Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"JBorg, Jr." wrote
What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal HAS which lead you to believe and conclude that the precence of sound difference which physically exist could be directly verified and attributed to them -- by listening? From my readings, morphogenetic fields "carry information only (no energy) and are available throughout time and space without any loss of intensity after they have been created. They are created by the patterns of physical forms (including such things as crystals as well as biological systems). They help guide the formation of later similar systems. And finally, a newly forming system "tunes into" a previous system by having within it a "seed" that resonates with a similar seed in the earlier form." And this, " I think (Sheldrake) that as science breaks out of this narrow mechanism that has been its straitjacket for so long, approaching a more holistic view of nature, then much more possibility of fruitful interaction occurs between science and the spiritual. Einstein's photons of light have remarkable parallels to Aquinas's discussions of the movements of angels." The "the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal"... is the "seed" metaphor refered to. However, in Sheldrake own words, "I think of it as applying to self-organizing systems like cells, molecules, and crystals, but not to artificial machines." |
#2
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Powell" wrote in message
"JBorg, Jr." wrote What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal HAS which lead you to believe and conclude that the precence of sound difference which physically exist could be directly verified and attributed to them -- by listening? From my readings, morphogenetic fields "carry information only (no energy) and are available throughout time and space without any loss of intensity after they have been created. Most relevently, Morphogentic fields have been around as a hypothesis for about 80 years, but have never been scientificially proven to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_resonance |
#3
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Arny Krueger" wrote What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal HAS which lead you to believe and conclude that the precence of sound difference which physically exist could be directly verified and attributed to them -- by listening? From my readings, morphogenetic fields "carry information only (no energy) and are available throughout time and space without any loss of intensity after they have been created. Most relevently, Morphogentic fields have been around as a hypothesis for about 80 years, but have never been scientificially proven to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_resonance Not to miss the forest from the trees, the study of morphogenetic fields excludes "artificial machines" like CD players as it is neither a biological or crystalline system. |
#4
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Powell" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal HAS which lead you to believe and conclude that the precence of sound difference which physically exist could be directly verified and attributed to them -- by listening? From my readings, morphogenetic fields "carry information only (no energy) and are available throughout time and space without any loss of intensity after they have been created. Most relevently, Morphogentic fields have been around as a hypothesis for about 80 years, but have never been scientificially proven to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_resonance Not to miss the forest from the trees, the study of morphogenetic fields excludes "artificial machines" like CD players as it is neither a biological or crystalline system. Well, yes that too. Of course who hasn't had a hi fi component that didn't act like it had a mind of its own? ;-) |
#5
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Powell wrote JBorg, Jr." wrote What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal HAS which lead you to believe and conclude that the precence of sound difference which physically exist could be directly verified and attributed to them -- by listening? From my readings, morphogenetic fields "carry information only (no energy) and are available throughout time and space without any loss of intensity after they have been created. They are created by the patterns of physical forms (including such things as crystals as well as biological systems). They help guide the formation of later similar systems. And finally, a newly forming system "tunes into" a previous system by having within it a "seed" that resonates with a similar seed in the earlier form." Thanks for bringing this up, and sharing yours. The "the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal"... is the "seed" metaphor refered to. However, in Sheldrake own words, "I think of it as applying to self-organizing systems like cells, molecules, and crystals, but not to artificial machines." Hmm. |
#6
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Powell wrote: "JBorg, Jr." wrote What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal HAS which lead you to believe and conclude that the precence of sound difference which physically exist could be directly verified and attributed to them -- by listening? From my readings, morphogenetic fields "carry information only (no energy) and are available throughout time and space without any loss of intensity after they have been created. They are created by the patterns of physical forms (including such things as crystals as well as biological systems). They help guide the formation of later similar systems. And finally, a newly forming system "tunes into" a previous system by having within it a "seed" that resonates with a similar seed in the earlier form." Are you having fun arguing with your own strawman, Powell? Does it make you feel clever to posit your own arguments and then knock it down? More power to you, then. The rest of us will enjoy our tweaks, our music and our hifi systems. You can sit there all you want you miserable old sod, and pretend you have everything figured out for us, and that we needn't bother tweaking our hifi systems or enjoying the sound of it. Do you think anyone who's heard the effects of my tweaks really cares? |
#7
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message oups.com... Powell wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal HAS which lead you to believe and conclude that the precence of sound difference which physically exist could be directly verified and attributed to them -- by listening? From my readings, morphogenetic fields "carry information only (no energy) and are available throughout time and space without any loss of intensity after they have been created. Most relevently, Morphogentic fields have been around as a hypothesis for about 80 years, but have never been scientificially proven to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_resonance Not to miss the forest from the trees, the study of morphogenetic fields excludes "artificial machines" like CD players as it is neither a biological or crystalline system. WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRONGGGGGGGGGGGGG! They are capable of influencing matter, and can incorporate numerous systems, including biological forms and crystals. If you don't fully understand a science or theory, then don't pretend you're an expert on it and that you're going to "educate" everyone on it. Please stop puking your ignorance all over this group, Powell. Arny has more than his share of ignorance, and there's more than enough to go around when he finally keels over and dies from atheriosclerosis. A Quantum Explanation of Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance: http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Essays/Sheldrake.html This is not a quantum explanation. It might qualify as quantum philosophy. It is frequently not understood that quantum mechanics, unlike physics, is a closed axiomatic system, just as Euclidean geometry is a closed axiomatic system. The axioms may be viewed at http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/aerts/publ...nmagIndigo.pdf The implications of the axiomatic system called quantum mechanics are puzzling and paradoxical when mapped into the physical world, except for the "correspondence principle", which states that in the mean of large numbers of particles, the behavior of a quantum system is identical to that prescribed by classical mechanics, another closed axiomatic system. Many people use the mystery of this mapping in attempts to justify speculative theories such as Sheldrake's. Unfortunately, this is pointless. Because quantum mechanics is so mysterious, many people have attempted to associate mysteries of their particular interest with it. "Quantum mechanics" is simply a set of axioms. Simply referring to the name of the axiom set without using it for mathematical proofs is not a valid form of reasoning. The above discussion does not contradict the possibility that Sheldrake's musings may have some validity. However, it is important to understand that merely wrapping a mystery in another mystery is not an explantion. Another example of this abuse is the search for the source of consciousness and free will. Many people have speculated that the source lies buried in the "apparent" randomness of quantum behavior. But Henry Stapp, physicist at Lawrence Livermore, who is the most active theorist in this area, believes this is not correct. His explanation is, in fact, far more radical, but capable of integrating the paradoxes of the Solvay Conference. |
#8
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Robert Morein wrote: Thees is nut a qoountoom ixpluneshun. It meeght qooeleeffy es qoountoom pheelusuphy. Bork bork bork! It is freqooently nut understuud thet qoountoom mechuneecs, unleeke-a physeecs, is a clused exeeumetic system, joost es Ioocleedeun geumetry is a clused exeeumetic system. Zee exeeums mey be-a feeooed et http://vvv.foob.ec.be-a/CLEA/eerts/p...megIndigu.pdff Zee impleeceshuns ooff zee exeeumetic system celled qoountoom mechuneecs ere-a poozzleeng und pereduxeecel vhee mepped intu zee physeecel vurld, ixcept fur zee "currespundence-a preenciple-a", vheech stetes thet in zee meun ooff lerge-a noombers ooff perteecles, zee behefeeur ooff a qoountoom system is identeecel tu thet prescreebed by clesseecel mechuneecs, unuzeer clused exeeumetic system. Muny peuple-a use-a zee mystery ooff thees meppeeng in ettempts tu joosteeffy specooleteefe-a zeeureees sooch es Sheldreke's. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Unffurtoonetely, thees is pueentless. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Becoose-a qoountoom mechuneecs is su mystereeuoos, muny peuple-a hefe-a ettempted tu essuceeete-a mystereees ooff zeeur perteecooler interest veet it. Um de hur de hur de hur. "Qoountoom mechuneecs" is seemply a set ooff exeeums. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Seemply refferreeng tu zee neme-a ooff zee exeeum set veethuoot useeng it fur mezeemeteecel pruuffs is nut a feleed furm ooff reesuneeng. Zee ebufe-a deescoossiun dues nut ****redeect zee pusseebility thet Sheldreke's mooseengs mey hefe-a sume-a feleedity. Bork bork bork! Hooefer, it is impurtunt tu understund thet merely vreppeeng a mystery in unuzeer mystery is nut un ixplunshun. Unuzeer ixemple-a ooff thees eboose-a is zee seerch fur zee suoorce-a ooff cunsceeuoosness und free-a veell. Muny peuple-a hefe-a specooleted thet zee suoorce-a leees booreeed in zee "epperent" rundumness ooff qoountoom behefeeur. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp! Boot Henry Stepp, physeecist et Levrence-a Leefermure-a, vhu is zee must ecteefe-a zeeureest in thees erea, beleeefes thees is nut currect. Um de hur de hur de hur. Hees ixpluneshun is, in fect, fer mure-a redeecel, boot cepeble-a ooff integreteeng zee pereduxes ooff zee Sulfey Cunfference-a. Not only have you officially lost your marbles Robert, but it sounds like they ended up in your mouth. Get help, man. You really need it. |
#9
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 05:56:25 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote: wrote in message roups.com... Powell wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal HAS which lead you to believe and conclude that the precence of sound difference which physically exist could be directly verified and attributed to them -- by listening? From my readings, morphogenetic fields "carry information only (no energy) and are available throughout time and space without any loss of intensity after they have been created. Most relevently, Morphogentic fields have been around as a hypothesis for about 80 years, but have never been scientificially proven to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_resonance Not to miss the forest from the trees, the study of morphogenetic fields excludes "artificial machines" like CD players as it is neither a biological or crystalline system. WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRONGGGGGGGGGGGGG! They are capable of influencing matter, and can incorporate numerous systems, including biological forms and crystals. If you don't fully understand a science or theory, then don't pretend you're an expert on it and that you're going to "educate" everyone on it. Please stop puking your ignorance all over this group, Powell. Arny has more than his share of ignorance, and there's more than enough to go around when he finally keels over and dies from atheriosclerosis. A Quantum Explanation of Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance: http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Essays/Sheldrake.html This is not a quantum explanation. It might qualify as quantum philosophy. It is frequently not understood that quantum mechanics, unlike physics, is a closed axiomatic system, just as Euclidean geometry is a closed axiomatic system. The axioms may be viewed at http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/aerts/publ...nmagIndigo.pdf The implications of the axiomatic system called quantum mechanics are puzzling and paradoxical when mapped into the physical world, except for the "correspondence principle", which states that in the mean of large numbers of particles, the behavior of a quantum system is identical to that prescribed by classical mechanics, another closed axiomatic system. Many people use the mystery of this mapping in attempts to justify speculative theories such as Sheldrake's. Unfortunately, this is pointless. Because quantum mechanics is so mysterious, many people have attempted to associate mysteries of their particular interest with it. "Quantum mechanics" is simply a set of axioms. Simply referring to the name of the axiom set without using it for mathematical proofs is not a valid form of reasoning. The above discussion does not contradict the possibility that Sheldrake's musings may have some validity. However, it is important to understand that merely wrapping a mystery in another mystery is not an explantion. Another example of this abuse is the search for the source of consciousness and free will. Many people have speculated that the source lies buried in the "apparent" randomness of quantum behavior. But Henry Stapp, physicist at Lawrence Livermore, who is the most active theorist in this area, believes this is not correct. His explanation is, in fact, far more radical, but capable of integrating the paradoxes of the Solvay Conference. I'm glad you cleared that up for us, Robert. It was keeping me awake. |
#10
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 05:56:25 -0400, "Robert Morein" wrote: wrote in message groups.com... Powell wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal HAS which lead you to believe and conclude that the precence of sound difference which physically exist could be directly verified and attributed to them -- by listening? From my readings, morphogenetic fields "carry information only (no energy) and are available throughout time and space without any loss of intensity after they have been created. Most relevently, Morphogentic fields have been around as a hypothesis for about 80 years, but have never been scientificially proven to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_resonance Not to miss the forest from the trees, the study of morphogenetic fields excludes "artificial machines" like CD players as it is neither a biological or crystalline system. WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRONGGGGGGGGGGGGG! They are capable of influencing matter, and can incorporate numerous systems, including biological forms and crystals. If you don't fully understand a science or theory, then don't pretend you're an expert on it and that you're going to "educate" everyone on it. Please stop puking your ignorance all over this group, Powell. Arny has more than his share of ignorance, and there's more than enough to go around when he finally keels over and dies from atheriosclerosis. A Quantum Explanation of Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance: http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Essays/Sheldrake.html This is not a quantum explanation. It might qualify as quantum philosophy. It is frequently not understood that quantum mechanics, unlike physics, is a closed axiomatic system, just as Euclidean geometry is a closed axiomatic system. The axioms may be viewed at http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/aerts/publ...nmagIndigo.pdf The implications of the axiomatic system called quantum mechanics are puzzling and paradoxical when mapped into the physical world, except for the "correspondence principle", which states that in the mean of large numbers of particles, the behavior of a quantum system is identical to that prescribed by classical mechanics, another closed axiomatic system. Many people use the mystery of this mapping in attempts to justify speculative theories such as Sheldrake's. Unfortunately, this is pointless. Because quantum mechanics is so mysterious, many people have attempted to associate mysteries of their particular interest with it. "Quantum mechanics" is simply a set of axioms. Simply referring to the name of the axiom set without using it for mathematical proofs is not a valid form of reasoning. The above discussion does not contradict the possibility that Sheldrake's musings may have some validity. However, it is important to understand that merely wrapping a mystery in another mystery is not an explantion. Another example of this abuse is the search for the source of consciousness and free will. Many people have speculated that the source lies buried in the "apparent" randomness of quantum behavior. But Henry Stapp, physicist at Lawrence Livermore, who is the most active theorist in this area, believes this is not correct. His explanation is, in fact, far more radical, but capable of integrating the paradoxes of the Solvay Conference. I'm glad you cleared that up for us, Robert. It was keeping me awake. On Robert's behalf, you are welcome. SHP (good twin) |
#11
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote Not to miss the forest from the trees, the study of morphogenetic fields excludes "artificial machines" like CD players as it is neither a biological or crystalline system. WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRONGGGGGGGGGGGGG! Hehehe... quack, quack, quack They are capable of influencing matter, and can incorporate numerous systems, including biological forms and crystals. Not according to the author of the Morphic Resonance theory. Morphogenetic fields excludes "artificial machines." A Quantum Explanation of Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance: http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Essays/Sheldrake.html Perhaps you should read it, mr. Consumer Fraud. |
#12
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Intellectually dishonest Mr. Powell, goes on another Robert Morein obsessive crusade; wrote Not to miss the forest from the trees, the study of morphogenetic fields excludes "artificial machines" like CD players as it is neither a biological or crystalline system. WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRONGGGGGGGGGGGGG! Hehehe... quack, quack, quack Oh I see. I'm supposed to guess what animal you're supposed to be... uh... an ignorant pig? They are capable of influencing matter, and can incorporate numerous systems, including biological forms and crystals. Not according to the author of the Morphic Resonance theory. Morphogenetic fields excludes "artificial machines." Ha! Clue one: you obviously don't even know what a "morphogenetic field" is, Powell! A Quantum Explanation of Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance: http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Essays/Sheldrake.html Perhaps you should read it, mr. Consumer Fraud. My free tweaks are now considered "Consumer Fraud"? How do you figure that one, Mr. Obsessive-Paranoiac? Do you even know what a "consumer" or "fraud" is? Apparently not. As to Sheldrake, you think that finding one article on the web, that you misinterpreted to boot, now makes you one of the world's foremosting leading experts on all things Sheldrake. Sorry Powell. I'm sure it disappoints your ego to know that it only make you even more ignorant, and clearly intellctually dishonest. Since you are simply killing yourself to refute anything I say no matter what, out of your irrational hatred, anger, bigotry and prejudice toward me and the free tweaks I generously donated to help people improve their audio system. For free. That btw is more than you've ever done here, or anywhere in your pathetic life. Therefore, for the above reasons and more, I think we can safely dismiss your phony baloney quasi-scientific "refutations". PLONK! |
#13
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Richard, you're the fraud here.
wrote in message oups.com... Intellectually dishonest Mr. Powell, goes on another Robert Morein obsessive crusade; wrote Not to miss the forest from the trees, the study of morphogenetic fields excludes "artificial machines" like CD players as it is neither a biological or crystalline system. WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRONGGGGGGGGGGGGG! Hehehe... quack, quack, quack Oh I see. I'm supposed to guess what animal you're supposed to be... uh... an ignorant pig? They are capable of influencing matter, and can incorporate numerous systems, including biological forms and crystals. Not according to the author of the Morphic Resonance theory. Morphogenetic fields excludes "artificial machines." Ha! Clue one: you obviously don't even know what a "morphogenetic field" is, Powell! A Quantum Explanation of Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance: http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Essays/Sheldrake.html Perhaps you should read it, mr. Consumer Fraud. My free tweaks are now considered "Consumer Fraud"? How do you figure that one, Mr. Obsessive-Paranoiac? Do you even know what a "consumer" or "fraud" is? Apparently not. As to Sheldrake, you think that finding one article on the web, that you misinterpreted to boot, now makes you one of the world's foremosting leading experts on all things Sheldrake. Sorry Powell. I'm sure it disappoints your ego to know that it only make you even more ignorant, and clearly intellctually dishonest. Since you are simply killing yourself to refute anything I say no matter what, out of your irrational hatred, anger, bigotry and prejudice toward me and the free tweaks I generously donated to help people improve their audio system. For free. That btw is more than you've ever done here, or anywhere in your pathetic life. Therefore, for the above reasons and more, I think we can safely dismiss your phony baloney quasi-scientific "refutations". PLONK! |
#14
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() soundhaspriority wrote: Richard, you're the fraud here. Talking to yourself again, Bobby? Get help with that. Really. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Reward for ID: Soundhaspriority | Audio Opinions | |||
CRC vs CLC? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Elation 901 resonance | Pro Audio | |||
Oktava ML-52-02 Resonance Analysis and Mod | Pro Audio | |||
Simulation of vent (pipe) resonance | Tech |