Do you believe in Magic?

Mapman wrote,

"Geoff, in that case, assuming you are right and everyone else is wrong, the you should help educate them. What better way to build credibility? That's kind of how higher learning works in general."

I never said I knew all the answers. Doesn't all the world love a mystery?

"OR you can continue to keep your secrets to yourself and convince people that you are right and that the rest of the world has their priorities wrong."

I keep some secrets to myself. Is that wrong? I think if you review my posts you'll find I reveal quite a bit, however.

Geoff, thanks for the clarification. Wouldn't that better be referred to, though, as "reaction" of the subconscious mind to the matter around it, rather than as "interaction"? "Interaction" would seem to imply that in addition to the mind subconsciously reacting to its surroundings, the (inanimate) surroundings are somehow reacting to the mind.

-- Al

Almarg wrote,

"Geoff, thanks for the clarification. Wouldn't that better be referred to, though, as "reaction" of the subconscious mind to the matter around it, rather than as "interaction"? "Interaction" would seem to imply that in addition to the mind subconsciously reacting to its surroundings, the (inanimate) surroundings are somehow reacting to the mind."

Good point. Actually the interaction does work both ways. In fact, the Mind Lamp from Psyleron (an offshoot of PEAR) was developed expressly to demonstrate that the mind is capable of influencing its surroundings, even inanimate things - in the case of the lamp an extremely sensitive quantum mechanical Random Event Generator (REG). Also, what PEAR primarily focused on for 30 years was to what degree a human operator could influence the outcome of scientific experiments. I suppose you could also call this direction of the interaction mind over matter.

Well, a belief in magic in its truest sense will certainly come in handy I suspect with a device like that!

Magic may be the modern frontier of audio tweaks after all! When all else fails......

One school of thought uses gestalt in visual perception. We see the whole and later discern the parts. Can it be that gestalt is also used aurally? In fact, since the limits of hearing are absolute (limited to that tiny opening and yes, bones and cartilage) wouldn't gestalt be the only way they do work?

We hear everything we do only to debate, here, just what it was and why it was. We tell each other that we hear the same thing or that it's impossible to hear what we heard, with our own ears.

Each of our experiences take different paths to get there, there being our auditory pleasure. When we sit down to listen. our ears are the final arbiter and I, for one, trust them explicitly. I've been around long enough to recognize a difference, be it better or worse, than what I'm accustomed to.

I believe that I hear everything all at once and almost as quickly, appreciate, evaluate and decide if what I'm hearing is better or not. It doesn't come in piecemeal but we debate it as if it did since we tend to dissect and analyze in that manner. In other words, once I've heard it, there's no going back. Something happened that made it different and I can either fret away and try to improve it or appreciate it all the more.

The whole is different than the sum of its parts. I guess it comes down to just how many parts there are and that is where disagreement enters: just how many parts.

All the best,
Nonoise