by two groups. One group denies the validity of all
> > opinions that are not the results of experiments conducted according to
> > their stringent standards.
>
> Only when they don't match what's known about reality.
>
> Large numbers of people involved in this hobby do
> > imagine differences that do not exist.
> >
> > People are influenced by style and expectation; some more than others;
> > some
> > not at all. In fact, a recent study of the personality types of buyers
> > detected two groups: one group is stylish and unneurotic; the other has
> > functional preferences, is not influenced by style, and tends toward
> > neurosis. Much of the problem of rao is that people do not understand
> > that,
> > whatever standard they think they are upholding, they are expressing
their
> > personality types. Arny Krueger and Mikey behave the way they do, and
> > Middius the way he does, not because of their beliefs in audio, but
> > because
> > their personality types are different.
> >
>
> Quack! I beleive what I believe, because there is relaible evidence for
it.
>
> > All through our lives, we make choices based upon observations that are
> > not
> > known to be true or false, but, depending upon our states of mind, our
> > experiences, and our prejudices, are judged one way or another at a
> > specific
> > moment in time. It is important to understand some things that are
crucial
> > to our survival, or wellbeing. But many other optional choices are made
> > according to probabilities, not certainties. What to eat, what to wear,
> > which route to take, what book to read, what school to send one's kids
to,
> > and so forth.
> >
> > Thank you for acknowledging that I do not claim it is fact that the
cables
> > sound different. However, it may be unworthwhile for my purposes to
> > determine the truth to the extent that I could call it a fact. I could
do
> > further impromptu experimentation, and, for my own purposes, determine
> > whether one cable would be more useful to me, in the same way that I
make
> > all the other uncertain decisions in my life. I could share this
> > information
> > on rec.audio.OPINION, as my opinion, not as FACT.
> >
> But you're too lazy to bother, mostly because you already know the likely
> answer.
>
> > Some people fail to discern that there is a cost to determining
everything
> > which is not known exactly. We have to decide where to spend the effort.
>
> I choose to spend my effort where it makes the most difference.
>
> To
> > demand to know the absolute truth about everything, if if it is
knowable,
> > is
> > a drain on life itself.
> >
>
> And pointing to dubious differences in cable sound is also a drain. One
> sense that the only reason ou do such things, is to stir the pot.
>
> > People who develop systems of thought or action, and seek to impose them
> > on
> > other people, frequently lack a perspective on life as a whole. There is
a
> > compromise between objectivism and subjectivism.
>
> No, there's what's real and what is not real.
>
> People who do not see this
> > are blinded by their personality types. Many of these people favor dogma
> > and
> > certainty, which are themselves handicaps when confronted by novel or
> > incongruent information.
> >
> That let's me out, because I don't hold onto any idea that can be shown to
> be inccorect. When teh facts contradict reality, then clinging toan idea
> because it gives you a sense of certainty is foolish and pointless.
>
The grammatical and logical errors in the above are inescapable signs of an
execrable mind.

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>>
>> That let's me out, because I don't hold onto any idea that can be shown
>> to be inccorect.
>
> If irony could build roads without eminent domaiin.
>
>

Irony can't, but people can.
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>> >> > > ...
>> >> > >> Margaret von B. > wrote:
>> >> > >> > The Krooborg has lost two of its most active sockpuppets and
> seems
>> > to
>> >> > >> > be
>> >> > >> > awfully quiet.
>> >> > >> > Howard exited in total disgrace, "one last time".
>> >> > >> > Pinkerton claims to just spill over from RAT.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Ever see references to RAO elsewhere online or in
>> >> > >> the audio press?
>> >> > >>
>> >> > > Ever see references by us to elsewhere online or to the audio
> press?
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> Invariably it's referred to with distaste, contempt,
>> >> > >> or derision. Has been for years now.
>> >> > > But we accept no advertising :)
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> Even in forums
>> >> > >> where subjectivists 'reign'.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Of course. The forums you mention are moderated, and they moderate
>> >> > > out
>> > the
>> >> > > TRUTH.
>> >> > >
>> >>
>> >> > Utter bull****, they moderate out the flames, morons still post
>> >> > their
>> >> > nonsense about how everything sounds different when they can see it
> so
>> > why
>> >> > bother using only their ears.
>> >>
>> >> Ah, but perhaps Mr. Morein does not consider such beliefs TRUTH. That
>> >> would be a sign of progress, of sorts.
>> >>
>> > I am a moderate. Moderate opinions do not receive much attention.
>> > Arguments
>> > tend to be between extremists.
>>
>> Because extremists at least have convictions, you have nothing.
>>
>> > RAO is dominated by two groups. One group denies the validity of all
>> > opinions that are not the results of experiments conducted according to
>> > their stringent standards.
>>
>> Only when they don't match what's known about reality.
>>
>> Large numbers of people involved in this hobby do
>> > imagine differences that do not exist.
>> >
>> > People are influenced by style and expectation; some more than others;
>> > some
>> > not at all. In fact, a recent study of the personality types of buyers
>> > detected two groups: one group is stylish and unneurotic; the other has
>> > functional preferences, is not influenced by style, and tends toward
>> > neurosis. Much of the problem of rao is that people do not understand
>> > that,
>> > whatever standard they think they are upholding, they are expressing
> their
>> > personality types. Arny Krueger and Mikey behave the way they do, and
>> > Middius the way he does, not because of their beliefs in audio, but
>> > because
>> > their personality types are different.
>> >
>>
>> Quack! I beleive what I believe, because there is relaible evidence for
> it.
>>
>> > All through our lives, we make choices based upon observations that are
>> > not
>> > known to be true or false, but, depending upon our states of mind, our
>> > experiences, and our prejudices, are judged one way or another at a
>> > specific
>> > moment in time. It is important to understand some things that are
> crucial
>> > to our survival, or wellbeing. But many other optional choices are made
>> > according to probabilities, not certainties. What to eat, what to wear,
>> > which route to take, what book to read, what school to send one's kids
> to,
>> > and so forth.
>> >
>> > Thank you for acknowledging that I do not claim it is fact that the
> cables
>> > sound different. However, it may be unworthwhile for my purposes to
>> > determine the truth to the extent that I could call it a fact. I could
> do
>> > further impromptu experimentation, and, for my own purposes, determine
>> > whether one cable would be more useful to me, in the same way that I
> make
>> > all the other uncertain decisions in my life. I could share this
>> > information
>> > on rec.audio.OPINION, as my opinion, not as FACT.
>> >
>> But you're too lazy to bother, mostly because you already know the likely
>> answer.
>>
>> > Some people fail to discern that there is a cost to determining
> everything
>> > which is not known exactly. We have to decide where to spend the
>> > effort.
>>
>> I choose to spend my effort where it makes the most difference.
>>
>> To
>> > demand to know the absolute truth about everything, if if it is
> knowable,
>> > is
>> > a drain on life itself.
>> >
>>
>> And pointing to dubious differences in cable sound is also a drain. One
>> sense that the only reason ou do such things, is to stir the pot.
>>
>> > People who develop systems of thought or action, and seek to impose
>> > them
>> > on
>> > other people, frequently lack a perspective on life as a whole. There
>> > is
> a
>> > compromise between objectivism and subjectivism.
>>
>> No, there's what's real and what is not real.
>>
>> People who do not see this
>> > are blinded by their personality types. Many of these people favor
>> > dogma
>> > and
>> > certainty, which are themselves handicaps when confronted by novel or
>> > incongruent information.
>> >
>> That let's me out, because I don't hold onto any idea that can be shown
>> to
>> be inccorect. When teh facts contradict reality, then clinging toan idea
>> because it gives you a sense of certainty is foolish and pointless.
>>
> The grammatical and logical errors in the above are inescapable signs of
> an
> execrable mind.

Shalll we now make it a habit to point out how many mistakes you make in
your posts?

Why not just admit you have no convictions, no hard knowledge of the things
you claim you have heard, and that you're essentially incapable of doingthe
work necessary to prove anything other than your incompetence?

You'll sleep better.
>

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> > That let's me out, because I don't hold onto any idea that can be shown to
> > be inccorect. When teh facts contradict reality, then clinging toan idea
> > because it gives you a sense of certainty is foolish and pointless.

> The grammatical and logical errors in the above are inescapable signs of an
> execrable mind.

They're also dead giveaways that you've pushed Mickey's buttons big-time.
He's probably stomping around the house, yelling at his kids and swilling
beer.

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>
>>>>
>>> That let's me out, because I don't hold onto any idea that can be shown
>>> to be inccorect.
>>
>> If irony could build roads without eminent domaiin.
>>
>>
>
> Irony can't, but people can.

Not in my backyard * 300,000,000,



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[paul packer]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:31:07 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>For example, the brain
>process which causes consciousness has not been identified.

Is consciousness "caused" by the brain, Robert? Or is consciousness,
having its origin elsewhere, merely passing through the brain, which
is acting as an organ of perception? Some say consciousness is
universal, not individual, that we merely share in it rather than
originating it in ourselves.

Interesting thoughts (but where are they coming from?). :-)>

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >For example, the brain
> >process which causes consciousness has not been identified.
>
> Is consciousness "caused" by the brain, Robert? Or is consciousness,
> having its origin elsewhere, merely passing through the brain, which
> is acting as an organ of perception? Some say consciousness is
> universal, not individual, that we merely share in it rather than
> originating it in ourselves.

Did you ask God?

> Interesting thoughts (but where are they coming from?). :-)>

I'm not sure you exist. Any thoughts? :-)

[paul packer]

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 21:14:46 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>> Is consciousness "caused" by the brain, Robert? Or is consciousness,
>> having its origin elsewhere, merely passing through the brain, which
>> is acting as an organ of perception? Some say consciousness is
>> universal, not individual, that we merely share in it rather than
>> originating it in ourselves.
>
>Did you ask God?
>
>> Interesting thoughts (but where are they coming from?). :-)>
>
>I'm not sure you exist. Any thoughts? :-)

A serious reflection on the subject would be more helpful than a
pointless quip, George. Let's see some of that intelligence properly
focussed.

[GeoSynch]

paul packer picked a peck...:

> A serious reflection on the subject would be more helpful than a
> pointless quip, George..

Last time George Am Hideous gazed at his own reflection, he ran
out of the room screaming.


GeoSynch

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >> Is consciousness "caused" by the brain, Robert? Or is consciousness,
> >> having its origin elsewhere, merely passing through the brain, which
> >> is acting as an organ of perception? Some say consciousness is
> >> universal, not individual, that we merely share in it rather than
> >> originating it in ourselves.
> >
> >Did you ask God?
> >
> >> Interesting thoughts (but where are they coming from?). :-)>
> >
> >I'm not sure you exist. Any thoughts? :-)
>
> A serious reflection on the subject would be more helpful than a
> pointless quip, George. Let's see some of that intelligence properly
> focussed.

Seriously, your questions to Bobo sounded inane. I.e. not serious. Possibly
jocular, but in a nerdy way. For one thing, he did not say "consciousness is
'caused' by the brain". He said the mechanism(s) in the brain that cause
consciousness are not understood. You reworded the presumption of his
statement into something irrelevant and meaningless. Unless, perhaps, by
"having its origin elsewhere", you meant the "God" bull****. Hence my
question.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 06:50:20 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >> Is consciousness "caused" by the brain, Robert? Or is consciousness,
>> >> having its origin elsewhere, merely passing through the brain, which
>> >> is acting as an organ of perception? Some say consciousness is
>> >> universal, not individual, that we merely share in it rather than
>> >> originating it in ourselves.
>> >
>> >Did you ask God?
>> >
>> >> Interesting thoughts (but where are they coming from?). :-)>
>> >
>> >I'm not sure you exist. Any thoughts? :-)
>>
>> A serious reflection on the subject would be more helpful than a
>> pointless quip, George. Let's see some of that intelligence properly
>> focussed.
>
>Seriously, your questions to Bobo sounded inane. I.e. not serious. Possibly
>jocular, but in a nerdy way. For one thing, he did not say "consciousness is
>'caused' by the brain". He said the mechanism(s) in the brain that cause
>consciousness are not understood. You reworded the presumption of his
>statement into something irrelevant and meaningless. Unless, perhaps, by
>"having its origin elsewhere", you meant the "God" bull****. Hence my
>question.

Very good, George. But you may have to explain to me the difference
between "consciousness is caused by the brain" and "the mechanisms in
the brain that cause consciousness." Either way postulates that
consciousness first arises in the brain as opposed to merely passing
through it after originating elsewhere. That of course was my point.
However, I would never use the word God to you. The Force maybe, but
not God. I have far too much respect for your atheism. :-)

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >Seriously, your questions to Bobo sounded inane. I.e. not serious. Possibly
> >jocular, but in a nerdy way. For one thing, he did not say "consciousness is
> >'caused' by the brain". He said the mechanism(s) in the brain that cause
> >consciousness are not understood. You reworded the presumption of his
> >statement into something irrelevant and meaningless. Unless, perhaps, by
> >"having its origin elsewhere", you meant the "God" bull****. Hence my
> >question.
>
> Very good, George. But you may have to explain to me the difference
> between "consciousness is caused by the brain" and "the mechanisms in
> the brain that cause consciousness." Either way postulates that
> consciousness first arises in the brain as opposed to merely passing
> through it after originating elsewhere. That of course was my point.
> However, I would never use the word God to you. The Force maybe, but
> not God. I have far too much respect for your atheism. :-)

OK, we'll say there is no difference for the purpose of this "discussion".
The only notions I've ever considered about the "cause of consciousness"
are the organic, i.e. within the brain, or some kind of deus ex machina
theory. You've undercut the former and (sort of) denied the latter. So
what are you getting at?

[paul packer]

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 08:20:49 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:


>OK, we'll say there is no difference for the purpose of this "discussion".
>The only notions I've ever considered about the "cause of consciousness"
>are the organic, i.e. within the brain, or some kind of deus ex machina
>theory. You've undercut the former and (sort of) denied the latter. So
>what are you getting at?

Sorry, George, I'm a bit out of sorts tonight (bad cold and touch of
vertigo--lousy). Please clear your mind of unnecessarily weighty
thoughts and return to bashing Arnie and all those witty things you do
here, and I'll continue sucking Anticol throat lozengers and watching
the room spinning around me. ;-)>

[Powell]

"George M. Middius" wrote

> > >For one thing, he did not say "consciousness is 'caused'
> > >by the brain". He said the mechanism(s) in the brain that
> > >cause consciousness are not understood.
>
> >But you may have to explain to me the difference between
> >"consciousness is caused by the brain" and "the mechanisms
> >in the brain that cause consciousness." Either way
> >postulates that consciousness first arises in the brain as
> >opposed to merely passing through it after originating
> >elsewhere. That of course was my point.
>
> OK, we'll say there is no difference for the purpose of this
> "discussion". The only notions I've ever considered about
> the "cause of consciousness" are the organic, i.e. within
> the brain, or some kind of deus ex machina theory. You've
> undercut the former and (sort of) denied the latter. So
> what are you getting at?
>
con-scious-ness (kon'shuhs nis) n.
1. the state of being conscious;
awareness.

con-scious (kon'shuhs) adj.
1. aware of one's own existence,
sensations, thoughts, surroundings,
etc.
2. fully aware of something: not conscious
of the passage of time.

The "passing through" theory is well known. It is also
referred to as the quantum domain/virtual field/God. The
metaphor is a sandwich. You are here in the material
world. You also exist on the virtual plain (no time or
space). In-between is the "passing through" zone.
In this scenario reality is only a projection.

Science hasn't conclusively demonstrated that the brain
stores memories organically
(as a biological/electrochemically process), either.
Some thoughts appear to require no electrical
stimulation by the brain. And yet when cognitive
thinking is requires, such as 2 +2=4, the cerebral
cortex lights-up in electrical/chemical activity.

[George Middius]

CryptoBot, aka Powell, said:


>> OK, we'll say there is no difference for the purpose of this
>> "discussion". The only notions I've ever considered about
>> the "cause of consciousness" are the organic, i.e. within
>> the brain, or some kind of deus ex machina theory. You've
>> undercut the former and (sort of) denied the latter. So
>> what are you getting at?

[snip pointless dictionary definitions]

>The "passing through" theory is well known. It is also
>referred to as the quantum domain/virtual field/God.

A theory is an attempt to explain evidence. What you're talking about is
fantasy, wishfulness, and/or superstition.

>Science hasn't conclusively demonstrated that the brain
>stores memories organically
>(as a biological/electrochemically process), either.
>Some thoughts appear to require no electrical
>stimulation by the brain. And yet when cognitive
>thinking is requires, such as 2 +2=4, the cerebral
>cortex lights-up in electrical/chemical activity.

Make up your mind. Better yet, go back to sleep.

[Robert Morein]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:31:07 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
> >For example, the brain
> >process which causes consciousness has not been identified.
>
> Is consciousness "caused" by the brain, Robert? Or is consciousness,
> having its origin elsewhere, merely passing through the brain, which
> is acting as an organ of perception? Some say consciousness is
> universal, not individual, that we merely share in it rather than
> originating it in ourselves.
>
> Interesting thoughts (but where are they coming from?). :-)>

There has been some interesting research on consciousness. Henry Stapp, a
physicist working for one of the U.S. national labs, maybe Livermore, has
over the years published a number of highly controversial papers in which he
attempts to establish a correspondence between the "observer" of quantum
mechanics, and the physical universe. He contends that consciousness creates
the universe, rather than the other way around. Theoretical physicists give
this guy their highest compliment: they can't dismiss him.

Brain researchers, on the other hand, have another question: what structure,
or process, in the brain, corresponds to consciousness. Recent research
suggests that the correspondence is in a process, not a structure. By
studying the effect of general anesthesia on the brain, they were able to
establish that consciousness does not reside in the cerebral cortex. Under
general anesthesia, consciousness is absent, but metabolic activity in the
cortex actually increases. However, in the old brain, in the thalamus, there
is a structure which shuts down under anesthesia. Between the thalamus and
the cortex, there are afferent and efferent nerve fibers, constituting a
loop, in which the two regions of the brain observe each other. The
researchers concluded that consciousness is present when this loop is
active. According to this concept, consciousness is a process of
self-observation.

It seems to me that the best outcome from these two approaches would be more
detailed description of processes in the physical world that correspond to
consciousness. Ironically, one of the basic structures of control system
theory, the feedback loop, even as found in an audio amplifier, could have
basic consciousness. This seems strange, because a feedback loop has no
"mind". It is perhaps time for us to consider "consciousness" and "mind" as
separate entitities. We already recognize this in ordinary speech, when we
say, "He mindlessly pursued the same goal, which he called 'ABX', in spite
of his rejection by the group."

[sam]

" > wrote
>
> "sam" > wrote
...
>> " wrote
>>>>
>>> Thanks mister ****head for admitting that you have had many sockpuppets.
>>
>> Why would George use sockpuppets? He posts every day and he's proud
>> of what he posts.
>>
>> Now if you're someone like Malesweski, he uses a sockpuppet because
>> he doesn't have the balls to stand behind the **** he posts.

> Now let me try and figure out which one s more disgraceful.

Thanks for agreeing that Malesweski's behavior is disgraceful.

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
> > > That let's me out, because I don't hold onto any idea that can be
shown to
> > > be inccorect. When teh facts contradict reality, then clinging toan
idea
> > > because it gives you a sense of certainty is foolish and pointless.
>
> > The grammatical and logical errors in the above are inescapable signs of
an
> > execrable mind.
>
> They're also dead giveaways that you've pushed Mickey's buttons big-time.
> He's probably stomping around the house, yelling at his kids and swilling
> beer.
>
Do you think he even knows what "execrable" means?

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > " > wrote in message
> >> > hlink.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> > [snip]
> >> >>
> >> >> > You are someone of no significance, with no message, a wagging
acid
> >> >> > tongue,
> >> >> > a mouth of spittle but no voice.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> Now you sound like you're describing yourself again.
> >> >>
> >> > You have inferior intelligence. You really aren't worth bothering
with.
> >> > Your
> >> > barbs are dull.
> >> >
> >> Not as dull as your understanding of electronics or people, or science.
> >>
> >> You refuse to use the scientific method, you got the size of the
> >> telesocpe
> >
> > That's "telescope", not "telesocpe", you fool.
> >
> >
> Like you never typed anything wrong, That's what you do when you know
> your're wrong, pick on the typos?
>
This is not a sentence: "Like you never typed anything wrong, "

Mikey, of all the people on this group, you and Richard Maleswicki hold down
last place in the IQ ranking. You simply weren't born with a really good
brain. I feel sorry for you, because it's clear that you wish you were
smarter than you actually are. I suggest you hang around sports bars. Knock
back a few, watch the tube and boob action, and you won't feel so bad about
yourself. But here, you are simply out of place.

[[email protected]]

Your first paragraph brings to mind Hindu philosophy and the doctrine
of Maya, that is, that the phenominal world is an illusion created by
we ourselves out of desire. So Mr. Stapp is not so very original after
all, though I admire his guts in presenting this theory to the
scientific fraternity.

The Hindu Upanishads have a lot to say about consciousness, and
particularly self observation, which in an absolute sense is probably
impossible. "How can the Knower be known," etc. Worth reading,
particularly as an antidote to the totally materialistic Western view.

BTW, I like the way you managed to slip an "Arnie bash" into a
philisophical discussion. :-)>

[[email protected]]

Gee, Robert. I'll have to remember not to get on your bad side.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Your first paragraph brings to mind Hindu philosophy and the doctrine
> of Maya, that is, that the phenominal world is an illusion created by
> we ourselves out of desire. So Mr. Stapp is not so very original after
> all, though I admire his guts in presenting this theory to the
> scientific fraternity.

J. Robert Oppenheimer was fascinated by Hindu philosophy, and knew Sanskrit.
The Vedic myths resonate strongly (pun intended!) with modern physics. The
"elephant" brings to mind the modern "brane" theory. The Vedas know the age
of the Universe to within an order of magnitude agreeement with modern
calculations. Until recently, the expansion-contraction theory of the
universe was in vogue, consonant with the endless cycle of Hinduism.

Stapp's opinion seems to be that there is a mathematical construct, which he
calls consciousness, associated with the "observer" of quantum mechanics,
which is closer to the "First Cause" (if such a thing exists!) than anything
else. Qmech is somewhat supportive of this. Is this the same as
consciousness in the brain? Even if neuroscientists manage to completely
describe the neural structures and processes that correspond to
consciousness, this would not decide whether consciousness resides in the
physical world, or in a parallel one which requires certain physical
structures to exist for logical consistency. Santayana was a Harvard
philosopher who made materialism depressingly plausible. He stated that
there is but one plane of existence, and the so-called material world is
merely the detailed description of this plane.

So I don't feel that we can ever understand consciousness the way we
understand things like loudspeaker design. But it does seem possible that we
can surpass the description provided to us by western religion, which offers
the "soul" as a monolithic answer provided to us gratis by a "higher being".
I think it is too primitive, and probably wrong.

Lebniz was also an interesting early thinker, in "The Monadology".

See Stapp's website: http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html
and

http://www-users.rwth-aachen.de/gunter.heim/ENGLjedi/literature/stapp.htm
http://www.geocities.com/saint7peter/Conditionalsupport.html
http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/stapp.html
http://www.stardrive.org/bohm.html
http://twm.co.nz/goswam1.htm


>
> The Hindu Upanishads have a lot to say about consciousness, and
> particularly self observation, which in an absolute sense is probably
> impossible. "How can the Knower be known," etc. Worth reading,
> particularly as an antidote to the totally materialistic Western view.
>
If the observer is itself has no imperfections, and is perfectly modeled,
then the observer can know one or more things, the "control variables". In
linear system theory, there is a state transition matrix that gives the
evolution of the system over time. A feedback looplooks at the control
variable, computes the difference between what it is and what it should be,
and creates an output intended to restore the control variable to the
desired value.

My intepretation of Stapp is that a feedback loop is "conscious" of the
variables it is trying to control. Notice how the idea of "will" slips into
the verbal description, with the use of the word "trying". But the feedback
loop has no knowledge of how it is constructed, or the variables in the
state vector. In the context of the brain, this is equivalent to awareness
of desires, emotions, and dissatisfactions, but not of the inner workings of
one's own mind.

And this is more or less the case among people. Some people have
considerable self-knowledge, while others don't understand themselves very
well. But none of us can ever understand the details of our own minds.

> BTW, I like the way you managed to slip an "Arnie bash" into a
> philisophical discussion. :-)>
>
It broadens the audience :)

[Powell]

"George Middius" wrote

> >> OK, we'll say there is no difference for the purpose of this
> >> "discussion". The only notions I've ever considered about
> >> the "cause of consciousness" are the organic, i.e. within
> >> the brain, or some kind of deus ex machina theory. You've
> >> undercut the former and (sort of) denied the latter. So
> >> what are you getting at?
>
> [snip pointless dictionary definitions]
>
> >The "passing through" theory is well known. It is also
> >referred to as the quantum domain/virtual field/God.
>
> A theory is an attempt to explain evidence. What
> you're talking about is fantasy, wishfulness,
> and/or superstition.
>
Hehehe... yea right, like you would know.


> >Science hasn't conclusively demonstrated that the brain
> >stores memories organically
> >(as a biological/electrochemically process), either.
> >Some thoughts appear to require no electrical
> >stimulation by the brain. And yet when cognitive
> >thinking is requires, such as 2 +2=4, the cerebral
> >cortex lights-up in electrical/chemical activity.
>
> Make up your mind. Better yet, go back to sleep.
>
Cheer up Georgie-baby. Perhaps I can send you
some black balloons and a bottle of hemlock, in
celebration of your upcoming 50th birthday :).

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Gee, Robert. I'll have to remember not to get on your bad side.
>
Paul, you couldn't.

I have it in for Mikey because one of the very first posts he made using
his shiny new sockpuppet was a totally personal barb that I actually felt.
What had I done to this person? I'd never seen him before. Things like that
can cause me to forget that I may be dealing with a sentient being with a
loop of nerve fibers connecting his mouth and his butt :)

This is not unlike the waters of Australia, where, I understand, one has to
contend with the box jellyfish, which has four eyes and no brain.

[ScottW]

Robert Morein wrote:

>But here, you are simply out of place.


Somebody please put me out of my misery if I EVER become "in place"
on RAO.

ScottW

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
> >But here, you are simply out of place.
>
>
> Somebody please put me out of my misery if I EVER become "in place"
> on RAO.
>
> ScottW
>
You belong here, Scott. RAO is your final destination, from which there can
be no escape.

[George Middius]

The Terrierborg has hit on a potential solution to his raft of problems.

> Somebody please put me out of my misery if I EVER become "in place"
>on RAO.

You are one of RAO's leading exponents of the Arguments-for-Argument's-Sake
school of conversation. In fact, I'd put you near the top of that list, right
after duh-Mikey and (of course) the Krooborg.

Fortunately for you, not all RAo regulars try to be witty. That allows you to
blend in somewhat.

[Powell]

"Robert Morein" wrote

> J. Robert Oppenheimer was fascinated by Hindu philosophy,
> and knew Sanskrit. The Vedic myths resonate strongly (pun
> intended!) with modern physics.

Einstein said “I want to know how God thinks, everything
else is a detail.”


> The "elephant" brings to mind the modern "brane" theory. The
> Vedas know the age of the Universe to within an order of
> magnitude agreeement with modern calculations. Until
> recently, the expansion-contraction theory of the universe
> was in vogue, consonant with the endless cycle of Hinduism.
>
There are three models of the universe: open, closed
and flat. Recent observations indicate that the
universe is accelerating, based on red-shifting of very
distant objects. At the current rate of acceleration
our own galaxy will red-shift past the speed of light in
about 150 billion years. Depending on the ultimate
vacuum density of space, the material world may just
blink out of existence.


> So I don't feel that we can ever understand consciousness
> the way we understand things like loudspeaker design.
> But it does seem possible that we can surpass the
> description provided to us by western religion, which offers
> the "soul" as a monolithic answer provided to us gratis by
> a "higher being". I think it is too primitive, and probably
> wrong.
>
""soul" as a monolithic answer"... decoder ring translation,
please?


> And this is more or less the case among people. Some
> people have considerable self-knowledge, while others
> don't understand themselves very well. But none of us
> can ever understand the details of our own minds.
>
Hehehe... how profound, Robert. One does not
need to read through your prolonged and tedious
writing style to reach that conclusion.


> > BTW, I like the way you managed to slip an "Arnie
> > bash" into a philisophical discussion. :-)>
> >
> It broadens the audience :)
>
Perhaps you should set your sights on
“self-knowledge” in the area of spiritual growth.

[Robert Morein]

"Powell" > wrote in message
...
>
[snip
>
> Hehehe... how profound, Robert. One does not
> need to read through your prolonged and tedious
> writing style to reach that conclusion.
>
[snip]
> >
> Perhaps you should set your sights on
> "self-knowledge" in the area of spiritual growth.
>
Powell deprecates.

Powell, you're a nasty guy, along with Mikey. But while Mikey is boozing it
up at the local sports bar, and choking on chicken wings as he oggles boobs,
you have a problem with acid reflux disease.

Remember these words, Powell: "Acid Reflux Disease". Ask your physician for
important information on medication.

[Steven Sullivan]

Robert Morein > wrote:

> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Robert Morein > wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > Pink noise files are available on the web. Or any number of test CDs.
> > But the quesiton of whether you really *heard* a difference (versus one
> you
> > could measure) might not be solved by your approach.

> The difference was so significant to me, I incline to think that proper
> instrumentation would show it.


One would hope. But 'significant' differences can be reported for the same
component/sample presented twice , in a 'phantom switch' trial. So caution
would seem to be advised.


> We can of course measure
> > small differences between cables that are far beyond our ability to hear
> them.
> > If your scope test showed a comparably 'large' difference, you'd
> > be onto something.
> >


> So you're saying that even if measurements show that the cable has more
> extended frequency response, which is what my ears tell me, something isn't
> kosher? When the measurements and the subjective

?

What I'm saying is that something like a 3 dB difference in the most sensitive
part of the human hearing frequency range could very safely be predicted to
be audible, with musical material (even less difference, with test signals).
A 0.01 dB difference in that range, not very safely predicted to
be audible, even though it's easily measured.

A 'more extended frequency response' means what, in this case? Which
frequencies are part of the 'extension'?



> > But otherwise, I'm afraid that if you are of a scientific disposition,
> > you'll have to control for sighted bias. Your experience was entirely in
> > line with a scientifically-supported belief: that sighted comparisons will
> > often yield perceptions of difference. If you really are scientifically
> > minded, you'd know that your comparison method was simply unsuited for
> > verifying audible difference, and was indeed rather likely to result in a
> > perception of difference. It's not scientific to put a question mark
> > besides the scientific belief that two cables of similar RCL will be
> > audibly indistinguishable, based on your experience.
> >

> Of course it is.

No, it isn't, because your experience is fully in line with a *known*
mechanism -- a psychological one, in this case. Since you've done nothing
to rule that out as an explanation, to leap to 'questioning' another
scientific belief, is premature.


> Modern scientific philosophy is is nothing like what you think. Ask any
> university physicist: modern scientific philosophy believes in nothing. A
> theory is useful only to the extent it predicts phenomena. The terms "true"
> and "false" are no longer useful in physics. Interpretation in words of a
> physical theory in words is never an accurate representation of what the
> theory means; it is only done for the nonscientific public.


<etc>

When you've finished blowing up a storm of verbal smoke,
please realize this:

Science already has a 'theory' that predicts the 'phenomenon'
you reported. Your sighted perception of difference is predicted from
tenets of perceptual psychology. Alas the well-founded corollary is that
such perceptions aren't reliable indicators of real difference.

So there's no reason *yet* for you to question whether the
'theory' that predicts stuff that measures similarly sounds similar,
holds. There's no reason *yet* for you to question whether the predicted
limits of human hearing need to be revamped.

When you've ruled out the *existing* good explanation for your
experience...which you haven't, in any way...*then* it makes sense
to start questioning those other beliefs.

A logical progression would be: perceive the difference. Test it
with blind comparison. Test via measurement. If the DBT is positive,
and you find a reasonably big difference via measurement, you're done.
If you failed the DBT, but measure a big difference, recheck
the test conditions, and/or consider the possibility that your hearing
isn't as good as you think it is.
If you pass the DBT, but the measured differences seem tiny,
then you have grounds for more serious 'questions'.

Was there some other scientific belief you thought you should
be 'questioning' based on your experience?





--

-S
"You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big
secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it
on Rio'

[Robert Morein]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein > wrote:
>
> > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Robert Morein > wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > Pink noise files are available on the web. Or any number of test CDs.
> > > But the quesiton of whether you really *heard* a difference (versus
one
> > you
> > > could measure) might not be solved by your approach.
>
> > The difference was so significant to me, I incline to think that proper
> > instrumentation would show it.
>
>
> One would hope. But 'significant' differences can be reported for the
same
> component/sample presented twice , in a 'phantom switch' trial. So
caution
> would seem to be advised.
>
>
> > We can of course measure
> > > small differences between cables that are far beyond our ability to
hear
> > them.
> > > If your scope test showed a comparably 'large' difference, you'd
> > > be onto something.
> > >
>
>
> > So you're saying that even if measurements show that the cable has more
> > extended frequency response, which is what my ears tell me, something
isn't
> > kosher? When the measurements and the subjective
>
> ?
>
> What I'm saying is that something like a 3 dB difference in the most
sensitive
> part of the human hearing frequency range could very safely be predicted
to
> be audible, with musical material (even less difference, with test
signals).
> A 0.01 dB difference in that range, not very safely predicted to
> be audible, even though it's easily measured.
>
> A 'more extended frequency response' means what, in this case? Which
> frequencies are part of the 'extension'?
>
>
>
> > > But otherwise, I'm afraid that if you are of a scientific disposition,
> > > you'll have to control for sighted bias. Your experience was entirely
in
> > > line with a scientifically-supported belief: that sighted comparisons
will
> > > often yield perceptions of difference. If you really are
scientifically
> > > minded, you'd know that your comparison method was simply unsuited for
> > > verifying audible difference, and was indeed rather likely to result
in a
> > > perception of difference. It's not scientific to put a question mark
> > > besides the scientific belief that two cables of similar RCL will be
> > > audibly indistinguishable, based on your experience.
> > >
>
> > Of course it is.
>
> No, it isn't, because your experience is fully in line with a *known*
> mechanism -- a psychological one, in this case. Since you've done nothing
> to rule that out as an explanation, to leap to 'questioning' another
> scientific belief, is premature.
>
I guess you and I just have to disagree about the use of the question mark.
I believe it is completely permissible for me to question my own beliefs at
any time.


>
> > Modern scientific philosophy is is nothing like what you think. Ask any
> > university physicist: modern scientific philosophy believes in nothing.
A
> > theory is useful only to the extent it predicts phenomena. The terms
"true"
> > and "false" are no longer useful in physics. Interpretation in words of
a
> > physical theory in words is never an accurate representation of what the
> > theory means; it is only done for the nonscientific public.
>
>
> <etc>
>
> When you've finished blowing up a storm of verbal smoke,
> please realize this:
>
> Science already has a 'theory' that predicts the 'phenomenon'
> you reported. Your sighted perception of difference is predicted from
> tenets of perceptual psychology. Alas the well-founded corollary is that
> such perceptions aren't reliable indicators of real difference.
>
Perceptual psychology is soft science. It is not of the same quality as hard
science.


> So there's no reason *yet* for you to question whether the
> 'theory' that predicts stuff that measures similarly sounds similar,
> holds. There's no reason *yet* for you to question whether the predicted
> limits of human hearing need to be revamped.
>
Sure there is. Perceptual psychology is low quality science.


> When you've ruled out the *existing* good explanation for your
> experience...which you haven't, in any way...*then* it makes sense
> to start questioning those other beliefs.
>
I can question at any time, and that makes me a better scientiest.


> A logical progression would be: perceive the difference. Test it
> with blind comparison. Test via measurement. If the DBT is positive,
> and you find a reasonably big difference via measurement, you're done.
> If you failed the DBT, but measure a big difference, recheck
> the test conditions, and/or consider the possibility that your hearing
> isn't as good as you think it is.

That's all good for investigation. It is not required to question one's
beliefs.



> If you pass the DBT, but the measured differences seem tiny,
> then you have grounds for more serious 'questions'.
>
> Was there some other scientific belief you thought you should
> be 'questioning' based on your experience?
>
Steve, I come from the hard sciences. I pay very little attention to
psychology. I am part of the group who do not consider it a science at the
level of the hard sciences. This is because psychology attempts to derive
laws about systems that it does not understand. For this reason, I consider
"perceptual psychology" not to be science, although workers in the field
try, in a limited way handicapped by the lack of a brain model, to apply
some scientific methods, with limited success.

The "perceptual psychology" you speak of attempts to investigate something
located within centimeters of what is thought to be the process called
consciousness, yet no one has an understanding of what consciousness is.
This shows the folly of soft science; they haven't got a clue, yet they keep
spinning out tables that might be statistically likely, but not a single
master equation like Maxwell's.

I am trying to get you out of the unnecessary concept called "belief".
"Belief" is an unnecessary prejudice in your mind, that freezes your
thoughts and inclines you to dogma. Get rid of it. You can still get out of
bed in the morning. You DO NOT NEED TO BELIEVE THINGS!

Your senses lie to you at all levels. There is nothing that can be perceived
by the senses that is physically correct.
The following are lies, delivered to you courtesy of your senses:
1. There are three colors.
2. There are three dimensions.
3. Time moves forward.
4. Things cause other things.
5. When something occurs locally, it has no influence on what HAS ALREADY
occurred remotely.
6. A cat is either alive, or it is dead.
7. Light is a particle.
8. Light is a wave.
9. Your consciousness is in your head, in your head, spread out througout
the universe, or nonexistent.
10. The position of an object is decided before it is measured.
11. A qbit has only one state.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, "belief", which seems to be something
you are fond of, is not part of modern scientific philosophy. Modern thought
in this area depends upon the ideas of "theory" and "prediction".
Interpretation of a mathematical theory with words is considered bad,
because inevitably, the information contained in the equations is degraded
by translation.

Modern workers in the hard sciences have excised the word "belief" from the
working vocabulary. It is not used anymore.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...

> Stapp's opinion seems to be that there is a mathematical construct, which he
> calls consciousness, associated with the "observer" of quantum mechanics,
> which is closer to the "First Cause" (if such a thing exists!) than anything
> else. Qmech is somewhat supportive of this. Is this the same as
> consciousness in the brain? Even if neuroscientists manage to completely
> describe the neural structures and processes that correspond to
> consciousness, this would not decide whether consciousness resides in the
> physical world, or in a parallel one which requires certain physical
> structures to exist for logical consistency. Santayana was a Harvard
> philosopher who made materialism depressingly plausible. He stated that
> there is but one plane of existence, and the so-called material world is
> merely the detailed description of this plane.

I'm always fascinated by the endless evasions and loops western
scientists and philosophers use to get around the suggestion of a
possible spiritual dimension. "First Cause" is itself a cop-out, for
what else could that be but "God"--not of course the God of
tele-evangelists but that upholding and binding force that Hindu
philosophy is concerned to understand, which we'er told occasionally
puts forth a representative on the material place to communicate
certain truths. Once you accept that there exist higher dimensions,
then the origin of consciousness is no longer a problem. Phrases like
"God made man in His own image" and "Come, sayeth the Lord, let us
reason together" begin to take on real meaning rather than being Sunday
cliches. We see then that "God" is present in the world in the form of
consciousness--a common consciousness whatever the individual
permutations--and that sayings of religious teachers like Jesus about
loving one another and treating others as you'd like others to treat
you are not sentimental, impossible claptrap but in accord with the
very reality of the universes. Intellectualism is an endless spiral,
usually downward, simply because the human brain, rooted in this
dimension, designed to perceive and understand the phenominal world, is
trying to look inward, to understand itself. (It's a little like the
Maginot Line, where all the guns were pointed in one direction and
couldn't be turned around. :)) Some people have already reached the
emminently reasonable conclusion that the brain is more a hundrance
than a help in apprehending absolute truth and turned to meditation. In
that instance the brain becomes simply a tool, a vessel, a kind of
submersible used to reach deeper realms. It's interesting that no-one
I've ever heard of who's seriously investigated meditation has ever
said, "This doesn't work. I think I'll go back to materialistic
speculation."


> So I don't feel that we can ever understand consciousness the way we
> understand things like loudspeaker design.

We understand speaker design? :)

> But it does seem possible that we
> can surpass the description provided to us by western religion, which offers
> the "soul" as a monolithic answer provided to us gratis by a "higher being".
> I think it is too primitive, and probably wrong.

Is that what western religion teaches? I thought it was that we're all
part of the substance of God. So it's not a question of having a soul
"granted" to us. The soul is supposed to be the only real part of us,
the essence of us.

> > The Hindu Upanishads have a lot to say about consciousness, and
> > particularly self observation, which in an absolute sense is probably
> > impossible. "How can the Knower be known," etc. Worth reading,
> > particularly as an antidote to the totally materialistic Western view.
> >
> If the observer is itself has no imperfections, and is perfectly modeled,
> then the observer can know one or more things, the "control variables". In
> linear system theory, there is a state transition matrix that gives the
> evolution of the system over time. A feedback looplooks at the control
> variable, computes the difference between what it is and what it should be,
> and creates an output intended to restore the control variable to the
> desired value.

You mean a self-monitoring, self-correcting IC? :) I think the essence
of religious teaching is that the "real" part of us, the soul, is
perfect and cannot be corrupted. It remains apart from all phenominal
experience and merely observes. It's not the brain, it's not even the
pure consciousness that lights the brain. But it IS perfect.


> My intepretation of Stapp is that a feedback loop is "conscious" of the
> variables it is trying to control. Notice how the idea of "will" slips into
> the verbal description, with the use of the word "trying". But the feedback
> loop has no knowledge of how it is constructed, or the variables in the
> state vector. In the context of the brain, this is equivalent to awareness
> of desires, emotions, and dissatisfactions, but not of the inner workings of
> one's own mind.

I can't help reflecting how closely all this resembles the Upanishads
and the Baghavad Gita, except couched in Western scientific terms.
Again, re your last sentence, "How can the Knower be known?"

>
> And this is more or less the case among people. Some people have
> considerable self-knowledge, while others don't understand themselves very
> well. But none of us can ever understand the details of our own minds.

With self observation we more often observe--if anything--the things we
do rather than why we do them. But even causes can be observed
eventually, though it's not easy and I'm told can be painful. You'll
notice in everyday life that the more self-observant are the more
civilised and reasonable, the closer to what most of us would define as
"human" in the higher sense. The rest..well, the less said about them
the better.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...

> Stapp's opinion seems to be that there is a mathematical construct, which he
> calls consciousness, associated with the "observer" of quantum mechanics,
> which is closer to the "First Cause" (if such a thing exists!) than anything
> else. Qmech is somewhat supportive of this. Is this the same as
> consciousness in the brain? Even if neuroscientists manage to completely
> describe the neural structures and processes that correspond to
> consciousness, this would not decide whether consciousness resides in the
> physical world, or in a parallel one which requires certain physical
> structures to exist for logical consistency. Santayana was a Harvard
> philosopher who made materialism depressingly plausible. He stated that
> there is but one plane of existence, and the so-called material world is
> merely the detailed description of this plane.

I'm always fascinated by the endless evasions and loops western
scientists and philosophers use to get around the suggestion of a
possible spiritual dimension. "First Cause" is itself a cop-out, for
what else could that be but "God"--not of course the God of
tele-evangelists but that upholding and binding force that Hindu
philosophy is concerned to understand, which we'er told occasionally
puts forth a representative on the material place to communicate
certain truths. Once you accept that there exist higher dimensions,
then the origin of consciousness is no longer a problem. Phrases like
"God made man in His own image" and "Come, sayeth the Lord, let us
reason together" begin to take on real meaning rather than being Sunday
cliches. We see then that "God" is present in the world in the form of
consciousness--a common consciousness whatever the individual
permutations--and that sayings of religious teachers like Jesus about
loving one another and treating others as you'd like others to treat
you are not sentimental, impossible claptrap but in accord with the
very reality of the universes. Intellectualism is an endless spiral,
usually downward, simply because the human brain, rooted in this
dimension, designed to perceive and understand the phenominal world, is
trying to look inward, to understand itself. (It's a little like the
Maginot Line, where all the guns were pointed in one direction and
couldn't be turned around. :)) Some people have already reached the
emminently reasonable conclusion that the brain is more a hundrance
than a help in apprehending absolute truth and turned to meditation. In
that instance the brain becomes simply a tool, a vessel, a kind of
submersible used to reach deeper realms. It's interesting that no-one
I've ever heard of who's seriously investigated meditation has ever
said, "This doesn't work. I think I'll go back to materialistic
speculation."


> So I don't feel that we can ever understand consciousness the way we
> understand things like loudspeaker design.

We understand speaker design? :)

> But it does seem possible that we
> can surpass the description provided to us by western religion, which offers
> the "soul" as a monolithic answer provided to us gratis by a "higher being".
> I think it is too primitive, and probably wrong.

Is that what western religion teaches? I thought it was that we're all
part of the substance of God. So it's not a question of having a soul
"granted" to us. The soul is supposed to be the only real part of us,
the essence of us.

> > The Hindu Upanishads have a lot to say about consciousness, and
> > particularly self observation, which in an absolute sense is probably
> > impossible. "How can the Knower be known," etc. Worth reading,
> > particularly as an antidote to the totally materialistic Western view.
> >
> If the observer is itself has no imperfections, and is perfectly modeled,
> then the observer can know one or more things, the "control variables". In
> linear system theory, there is a state transition matrix that gives the
> evolution of the system over time. A feedback looplooks at the control
> variable, computes the difference between what it is and what it should be,
> and creates an output intended to restore the control variable to the
> desired value.

You mean a self-monitoring, self-correcting IC? :) I think the essence
of religious teaching is that the "real" part of us, the soul, is
perfect and cannot be corrupted. It remains apart from all phenominal
experience and merely observes. It's not the brain, it's not even the
pure consciousness that lights the brain. But it IS perfect.


> My intepretation of Stapp is that a feedback loop is "conscious" of the
> variables it is trying to control. Notice how the idea of "will" slips into
> the verbal description, with the use of the word "trying". But the feedback
> loop has no knowledge of how it is constructed, or the variables in the
> state vector. In the context of the brain, this is equivalent to awareness
> of desires, emotions, and dissatisfactions, but not of the inner workings of
> one's own mind.

I can't help reflecting how closely all this resembles the Upanishads
and the Baghavad Gita, except couched in Western scientific terms.
Again, re your last sentence, "How can the Knower be known?"

>
> And this is more or less the case among people. Some people have
> considerable self-knowledge, while others don't understand themselves very
> well. But none of us can ever understand the details of our own minds.

With self observation we more often observe--if anything--the things we
do rather than why we do them. But even causes can be observed
eventually, though it's not easy and I'm told can be painful. You'll
notice in everyday life that the more self-observant are the more
civilised and reasonable, the closer to what most of us would define as
"human" in the higher sense. The rest..well, the less said about them
the better.

[George Middius]

Paulie "Mystic Dag" Packer dreams on.

>I'm always fascinated by the endless evasions and loops western
>scientists and philosophers use to get around the suggestion of a
>possible spiritual dimension.

Fascination at this behavior is misplaced. As you would know if you'd gone to
school, scientists are interested in evidence. The realm of spirituality has no
overlap with that of science.

>Once you accept that there exist higher dimensions,

This is the premise that takes you outside the domain of science. Why disparage
scientists for failing to negate their vocational orientation? Anybody can
fantasize and construct elaborate, imaginary "causes" for existence,
consciousness, or sentience. What can't be tested is beyond the reach of
science.

If you're interpreting Einstein's comment about knowing the mind of God in a
literal sense, that would be a mistake.

I notice you're not toiling away in the trenches of science to extend current
knowledge into these "higher dimensions". What's stopping you from finding out
if your fantasies have a basis in reality?

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
>
[snip].
>
> I'm always fascinated by the endless evasions and loops western
> scientists and philosophers use to get around the suggestion of a
> possible spiritual dimension. "First Cause" is itself a cop-out, for
> what else could that be but "God"--not of course the God of
> tele-evangelists but that upholding and binding force that Hindu
> philosophy is concerned to understand, which we'er told occasionally
> puts forth a representative on the material place to communicate
> certain truths. Once you accept that there exist higher dimensions,
> then the origin of consciousness is no longer a problem. Phrases like
> "God made man in His own image" and "Come, sayeth the Lord, let us
> reason together" begin to take on real meaning rather than being Sunday
> cliches. We see then that "God" is present in the world in the form of
> consciousness--a common consciousness whatever the individual
> permutations--and that sayings of religious teachers like Jesus about
> loving one another and treating others as you'd like others to treat
> you are not sentimental, impossible claptrap but in accord with the
> very reality of the universes. Intellectualism is an endless spiral,
> usually downward, simply because the human brain, rooted in this
> dimension, designed to perceive and understand the phenominal world, is
> trying to look inward, to understand itself. (It's a little like the
> Maginot Line, where all the guns were pointed in one direction and
> couldn't be turned around. :)) Some people have already reached the
> emminently reasonable conclusion that the brain is more a hundrance
> than a help in apprehending absolute truth and turned to meditation. In
> that instance the brain becomes simply a tool, a vessel, a kind of
> submersible used to reach deeper realms. It's interesting that no-one
> I've ever heard of who's seriously investigated meditation has ever
> said, "This doesn't work. I think I'll go back to materialistic
> speculation."
>
Very well expressed, though I personally prefer to live with more question
marks than you. I see that you are a deeply committed, spiritual individual.
While Western Materialism fails to satisfy me as well, I prefer to live with
Occam's Razor at my side. There is very little that I believe, or
disbelieve.

I guess I feel that sentient beings have an "inner light", but I do not
believe in the existence of a "personal god". I am agnostic about that. With
all the complexity of the universe that I doubt we will ever fully
comprehend, the existence of a personal god is within the realm of
possibilities. But there are many other ways it could play out as well.

Even if there is a Universal Consciousness, I prefer to use another word for
it besides "God". The word "God", as well as "god", has been used too many
times, by too many people, in too many different ways. The one I find
particularly objectionable is the God that demands worship and obesiance.
Why do we have to use the same word that was used by the Mayans to justify
human sacrifice?

You're giving intellectualism a bad rap. Before that, there was nothing but
blind obesiance. I am unimpressed by the work of the classical western
philosophers -- the Greeks excepted -- but I feel that Stapp possibly
represents a new beginning. Santayana's tome was 1200 pages, and decided
nothing. Stapp's work may make it possible to establish a one-to-one
correspondence between structures in the physical world, and consciousness,
wherever it resides. That would be very useful stuff to know.

>
> > So I don't feel that we can ever understand consciousness the way we
> > understand things like loudspeaker design.
>
> We understand speaker design? :)
>
> > But it does seem possible that we
> > can surpass the description provided to us by western religion, which
offers
> > the "soul" as a monolithic answer provided to us gratis by a "higher
being".
> > I think it is too primitive, and probably wrong.
>
> Is that what western religion teaches? I thought it was that we're all
> part of the substance of God. So it's not a question of having a soul
> "granted" to us. The soul is supposed to be the only real part of us,
> the essence of us.
>
That sounds like the modernized version, but I'm not an expert.

> > > The Hindu Upanishads have a lot to say about consciousness, and
> > > particularly self observation, which in an absolute sense is probably
> > > impossible. "How can the Knower be known," etc. Worth reading,
> > > particularly as an antidote to the totally materialistic Western view.
> > >
> > If the observer is itself has no imperfections, and is perfectly
modeled,
> > then the observer can know one or more things, the "control variables".
In
> > linear system theory, there is a state transition matrix that gives the
> > evolution of the system over time. A feedback looplooks at the control
> > variable, computes the difference between what it is and what it should
be,
> > and creates an output intended to restore the control variable to the
> > desired value.
>
> You mean a self-monitoring, self-correcting IC? :)

No, the feedback loop is one of the fundamental concepts of control theory.
It is an abstract idea that can be rendered as a machine. Personally, I
suspect it may hold one of the elementary constructs of consciousness. A
feedback loop behaves as if it has a will, but not a mind.

> I think the essence
> of religious teaching is that the "real" part of us, the soul, is
> perfect and cannot be corrupted. It remains apart from all phenominal
> experience and merely observes. It's not the brain, it's not even the
> pure consciousness that lights the brain. But it IS perfect.
>
Could be, but my preference for Occam's razor does not allow me to adopt it
as a belief.
>
> > My intepretation of Stapp is that a feedback loop is "conscious" of the
> > variables it is trying to control. Notice how the idea of "will" slips
into
> > the verbal description, with the use of the word "trying". But the
feedback
> > loop has no knowledge of how it is constructed, or the variables in the
> > state vector. In the context of the brain, this is equivalent to
awareness
> > of desires, emotions, and dissatisfactions, but not of the inner
workings of
> > one's own mind.
>
> I can't help reflecting how closely all this resembles the Upanishads
> and the Baghavad Gita, except couched in Western scientific terms.
> Again, re your last sentence, "How can the Knower be known?"
>
I mentioned it specifically because of the analogy.
> >
> > And this is more or less the case among people. Some people have
> > considerable self-knowledge, while others don't understand themselves
very
> > well. But none of us can ever understand the details of our own minds.
>
> With self observation we more often observe--if anything--the things we
> do rather than why we do them. But even causes can be observed
> eventually, though it's not easy and I'm told can be painful. You'll
> notice in everyday life that the more self-observant are the more
> civilised and reasonable, the closer to what most of us would define as
> "human" in the higher sense. The rest..well, the less said about them
> the better.
>
Well, sure. But if your mental experiences are like mine, then, while
waiting for sleep to come, your mind bubbles with thoughts that seem to pop
up untraceably. The computer analogy would be that when you consciously
think something, a thought has been loaded into a register. But all the
logic of the CPU, the ALUs, instruction decoding, and pipelines, can never
be seen. As I write this, I am conscious that I am putting this together,
but I don't know how. My unconscious is doing all the work, and my conscious
mind is taking all the credit :)

[Robert Morein]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Paulie "Mystic Dag" Packer dreams on.
>
> >I'm always fascinated by the endless evasions and loops western
> >scientists and philosophers use to get around the suggestion of a
> >possible spiritual dimension.
>
> Fascination at this behavior is misplaced. As you would know if you'd gone
to
> school, scientists are interested in evidence. The realm of spirituality
has no
> overlap with that of science.
>
Elaborating on this, science is merely a system of investigation. A
scientist can remove the words "belief" and "disbelief" from his head, and
still do his work.
A scientist
1. Establishes a domain of investigation
2. Creates theories that make predictions within that domain
3. Tests the theories with unbiased experiments.

In a physics class, a physicist says things like, "In our part of the
universe, such-and-such (ie., Newtonian mechanics) has always been confirmed
by experiment. This doesn't rule out other parts of the universe where it
may not." He then continues by adding, "This is what we mean by a 'physical
law'". Unfortunately, the public at large tends to pick up on the use of
the word "law", and put all kinds of things on it, such as "obey the
physical law", "always true", etc. Physical systems don't obey anything or
anybody. They just proceed, to within a certain degree of accuracy, to the
"physical law."

> >Once you accept that there exist higher dimensions,
>
> This is the premise that takes you outside the domain of science. Why
disparage
> scientists for failing to negate their vocational orientation? Anybody can
> fantasize and construct elaborate, imaginary "causes" for existence,
> consciousness, or sentience. What can't be tested is beyond the reach of
> science.
>
Yes, it is. But human as we are, many of us choose to hold more than one
belief system in our heads, and proceed as if they don't contradict each
other. Human life and misery being what it is, I wouldn't like to deprive
people of faith in untestable things. It gives people comfort. The
behavioral problem occurs when people try to use the implications of, say,
religious thought, to dictate to science, or the reverse. Ie., when people
try to make a religion of science, or a science of religion.

> If you're interpreting Einstein's comment about knowing the mind of God in
a
> literal sense, that would be a mistake.

Einstein said dozens of quotable things about God and religion. People pick
up on many of these things when they were just figures of speech. Everybody
wants Einstein on their side. He was a brilliant scientist. But as far as
spirituality goes, it turns out that he was a womanizer who had a child that
he never saw, though he did put the kid through college. So much for the
warmth and godliness of Einstein.
>
> I notice you're not toiling away in the trenches of science to extend
current
> knowledge into these "higher dimensions". What's stopping you from finding
out
> if your fantasies have a basis in reality?
>
Some fantasies can be true. Or maybe, "truth" is one more suspect concept.
Perhaps the universe is more subjective than we think.

[Robert Morein]

"Powell" > wrote in message
...
[nothing]
> Hehehe... yea right, like you would know.
>
Whatever "Powell" is, it is not an intelligent entity. It provides certain
programmed responses, such as "Hehehe".

Computer science can do better than this.

[[email protected]]

>Paulie "Mystic Dag" Packer dreams on.

Be nice, George. Even Robert, though clearly bored by my
spiritualizing, was kind enough to praise my self-expression. You at
least could have praised my punctuation. :)

>Fascination at this behavior is misplaced. As you would know if you'd gone to
school, scientists are interested in evidence. The realm of
spirituality has no
overlap with that of science.

Wrong, George. The further science investigates, the closer it moves
toward defining evidence of a spiritual world, which of course simply
means another, finer dimension. I'm surprised if you keep up to date
with science that you haven't noticed that.

>This is the premise that takes you outside the domain of science. Why disparage
scientists for failing to negate their vocational orientation?

"Failing to negate their vocational orientation" shouldn't mean having
a permanently closed mind. If scientific investigation appears to point
to the existance of something beyond the phenominal world, the true
scientist will be prepared to follow his investigations wherever they
may lead, even if he has to use different tools to complete that
investigation. What sort of scientist would it be who said, "Well,
current investigation of particle physics does suggest there is
something beyond the observable limits of matter, but that would have
to be something like a spiritual dimension, and I don't happen to
believe in that stuff so that's that." Not very scientific.

>Anybody can fantasize and construct elaborate, imaginary "causes" for existence,
consciousness, or sentience. What can't be tested is beyond the reach
of
science.

Who knows what can be tested? New tools for testing are being developed
all the time. Maybe we just don't have fine enough tools yet.


>If you're interpreting Einstein's comment about knowing the mind of God in a
literal sense, that would be a mistake.

Nothing to do with Einstein. Though Einstein was a true scientist in
that he refused to rule out imagination as a possible tool of
scientific speculation.

>I notice you're not toiling away in the trenches of science to extend current
knowledge into these "higher dimensions". What's stopping you from
finding out
if your fantasies have a basis in reality?

Good question. I prefer investigations closer to home, beginning with
myself. As the Greeks used to say, "Know Thyself." Know that and you
know pretty much everything. However, it's a slow process.... :)

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> >Paulie "Mystic Dag" Packer dreams on.
>
> Be nice, George. Even Robert, though clearly bored by my
> spiritualizing, was kind enough to praise my self-expression. You at
> least could have praised my punctuation. :)
>
Paul, one of my two best friends is a "right wing Unitarian", which, as the
joke goes, means he believes in God and Jesus Christ. Please don't think I
was bored.

> >Fascination at this behavior is misplaced. As you would know if you'd
gone to
> school, scientists are interested in evidence. The realm of
> spirituality has no
> overlap with that of science.
>
> Wrong, George. The further science investigates, the closer it moves
> toward defining evidence of a spiritual world, which of course simply
> means another, finer dimension. I'm surprised if you keep up to date
> with science that you haven't noticed that.
>
I do not think science could ever do that. It can only show evidence that
the world is not as it appears to our senses. It could also show that
everyday common sense, or perhaps, ordinary logic, are not correct. But
evidence of strangeness is not the same as evidence of spirituality.
Although Stapp proposes that something he calls "consciousness" may be
central to the existence of the Universe, we have to be careful with the
intepretation. Whether it turns out to be simply a number, or something
intimately connected with self-awareness, is yet to be seen.


> >This is the premise that takes you outside the domain of science. Why
disparage
> scientists for failing to negate their vocational orientation?
>
> "Failing to negate their vocational orientation" shouldn't mean having
> a permanently closed mind. If scientific investigation appears to point
> to the existance of something beyond the phenominal world, the true
> scientist will be prepared to follow his investigations wherever they
> may lead, even if he has to use different tools to complete that
> investigation.

That can't be. Science is a logical system that deals only with phenomena.
It would be very bad to try to stretch something that works so well within a
limited domain into something that is neither science or religion.

What sort of scientist would it be who said, "Well,
> current investigation of particle physics does suggest there is
> something beyond the observable limits of matter, but that would have
> to be something like a spiritual dimension, and I don't happen to
> believe in that stuff so that's that."

The above statement is self contradictory.
That kind of statement cannot be made as the result of experiment, because
if an experiment could measure it, it would be observable. If it is
observable by experiment, it is part of science. If it is not observable, it
is not part of science.

> Not very scientific.
>
> >Anybody can fantasize and construct elaborate, imaginary "causes" for
existence,
> consciousness, or sentience. What can't be tested is beyond the reach
> of
> science.
>
> Who knows what can be tested? New tools for testing are being developed
> all the time. Maybe we just don't have fine enough tools yet.
>
Paul, I sense a fuzziness in your conception of science. It's just a system.
The system was laid down by Locke. FWIW, in a proscribed domain, it works
very well. It would be a mistake to try to expand it or stretch it. Science
is a tool for devising "theories the produce repeatable phenomena". I put
that in quotes, because it is central. It isn't anything more than that.
Science is not a tool for determining ontological questions, for determining
if there is a soul, a spirit, or 17 dimensions. IF it happens that for any
of those questions, repeatable phenomena occur for which theory can be
devised that accurately predicts the phenomena, then that question becomes
part of science.

The bounds of science are not determined by the interests of the questioner,
or what he would like to know. They expand opportunistically when new
experiments become available, not as a result of desire or philosophy.
>
> >If you're interpreting Einstein's comment about knowing the mind of God
in a
> literal sense, that would be a mistake.
>
> Nothing to do with Einstein. Though Einstein was a true scientist in
> that he refused to rule out imagination as a possible tool of
> scientific speculation.
>
Of course, imagination is a tool. But only to suggest an experiment.
Imagination does not lead without experiment to scientific results.
Einstein's conception of science was fully in accordance with the Locke's
phenomenological approach. Throughout his productive years, Einstein created
predictions of special and general relativity that could be tested. The
accuracy with which those predictions were upheld are the cause of
Einstein's reputation, not that he imagined riding on a light beam. That is
a mere quirk of his mind that captured the popular imagination.


> >I notice you're not toiling away in the trenches of science to extend
current
> knowledge into these "higher dimensions". What's stopping you from
> finding out
> if your fantasies have a basis in reality?
>
> Good question. I prefer investigations closer to home, beginning with
> myself. As the Greeks used to say, "Know Thyself." Know that and you
> know pretty much everything. However, it's a slow process.... :)
>
For every three thousand or so physicists of any one generation, a handful
are lucky enough to create a new theory. And "string theory", which has
captured so much popular imagination, is so far untestable. So it's not a
bad choice to stay away from hard-core theoretical physics.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> Whatever "Powell" is, it is not an intelligent entity. It provides certain
> programmed responses, such as "Hehehe".

I think the "Hehehe" is a little warmer than "Quack quack quack". I
applaud the reprogramming.

> Computer science can do better than this.

So you're dcommissioning Powell by executive fiat? Good, but you have to
tell him he's mothballed.

[George Middius]

Paulie has a new religion. I don't know what its proper name is, but
"Anti-Scientism" comes to mind.

>>Paulie "Mystic Dag" Packer dreams on.

>Be nice, George. Even Robert, though clearly bored by my
>spiritualizing, was kind enough to praise my self-expression. You at
>least could have praised my punctuation. :)

Nicely punctuated. For whatever that's worth. Did you start using a grammar
checker on your posts?

>>Fascination at this behavior is misplaced. As you would know if you'd gone to
>>school, scientists are interested in evidence. The realm of
>>spirituality has no
>>overlap with that of science.

>Wrong, George. The further science investigates, the closer it moves
>toward defining evidence of a spiritual world, which of course simply
>means another, finer dimension. I'm surprised if you keep up to date
>with science that you haven't noticed that.

Apparently you don't know what science is. It has limits, you know, and it stops
sharply right where the unexplainable or imperceptible begins. You might use
science to investigate you don't understand or can't perceive, but no scientist,
as the term is used in English, would claim otherwise.

Get yourself a dictionary.

>>This is the premise that takes you outside the domain of science. Why
>>disparage scientists for failing to negate their vocational orientation?

>"Failing to negate their vocational orientation" shouldn't mean having
>a permanently closed mind. If scientific investigation appears to point
>to the existance of something beyond the phenominal[sic] world, the true
>scientist will be prepared to follow his investigations wherever they
>may lead, even if he has to use different tools to complete that
>investigation. What sort of scientist would it be who said, "Well,
>current investigation of particle physics does suggest there is
>something beyond the observable limits of matter, but that would have
>to be something like a spiritual dimension, and I don't happen to
>believe in that stuff so that's that." Not very scientific.

You're losing it. You have no clue what science is. You're babbling like Powell.

>>Anybody can fantasize and construct elaborate, imaginary "causes" for
>>existence, consciousness, or sentience. What can't be tested is beyond the
>>reach of science.

>Who knows what can be tested?

Any scientist does. Apparently the simple notion of perception is beyond you.

>New tools for testing are being developed
>all the time. Maybe we just don't have fine enough tools yet.

What are you trying to test? Things you can't perceive, can't imagine, and can't
show exist?

Be specific, Paulie. You can have all the faith you want, but if you want to
bring science to bear, you have to be able to test something. That's how science
works.

>>I notice you're not toiling away in the trenches of science to extend current
>>knowledge into these "higher dimensions". What's stopping you from
>>finding out if your fantasies have a basis in reality?

>Good question. I prefer investigations closer to home, beginning with
>myself. As the Greeks used to say, "Know Thyself." Know that and you
>know pretty much everything. However, it's a slow process.... :)

So you admit you're just trying to muddy the waters. Is this an attempt to smear
the scientific establishment and promote religion on an audio newsgroup?

Also, do try to fix your newsreader so it doesn't Kroogerize the line breaks.

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
> > Whatever "Powell" is, it is not an intelligent entity. It provides
certain
> > programmed responses, such as "Hehehe".
>
> I think the "Hehehe" is a little warmer than "Quack quack quack". I
> applaud the reprogramming.
>
> > Computer science can do better than this.
>
> So you're dcommissioning Powell by executive fiat? Good, but you have to
> tell him he's mothballed.
>
They didn't extend HAL that courtesy.

[[email protected]]

On that last point, apologies if my posts are coming through weird. I'm
having to post from Google groups as my server stopped downloading new
messages as of last tuesday. And as you'd be the first to tell me,
George, I don't really understand the software.

For the rest, no consensus will be reached on this subject; we're dogs
barking on opposite sides of the fence, with different priorities. But
hey, where's the surprise? It was thus from the beginning, still is and
ever shall be. But I won't wax biblical, not on an audio newsgroup. :)

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:

> Robert Morein wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > ups.com...

> > Stapp's opinion seems to be that there is a mathematical construct, which he
> > calls consciousness, associated with the "observer" of quantum mechanics,
> > which is closer to the "First Cause" (if such a thing exists!) than anything
> > else. Qmech is somewhat supportive of this. Is this the same as
> > consciousness in the brain? Even if neuroscientists manage to completely
> > describe the neural structures and processes that correspond to
> > consciousness, this would not decide whether consciousness resides in the
> > physical world, or in a parallel one which requires certain physical
> > structures to exist for logical consistency. Santayana was a Harvard
> > philosopher who made materialism depressingly plausible. He stated that
> > there is but one plane of existence, and the so-called material world is
> > merely the detailed description of this plane.

> I'm always fascinated by the endless evasions and loops western
> scientists and philosophers use to get around the suggestion of a
> possible spiritual dimension. "First Cause" is itself a cop-out, for
> what else could that be but "God"--not of course the God of
> tele-evangelists but that upholding and binding force that Hindu
> philosophy is concerned to understand, which we'er told occasionally
> puts forth a representative on the material place to communicate
> certain truths. Once you accept that there exist higher dimensions,

Bzzzt. Thanks for playing.

Scientists of course accept the existence of -- or at
least the possibility of -- 'higher dimensions', such as
the 10-dimensional space that string theory posits.
But they seem to mean something different by it than you do.

I'm always bored by the fuzzy pseudoscientific/mathematical
claptrap language that mystics use -- 'higher dimensions' and
vibrations and such.

Scientists meanshile are concerned with describing consciousness
and the universe as they *are*, not as we'd like them to be.

> consciousness--a common consciousness whatever the individual
> permutations--and that sayings of religious teachers like Jesus about
> loving one another and treating others as you'd like others to treat
> you are not sentimental, impossible claptrap but in accord with the
> very reality of the universes. Intellectualism is an endless spiral,
> usually downward, simply because the human brain, rooted in this
> dimension, designed to perceive and understand the phenominal world, is
> trying to look inward, to understand itself. (It's a little like the
> Maginot Line, where all the guns were pointed in one direction and
> couldn't be turned around. :)) Some people have already reached the
> emminently reasonable conclusion that the brain is more a hundrance
> than a help in apprehending absolute truth and turned to meditation.

Try meditating *without* a brain. Yes, I'm assuming you don't do that
already.

> In
> that instance the brain becomes simply a tool, a vessel, a kind of
> submersible used to reach deeper realms. It's interesting that no-one
> I've ever heard of who's seriously investigated meditation has ever
> said, "This doesn't work. I think I'll go back to materialistic
> speculation."

Define 'work'. What does meditation 'do' the is evidence that it
'works'? Certainly its effects on physiology have been studied
scientifically.

[Steven Sullivan]

Robert Morein > wrote:

> "George Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Paulie "Mystic Dag" Packer dreams on.
> >
> > >I'm always fascinated by the endless evasions and loops western
> > >scientists and philosophers use to get around the suggestion of a
> > >possible spiritual dimension.
> >
> > Fascination at this behavior is misplaced. As you would know if you'd gone
> to
> > school, scientists are interested in evidence. The realm of spirituality
> has no
> > overlap with that of science.
> >
> Elaborating on this, science is merely a system of investigation.

'Merely' by far the most successful one for investigating the natural world.


> Yes, it is. But human as we are, many of us choose to hold more than one
> belief system in our heads, and proceed as if they don't contradict each
> other.

Yes, it was Lewis Carroll who wrote of a character who could believe
six impossible things before breakfast, wasn't it?

Of course, proceeding 'as if' they don't contradict each other , doesn't
mean they don't contradict each other. You distinguish this from
wishful thinking...how, exactly?







--

-S
"You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big
secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it
on Rio'

[Robert Morein]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Bzzzt. Thanks for playing.
>
> Scientists of course accept the existence of -- or at
> least the possibility of -- 'higher dimensions', such as
> the 10-dimensional space that string theory posits.
> But they seem to mean something different by it than you do.
>
> I'm always bored by the fuzzy pseudoscientific/mathematical
> claptrap language that mystics use -- 'higher dimensions' and
> vibrations and such.
>
> Scientists meanshile are concerned with describing consciousness
> and the universe as they *are*, not as we'd like them to be.
>
Only one aspect of "consciousness" can be understood by science -- the
correspondence of consciousness with structures and processes in the
physical world.

Forgive me if I'm incorrect in my interpretation, but while Paul is trying
to extend science to cover spirituality, you seem to want to limit
conceptualizing of consciousness to what you feel science embraces. But
currently, science does not have the means to study very much of it.

Even if science manages to establish a one-to-one correspondence between
consciousness and structures/processes in the physical world, such knowledge
would not be a provably complete description of the phenomena. A person
could feel that eventually, science will squeeze the domain of spiritual
thought down to practically nothing -- or he might not. But currently, there
is no way to make an opinion either way more than a personal prejudice.

[Robert Morein]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein > wrote:
>
> > "George Middius" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Paulie "Mystic Dag" Packer dreams on.
> > >
> > > >I'm always fascinated by the endless evasions and loops western
> > > >scientists and philosophers use to get around the suggestion of a
> > > >possible spiritual dimension.
> > >
> > > Fascination at this behavior is misplaced. As you would know if you'd
gone
> > to
> > > school, scientists are interested in evidence. The realm of
spirituality
> > has no
> > > overlap with that of science.
> > >
> > Elaborating on this, science is merely a system of investigation.
>
> 'Merely' by far the most successful one for investigating the natural
world.
>
From hyperdictionary.com,
http://hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=nature

[4] the natural physical world including plants and animals and landscapes
etc.; "they tried to preserve nature as they found it"
[5] a causal agent creating and controlling things in the universe; "the
laws of nature"; "nature has seen to it that men are stronger than women"

I agree with [4] but not [5], because [5] could be construed to include
nonobservable things, which, by definition, are not part of science.

>
> > Yes, it is. But human as we are, many of us choose to hold more than one
> > belief system in our heads, and proceed as if they don't contradict each
> > other.
>
> Yes, it was Lewis Carroll who wrote of a character who could believe
> six impossible things before breakfast, wasn't it?
>
> Of course, proceeding 'as if' they don't contradict each other , doesn't
> mean they don't contradict each other. You distinguish this from
> wishful thinking...how, exactly?
>
I don't. I was saying that this is an OK personal choice that many or most
people make out of personal need. I said it is not harmful to life unless
people who do this also try to meld these belief systems together.

Steve, do you believe that science will ultimately explain everything?

[paul packer]

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 23:57:50 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
>> wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> Bzzzt. Thanks for playing.

Flippant. Not useful to discussion.

>> Scientists of course accept the existence of -- or at
>> least the possibility of -- 'higher dimensions', such as
>> the 10-dimensional space that string theory posits.
>> But they seem to mean something different by it than you do.
>>
>> I'm always bored by the fuzzy pseudoscientific/mathematical
>> claptrap language that mystics use -- 'higher dimensions' and
>> vibrations and such.
>>
>> Scientists meanshile are concerned with describing consciousness
>> and the universe as they *are*, not as we'd like them to be.
>>
>Only one aspect of "consciousness" can be understood by science -- the
>correspondence of consciousness with structures and processes in the
>physical world.
>
>Forgive me if I'm incorrect in my interpretation, but while Paul is trying
>to extend science to cover spirituality, you seem to want to limit
>conceptualizing of consciousness to what you feel science embraces. But
>currently, science does not have the means to study very much of it.

The reason I bailed out of this thread was simply that I could see no
possibility of any meeting of minds. You're right in a way, Robert: I
see science moving inexorably toward a "spiritual" dimension, but of
course as soon as you use the word "spiritual", people go into a
tizzy and start defending the "integrity" of science and scientific
method. "Spiritual" in fact may only mean the investigation of ever
finer units of matter--for what else are we talking about but degrees
of refinement? This is what all religious teaching is about. Even on a
behavioural level, the best people strive toward a greater level of
refinement. The problem is, people think of a spiritual dimension as
some realm of mumbo jumbo in confused, superstitious,"non scientific"
minds. If you look at someone like Rudolph Steiner, who described
himself as a "spiritual scientist", you see how even the finest
scholars can have no problem with the concept of investigation into
spiritual realms, let alone the acceptance of their existance. For me
it's no problem. I just hope in time it becomes less of a problem for
others, and we don't continue to see the current reactionary attitudes
we're seeing here whenever it's gently suggested that maybe science
and spiritual belief are not galaxies apart.
>
>Even if science manages to establish a one-to-one correspondence between
>consciousness and structures/processes in the physical world, such knowledge
>would not be a provably complete description of the phenomena. A person
>could feel that eventually, science will squeeze the domain of spiritual
>thought down to practically nothing -- or he might not. But currently, there
>is no way to make an opinion either way more than a personal prejudice.

Since I've brought up Rudolph Steiner, it's worth mentioning that he
claimed to have supersensible vision into spiritual realms from an
early age, but soon realized that such vision was of little use
because it failed to show him how the spiritual realm passed into
matter, that is, what the nature of the interaction was between the
two realms. So (by his own account) he set about divesting himself of
his "abilitiy" and instead, through meditation, developing a vision
into the spiritual realm that enabled him to directly percieve the
relationship between spirit and matter. Now this may sound absurd to
the scientific community, and I'll probably cop flack for mentioning
it here, but I'm just trying to illustrate that there are other
streams of thinking in the world and that not all those who reject the
current professed limitations of materialistic science are idiots. In
other words, imagination in the true sense of the word (that is, in
the sense of being able to conceptualise beyond the immediate material
evidence) can be not just a legitimare tool of science but one of the
most important ones.