# 440hz Music - Conspiracy To Detune Us From Natural 432Hz Harmonics?



## germancomponist

Some weeks and some month ago we talked about this interesting theme in other threads:

Most music worldwide has been tuned to 440 hertz since the International Standards Organization (ISO) endorsed it in 1953. The recent rediscoveries of the vibratory / oscillatory nature of the universe indicate that this contemporary international concert pitch standard may generate an unhealthy effect or anti-social behavior in the consciousness of human beings... .

Read More: http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/0 ... 432hz.html

Before you read the article you maybe listen:


----------



## Ed

"The recent rediscoveries of the vibratory / oscillatory nature of the universe"


hahahahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## germancomponist

Ed, (de)tune a full range string patch to 432 Hz and experiment by your own... .


----------



## KingIdiot

or for fuck's sake.


----------



## dedersen

"Music based on 432 Hz transmits beneficial healing energy, because it is a pure tone of math fundamental to nature".

Surely some of the developers among us are up for the task of making a library that is capable of transmitting healing energy?! CineHeal?

Jeez, Gunther, I really hope you are kidding with this...


----------



## bassic

I find it really sad that people that make music are this sceptical about the power of music outside of the standard musical educational doctrine. I think that we could all benefit from some broader understanding of the music. 
Why would frequency-based healing with music be a joke? Are other types of frequency-based healing also a joke. Do you know that every organ in human body vibrates within a specific frequency? Do you know that the whole planet vibrates on Schumann resonance (7.83Hz to 8Hz)? Did you notice that same song can have a different feeling in different keys, that just don't work so well as the other one?
Please give it a little thought before you dismiss it. Btw What Gunther is talking about has also to do with Pythagorean tuning, that's a good starting point on this subject. Gunther thank you for sharing this, this is a really interesting subject I think we could all benefit from.


----------



## TGV

Do you know you're talking BS, bassic? This has been discussed to death. Did you ever look at a spectrum plot? Did you notice how many different frequencies there are in a simple note? Can you guess how many there are in a complex piece? Do you know that these "vibrations" arrive at the ear drum and are turned into small electric currents which only feed into the auditory cortex, and that these currents have a fixed frequency, that does not depend on the perceived sound?

Did you know that the earth much more obviously resonates at an extremely low frequency of 1/86400Hz, and that these Schumann frequencies are peaks in the EM spectrum, and that our bodies are not sensitive to that?

Etc. etc. etc.

Go and learn some physics.


----------



## bricop

You might also enjoy this film

Sonic Geometry: The Language of Frequency and Form 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY74AFQl2qQ


----------



## bassic

TGV @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> Do you know you're talking BS, bassic? This has been discussed to death. Did you ever look at a spectrum plot? Did you notice how many different frequencies there are in a simple note? Can you guess how many there are in a complex piece? Do you know that these "vibrations" arrive at the ear drum and are turned into small electric currents which only feed into the auditory cortex, and that these currents have a fixed frequency, that does not depend on the perceived sound?
> 
> Did you know that the earth much more obviously resonates at an extremely low frequency of 1/86400Hz, and that these Schumann frequencies are peaks in the EM spectrum, and that our bodies are not sensitive to that?
> 
> Etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Go and learn some physics.



OK TGV, no point in arguing. You believe in pure conventional science, I don't. But I think it is not ok to call the things I wrote BS. I won't argue with you, believe in what you want, it's ok with me. Just let me remind you that at one point in history that same science believed in drilling a hole into the human skull to cure mental illnesses. What I want to say is that science is a work in progress and who knows what will come next. Regarding the physics, maybe you would be interested in reading something about Nikola Tesla's research regarding frequencies, vibrations, electrotherapy, etc. Here is one of his quotations: “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” ― Nikola Tesla


----------



## dedersen

bassic @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> OK TGV, no point in arguing. You believe in pure conventional science, I don't. But I think it is not ok to call the things I wrote BS.


"Pure conventional science" = Things that have been verified experimentally.
"Non-conventional science" = Things that have not been verified experimentally, have no basis in existing physics, generally disregards all existing (and verified) physics, and is generally pure speculation. Also known as...

You are entitled to your own opinions. Not your own facts.


----------



## Nuno

Left Brain vs Right Brain o[]) 

Art in general, and music in particular is such a profound and mysterious experience that is so strange to see people in this forum only believing what was scientific demonstrated, even knowing that science is opening to the understand of the milenar oriental wisdom. Quantum physics is one of those branches of science, where west meets east.

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." - Albert Einstein


----------



## TGV

bassic @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> OK TGV, no point in arguing. You believe in pure conventional science, I don't.


There is no such thing as "pure conventional science". Many times have these "non-conventional" hypotheses been investigated, and never did it turn up anything substantial. And if you look at basic physics and biology, it's obvious why. There is just no connection between minute air movements and the human physical or psychological state. By tuning everything 2.5 cents down, what are you going to achieve? And, by the way, the people with convictions similar to yours appear to believe that the correct frequency is 444Hz, not 432Hz.

If you want to do it scientifically, make sure you've got an explanation why a certain change causes a certain effect, or make sure you've got a very, very reproducible experiment. Otherwise, it's not science, but superstition.

And about Tesla: that citation speaks about secrets of the universe, not about music. Even if it can be interpreted as relating to music, it doesn't say: 440Hz is a satanic trap, for it cannot be divided by 3.


----------



## scarred bunny

Not sure if serious... 

From the site: 

_In a paper entitled ‘Musical Cult Control’, Dr. Leonard Horowitz writes: “The music industry features this imposed frequency that is ‘herding’ populations into greater aggression, psycho social agitation, and emotional distress predisposing people to physical illness.”_

This Leonard Horowitz? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Horowitz

Seems legit.


----------



## dedersen

Nuno @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> Art in general, and music in particular is such a profound and mysterious experience that is so strange to see people in this forum only believing what was scientific demonstrated, even knowing that science is opening to the understand of the milenar oriental wisdom. Quantum physics is one of those branches of science, where west meets east.
> 
> "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." - Albert Einstein


Oooh, it is impossible for me not to comment on this, hard as I may try, especially since you choose to quote Albert Einstein in the end. I am pretty sure he did not mean "mysterious" in the sense that you are suggesting. More likely he meant unexplained physical phenomena, as in THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN MEASURED but not explained yet.

And please, don't claim that quantum physics somehow is a branch where "west meets east", whatever that may mean...why is it that quantum physics is so profoundly attractive for all sorts of crackpot science?


----------



## wcreed51

> why is it that quantum physics is so profoundly attractive for all sorts of crackpot science?

Because nobody understands it!

And no, 440 is was not instituted by the Nazis!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A440_(pitch_standard)


----------



## Musicologo

I'm sorry I can't accept this, this is a contradiction in terms.

If one wants to legitimate something through scientific discourse then one has to use the methods and experimentations actually used in science.

Now, when one is presenting opinions, beliefs, faiths and speculation and try to legitimate them as scientific discourse that is purely a fraud.

Just tell that those things are pure beliefs and speculations out of nowhere and I have no problem with that. It's just like astrology, cartomancy, placebos and whatever, and only those who want to follow will follow. 

Now, one doesn't make videos, reports, articles, with opinions and faith and then try to pass them as science or facts.


----------



## Ed

The thing is there are some claims we can fairly dismiss immediately if the claimed basis for it we know is nonsense.

So for example.... if someone makes a claim about XYZ, even if its quite progressive and new, it could be worth thinking about and considering, depending on the source and depending on why they are saying XYZ is true. 

So lets say we have a claim such as blue light (like from phones and computers) and orange light has an effect on the chemicals in our brain leading to differing effects on our sleep cycle. Or the claim that lack of sun light makes people more depressed in the winter and that one of those sun lamp things can really help. 

If the person or group saying this says they have done clinical trials/studies and they have the data to show how people's minds are affected by it and thats why the human brain being exposed to a lot of blue light is not so great if you want to go to sleep.... it could be worth taking a look and seriously considering it, maybe even tentatively believing its true.....

But if they said they think its true because they have heard the voices of alien spirits tell them the secret vibrational codes for the universal space time equation, that have uncovered the true nature of the fundamental quantum vortex of the cube-spaced truth of our universe, that we are all beings of infinite energy and love is what created the entire universe and we can teleport ourselves to the alien homeworld all we have to do is believe in the time fractional tachyon pulse index of the neutron star cluster 5973 that is currently facing the V-Axis along the path of Mercury at precisely 906.357 degrees....and thats why the human brain being exposed to a lot of blue light is not so great if you want to go to sleep....... well.... then you can be pretty confident that its safe to reject whatever it is they are claiming unless they can actually come up with a basis for the reasoning that isn't totally insane. 

~o) 

Oh, and always be highly suspicious of claims that include the words "conspiracy" and saying something like "new scientific discovery", especially if the claim itself sounds extraordinary.


----------



## ProtectedRights

you science guys are really more aggressive and fundamentalistic then any religious guy


----------



## ProtectedRights

to be more specific: science people neglect anything that is not in the reach of science. science cannot explain emotions. science cannot explain why a minor chord transports sadness while a major chord transports happiness. now why would you believe that science can explain the 432 Hertz thing??


----------



## germancomponist

ProtectedRights @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> to be more specific: science people neglect anything that is not in the reach of science. science cannot explain emotions. science cannot explain why a minor chord transports sadness while a major chord transports happiness. now why would you believe that science can explain the 432 Hertz thing??



+1

What was that again? The world is flat, only one disk... . o/~


----------



## Ed

ProtectedRights @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> you science guys are really more aggressive and fundamentalistic then any religious guy
> 
> to be more specific: science people neglect anything that is not in the reach of science. science cannot explain emotions. science cannot explain why a minor chord transports sadness while a major chord transports happiness. now why would you believe that science can explain the 432 Hertz thing??



Actually science can explain emotions quite in depth actually, not sure why you think it cant.  Still, even if it couldn't, without good reason the default position is "I dont know", there's no reason to make something up and pretend you know it. What people usually mean when they say something like "science cant explain love" is that the answer science gives them isnt very romantic.

Science can also explain why a minor chord denotes sadness. Im not sure if there is anymore to it than this without googling to see if there are other theories, but the simple answer is that we learn that a minor chord denotes sadness and major denotes happy. The thing is many times thats not even true and maj and minor can be used to convey the opposite of that if used in the right way. Its not just music though, we learn all the conventions in film and what they "mean" unconsciously because we've been brought up on it. When I listen to traditional Chinese music my brain wants to explode, because I just don't understand it. When some people listen to heavy metal, all they hear is "just a lot of noise", their brain doesnt understand it. Speaking of music in film, its actually a real weird idea if you try and imagine what you'd think if you were an alien to our culture and had never seen a film before. Its very much something that fits our psychology as humans very well, which is why music has been used with story telling long before anyone had technology to record any of it. So as we have progressed from campfire stories with a drum and a wooden flute it makes sense that as we have got more and more sophisticated we'd continue to combine the two as we can see in film, but really the fact that its so "normal" for us to really immerse ourselves in a film despite the fact that it has all this music going on that you never see in the real world at all, is pretty interesting.

About the OP's video. There is nothing to explain. Its just pure nonsense. If the claim is that someone might feel the second clip starts off slightly out of tune is not because this is the frequency of teh nazi brainwashing materialists, its because your brain is relating it to the first thing it just heard. Heard in isolation and there is no difference.

Its not about being "fundamentalist" or "cynical." Its just in the same way you probably wouldnt believe someone that said aliens told them you should bet $10,000 on a horse race, or if a McDonalds employee gave you the wrong change and told you its magic money, you would probably use "scientific" reasoning to say that doesn't sound like a reasonable idea. :lol: I'd love to believe a lot of the stuff people claim. Man do I wish I could have a really good reason to believe in life after death and all that stuff, but unfortunately I haven't yet had a good reason to.


----------



## TGV

ProtectedRights @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> you science guys are really more aggressive and fundamentalistic then any religious guy


Yeah, we're going to try and forbid people to read the bible, and to use Einstein's name inappropriately. We're going to burn people at the stake for not agreeing with us. We're going to tell people they have to pay us 10% of their income, and visit a lab each Sunday, for otherwise they will be unscientific, and you know what happens to unscientific people.

And that's just mainstream religion from the past centuries.



> to be more specific: science people neglect anything that is not in the reach of science.


Scientists do not neglect that.

1) Things that are truly outside science's grasp, should be left alone. That's how science works.
2) Very few things are outside that grasp.
3) That does not mean science can give a definitive answer on all questions.



> science cannot explain emotions.


Until a certain level, science can explain them. You've only got to accept that you're part animal for that.


----------



## Nuno

dedersen @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> Nuno @ Wed Nov 27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Art in general, and music in particular is such a profound and mysterious experience that is so strange to see people in this forum only believing what was scientific demonstrated, even knowing that science is opening to the understand of the milenar oriental wisdom. Quantum physics is one of those branches of science, where west meets east.
> 
> "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." - Albert Einstein
> 
> 
> 
> Oooh, it is impossible for me not to comment on this, hard as I may try, especially since you choose to quote Albert Einstein in the end. I am pretty sure he did not mean "mysterious" in the sense that you are suggesting. More likely he meant unexplained physical phenomena, as in THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN MEASURED but not explained yet.
Click to expand...


Are you sure of that? Obviously you do not know that Einstein was deeply interested interested in spirituality, although he did not believed in the God that punishes bad people.

So, here is another quote from Einstein  "Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."



> And please, don't claim that quantum physics somehow is a branch where "west meets east", whatever that may mean...why is it that quantum physics is so profoundly attractive for all sorts of crackpot science?



i can recommend you a good book by a physicist on that subject: "The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism" 
by Fritjof Capra


----------



## dedersen

ProtectedRights @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> to be more specific: science people neglect anything that is not in the reach of science. science cannot explain emotions. science cannot explain why a minor chord transports sadness while a major chord transports happiness. now why would you believe that science can explain the 432 Hertz thing??


Ed covered some of this, I believe. Still, I am always puzzled by the logical jump from "Science cannot explain x" to "Thus, science cannot be expected to explain y", which tends to be followed by "Therefore, I shall believe y to be true". Why are you so gullible as to not demand some sort of evidence for wild claims such as this one? Where's the curiosity to understand why the 432 Hz thing would ever be true?

The kind of people who say things like "science people neglect anything that is not in the reach of science" (yeah, I am gonna paint with a very broad brush here) tend to want to perpetuate a picture of being being very open to experiences, compared to the boxed in scientist who is so afraid of uncertainties and unknowables. Thing is, it's really the other way around, isn't it? Science is all about looking for unknown things, for probing uncertainties and for then having the curiosity to actually try and explain it! To NOT be satisfied with an answer that is simply stated, and not proven. To question wild claims about healing frequencies, not because of closed-mindedness, but because of the exact opposite! I'd love to see a proof that 432 Hz has magic healing power, it'd quite honestly be a tremendous surprise to me. I'm not really counting on it happening, though...



germancomponist @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> What was that again? The world is flat, only one disk... . o/~


Gunther, this sort of reply is thrown around quite often in these debates. Unfortuantely, it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the way that science, in this particular case physics, works. 

See, the world IS actually flat, to a certain approximation. When you're building a house, the world is, for all practical purposed, entirely flat. The curvature really only becomes evident at very large distances. And you see, this is how physics evolves. Not so much by throwing away old theories, but by arriving at new theories that work for a wider range of parameters. In the case of the flat world, well, we now know that the world is in fact a sphere. That doesn't mean that you have to take that into account when you're leveling your desk though, does it?

The same with quantum physics. It's not like all textbooks on classical mechanics suddently became invalid. They simply represent a certain approximation to quantum mechanics that hold in some cases. Quantum mechanics just covers a wider scope. Bridges are still constructed according to the rules of classical mechanics, because it represents a viable appoximation to that problem.

Phew. I got dragged into another of these threads. I just can't seem to leave them alone.


----------



## germancomponist

You know what?

Today I did some very cool experiments. I will post my results tomorrow, because I think I have to have a sleep before I post it...


----------



## dedersen

Nuno @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> Are you sure of that? Obviously you do not know that Einstein was deeply interested interested in spirituality, although he did not believed in the God that punishes bad people.
> 
> So, here is another quote from Einstein  "Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."


I am pretty convinced that Einstein would turn in his grave if he witnessed how he was misquoted by new-age people these days. I have not seen any proof that Einstein was deeply interested in spirituality, in the sense that you seem to be advocating. I obviously did not know him, as I assume neither did you, but I have seen many letters indicating what he actually ment by things such the quote above. It's all about the beauty and wonder of science, really. It doesn't need some mysterious new-age force added on top of it. It's mysterious enough as it is.



Nuno @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> i can recommend you a good book by a physicist on that subject: "The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism"
> by Fritjof Capra


Nah, I don't think I'll add that book to my bookshelf any time soon. A quick google search revealed some rather unflattering reviews by numerous other, quite respectable physicists. While my previous post advocates not taking such things for granted, I've seen enough similar books to discard this one on the basis of empirical evidence. I'm putting my money on it containing a lot of discussion about quantum mechanics, especially with regards to the uncertainty principle and perhaps entanglement. Those seem to be the standard sources of wild speculation.

One (perhaps a few more, if you dig deeper) physicist makes these claims. Out of how many with a similar (most likely better!) education? Do these numbers tell you anything?


----------



## Ed

Nuno @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> Are you sure of that? Obviously you do not know that Einstein was deeply interested interested in spirituality, although he did not believed in the God that punishes bad people.



And Issac Newton was a Christian that believed in alchemy.  Even though Im sure Einstein would not agree with the interpretations people give quotes like this, it doesn't matter what a scientist believes, or what someone we might consider a great scientist believes. Unless they can demonstrate a legitimate reason for anyone else to believe it, then that's where its going to stay, as just "their belief". If you think that's not true, then you'd have to believe that scientists that don't believe in any kind of spiritualism are reasons for you not to believe in spiritualism. And btw Einstein didnt agree with Quantum Physics, so he was fundamentally wrong in a big way about the nature of the universe. Quantum Physics wasn't made up from nothing, its considered a legitimate field because it was developed based on experimentation, on evidence. That's not what the New Agers do when they come up with theories. But because Quantum Physics is a bit crazy, they like to co-opt it and pretend it supports their beliefs.


----------



## Nuno

Ed @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> Nuno @ Wed Nov 27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure of that? Obviously you do not know that Einstein was deeply interested interested in spirituality, although he did not believed in the God that punishes bad people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Issac Newton was a Christian that believed in alchemy.  Even though Im sure Einstein would not agree with the interpretations people give quotes like this, it doesn't matter what a scientist believes, or what someone we might consider a great scientist believes, unless they can demonstrate a legitimate reason for anyone else to believe it, then that's where its going to stay as just their belief. If you think that's not true, then you'd have to believe that scientists that don't believe in any kind of spiritualism are also reasons for you not to believe in it. And btw Einstein didnt agree with Quantum Physics, so he was wrong in a big way.
Click to expand...


Of course, you're right. But spirituality is not only based on beliefs, or not always for every people, is also based on personal experience... everyone is capable of see "things", feel energy, etc...but most people are distracted by other things, simple as that...believe me or not. 

Cheers o-[][]-o


----------



## Ed

Nuno @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> Of course, you're right. But spirituality is not only based on beliefs, or not always for every people, is also based on personal living... everyone is capable of see "things", feel energy, etc...but most people are distracted by other things, simple as that...believe me or not.



Unfortunately feelings of humans are very often wrong, peoples interpretations of their feelings are also contradictory. This is why science allows us the best way to figure out what is really true, and understand why such incredibly unreliable information such as feelings are usually very poor to useless to use as "evidence".


----------



## Nuno

Ed @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> Nuno @ Wed Nov 27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you're right. But spirituality is not only based on beliefs, or not always for every people, is also based on personal living... everyone is capable of see "things", feel energy, etc...but most people are distracted by other things, simple as that...believe me or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately feelings of humans are very often wrong and they are also contradictory. This is why science allows us to figure out what is really true, not trust such incredibly unreliable information.
Click to expand...


I don't know if science can exactly explain what are emotions or thoughts, but I doubt if science will ever be able to explain how your very personal emotions and thoughts are because you are unique. It's same about quantum physics, it's a paradox, the observation of an object always depends on the observer...it's always subjective!


----------



## Ed

Nuno @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> I don't know if science can exactly explain what are emotions or thoughts, but I doubt if science will ever be able to explain how your very personal emotions and thoughts are because you are unique.



The thing is we actually can explain emotions. We understand the chemistry quite well, even today. Chemicals like dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin. These 3 are arguably some of the most important or at least some of the most significant. We understand quite well how they are created in the body, when they are created, how they affect our feelings, and what happens when something like a drug "artificially" induces these chemicals. We know how people will likely react under certain conditions because we understand quite significantly how people think. We also know if we cut away or stimulate certain parts of the brain that someone is going to feel differently or even completely change their personality (which can happen "naturally" through brain damage like with a stroke). 

As I said earlier, the problem with people that say what you're saying is that it just doesn't sound romantic enough, so they just keep insisting that science cant explain it. They want to believe that what they think of as "them" is not their brain, and not really just a complex network of neurons and chemicals. So long as the answers science gives don't say our consciousness is something separate and outside our bodies, its just never going to be good enough 



> It's same about quantum physics, it's a paradox, the observation of an object always depends on the observer...it's always subjective!



See if you actually talk to a real quantum physicist and not a New Age guy, they'll tell you that Quantum Physics doesnt say "its all subjective" as if that means we can somehow believe whatever we want. That's the bastardisation New Age people twist it into, and take it to completely unjustified levels. Just for starters, Quantum Physics only applies at atomic and subatomic scale's so anyone that tells you it can apply to the macro scale is immediately wrong. There is nothing wrong with Newtonian physics, it just becomes inapplicable at a certain point. There also nothing wrong with Einstein's model of "classical physics" either, but it becomes inapplicable when you get to studying the behaviour of sub-atomic particles. Things behave very strangely at the atomic and subatomic scale, but the leaps you can see "spiritualists" take when referring to it is just beyond belief.


----------



## SergeD

germancomponist @ Tue Nov 26 said:


> Before you read the article you maybe listen:



Could the second loop be the first one kind of compressed to fit 440 Hz?

Science cannot and will never explain what is life and it origin. But we have imagination and creativity, and maybe it's there to be used in some way.

Anyway, nice read, thanks.


----------



## Nuno

> The thing is we actually can explain emotions. We understand the chemistry to quite a significant degree. Chemicals like dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin. These 3 are arguably some of the most important or at least most significant. We understand quite well how they are created in the body, when they are created, how they affect our feelings, and what happens when something like a drug "artificially" induces these chemicals. We know how people will likely react under certain conditions because we understand quite significantly how people think. We also know if we cut away or stimulate certain parts of the brain that someone is going to feel differently. As I said earlier, the problem people that said what you're saying is that it just doesn't sound romantic enough, so they just keep insisting that science cant explain it. They want to believe that what they think of as "them" is not their brain, and not really just a complex network of neurons and chemicals. So long as the answers science gives don't say our consciousness is something separate, its just never going to be good enough



Sorry, but for me that is not a satisfatory explanation of what are MY emotions...



> See if you actually talk to a real quantum physicist and not a New Age guy, they'll tell you that Quantum Physics doesnt say "its all subjective" as if that means we can somehow believe whatever we want. That's the bastardisation New Age people twist it into, and take it completely unjustified levels. First of all Quantum Physics only applies at atomic and subatomic scale's so anyone that tells you it can apply to the macro scale is immediately wrong. There is nothing wrong with Newtonian physics, it becomes wrong at a certain point. There also nothing wrong with Einstein's model of "classical physics" either, but again with Quantum Physics it also dosn't work. Things behave very strangely at the atomic and subatomic scale, but the leaps you can see "spiritualists" take when referring to it is just beyond belief.



Are you sure you're not "spiritual"?  You seem so well informed and interested in those questions...and what if you start of thinking in the String Theory, for instance?

edit: just to be clear..when I say "it's all subjective" does not mean we can believe in whatever we want, it means that Life itself it's a subjective experience and science can only give objective explanations. Anyway, micro is "inside" macro so it has to affect macro, undoubtedly...


----------



## Ed

Nuno @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> Sorry, but for me that is not a satisfatory explanation of what are MY emotions...



What makes you think your emotions are any different? If we prodded different parts of your brain, would it not affect your thoughts? If you had a stroke, or had some other kind of brain damage like from a tumor, or we just snipped a bit out of it to see what would happen, you don't think it would affect your thoughts or personality? If we gave you some drugs that we knew caused a rush of various chemicals like dopamine, it wouldn't affect you? When you feel love, would they find no trace of an expected level of oxytocin in your body? Because we know this happens to all the other people that have been tested or tried such drugs. 

Because either you have to believe that your brain is totally different to everything we know, or you are saying that no matter what we find it won't ever be good enough for you. Im not sure what you'd find acceptable. The thing is, even if we knew none of the above, the reasonable position would still be "I dont know", and the scientific method would still be the only way to be sure something is real or just a delusion.



> Are you sure you're not "spiritual"?  You seem so well informed and interested in those questions...and what if you start of thinking in the String Theory, for instance?



Depends on what you define as spiritual 

I dont know what you're asking about with string theory.


----------



## Gabriel2013

Thanks from posting this topic Gunther.

I have been following this forum from some years now, and this is the kind of topic that I really enjoy. Why? Because I was not aware of "432".

I am not going to express an opinion on "432" because a did not made my mind yet.
There is to much information on the video to process, but I did watch the video twice and check some of the values with a calculator and they all check up.
In the past I have reed a good book in mathematics, that explain the importance of the number 9 in solving equation by head. So that part of the video seems very reliable.

As a side note. A lot of professional musicians don´t know that for a string player F# is not the same as Gb, or that a piano is not in reality tuned perfectly. Trust me, Is not easy to argue. The lack of knowledge usually blurs the whole purpose of a good brainstorming, and in this case seams to me that there is still some progress to be made discovering what in reality are the frequencies doing (as the video suggested: a language that is not being used at full potential) 

Now, what I found interested was: Instead of debating what´s the best standard for Tuning an instrument (432 or 440), I was more into the relation of the mind with some particular keys.

I for once, will have a different perspective next time I compose a piece in F#.


----------



## TimJohnson

Just gonna leave this here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgikd1yIvgU


----------



## Nuno

Ed @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> Nuno @ Wed Nov 27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but for me that is not a satisfatory explanation of what are MY emotions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think your emotions are any different? If we prodded different parts of your brain, would it not affect your thoughts? If you had a stroke, or had some other kind of brain damage like from a tumor, or we just snipped a bit out of it to see what would happen, you don't think it would affect your thoughts or personality? If we gave you some drugs that we knew caused a rush of various chemicals like dopamine, it wouldn't affect you? When you feel love, would they find no trace of an expected level of oxytocin in your body? Because we know this happens to all the other people that have been tested or tried such drugs.
> 
> Because either you have to believe that your brain is totally different to everything we know, or you are saying that no matter what we find it won't ever be good enough for you. Im not sure what you'd find acceptable. The thing is, even if we knew none of the above, the reasonable position would still be "I dont know", and the scientific method would still be the only way to be sure something is real or just a delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure you're not "spiritual"?  You seem so well informed and interested in those questions...and what if you start of thinking in the String Theory, for instance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on what you define as spiritual
> 
> I dont know what you're asking about with string theory.
Click to expand...


I'm not asking anything, but I guess the implications of such theory in what most people believe will be tremendous if the theory is proved...or the way we look at the stars will change at least...etc...or no..


----------



## Musicologo

I guess all these topics and discussions all boil down to "lack of information" and sometimes "contradictory information".

Some people make claims ignoring a whole deal of information already available and that will contradict their claims.

Other people deny the same claims based on information they possess.

Other people believe in some claims because they have absolutely NO information and they are convinced these things can't have reasonable explanations. So for them it's all "chance". It might be, it might not be.

Some people prefer to accept unreasonable odds even having enough information. Example - I might still believe the sun won't appear tomorrow despite having the information that that is an unreasonable expectation. I can actually believe that, and eventually one day I might be right. 

Now, some things are just more reasonable than others. And some people have more reasonable beliefs than others based on the information they get.

well, I will not advocate science, religion, mysticism, etc... 

I'm just saying - everything that one claims has a reason for that claim. And with enough information and then following some method or logic or even chance one is able to make a decision if that claim is reasonable or not. 

Sometimes it is not possible to decide because there is not enough information. So it will be just an opinion or faith. 

Sometimes you just have to wonder if you are having an opinion about a subject because you are lacking information, and that if you had more information you'd change your opinion. 

These are general principles for any argument or claim.


----------



## Ed

Nuno @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> I'm not asking anything, but I guess the implications of such theory in what most people believe will be tremendous if the theory is proved...or the way we look at the stars will change at least...etc...or no..



Just to be clear, scientific theories don't get "proved", they can only get more supported. String theory is considered necessary to bridge a gap between classical physics and quantum mechanics. The equations just break down at a certain point. Its really about a theory of gravity which is where problems arise. When people talk about the search for the "theory of everything" this is the dilemma they are talking about. Its a bit of a misnomer calling it a "theory" because last time I looked, the current view is that while it seems like an exciting candidate a lot of attention is on, we don't have enough evidence to really say with strong certainty that it the right understanding of the universe due to lack of testability, its more accurate to call it a hypothesis. String Theory can be quite a fun idea for fiction and new-age inclined people, because if it is true then it predicts things such as multi-dimensions. Put Quantum Mechanics in a pot with add a dash of String Theory and stir with a generous helping of mindset of a New-Age uncritical idealistic dreamer and you have a whole lot of ways they can reframe their own beliefs to sound as if its supported by science.

If we never find out the "theory of everything" and string theory eventually gets thrown in the toilet, we still have no reason to just make it up. We don't do that developing all the medical advancement we have got today, and Im pretty sure you wouldnt want someone to operate on you if he said he was basing where and what he was cutting on what the universe was communicating to him through his tin foil hat. If you arent prepared to accept that mindset, you'll understand why I don't accept the mindset here either.

For those that seem critical of science... If someone can show a different method to the scientific method, one that is better able to provide verifiable ways of understanding, then they should demonstrate it. They'd make a lot of money and get a lot of fame. But so far no one can do that, because their beliefs arent based on evidence, they are based on feelings. A mindset they will often happily reject when it suits them I might add. For a lot of people feelings are just more important than facts, but so long as that mindset is restricted and compartmentalised to certain areas it shouldnt affect their life too negatively. The danger comes when people *start making decisions* with serious outcomes on the basis of this house of cards, outcomes that can be fatal. Its one thing to complain about science on a message board, but if someone decides to try and use crystals to heal a sick child rather than take it to a doctor, they're risking a lot more than just their intellectual integrity.


----------



## dedersen

Nuno @ Thu Nov 28 said:


> It's same about quantum physics, it's a paradox, the observation of an object always depends on the observer...it's always subjective!


Yeah, I had a feeling this was the sort of thing that would turn up. This is a classical example of how new age theories completely misinterpret quantum physics, be it intentionaly or just out of pure ignorance. Quantum physics in no way suggest anything like "it's always subjective". The trouble usual starts because you are assuming that words such as "observer" and "observation" have a meaning that is just as broad as their everyday meaning. Thing is, when used in the field of quantum physics, these are very technical terms with restricted meanings that are only very vaguely related to what you may think they mean.

What never seizes to amaze me about these discussions, is the fact that some people are willing to make wild claims using a theory that they obviously have never really studied! Now, I obviously don't have a problem with people not having studied quantum physics. It's not for everyone, certainly. But jeez, perhaps a little more humility with regards to issues related to quantum physics (or general physics) is in order then? It represents, to me at least, a tremendous arrogance to do anything else.

With that, I think I'll throw in the towel on this one. I'm planning to release CineHeal next week. It's a deeply sampled sine wave with legato transitions recorded at multiple dynamics. Only $599,- and guaranteed to cure all your ills. Stay tuned...


----------



## TGV

Ah, the Copenhagen interpretation...


----------



## Nuno

dedersen @ Thu Nov 28 said:


> Nuno @ Thu Nov 28 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's same about quantum physics, it's a paradox, the observation of an object always depends on the observer...it's always subjective!
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I had a feeling this was the sort of thing that would turn up. This is a classical example of how new age theories completely misinterpret quantum physics, be it intentionaly or just out of pure ignorance. Quantum physics in no way suggest anything like "it's always subjective". The trouble usual starts because you are assuming that words such as "observer" and "observation" have a meaning that is just as broad as their everyday meaning. Thing is, when used in the field of quantum physics, these are very technical terms with restricted meanings that are only very vaguely related to what you may think they mean.
> 
> What never seizes to amaze me about these discussions, is the fact that some people are willing to make wild claims using a theory that they obviously have never really studied! Now, I obviously don't have a problem with people not having studied quantum physics. It's not for everyone, certainly. But jeez, perhaps a little more humility with regards to issues related to quantum physics (or general physics) is in order then? It represents, to me at least, a tremendous arrogance to do anything else.
Click to expand...


Helllooo...I'm not saying that everyhting is subjective, only that the observer affets what is observerd, thus the way I see reality, the way You see reality is subjective...life is subjective, a product of consciousness (perhaps the problem here is my english..)

Anyway, I believe that the mind cannot grasp the reality so I'm out of this left brain vs right brain conversation....Meditate..PRACTICE

“The mind can go in a thousand directions, but on this beautiful path, I walk in peace. With each step, the wind blows. With each step, a flower blooms.” 
― Thích Nhất Hạnh


----------



## Hannes_F

Ed @ Thu Nov 28 said:


> Just to be clear, scientific theories don't get "proved", they can only get more supported. String theory is considered necessary to bridge a gap between classical physics and quantum mechanics. The equations just break down at a certain point. Its really about a theory of gravity which is where problems arise. When people talk about the search for the "theory of everything" this is the dilemma they are talking about. Its a bit of a misnomer calling it a "theory" because last time I looked, the current view is that while it seems like an exciting candidate a lot of attention is on, we don't have enough evidence to really say with strong certainty that it the right understanding of the universe due to lack of testability, its more accurate to call it a hypothesis. String Theory can be quite a fun idea for fiction and new-age inclined people, because if it is true then it predicts things such as multi-dimensions. Put Quantum Mechanics in a pot with add a dash of String Theory and stir with a generous helping of mindset of a New-Age uncritical idealistic dreamer and you have a whole lot of ways they can reframe their own beliefs to sound as if its supported by science.



Ed, this is starting to get me interested. Do you have a professional education in physics?


----------



## dedersen

Ed @ Thu Nov 28 said:


> Just for starters, Quantum Physics only applies at atomic and subatomic scale's so anyone that tells you it can apply to the macro scale is immediately wrong. There is nothing wrong with Newtonian physics, it just becomes inapplicable at a certain point.


Strictly speaking, this is not correct, Ed. Quantum physics DOES apply at the macro scale. It's extremely difficult to actually solve the problems at the scale of the number of particles required to describe it, but this does not at all mean that quantum physics only applies to atomic and subatomic scales. In fact, a lot of effort was put into showing that quantum mechanics includes classical mechanics as a specific limiting case. So the division between the two is such that classical mechanics represents a subset (approxmiately valid in certain cases) of the more general theory of quantum mechanics.


----------



## Rv5

The following probably won't make much sense as I'm procrastinating, disclaimer over:

I think now is a most exciting time to be around in regards to what we are discovering about the mind and the brain.

The last several years have show an increase in studies regarding music and the brain. People like Koelsch, Kasper, Sammler, Shulze, Gunter, Jackendoff et el.

Trehub (2003) for example states "The study of musical abilities and activities in infancy has the potential to shed light on musical biases or dispositions that are rooted in nature rather than nurture." 

There is argument for and against the similarities and differences between music and language (Jackendoff 2008): His paper takes a look at comparisons between music and language in these terms:

"Every normal individual has knowledge of language and music
Everyone learns the local variant(s) of both language and music. Normal adults are at ceiling for language, but they are more variable in musical ability, depending on exposure and talent".

(Please see paper in relation to defining 'normal')

He then poses the question:

"What cognitive capacities are involved in acquiring and using a language and what capacities are involved in acquiring and using knowledge of a musical idiom?"

If you play a baby a 3/4 rhythm and then bounce them in a baby bouncer with a 1/1 metronome, they'll show preference to be bounced to the same rhythm they just heard. (No reference at this point!)

There are good studies (Hannon, Trainor 2007 for example) that suggest innate musical ability and functionality are universal and later defined through enculturation. This can be further developed through formal musical training.

"Sensitivity to consonance and dissonance might be universal across cultures owing to periphery mechanisms of the auditory system that develop early in ontogeny…" (Hannon, Trainor 2007)

A more relevant point regarding frequency may that "Most adults encode and remember the melodies in terms of relative pitch (RP, that is, the pitch distances or intervals between notes of the melody, rather than in terms of individual absolute pitches (AP)." Hannon, Trainor 2007)

So this would suggest that in early developmental stages the mechanisms and basic auditory system would recognise intervals between pitches, but not the frequency of the pitches themselves.

With different scales and tunings across the world the frequency I would think is of little to no relevance in a scientific or spiritual way other than helping to identify musical universalities innate to humans.

I would argue the use of music across cultures all stem from the same neurological development and auditory mechanisms which are later shaped through enculturation and formal training. That all cultures respond in an emotional way (sharing general-use mechanisms i.e. there is no single use musical area of the brain) despite discrepancies in frequency and infant humans recognise intervals through RP, frequency is not important.

However it would be interesting to run tests, but my prediction is the outcome would be as stated above.

Music is so deeply rooted in all cultures, whether it be Rock, Classical, Film, , Agbekor Drumming of the Ewe people, music of the BaAka tribes, Mevlevi music (and the wonderful Whirling Dervishes), Indonesian Gamelan, Vietnamese Ca Tru, Kaluli music of Papua New Guinea, Aboriginal didgeridoo or funk.

Spiritual, secular, whatever I don't think music's use or function or impact on human response can be dictated by frequency. For one most humans simply do not have the auditory mechanisms and capacity to differentiate between frequencies where the focus is on relative pitch, not absolute pitch. Secondly music the world over is used in spiritual and religious ceremonies where it celebrates life, Gods, defends from spirits, induces trance like states etc and all have varying tunings, instrumentation and contexts.

Thirdly, some of this music is using non-pitched instruments to the same effect suggesting 'music' is more than pitch. 


It is true that there is not much data on neuro-psycological and neuro-pyhsiological studies on non-western musicians/musics. This is currently being addressed. However given what is offered from those studies and given the place music sits in cultures across the globe I wholeheartedly think:

To try and argue for a 'universal pitch' that resonates deeply with the human soul quoting a frequency of Western tuning is completely ethnocentric and shuns the vast wealth of music the world has to offer, the universal aspects of this music and the glorious differences that make, shape and help define culture.


----------



## germancomponist

Gabriel2013 @ Thu Nov 28 said:


> ...The lack of knowledge usually blurs the whole purpose of a good brainstorming, and in this case seams to me that there is still some progress to be made discovering what in reality are the frequencies doing (as the video suggested: a language that is not being used at full potential)



+1

The lack of knowledge usually blurs the whole purpose for a good discussion in many other themes, too. Opinions, prejudices and trends are often defended to the utmost ... .


----------



## Nuno

germancomponist @ Thu Nov 28 said:


> Gabriel2013 @ Thu Nov 28 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The lack of knowledge usually blurs the whole purpose of a good brainstorming, and in this case seams to me that there is still some progress to be made discovering what in reality are the frequencies doing (as the video suggested: a language that is not being used at full potential)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> The lack of knowledge usually blurs the whole purpose for a good discussion in many other themes, too. Opinions, prejudices and trends are often defended to the utmost ... .
Click to expand...


I found this video today and i think it is worth watching! 

The Chladni plate experiment shows that as frequency is altered the patterns in the plate assume various intricate shapes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yaqUI4b974

~o)


----------



## dedersen

They are the fundamental modes of vibration of the plate. The two-dimensional analog of the standing waves of, say, a guitar string. Fairly elementary physics. Really neat experiment, though.


----------



## Polarity

germancomponist @ Wed 27 Nov said:


> You know what?
> 
> Today I did some very cool experiments. I will post my results tomorrow, because I think I have to have a sleep before I post it...



Gunther, I'm interested in these experiments of yours.
Let me know, even by PM if you have kept hidden and not published them.

I heard about the 432Hz thing months ago, read about it a bit... but then didn't experimented by myself (also because I stopped playing music in that period due to shoulders tendonitis), then forgot about.

Not all the hardware synths or virtual instruments I have can go (or alter at all) to that master tuning frequency.

I think that one experiment to do could be: getting a track already done, re-tuning to 432 Hz the instruments used, but then re-transpose all tracks to get back around the original pitch.
Is that what you did also?


----------



## ProtectedRights

@Ed: it is totally incomprehensible for me how you can so much overestimate science. Emotions are in NO WAY understood by science. What you described is like this: say we want to understand how a car functions. Now you say, science can explain this, if you press the right pedal it accelerates, if you press the left pedal it slows down. Car explained. See what I am aiming at? Science can VERY COARSLY see something moving in a chemical or electronic fashion, but that IS IN NO WAY any type of explanation. You can just see something that you can measure and you still have NO GLIMPSE WHATSOEVER of what is happening there.

Sorry for writing uppercase, but your overestimation of some tiny science steps is just so overwhelmingly off reality. 

I give you another example: 
I tell you "your father died" and you are devestated, your stomach slightly cramps, you sweat, you feel dizzy and sit down, your mouth is dry. 

I tell you "your girlfriend loves you very much" and you are all happy. You relax, your skin is warm, your breath is deep, your heartbeat is slow but powerful.

Now please give me an in depth explanation why the small differences in the pressure patterns that arrive at the humans ear in these two cases cause the whole organism (i.e. gigantic system of atoms in your view) to react so drastically different.


----------



## Richard Wilkinson

ProtectedRights @ Tue Dec 03 said:


> @Ed: it is totally incomprehensible for me how you can so much overestimate science. Emotions are in NO WAY understood by science.



The Germans are supposed to be the sensible ones! Deary me...

What is this ridiculous idea that 'i_f you bring in science, it devalues or de-mistifies something wonderful_'?

Explaining, or investigating phenomenon like seasons, climate, origin of the universe, emotions etc does not dimish their value or greatness.

Why are you so averse to scientific method being applied to stuff you see as esoteric and magical, like emotion? Helen Fisher has done some interesting work on 'love' - as a biological and sociological concept. 
http://www.ted.com/talks/helen_fisher_studies_the_brain_in_love.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/helen_fisher_s ... _love.html)

You talk about 'overestimating science'.
Doesn't that show a fundamental lack of understanding about what science is, and what science does?
Science is not a fixed and inflexible theory which people twist and contort to try and explain everything. It's not a bible which people reinterpret and re-translate and try to apply to an ever-changing world.

Science is a process by which we try to understand the world, and make progress by actively trying to disprove theories. Isn't that brilliant? It's not 'this is probably how it works. Occam's Razor. Boom.' Fingers in ears. It's coming up with a plausible idea, and subsequently trying to disprove that idea. The more it stands up to testing, the more accepted it becomes.


----------



## ProtectedRights

wilx @ Tue Dec 03 said:


> Why are you so averse to scientific method being applied to stuff you see as esoteric and magical, like emotion?



Because I believe the world is more than a deterministic mechanical music box.




> Science is not a fixed and inflexible theory which people twist and contort to try and explain everything. It's not a bible which people reinterpret and re-translate and try to apply to an ever-changing world.
> 
> Science is a process by which we try to understand the world, and make progress by actively trying to disprove theories.



All granted, that is how I as understand science. I just don't like it when people say science can explain everything in depth so that no more open questions remain. That is just not true. Not today. And if you ask me: it will never be.


----------



## andreasOL

> ProtectedRights @ Tue 03 Dec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wilx @ Tue Dec 03 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so averse to scientific method being applied to stuff you see as esoteric and magical, like emotion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I believe the world is more than a deterministic mechanical music box.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Huh...that is something we _know_ since a hundred years. Quantum mechanics has proven that on a microscopic level things are ruled by probability which only on a macroscopic point of view collapses to how we observe most things (seeming indeed deterministic). It's the same as Einsteins special theory of relativity (which described things at high speeds) collapses to classical mechanics (which Newton dealt with) for slow speeds.

The world is not deterministic. But the missing elements are not esoteric or magical.



> Science is not a fixed and inflexible theory which people twist and contort to try and explain everything. It's not a bible which people reinterpret and re-translate and try to apply to an ever-changing world.
> 
> Science is a process by which we try to understand the world, and make progress by actively trying to disprove theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All granted, that is how I as understand science. I just don't like it when people say science can explain everything in depth so that no more open questions remain. That is just not true. Not today. And if you ask me: it will never be.
Click to expand...

[/quote]

Likewise...noone has said that all can be explained...but if we cannot explain things in every detail that's no proof that the remaining elements are esoterical or magical...we "just don't know them".

Sentences like

"love is magical" (with the word "magical" not used literally but as a word illustrating how it makes me feel)

and

"Love is just chemistry in my body" (which for me _is_ the explanantion of emotions)

can co-exist without problems for me. The latter takes away nothing for me from the first.


----------



## ProtectedRights

PS: Notice I chose the word "I believe" in my post above well-considered.

Here is how I see it:
Back in those times there was belief only, and there was a lot of bad stuff and misuse done on behalf on belief. Then came science, and it did a lot of good. It destroyed wrongs myths and charlatanes, it helped understand the world and develop technology. Gaining from this movement science has become the only authority in the world. And that is the problem. I think this was an overshoot. We need both. There is a world that cannot be grasped or proven or rationalized with science. I cannot prove this statement of course, since this is what I am saying: there IS belief, there ARE things beyond proof. We need a world where science does not look down to belief or the other way around. 
If I made the impression that I look down on science and consider it bad: that is by far not the case. I just think it is not the only measure.


----------



## ProtectedRights

andreasOL @ Tue Dec 03 said:


> Huh...that is something we _know_ since a hundred years. Quantum mechanics has proven that on a microscopic level things are ruled by probability which only on a macroscopic point of view collapses to how we observe most things (seeming indeed deterministic).


I knew that would come. This is not what I mean.



> The world is not deterministic. But the missing elements are not esoteric or magical.



I disagree.



> Sentences like
> 
> "love is magical" (with the word "magical" not used literally but as a word illustrating how it makes me feel)
> 
> and
> 
> "Love is just chemistry in my body" (which for me _is_ the explanantion of emotions)
> 
> can co-exist without problems for me. The latter takes away nothing for me from the first.



I disagree.


----------



## Richard Wilkinson

ProtectedRights @ Tue Dec 03 said:


> wilx @ Tue Dec 03 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All granted, that is how I as understand science. I just don't like it when people say science can explain everything in depth so that no more open questions remain. That is just not true. Not today. And if you ask me: it will never be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Absolutely - I agree. The universe is not entirely understood, and may never be completely. But there seems to be a sentiment on this thread where science is seen as some sort of bully, ruining the conversation because people dare to respond to the claims using logic and fact-based reasoning, which is a shame.

And why shouldn't the world be explainable? It's a (giant) system, with forces and effects and observable phenomena which we're beginning to understand, albeit in fairly small chunks.

Humans are just one part of the ecosystem on this planet. Galaxy, or universe-wide, we're barely a gnat's fart in the grand scheme of things. I think humans often over-estimate their own importance or significance - religion is a good example - rather than just appreciating the wonderful world we live in without having to resort to magic and fairytales.


And science isn't dogma - it's not a set of rules. As has been explained, it's a process which is about as unbiased and open-minded as you can get. Saying science has to coexist with mysticism or magic or religion shows a fundamental ignorance or misunderstanding. Faith or religion or any other way of interpreting the world relies on blindly accepting rules and teachings. If you applied the scientific method and fairly tried to disprove those types of belief systems, they would implode. 

Religion has done a lot for people in the past, culturally, but has religion or magic or mysticism provided proper, progressive answers to stuff like:

Medicine
Transport
Earth history
Space travel
Architecture
Agriculture
Communication
Education

- not really.

Has science?


----------



## KEnK

Personally I don't buy into the "Music of the Spheres" thing
or any New Age Dogma for that matter.

However here's a bit of food for thought for the hard nose science debaters.

Acupuncture
Homeopathy

Neither of these can be measured except through anecdotal evidence.
Yet the experiences of millions of people over centuries indicate that they work.
Medical Science is coming around to both of these practices.
You can even get acupuncture covered by insurance.

So here are 2 cases where something immeasurable is largely accepted.

The medical success rates of both practices cannot be disputed.
How they function remains a mystery.

k


----------



## Richard Wilkinson

KEnK @ Tue Dec 03 said:


> Homeopathy
> 
> ...
> Medical Science is coming around to both of these practices.
> 
> k



I wasn't aware of this. Homeopathy is quackery. It's based on the idea of water having a memory, based on a dilution of infinitesimally and negligably miscroscopic amounts of trace elements.

So the water retains its memory of the good, healing substances, and magically forgets the tonnes of shit, typhoid etc that it has carried?

Homeopathy only ever works as placebo. It's water. That's it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFO6ZhUW38w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U


----------



## TGV

ProtectedRights @ Tue Dec 03 said:


> Now please give me an in depth explanation why the small differences in the pressure patterns that arrive at the humans ear in these two cases cause the whole organism (i.e. gigantic system of atoms in your view) to react so drastically different.


Ok, we take the vibrations for granted. The reach your ear. Each frequency triggers a small receptor in your ear, which conveys a small electrical pulse indicating the amplitude to the auditory cortex. There some processing takes place (there are detailed accounts of e.g. the monkey auditory cortex), and the phoneme-like output is received by a word recognition "module". We've got no idea where it is located, but it's generally assumed Wernicke's area is involved. There the sequence of sounds is translated to syllables, and the syllables strung together, and words recognized. There is also a part of the brain (could be Broca's area) that analyzes word sequences, and can identify different functions in the sentence, and determine the overall meaning. At the same time, other parts of the brain (commonly thought to be a similar area in the other hemisphere) are involved in analyzing things like prosody. That provides an overall interpretation of the utterance. This then gets matched to your expectations and memories, which gives it a pragmatic meaning, and this one carries a very big emotion, assuming you can associate words like "love" with the correct feeling. That can release a bunch of neurotransmitters that trigger reward circuits, or other hormonal excretion, which makes you feel all fluttery.

That's it. It's of course more complex, most of the details are unknown, etc., but there's no magic or a soul needed.


----------



## germancomponist

Polarity @ Tue Dec 03 said:


> I think that one experiment to do could be: getting a track already done, re-tuning to 432 Hz the instruments used, but then re-transpose all tracks to get back around the original pitch.
> Is that what you did also?



No, I did a very special experiment (as always  )

I will post it later because I have a lot of work these days and have to finish that first... .


----------



## ProtectedRights

@TGV: again this outfreaking overestimation of your scientific understandings that makes me speechless. Hell accept that YOU CANNOT GRASP the complexity of this in full! You CANNOT!

And now you say, well I can explain some part with science so I ASSUME that I can also explain the rest using science if I can some day manage the complexity. That is an ASSUMPTION!!!!!!! NOTHING MORE!!!!!

This is where you even fail to be scientific, that you fail to acknowledge that you make an assumption here.

Anyway, I see it is in vain discussing this. I am just astonished how everybody so happily accepts that he is just atoms and chemistry. Actually that pretty heavily destroys your rank. You are just a pile of atoms, not much more than a brick. Strange religion that you got there.

This is what science has done bad, that people believe (assume to be exact) that they are just matter, nothing more.


----------



## ProtectedRights

@TGV: One more thing: doesn't it make you feel bad that you don't have a soul?


----------



## Richard Wilkinson

ProtectedRights @ Tue Dec 03 said:


> @TGV: One more thing: doesn't it make you feel bad that you don't have a soul?



A soul isn't a thing. It's a concept, made up by people who were less enlightened than we are now.
TGV (presumably) isn't saying he has no soul - rather a 'soul' doesn't make any sense when talking sensibly. It's that human thing of wanting to be special again. What makes us different from others? Souls! Yes! Magical, unexplainable souls!

Personality, humanity, emotions etc are all byproducts of the systems and processes which make us function. 

That does not mean we can find them magical, special, beautiful etc.

Wanting to know how something works does not diminish its beauty, nor does finding out how it works.


And yet again, more misunderstanding of science - talking as if it's an inflexible dogma boasting of infinite knowledge.


----------



## andreasOL

ProtectedRights @ Tue 03 Dec said:


> @TGV: One more thing: doesn't it make you feel bad that you don't have a soul?



Good question!

Your arguing technique is driven by the result you _want_.

But...things are as they are...

If we have a soul we have a soul.
If we have no soul we have no soul.

You cannot force nature into "us having a soul" just because you want it (or feel bad if you don't have one).


----------



## Nuno

KEnK @ Tue Dec 03 said:


> However here's a bit of food for thought for the hard nose science debaters.
> 
> Acupuncture
> Homeopathy



Good that you bring the acupuncture into the discussion...

Just to support what I've said before in this thread (that everyone can be aware of energy) I may speak by personal experience: 

I'm an acupunturist myself. Very often, when I insert an needle into an acupoint the patient feels an electrical sensation (called "deqi") that runs through the meridian path (not explainable by the major nervous pathways). There are theories that claim that it goes trough the fascia, others that runs through the liquid crystal body matrix, but I guess it's all connected..

Another way (among many others) to get in touch with the so called universal life force energy (Chi) is to practice Qi Gong, an ancient practice of breath healing movements that, if practiced with patience and preserverance, allow every practicioner to feel and guide the energy. There are thousand of practicioners around the world who testified this.

And everything in the universe moves and vibrate, so yes, music can be applied for healing, no doubt here about that. I know some people who do it.

If that's esoteric and magical...maybe, until it fully understood, if ever...anyway, if you wonder, the practice of magic is not more than the manipulation of energy.


----------



## dedersen

This thread is getting more and more depressing. It is unfortunately, in my opinion, a fairly accurate representation of one of the big problems we are facing in the modern world. Alright, towel back in...


----------



## TimJohnson

"... others that runs through the liquid crystal body matrix, but I guess it's all connected.."


The what now?


----------



## Polarity

germancomponist @ Tue 03 Dec said:


> No, I did a very special experiment (as always  )
> 
> I will post it later because I have a lot of work these days and have to finish that first... .



Ok, thankyou. Don't worry, not in a hurry.


----------



## KingIdiot

o[]) o=? o[]) 

it's ok I'm an alien, none of this applies to me.

(o) ~o)


----------



## germancomponist

Stay tuned, friends, it is worth it!


----------



## Richard Wilkinson

germancomponist @ Tue Dec 03 said:


> Stay tuned, friends, it is worth it!



Unintentional or not, that was a superb pun.


----------



## TimJohnson

In all seriousness, we shouldn't be writing off the benefits of different levels of vibration. I have a good friend, a Dr. A. Summers that swears by it.

_Ref:

http://www.annsummers.com/c/sex-toys/vibrators_


----------



## Nuno

As you may have noticed, i love quotes :D 

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
—
Arthur Schopenhauer


----------



## Polarity

Acupuncture?
Ji Gong (Chi Kung...)?
you can add also Shiatsu: it's related to the same basics... meridians, chi, bioenergy...

I'm not a religious guy at all...
I raised with a scientific and skeptical mind as practicing martial arts, meditation...
I practiced Ji Gong.
I am a Shiatsu treater.
I am a Reikist (and I stop here... :wink: )
I did biology at university... 
I love space and astronomy.
I don't believe to religions but I have felt and experienced things that science is still unable to explain clearly or deny.
I'm Western but opened to learn also from the Oriental wisdom experiences (even if I don't like all what those people do...)

Shiatsu is officially accepted by Western medicine...
the Reiki is slowing entering in hospitals, especially in oncology departments: it seems that brings peace and tranquility to terminally ill people.
"What?!? Are you crazy? Energy from your hands?" :roll: 

Waves... a lot of things in this universe are just waves...
and different waves, different waves lenghts can give different results on our cells:
it's scientifically proven.

So, why a different tuning couldn't give a different result that externally we can't hear or think to not hear?
Because I don't believe in magic, I say why we don't experiment and try to find, also scientifically? 
Giving the chance that if we can't measure something it doesn't mean that it isn't true or it doesn't work.

Yesterday I listened to the youtube video Gunther posted in the beginning of topic.
Well the first loop at 432Hz sent me peace (I was astonished myself), when the second loop (440 Hz) started I felt disturbed, annoyed.
Today I tried to listen them in the opposite order: the 440 Hz sent me almost nothing, it seemed neutral... the 432 Hz loop made me feel better, even if not so peaceful as yesterday when I listened to it as first.

I would like to explore deeper this thing... I'm curious. 
But I don't take a position against or in favor to the 432 Hz thing before "putting inside my nose personally".


----------



## Nuno

Polarity @ Tue Dec 03 said:


> Acupuncture?
> Ji Gong (Chi Kung...)?
> you can add also Shiatsu: it's related to the same basics... meridians, chi, bioenergy...
> ".



Intentionally, i did not wanted to bring shiatsu into the discussion, because shiatsu evolved so much after Masunaga that is difficult to bring those concepts to skeptic members of this forum.


----------



## TGV

ProtectedRights @ Tue Dec 03 said:


> @TGV: again this outfreaking overestimation of your scientific understandings that makes me speechless. Hell accept that YOU CANNOT GRASP the complexity of this in full! You CANNOT!


And you, freaked out friend, don't have a clue as to what the world is. Perhaps you have a belief, but it is false, and doesn't help you.



> And now you say, well I can explain some part with science so I ASSUME that I can also explain the rest using science if I can some day manage the complexity. That is an ASSUMPTION!!!!!!! NOTHING MORE!!!!!


No, I do not. You asked "how does science explain a tiny vibration triggering an emotion", and I gave you an explanation.



> This is where you even fail to be scientific, that you fail to acknowledge that you make an assumption here.


This is not a bleedin' scientific journal! You're treating a very simplified explanation as science's ultimate answer, ignore the fact that we acknowledge there's a lot we don't know, and then pretend to understand the scientific method. And you, who apparently knows and understands nothing of the mechanics of the world, try to lecture us on science?



> Anyway, I see it is in vain discussing this.


The only thing that's in vain here is trying to show some logic to you.



> I am just astonished how everybody so happily accepts that he is just atoms and chemistry.


First, nothing in my explanation said that. It just shows a plausible mechanism that can translate air vibrations into emotions. Second, you are just particles. Accept it. Your are a sometimes unpredictable bunch of particles. If you have a soul, it is subject to the laws of nature. The rest of your conclusions stems from an error in your reasoning, caused by your irate blindness.

Every time you type a character on your keyboard, every time one of your synths or computers creates a sound, every time you hit a key on a piano or strike a string, you're proving that technology and the science on which it's based, work.

But science is not a miracle or god-like: it's just a set of verifiable descriptions. It's not the answer to all of your questions either. The only problem you have with it, is that science does away with the need to have a god. It doesn't even take away the mystery, because with every discovery, the mystery seems to become bigger. No, it only takes away the need for superstition.


----------



## Polarity

TGV @ Tue 03 Dec said:


> ....
> Second, you are just particles. Accept it. Your are a sometimes unpredictable bunch of particles. If you have a soul, it is subject to the laws of nature.



I agree about this.
But we also have to see if we really know all about these laws.


----------



## ProtectedRights

@TGV: this is such a BS. How do you *know* the soul has to obey any "laws of nature"? You are *assuming*(!!!) so many things here and selling it as knowledge. 

Better stop discussing at this point. Because you *cannot prove* anything you say.

Anyway, discussing with a chap who does not even have a soul, or whose soul is only atoms, chemistry and electricity, is scary. I have a soul and I prefer humans who have one as well.

Cheers, I'm outie


----------



## germancomponist

My examples will open your eyes and ears!


----------



## Richard Wilkinson

ProtectedRights @ Tue Dec 03 said:


> I have a soul and I prefer humans who have one as well.
> 
> Cheers, I'm outie



Could you clarify what exactly you mean, in this context, by 'soul'?


----------



## midi_controller

KEnK @ Tue Dec 03 said:


> However here's a bit of food for thought for the hard nose science debaters.
> 
> Acupuncture
> Homeopathy
> 
> Neither of these can be measured except through anecdotal evidence.
> Yet the experiences of millions of people over centuries indicate that they work.



It's called the Placebo Effect. This thread is a crack up!

@ProtectedRights: You _say_ you have a soul, but can you prove it? What is a soul? What does it look like? How much does it weigh? Where does it exist? What is it made of? Does it have a feel/taste/smell? Can it be measured? If none of these questions can be answered, how do you know it is real? You don't have to answer any of these questions for me, just think about them for yourself.

I'm not sure I have a soul, since I don't know what that is supposed to be. I have a brain, and it contains pretty much the entire essence of who I am, from my personality to my morality to all the funny little quirks that make me, well, me. So what would a soul actually add to this? Does it have a function? Where did the idea of a soul even come from, and what was it based on? There are so many questions when dealing with things like this.

Anyway, I'll leave you guys to it, try not to bite each others heads off! o[])


----------



## Ed

KEnK @ Tue Dec 03 said:


> Acupuncture
> Homeopathy
> 
> Neither of these can be measured except through anecdotal evidence.
> Yet the experiences of millions of people over centuries indicate that they work.



lol. Homeopathy? wow... Even disregarding the lack of evidence for it working, the entire concept is beyond ridiculous. _Take a small amount of this poison, it will help cure what ails you because it causes the same symptoms you already have. ...What?... Shut up!! Don't ask questions!!... Now... what you do is take a small drop of the poison and drop it into a ton of water, then shake around in exactly the right movements. Then you take a drop from that diluted water and put that into another ton of water and repeat. Repeat a few hundred times, the more the better, and hopefully you will end up with a solution that has zero chance of any molecule from the poison remaining! But don't worry it will retain a "memory" of the poison. Under no circumstances should you just drink the poison without this process, THAT WOULD BE STUPID!_ 



> Medical Science is coming around to both of these practices.



lol no.


----------



## Ed

ProtectedRights @ Tue Dec 03 said:


> Anyway, I see it is in vain discussing this. I am just astonished how everybody so happily accepts that he is just atoms and chemistry. Actually that pretty heavily destroys your rank. You are just a pile of atoms, not much more than a brick. Strange religion that you got there.
> 
> This is what science has done bad, that people believe (assume to be exact) that they are just matter, nothing more.



First you need to ask yourself whether you're trying to find out what is true or just believe something because you would feel better if it were that way. You use scientific methodology every day in your own life, you just choose to ignore it when it doesn't give you the answers you would prefer about certain topics. I would prefer to believe all kinds of things about the universe and my life, but sadly that doesn't have any bearing on whether its real. Can you prove that our consciousness is independent of our brains? Because we have a ton of evidence that it *IS *our brains. If you want to say that after we die it sort of floats away into the aether or something, you're going to need evidence. I would love to believe it, really I would, but I need evidence.

And btw we are much much more than "a brick", but that doesn't mean we're not still "a pile of atoms". In a similar way, Beethoven's 5th is still sine waves, but that doesn't mean its not more than that.


----------



## ryans

Interesting stuff. I listened to the video and I preferred the 432 Hz. 

My girlfriend on the other hand (who has absolute pitch) liked the 440 Hz and claimed the 432 Hz sounded out of tune.

I think my girlfriend might be a nazi...


----------



## Ed

ryans @ Tue Dec 03 said:


> Interesting stuff. I listened to the video and I preferred the 432 Hz.
> 
> My girlfriend on the other hand (who has absolute pitch) liked the 440 Hz and claimed the 432 Hz sounded out of tune.
> 
> I think my girlfriend might be a nazi...



This makes sense if she genuinely has perfect pitch. For most people the second will sound out of tune because the mind compares it with what it just heard. This isnt any different to having 2 guitars that are perfectly in tune with themselves but out of tune relative to each other, becoming only obvious once you directly compare them. If however someone has perfect pitch they may be able to immediately notice the first example is out of tune. What I love is the end of the video saying "its scientifically and mathematically proved". lol. 

I find this kind of thing very similar to those guys who say they have created a free energy motor you can see videos of on youtube that dont seem to have an idea of what will happen once they introduce friction to it.


----------



## germancomponist

Ed @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> This makes sense if she genuinely has perfect pitch. For most people the second will sound out of tune because the mind compares it with what it just heard. This isnt any different to having 2 guitars that are perfectly in tune with themselves but out of tune relative to each other, becoming only obvious once you directly compare them. If however someone has perfect pitch they may be able to immediately notice the first example is out of tune. What I love is the end of the video saying "its scientifically and mathematically proved". lol. [youtube]
> 
> I find this kind of thing very similar to those guys who say they have created a free energy motor you can see videos of on youtube that dont seem to have an idea of what will happen once they introduce friction to it.



[/youtube]


----------



## Musicologo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beginning_of_Infinity


----------



## germancomponist

Musicologo @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beginning_of_Infinity



http://mistupid.com/people/page019.htm


----------



## Ed

germancomponist @ Tue Dec 03 said:


> Musicologo @ Wed Dec 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beginning_of_Infinity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://mistupid.com/people/page019.htm
Click to expand...


http://www.timecube.com/


----------



## midi_controller

Ed @ Tue Dec 03 said:


> http://www.timecube.com/


----------



## kotori

ProtectedRights @ Tue Dec 03 said:


> Anyway, I see it is in vain discussing this. I am just astonished how everybody so happily accepts that he is just atoms and chemistry. Actually that pretty heavily destroys your rank. You are just a pile of atoms, not much more than a brick. Strange religion that you got there.



Personally I'm quite astonished by the perceived need to be made out of some kind of magical building blocks. To me that feels a bit like saying that the ability to notate music using small dots of ink on paper takes the true value away from all music, unless the properties of the ink are unknown or somehow have magical properties. Why so much focus on the building blocks when it's the structures that are interesting.


----------



## TGV

ProtectedRights @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> @TGV: this is such a BS. How do you *know* the soul has to obey any "laws of nature"? You are *assuming*(!!!) so many things here and selling it as knowledge.


Well, nature by definition encompasses everything. Hence, the soul cannot escape from its laws.



> Better stop discussing at this point. Because you *cannot prove* anything you say.


You are hiding behind false arguments. I've shown you a reasoning, and the only way you can refute it, is by showing evidence. So now you're suddenly throwing The Soul. It is reasoning from ignorance: you've got no evidence that there is a soul, and you're clinging on to the fact that it's nearly impossible to prove the absence of something (see the discussion between Russell and Wittgenstein about the rhino in the room). However, life can be explained, albeit coarsely, by chemistry and physics, so there is no reason to assume (sic) that there is a super-natural being which creates souls.

Ever heard of Occam's Razor? If you reject that, you're rejecting all of science, including the aspirin.



> Anyway, discussing with a chap who does not even have a soul, or whose soul is only atoms, chemistry and electricity, is scary. I have a soul and I prefer humans who have one as well.


You're not really susceptible to logic, are you? As has been pointed out, either we both have a soul, or we both don't have one. You're only scared of losing your superstition.


----------



## KEnK

A little late getting back to this thread.
Guess I shouldn't be surprised to see homeopathy being hit so hard.

As to an infinitesimal amount of "poison" having any benefit-
What do you think a vaccination is?

It wasn't long ago that Western Medicine viewed acupuncture as unexplainable quackery.
(same w/ the chiropractic approach) 
But now insurance is stating to cover it.
It's still remains unmeasurable.
As far as I know, there is no way to prove the existence of "meridians".

Homeopathy remains a bit more fringe, but it is gaining acceptance, at least in California. I do know from personal experience that it works.

It's easy to dismiss something from a perspective of misunderstanding.

No one is dismissing acupuncture though.

But you tell me-

If you have a stiff neck, 
what does sticking a needle in your wrist or foot have to do w/ that?

Is there scientifically accepted evidence of the meridian concept?

k


----------



## TGV

KEnK @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> What do you think a vaccination is?


A vaccination is a considerable amount of material that triggers your immune system. The effective component is not absent, as is the case in potencies of 12C and higher.


> It wasn't long ago that Western Medicine viewed acupuncture as unexplainable quackery. But now insurance is stating to cover it.


Insurance cover does not equal experimentally proven or scientifically accepted. It just means that your insurance will pay for treatment. By your reasoning, just a visit to the GP should be considered a cure as well.


----------



## KEnK

My intent was not to debate homeopathy.
Rather I listed acupuncture and homeopathy 
as 2 medicinal arts that while unexplainable, 
are accepted as beneficial healing arts.

Scratch homeopathy from the list if you like-
(In California it is gaining acceptance even from western Doctors.)

Just explain acupuncture to me using scientific evidence.

My point was only that there are some immeasurable
things that exist, that science cannot explain.

Just send me a link that irrefutably proves the existence of meridians.
Very few people think that acupuncture is bunk today.
Yet the thing that it's based on, is outside the ability of science to measure.

That was my point.

k


----------



## David Chappell

Oh god, anything to do with "natural energies" or suchlike terms immediately sends my BS detectors going wild. I'll have a look into this claim, but since the thread's taken a turn for the homeopathy i'll go for that first. 

Homeopathy is quack. There's no other way around it. I know that proponents cling quite dearly to their anecdotal evidence they claim proves otherwise, but that is the truth.

First, a little history on homeopathy. The creator of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann, found that ingesting cinchona induced malaria-like symptoms in himself. Following this, he "decided" that since it did so to himself, it would to any other healthy individual. And then decided that if somebody was ill with malaria, ingesting cinchona would heal them.

So much for the scientific method.

After this, homeopathy went through a downright bizarre stage where he, again, decided that by creating a little ritual that included diluting the substance, and then fathoming a process whereby he would shake the mixture and bang it against stuff, it would be more effective. Perhaps it included a song and dance, too.

Not to mention, the dilution. Homeopathy uses the C as a measure of dilution, where each succesive C means diluting by a further factor of 100. Hahnemann advocated the use of a 30C dilution. That is, 1 molecule of active substance to 10^60 molecules of water. To put that into perspective, if you had 1 molecule of active substance, and then took a sphere where the radius is the distance from the earth to the sun, that would be roughly a 30C dilution. In fairness, in Hahnemann's time the molecule hadn't been discovered as the smallest unit of a chemical, so he wouldn't have known just how wrong he was.

But still. Homeopathy proponents maintain that despite such a dilution, water can in some way "remember" the active substance. As if, in some way, taking 2 hydrogen atoms, covalently bonding them to an oxygen atom and then hydrogen bonding the molecules to each other, creates a chemical with some inherent memory.

Ugh. It's a bit too easy for me to go off on one about this. :lol:

Also:
"My point was only that there are some immeasurable 
things that exist, that science cannot explain. "
-That doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with what every fairy-tale notion takes your fancy.


----------



## ProtectedRights

TGV @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> You're not really susceptible to logic, are you? As has been pointed out, either we both have a soul, or we both don't have one.



And how would you know that? Proof?

I have a soul. That's what I say, and that is true for me. 100%.

You don't have one. That's what you say and that must be true for you. 

So where is the logic here? I am not in the least dependent on how you judge about souls. *Your* belief in science and atoms does not make *my* soul disappear. And if I have one and you don't, then even your above statement is simply wrong. Again, that statement is just another assumption of yours.

As you can see this is not about logic. We are talking about stuff that nobody in the world can prove right or wrong. So belief is all that matters here. You gotta accept that.


----------



## TGV

KEnK @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> My point was only that there are some immeasurable things that exist, that science cannot explain.


1. Being immeasurable is not acceptable for science. If you cannot measure it, you cannot verify it. You can think about, etc., but not experiment upon it, since that requires measurement. So it's just a showstopper.
2. If acupuncture works, and cannot be scientifically explained, that doesn't imply that the other explanation is valid.
3. There are many things that can be measured, yet lack a good explanation. Gravity is an example. It has been studied extensively, and there is a very good working model of it, yet it still lacks an explanation that goes beyond "mass". That doesn't make it unscientific.

Science is about describing the world in all it's aspects, and doing that rigorously. It would like to understand, but if that's not feasible, so be it. But there are good methods to investigate the efficacy of a treatment, whether it is paracetamol or acupuncture.


----------



## TGV

ProtectedRights @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> I have a soul. That's what I say, and that is true for me. 100%.


It can be true for you, but that doesn't mean it's true. There are enough delusional people in this world to show my point.



> You don't have one. That's what you say and that must be true for you.


Not only do you lack any scientific knowledge, your language faculty also seems to be underdeveloped. The first sentence is a statement. You've formulated it explicitly to try to insult or irritate me.



> And if I have one and you don't, then even your above statement is simply wrong.


Please stop the childish suggestions that you're somehow better.


----------



## Richard Wilkinson

ProtectedRights @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> I have a soul. That's what I say, and that is true for me. 100%.
> 
> You don't have one. That's what you say and that must be true for you.
> 
> As you can see this is not about logic. We are talking about stuff that nobody in the world can prove right or wrong. So belief is all that matters here. You gotta accept that.



You don't say...

Just imagine if we replaced a century of scientific thinking, investigation, progress with your mentality. Without the sort of common sense, objective, reasoned, intelligent approach we'd have your foot-stamping, fingers-in-ears _"I have a magic pony and I don't care if anyone says otherwise. He's magic in my eyes..."_ nonsense.

Can you not see how silly it all sounds? 

And what do you mean by 'soul' - you still haven't explained it. Do you mean 'mind'? Presonality? Empathy? 


And saying _'even some western doctors are starting to come round to homeopathy' _ is insulting to an impressively large collection of different people. Well done.

But homeopathy is quite clearly quackery.


----------



## KEnK

I'm frankly amazed that acupuncture is being compared to fairy tails.

For me Acupuncture has been my first choice when I have a medical problem.
I've been doing this as needed for years.
It works.
It has been working for centuries.

As to my experience w/ homeopathy-

I recently had an obvious medical problem.
A good friend of mine has been studying homeopathy for years.
She suggested I try it for my problem.
I went into it in a neutral state, in neither a state of belief nor skepticism.
The healing effects have been and continue to be obvious.

If you insist that this is merely a placebo effect, (which I do not)
this also serves to prove my point.

What is the scientific evidence proving that a placebo can have a benefit?
Yet this placebo effect also exists and is immeasurable.

Some of you seem to know enough about homeopathy to make fun of it,
but your clearly biased view renders discussion moot.
Hahnemann did tons of methodical research.
While you may not accept his findings, 
his research methods were entirely in keeping w/ the scientific standards of the day.

k


----------



## TGV

KEnK @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> If you insist that this is merely a placebo effect, (which I do not) this also serves to prove my point.
> 
> What is the scientific evidence proving that a placebo can have a benefit?
> Yet this placebo effect also exists and is immeasurable.



If the effect exists, it is (per se) not immeasurable. It's very simple: you either give someone a treatment or you don't. There's your measurement. You can refine it by changing the dose of the treatment. Then you measure the results. Then you see if there's an effect or not.



> Some of you seem to know enough about homeopathy to make fun of it,
> but your clearly biased view renders discussion moot.



Ho there, cowboy. You're just as biased. But this is not about our personal beliefs, but whether something can be shown to have an effect and, if so, if the explanation makes sense. The explanations behind acupuncture make no sense. If acupuncture is shown to work, it has to be because of another reason.


----------



## David Chappell

> I went into it in a neutral state, in neither a state of belief nor skepticism.
> The healing effects have been and continue to be obvious.



Anecdotal evidence.



> What is the scientific evidence proving that a placebo can have a benefit?
> Yet this placebo effect also exists and is immeasurable.



here's one: http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD003974/ ... conditions
Though its effect on actually treating illnesses is still debatable, there is a lot of evidence that it has a benefit towards patient reported outcomes such as pain.



> Hahnemann did tons of methodical research.
> While you may not accept his findings,
> his research methods were entirely in keeping w/ the scientific standards of the day.



These were days in which blood letting was a popular treatment. Since then medical science has moved on quite a bit. It might have been in line with scientific standards of his days, but it is not with the scientific standards of today.


----------



## KEnK

_The explanations behind acupuncture make no sense. If acupuncture is shown to work, it has to be because of another reason._

The explanations do make sense, and diagnostics and treatment are repeatable
from acupuncturist to acupuncturist and have been for a very long time.

My point again is that the why of it remains immeasurable to western science.

_you either give someone a treatment or you don't. There's your measurement. You can refine it by changing the dose of the treatment. Then you measure the results. Then you see if there's an effect or not._ 

But somehow, this test doesn't apply to homeopathy.

I think my point is quite clear, simply that not every thing that exists is measurable.
Yet it's being ignored by some in this thread 
who prefer to make snide commentary about something I used to illustrate my point.

This is generally not the style of debate I prefer.
So I'm done here.

k


----------



## Richard Wilkinson

KEnK @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> As to my experience w/ homeopathy-
> 
> I recently had an obvious medical problem.
> A good friend of mine has been studying homeopathy for years.
> She suggested I try it for my problem.
> I went into it in a neutral state, in neither a state of belief nor skepticism.
> The healing effects have been and continue to be obvious.



If your problem was 'moderate thirst', then I'm willing to accept the homeopathy was effective in curing you.

For any other condition, it was likely the placebo effect. Homeopathy involves diluting the 'active' part of the solution to the point where there is none left. Do you understand this?

This article does a decent layman's explanation of homeopathy and the placebo effect.

James Randi often opens his talks by committing suicide by homeopathic overdose. Only it never seems to work. It's almost as if he's just drinking water and swallowing sugar pills.


----------



## TGV

KEnK @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> _you either give someone a treatment or you don't. There's your measurement. You can refine it by changing the dose of the treatment. Then you measure the results. Then you see if there's an effect or not._
> 
> But somehow, this test doesn't apply to homeopathy.



Of course that test applies to homeopathy. Treat one group of people with a homeopathic medicine and another group with just water, and see if the first group cures faster than the second. Done.


----------



## Richard Wilkinson

wilx @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> KEnK @ Wed Dec 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to my experience w/ homeopathy-
> 
> I recently had an obvious medical problem.
> A good friend of mine has been studying homeopathy for years.
> She suggested I try it for my problem.
> I went into it in a neutral state, in neither a state of belief nor skepticism.
> The healing effects have been and continue to be obvious.
Click to expand...


If your problem was 'moderate thirst', then I'm willing to accept the homeopathy was effective in curing you.

For any other condition, it was likely the placebo effect. Homeopathy involves diluting the 'active' part of the solution to the point where there is none left. Do you understand this?

This article does a decent layman's explanation of homeopathy and the placebo effect.

James Randi often opens his talks by committing suicide by homeopathic overdose. Only it never seems to work. It's almost as if he's just drinking water and swallowing sugar pills.

And finally, some more science.


----------



## Daryl

Homeopathy has been shown time and time again to be nonsense. With testing a certain percentage always get better because of the placebo effect. Homeopathic remedies have never been show to test positive above that percentage.

There is nothing wrong with placebo. It's just dangerous when people try to suggest homeopathy instead of medicine for serious illnesses.

BTW, back on topic, there is no such thing as perfect pitch. If there was, this whole topic might have some meaning, but I'm afraid that so-called perfect pitch is just a good memory for pitch.

D


----------



## Polarity

Daryl @ Wed 04 Dec said:


> BTW, back on topic, there is no such thing as perfect pitch. If there was, this whole topic might have some meaning, but I'm afraid that so-called perfect pitch is just a good memory for pitch.
> 
> D



good point.
memory of what one is always listening to almost everywhere: 440Hz tuned songs.

Also to me, that doesn't have perfect-pitch, initially the 432Hz loop gave me a sort of un-tuned impression.

I hope this topic stops to be a religious vs science battle and gets back to the topic:
a sound and music subject. 
(o) 0oD


----------



## ProtectedRights

Daryl @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> BTW, back on topic, there is no such thing as perfect pitch. If there was, this whole topic might have some meaning, but I'm afraid that so-called perfect pitch is just a good memory for pitch.
> D



This does not make the 432Hz question meaningless at all. The 432Hz thing might be something that is not working through your brains frequency detection but in some other manner.

And even if perfect pitch was a memory thing (which I doubt is 100% proven) then it would still all make sense since the western world is completely "tuned" to 440Hz nowadays.

Guys, a general remark, many many questions in science are still very much under investigation, there are studies that state A and some state B, sometimes these are actually contradictory positions. So as long as this is the case with something I would never dare to say A or B. Just be a little more cautious with what you reproduce. Because that is all we do here, reproduce something that we have read somewhere, not really knowing the originatory works/authors.


----------



## TGV

ProtectedRights @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> Just be a little more cautious with what you reproduce. Because that is all we do here, reproduce something that we have read somewhere, not really knowing the originatory works/authors.


I happen to have a PhD and two post-docs in cognitive psychology and neuro science. The explanation I gave about how the right tiny air vibrations can change someone's emotions come from study books, talking to researchers *and* first hand research...


----------



## David Chappell

Hmm, as to this notion of 432 being to do with natural harmonic, I'm slightly confused. Is it better because it resonates with some sort of natural brain/ bodily frequency?

If so, in what way can that possibly be desirable? If anything resonance is something you want to avoid. Just look at what it did to the Tacoma Narrows bridge! Even so I don't think the amplitudes of sound waves at standard listening volumes are high enough to make any much of an effect.

Also, not everyone's brain will have the same resonant frequency, so I don't see how 432 can be a one-size-fits-all frequency. And what if a track's in A#? That won't resonate as well as something in A.


----------



## Hannes_F

TGV @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> there are good methods to investigate the efficacy of a treatment, whether it is paracetamol or acupuncture.



http://online.liebertpub.com/loi/ACU


----------



## Polarity

Which plugins allow to tune differently from A440Hz?
Which have a Master Tune control in Hz?

Omnisphere has one, I remember.
Kontakt has it, I tried it.
I have Play 3... and I don't find a Master Tuning control in Hz. 
Is it the same on Play 4?


----------



## ryans

Daryl @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> there is no such thing as perfect pitch. If there was, this whole topic might have some meaning, but I'm afraid that so-called perfect pitch is just a good memory for pitch.



Not sure I understand your meaning here Daryl... Yes perfect pitch (as I understand it) is the ability to consistently recall pitches from memory. What else could it possibly be?

Ryan


----------



## Daryl

ryans @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Dec 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no such thing as perfect pitch. If there was, this whole topic might have some meaning, but I'm afraid that so-called perfect pitch is just a good memory for pitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure I understand your meaning here Daryl... Yes perfect pitch (as I understand it) is the ability to consistently recall pitches from memory. What else could it possibly be?
> 
> Ryan
Click to expand...

What I'm trying to say is that there is no such thing because pitch is not constant throughout the world. If I work in Germany, for example, everything sounds sharp to me, so I'm suggesting that the word "perfect" is inappropriate, as it would have to have been learned.

D


----------



## ryans

Daryl @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> What I'm trying to say is that there is no such thing because pitch is not constant throughout the world. If I work in Germany, for example, everything sounds sharp to me, so I'm suggesting that the word "perfect" is inappropriate, as it would have to have been learned.



Ah ok. Agreed that is an mildly inappropriate name for a learned skill. But it is still a skill that requires a certain amount of innate ability... 

Obviously there are no globally 'correct' pitches. 

Ryan


----------



## Darthmorphling

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." 

~Neil Degrasse Tyson
From Real Time with Bill Maher.

http://www.mentalfloss.com/article/1304 ... son-quotes


----------



## Hannes_F

Polarity @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> Which plugins allow to tune differently from A440Hz?
> Which have a Master Tune control in Hz?
> 
> Omnisphere has one, I remember.
> Kontakt has it, I tried it.
> I have Play 3... and I don't find a Master Tuning control in Hz.
> Is it the same on Play 4?



Play 4: Main Menu -> Advanced Instrument Properties -> Tune


----------



## Polarity

Great Hannes! :D 
Thanks a thousand! 
It's hidden there also in Play 3.
Now I remember I found it long time ago, but forgotten at all where it was. 

So... tuning down 32 cents you get A 432 Hz
tuning up 16 cents you get A 444 Hz.
You have to do for every part then... there is no Master Tune as in Kontakt or Omnisphere (and Trillian of course).

I tested with a Tuner VST plugin: I verified that many sounds are not perfectly stable already also on 440 Hz.
string sounds (LASS, CineStrings, QLSO Strings) are very fluctuating...
the same some pads from a couple of synths I tried (Saurus and Omnisphere).


----------



## vasio

Fun facts using A=432Hz concert pitch:

Verdi wrote the vocal parts for his operas assuming A=432Hz. Singing to A432 is much easier and healthier, and Verdi insisted on A432 for his operas, and wrote the vocal parts assuming the bel canto vocal break at F#. At A440, the break is at F, which is awkward for singing. In October 1953, a referendum of 23,000 French musicians voted overwhelmingly in favor of A=432Hz in the face of Germany and Britain pushing an A=440Hz standard.

Before the A440 standard, tuning pitches varied but there was a strong preference in Europe for a reference pitch in the range of A432 to A435, with A435 being used as recently as the 1950s by the New York Metropolitan Opera.

Joseph Sauveur (1653-1716), a contemporary of Bach and considered the father of musical acoustics, defined middle C as 256Hz. The leading acoustician in Beethoven’s time was Ernst Chladni (1756-1827), whose textbook on music theory explicitly defined C as 256Hz, the “scientific” tuning. Classical composer Giacomo Rossini (1792-1868) complained about higher tunings then prevalent in Italy saying, “We call A in Rome, what is B-flat in Paris.” The “French” A at that time was, by law, 435Hz, but in Italy it varied from A442 to A450.

A440 was slowly adopted as an international standard between 1955 and 1975, after being proposed by Germany in 1939.


----------



## Ed

Polarity @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> I hope this topic stops to be a religious vs science battle and gets back to the topic:
> a sound and music subject.
> (o) 0oD



That IS what this topic is about.


----------



## dedersen

ProtectedRights @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> Just be a little more cautious with what you reproduce. Because that is all we do here, reproduce something that we have read somewhere, not really knowing the originatory works/authors.


That's a pretty big assumption on your part...


----------



## Ed

KEnK @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> As to an infinitesimal amount of "poison" having any benefit-
> What do you think a vaccination is?



Please, please, please... find out what the difference is between a vaccine and homeopathy. :roll: They are absolutely nothing alike. Most notable difference is a vaccine is actually something, whereas homeopathy is nothing they are telling you is something. The next most notable difference is vaccines actually have been demonstrated to work. For more amazing differences please use Google to learn what a vaccination is, now compare and contrast.

Homeopathy is a dangerous belief that gets people killed. Here ishttp://www.calgarysun.com/2013/11/22/negligence-charges-pending-against-calgary-mom-who-used-holistic-treatment-before-son-died (one of the most recent victims). Homeopathy is just water and sugar pills (sometimes with added vitamins). Thats not even denied by homeopaths, since a really "strong" homeopathic remedy, one that is reaaaallyy potent, is one that has been diluted faaaarrrr past the point that there exists any possibility that there is any molecule of the original substance anyway. But its okay because the water still remembers the arsenic (or whatever). That is the whole point of the dilution process though, its what gives this water super special magic powers. Diluting it makes it more potent! Somehow! The only difference between this and literally being sold snake oil is that at least snake oil is actually more than just water. You might as well buy magic holy water from people who claim its blessed, but then you'd probably believe that too, there's http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX_kTJRCt2o (anecdotal claims) and everything. Order now!

See, you can even drink bleach this way. Im sure a homeopath somewhere will probably tell you this will cure you of some horrible illness.
Actually no, probably not, because he probably didnt shake it around in exactly the right motions.


----------



## ProtectedRights

dedersen @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> ProtectedRights @ Wed Dec 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just be a little more cautious with what you reproduce. Because that is all we do here, reproduce something that we have read somewhere, not really knowing the originatory works/authors.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a pretty big assumption on your part...
Click to expand...


You are right that it is an assumption, but what does "big" mean? I think it is a well guessed assumption.

Anyways, if you are also one of the science believers, *you* are not really writing this, right? It's only the laws of physics moving the atoms which make up your fingers 

Kinda fun making fun of you science believers  Only a bunch of atoms, hihi...


----------



## Ed

ProtectedRights @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> Anyways, if you are also one of the science believers, *you* are not really writing this, right?



I like how you call us science believers. Do you believe everything anyone claims or do you have some kind of standards or methodology with which to tell the difference between bollocks and whats true? Have you ever gone to the doctor? Had any real medical treatment? Do you care what their diagnosis is based on? Or what their credentials are? Would you be happy with someone giving you random chemicals they believe are good for you because some angel told them it would work? Would you be happy with someone giving you heart surgery that tells you they know how because the aliens have spoken to them in a dream and so they know exactly where to cut? Would you be happy to provide your bank details to someone that says they work for the bank of Nigeria and tells you they want to send you 50 million dollars? Because if so Im surprised you're still alive at this point. 

Btw the vibrational tones of the universe told me that you need to send me all your savings or you and your family will be sucked into a black hole. Do you want me to PM you my email address so you can arrange that? It is imperative that you do this. :o 



> Anyways, if you are also one of the science believers, *you* are not really writing this, right? It's only the laws of physics moving the atoms which make up your fingers
> .



lol, and what do you think is moving your fingers? Magic? Do the laws of physics not apply to your fingers? If we cut open your body will yours operate differently to everything we know about human biology? If we cut you, do you not bleed?


----------



## germancomponist

Huh, many very interesting post here.... .


----------



## ProtectedRights

Ed @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> ProtectedRights @ Wed Dec 04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways, if you are also one of the science believers, *you* are not really writing this, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you call us science believers. Do you believe everything anyone claims or do you have some kind of standards or methodology with which to tell the difference between bollocks and whats true? Have you ever gone to the doctor? Had any real medical treatment? Do you care what their diagnosis is based on? Or what their credentials are? Would you be happy with someone giving you random chemicals they believe are good for you because some angel told them it would work? Would you be happy with someone giving you heart surgery that tells you they know how because the aliens have spoken to them in a dream and so they know exactly where to cut? Would you be happy to provide your bank details to someone that says they work for the bank of Nigeria and tells you they want to send you 50 million dollars? Because if so Im surprised you're still alive at this point.
> 
> Btw the vibrational tones of the universe told me that you need to send me all your savings or you and your family will be sucked into a black hole. Do you want me to PM you my email address so you can arrange that? It is imperative that you do this. :o
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's only the laws of physics moving the atoms which make up your fingers
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, and what do you think is moving your fingers? Magic? Do the laws of physics not apply to your fingers? If we cut open your body will yours operate differently to everything we know about human biology? If we cut you, do you not bleed?
Click to expand...


Aha, I clearly notice that you are running out of arguments. That post is really weak. 

I understand the stuff that science proves by experiment. I also understand meaningful theories that are derived from experiments, and these theories are reasonable, but might or might not be directly provable. Still, most of what science does makes good sense.

BUT: stuff like love and emotions are beyond proof (seriously, the pathetic childish "rough" explanations given here are nothing but trash). They are even not reproducible in standardized experiments. So they are beyond exact scientific methods. And here is where you jump in and BELIEVE that science can still answer all questions that ever arise in our universe. And I BELIEVE that science can't do this. We are both believers in this, because for neither position a proof is possible.


----------



## SyMTiK

while all of you people bicker about some sciency stuff, i thought i would get back to the music side of things and just make a quick comparison of the sound of 432 hz vs 440hz tuning. examples are 432 hz first, followed by 440hz. examples on piano first, then around halfway i play them all again but on strings just to give a taste of the sound on different instruments. 

i personally think the only difference i notice between the two is that 432 hz has a little more of a warm tone, and really sounds good with minor chords. it also makes major chords sound a little moodier in my mind. 

so pretty much what i got: 432hz = a little more moody of a sound, warm and round 

440 hz = a little happier of a sound, somewhat harsher sound

https://soundcloud.com/mystik-6/432hz-vs-440hz-tuning


----------



## midi_controller

Interesting post SyMTiK. The 432Hz sounded wrong to me, but that is probably just that I've been conditioned to 440Hz my whole life. The only problem I can see is that just re-tuning samples might not give the proper result if it was recorded at 440. I think for a more valid comparison, we would need to hear properly re-tuned instruments.


----------



## germancomponist

In the real world, when you tune the violin, celli, viola and the bass at 432 Hz the sound changes a little bit, sounds softer. 440 Hz and higher sounds more brilliant.

In the sample world when you de-tune the samples, experiment with tuning, for example, an "a" - 8 Hz, and an "gis" correspondingly higher. Big different soundwise! 

This technique is used by many, even if one remains at 440 Hz. No experiment is too bad to get the best sound.


----------



## TGV

ProtectedRights @ Tue Dec 10 said:


> BUT: stuff like love and emotions are beyond proof (seriously, the pathetic childish "rough" explanations given here are nothing but trash).


They may be rough, but they are more detailed than your "i've got no idea whatsoever, so I'll just say the first thing that comforts my prejudiced mind".



> They are even not reproducible in standardized experiments.


Yes they are.



> And I BELIEVE that science can't do this. We are both believers in this, because for neither position a proof is possible.


It's word play, using two connotations of the same word. Your belief is empty, not based in experience, solely a mental construction. While you can say that there are gaps in the explanations given (as admitted), you can't say the explanations show no path towards a mechanical explanation, nor that any of the identified steps is wrong in itself.

Your belief does not require any of these steps to be true. In your belief, they are superfluous: we don't need hormones, we don't need neuro-transmitters, we don't need an auditory cortex. Heck, we don't even need air vibrations to transmit meaning, since they don't reach our mind anyway.

Now tell me why I cannot reach that final conclusion, and I'll show you where you're wrong, or violating either Occam's Razor or apply analogy-by-ignorance.

Because in the end, science is about getting our knowledge in a consistent and verifiable way. It's not about experimenting per se. A statement such as Descartes' cogito can be considered science (albeit in the domain of mental and linguistic constructions). Math and logic are science, yet do not involve any experiment.

So either you accept that what you talk about cannot be talked about, or you accept that we have much more in common with plants and animals than people could imagine up until a few hundred years ago. Otherwise it is zealotry.


----------



## Hannes_F

Materialistic vs. idealistic world view is an age-old conflict while the best thinkers have always combined both to a whole.


----------



## ProtectedRights

@TGV: No it's not words play. I think you are not mature enough to be able to discuss this topic. You are so "embeded" into your science view of the world that you can't take the critical overview from above. 

These are abilities that come when getting mature and wise.


----------



## TGV

ProtectedRights @ Tue Dec 10 said:


> These are abilities that come when getting mature and wise.


Wisdom comes from study, not from closing one's eyes to the world around.


----------



## ProtectedRights

Ed @ Wed Dec 04 said:


> lol, and what do you think is moving your fingers? Magic?



Yes, you might call it magic if you want. 

The movement itself adheres to the laws of physics, but I decide(!) what moves and where it moves. Arm to the left or to the right. My decision. Not a deterministic mechanics thing that you could predict, and not a probability quantum mechanics thing either. My will / my decision.

Anyway, now I am out for good. Believe that you are just heaps of atoms, believe that you have no soul, believe that you don't have a will, believe that you are only a film directed by quantum mechanic laws. 

I will never get it how one can believe that as it makes you nothing more but a puppet.


----------



## Hannes_F

TGV @ Tue Dec 10 said:


> ProtectedRights @ Tue Dec 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are abilities that come when getting mature and wise.
> 
> 
> 
> Wisdom comes from study, not from closing one's eyes to the world around.
Click to expand...


Why not study outside with open eyes _and _inside (which actually may include closing one's eyes sometimes)?


----------



## TGV

Hannes_F @ Tue Dec 10 said:


> Why not study outside with open eyes _and _inside (which actually may include closing one's eyes sometimes)?


Descartes tried that, and while he did reach that one memorable statement, he also concluded that it leads to solipsism, which is fine if you want to withdraw from the world, but not if you stand in it.

I appreciate that you're sympathizing with ProtectedRights, perhaps because he seems to have the underdog position in this discussion, or perhaps because you agree with his stance, but he is effectively closing his eyes to some fundamental truths, and denying them, without any argumentation.

Even a simple question such as: is there a need for using air vibrations to transmit a meaning, when these waves cannot possibly reach the soul for which it's meant? is ignored, and ridiculed by using seemingly sage concepts such as wisdom and maturity.

I'll leave him be, if you so desire.


----------



## Hannes_F

TGV, I am representing my own POV here and not acting as a moderator. 

Unfortunately I did not have time to read through all the conversation in this thread. So I'll just answer to your last post.

Idealism can be taken to the extreme in the sense that the outer world would not have any reality and only subjectivity would be real. Nietzsche would be an example, and probably that is what is meant by Solipsism by Descartes how you cited it.

On the other hand Materialism (I mean philosophical materialism like represented by Marx and others which differs much from the usual meaning of this word) can also be taken to the extreme. Materialistic explanations are good and can go long ways (I am a physicist myself) but they have a hard time to explain what it is that everybody knows as "I".

I prefer what can be called Objective Idealism. The outside world exists and has its reality for everybody and everything in it, however the cause and substance of everything is what could be called Spirit-Matter-Consciousness-Life that can exist in infinitely different grades of states and represents itself as matter if being in a very fettered state. For me this is the only logical philosophical solution for the otherwise unsolvable dilemma that life and consciusness should somehow generate from dead matter-points.

EDIT
I should add that it is not so much about a battle which point of view should be superior to the other. I'm teaching physics and philosophy for students and regularly ask them to switch axioms (that need to explained much more deeply than it is possible here of course in order to avoid misunderstandigs and hyperbole). If they learn to switch and get out of their used world view into another one, and then after a while return to what they had before but with additional insights this is perceived to be of great benefit.


----------



## TGV

Ah, but we can logically approach the "I" from the material side as well. Minsky said (30 years ago, mind you): consciousness is probably just a feedback loop. And notice that we're not born with a sense of self, but that it develops somewhere in adolescence, and that some never get it.

It's not hard to distinguish human qualities in animals, and it's not hard to recognize our animal descent. Some animals can be considered to have a sense of self. So, what sets us apart from those animals? Either you invoke a creator that has blessed only the human race with a magic soul, or you're stuck with a materialistic explanation. And the original challenge (how can we feel emotions triggered by air vibrations, i.e. someone uttering something like "I love you") has a fair explanation, that just uses common mechanisms, and does not require an immaterial soul.

I feel partial to your deistic world view, and I also understand ProtectedRight's sentiments that things can get lost when all is mechanical, but there is also great wonder in there.

And, of course, we shouldn't confuse mechanical with deterministic. I don't see a compelling reason to think that being a bunch of particles makes us deterministic robots.


----------



## Nuno

TGV @ Tue Dec 10 said:


> Hannes_F @ Tue Dec 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not study outside with open eyes _and _inside (which actually may include closing one's eyes sometimes)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate that you're sympathizing with ProtectedRights, perhaps because he seems to have the underdog position in this discussion, or perhaps because you agree with his stance, but he is effectively closing his eyes to some fundamental truths, and denying them, without any argumentation.
Click to expand...


Sorry, TGV, i think it would be good for you to close the eyes sometimes and look inside, silently, for your inner world. You're obviously not much aware of that place inside of you. I guess is this that ProtectedRights and Hannes are trying to say to you. 

You know, sometimes is very difficult to argumentate something that you know intuitively, maybe because you don't know how you know it, you just know it, and it's so evident to you. But you cannot translate it precisely through words, because the mind is rational and cannot grasp it..but then you have art, you have music, painting, etc, and you can express it. 

Perhaps the fundamental truths (as you call it) coexists with other truths not well understand yet!? Be open to that possibility...the truth also come from the inside, and maybe you are too much focused on the outside world that is very much illusory..mayan. Just to give you an obvious example, think on the audible and visible spectrum perceived by us, humans...


----------



## TGV

I'm perfectly fine with that, Nuno, but it's not a basis to deny logical and experimental facts. ProtectedRights started stating this: "science cannot explain emotions. science cannot explain why a minor chord transports sadness while a major chord transports happiness. now why would you believe that science can explain the 432 Hertz thing?"

There is of course an explanation for emotions. Animals have emotions. And there is of course an explanation for the minor chord: it's acquired (i.e. learned, if only because not every minor chord triggers sadness in every person on this planet).

However, he didn't like this materialistic explanation, and rejected it without any argumentation, except repeating "you don't know everything" and "i believe". That's not a basis for discussion. That's just trying to get your way, and hoping that by sticking your head in the sand it will go away.


----------



## Hannes_F

TGV, I'll comment on your last post in detail, just to show that arguments can be countered. I'm generally not so much into being discursive, so I'll do this only once as a little excercise and maybe it can be of help.



TGV @ Tue Dec 10 said:


> Ah, but we can logically approach the "I" from the material side as well. Minsky said (30 years ago, mind you): consciousness is probably just a feedback loop.



which explains nothing because you can feedback a zero as often as you want and it will ever be a zero.



> And notice that we're not born with a sense of self, but that it develops somewhere in adolescence, and that some never get it.



Of course we are born with a sense of Self but not with a sense of 'I am "I"'. We need to be more exact here.



> It's not hard to distinguish human qualities in animals, and it's not hard to recognize our animal descent. Some animals can be considered to have a sense of self.



In my picture: of course, because the same Spirit-Matter-Consciousness-Life runs through everything, however differently developed.



> So, what sets us apart from those animals? Either you invoke a creator that has blessed only the human race with a magic soul, or you're stuck with a materialistic explanation.



That is a grossly false conclusion and reduction of possibilities and we need to be much more rigorous in our logic than that.



> And the original challenge (how can we feel emotions triggered by air vibrations, i.e. someone uttering something like "I love you") has a fair explanation, that just uses common mechanisms, and does not require an immaterial soul.



Agreed, as I said that the mechanistic point of view has its merits and can explain up to a certain point. That does not include that it would be complete or exclusive.



> I feel partial to your deistic world view



How can you conclude that I have a deistic world view from what I wrote? It is dangerous to project preconceptions into the arguments of others, so we need much better philosophical accuracy here.



> , and I also understand ProtectedRight's sentiments that things can get lost when all is mechanical, but there is also great wonder in there.



So we need to take refuge to adding wonders in order to maintain a purely materialistic world view?



> And, of course, we shouldn't confuse mechanical with deterministic. I don't see a compelling reason to think that being a bunch of particles makes us deterministic robots.



Materialistic is not identical with deterministic if we introduce chance and statistical behaviour as being the lawful absence of order or law.


----------



## Hannes_F

Nuno @ Tue Dec 10 said:


> ...the truth also come from the inside, and maybe you are too much focused on the outside world that is very much illusory..mayan.



Very true . . . by a proper understanding of the concept of Maya much of the difficulties could easily be solved. Maya alias illusion due to reduction does not mean that the outside world is not there but that it is not exactly what we think it to be. But if we step into vedic philosophy here I fear we'll loose our materialistic friends entirely :mrgreen:


----------



## ProtectedRights

TGV @ Tue Dec 10 said:


> I appreciate that you're sympathizing with ProtectedRights, perhaps because he seems to have the underdog position in this discussion, or perhaps because you agree with his stance, but he is effectively closing his eyes to some fundamental truths, and denying them, without any argumentation.



Can't leave this wrong statement uncommented. Please don't lie. I do not deny any findings of science.

I accept the laws of physics, and that large scale mechanics explain why an apple repeatedly and predictably falls down to earth. I also accept that experiments like the double-slit interferometer show that some things are rather "chance" because of the underlying probability and distribution kind of laws that apply for small scale stuff.

But, the actions of humans do not fall in either category, they are neither predictable nor pure chance. So now it is your(!) problem to explain that with what you have in science. It is your problem to explain free will, love, emotions, and the whole inner world of thoughts. Ridiculous to say thats nothing but some molecules floating around.



And I have to agree to Nuno. There are some things that you just feel and can't explain. 



@TGV:
I think you would be amazed if you open up more to the world of feelings and don't demand reasoning to take over 100% of your life.


----------



## thebob

I refrained myself from participating here but thank you Hannes, really, your posts and rigor are a relief.


----------



## Richard Wilkinson

ProtectedRights @ Tue Dec 10 said:


> It is your problem to explain free will, love, emotions, and the whole inner world of thoughts. Ridiculous to say thats nothing but some molecules floating around.
> 
> And I have to agree to Nuno. There are some things that you just feel and can't explain.



What's your issue with molecules? You're starting to sound like the Insane Clown Posse with their magnet-phobia.

Mount Everest, a butterfly, the Mona Lisa - they're all just 'molecules'. Does that reduce their wonder/complexity/awe/value? 

...does it bollocks. 

And as nice as it sounds, this hippy nonesense of saying _"I can just feel it in my heart - it's magical"
_ - isn't really sensible or helpful. It's a common religious argument. I want to think this way so I shall. I _feel_ God exists and to me he's real. You're stepping so far outside how normal, grown-up humans make sense of stuff that any discussion is impossible.

How can you not understand that whatever value you place on art, emotions, free will etc, explaining or 'reducing' them to mechanisms, or functions of physics or biology or neurology does NOT diminish the value of them or the effect they have.


----------



## midi_controller

ProtectedRights @ Tue Dec 10 said:


> ...the actions of humans do not fall in either category, they are neither predictable nor pure chance.



Human beings are very predictable. Since we are discussing art and it's effect on people, why do you think that so many films are so similar? So many books? So much music? If I know using certain chord progressions evoke certain moods in people (depending on their cultural background), wouldn't that make the emotional reaction of those people predictable? Other reactions, especially physical ones, are very easy to predict as well. For example, what would you do if someone threw a brick at your head? 

Demystifying emotions and what causes them doesn't make them any less powerful. It just means you understand them better.

@Nuno: Sorry, I just have to point something out really quick in response to this: "You know, sometimes is very difficult to argumentate something that you know intuitively, maybe because you don't know how you know it, you just know it, and it's so evident to you."

Ever met a paranoid schizophrenic? Someone who spoke in tongues? How about a racist? They will be more than happy to agree with you on that one. The human mind is a funny thing. We have the capability to convince ourselves of practically anything, and believe it with every fiber of our being, but that doesn't make it true. This is why indoctrination is so dangerous, especially to children, because once that belief is solidified in someone's mind, it can be almost impossible to prove to them that they are mistaken. People are willing to die, or worse, _kill_ for these beliefs. Truth is not, and never will be subjective, and as such can't "come from the inside" as you put it. 

I consider myself a very rational person, but I still feel, empathize, dream, and wonder just like everyone else does. My knowledge of science isn't at odds with what you call my "inner world", but rather is just an examination of it, a way to learn more about myself and others, about what we are and our place in this incredible universe we live in. "Just because" will never be a good enough answer for me, because I hunger for knowledge. To just sit back and think that there are things that can't be explained, I'm sorry, but that sounds horribly boring! It's the search that makes it so interesting!


----------



## Nuno

> @Nuno: Sorry, I just have to point something out really quick in response to this: "You know, sometimes is very difficult to argumentate something that you know intuitively, maybe because you don't know how you know it, you just know it, and it's so evident to you."
> 
> Ever met a paranoid schizophrenic? Someone who spoke in tongues? How about a racist? They will be more than happy to agree with you on that one. The human mind is a funny thing. We have the capability to convince ourselves of practically anything, and believe it with every fiber of our being, but that doesn't make it true. This is why indoctrination is so dangerous, especially to children, because once that belief is solidified in someone's mind, it can be almost impossible to prove to them that they are mistaken. People are willing to die, or worse, _kill_ for these beliefs. Truth is not, and never will be subjective, and as such can't "come from the inside" as you put it.



Of course… that does not come from the truth. That come from hate, which come from fear. Fear and love are the most basic emotions, and I (try to) only believe in love, which is my guide to know what is really true. I think you are missing a very important point..and again, i must say that i believe that truth is not a mind thing!

edit: and yes, I know some people like this, they are trapped in their minds.


----------



## Nuno

> "Just because" will never be a good enough answer for me, because I hunger for knowledge. To just sit back and think that there are things that can't be explained, I'm sorry, but that sounds horribly boring! It's the search that makes it so interesting!



+1 :D


----------



## TGV

Hannes_F @ Tue Dec 10 said:


> TGV @ Tue Dec 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but we can logically approach the "I" from the material side as well. Minsky said (30 years ago, mind you): consciousness is probably just a feedback loop.
> 
> 
> 
> which explains nothing because you can feedback a zero as often as you want and it will ever be a zero.
Click to expand...

That is if you assume there is only 0, i.e. no mental state exists. If you provide a system with a history of itself and its previous states, you've got a feedback loop that can show some sense of self-awareness. It just shows that consciousness does not necessarily escape a reductionist explanation. Actually, many of our mental inconsistencies and errors are better explained by assuming the cause is neurological, rather than spiritual, in nature.



> And notice that we're not born with a sense of self, but that it develops somewhere in adolescence, and that some never get it.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we are born with a sense of Self but not with a sense of "I". We need to be more exact here.
Click to expand...

I consider "self" and "I" are one and the same. Perhaps I should have written "self awareness".



> It's not hard to distinguish human qualities in animals, and it's not hard to recognize our animal descent. Some animals can be considered to have a sense of self.
> 
> 
> 
> In my picture: of course, because the same Spirit-Matter-Consciousness-Life runs through everything, however differently developed.
Click to expand...

Through single cell creatures? Through rocks? Through vacuum? Is it material? Would it be measurable?



> So, what sets us apart from those animals? Either you invoke a creator that has blessed only the human race with a magic soul, or you're stuck with a materialistic explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a grossly false conclusion and reduction of possibilities and we need to be much more rigorous in our logic than that.
Click to expand...

Your Spirit-Matter-Consciousness-Life exists somehow, so it's either material, or has a supernatural source from some sort of creator. What (common) alternatives are there? Some unidentified type of matter?



> I feel partial to your deistic world view
> 
> 
> 
> How can you conclude that I have a deistic world view from what I wrote? It is dangerous to project preconceptions into the arguments of others, so we need much better philosophical accuracy here.
Click to expand...

From Spirit-Matter-Consciousness-Life. You explicitly avoid to write "God", but you don't subscribe to a 100% materialistic world view. Since you take SMCL and its origin for granted, it's a stance pretty close to deism in my book. Perhaps it's more like theism, unless SMCL was created like all matter.



> and I also understand ProtectedRight's sentiments that things can get lost when all is mechanical, but there is also great wonder in there.
> 
> 
> 
> So we need to take refuge to adding wonders in order to maintain a purely materialistic world view?
Click to expand...

No. But he expressed concern with not having a soul, i.e. losing the wonder of life. But from my point of view that wonder still exists. I'd say it's even greater, since it does not just stop at some a supernatural entity beyond any knowledge.



> And, of course, we shouldn't confuse mechanical with deterministic. I don't see a compelling reason to think that being a bunch of particles makes us deterministic robots.
> 
> 
> 
> Materialistic is not identical with deterministic if we introduce chance and statistical behaviour as being the lawful absence of order or law.
Click to expand...

Indeed, although I had a colleague, a Russian neuro-biologist, that was very persistent in his deterministic views. Taking that stance could easily leads to misanthropy, though, something I'd like to avoid.


----------



## Musicologo

These topic leave me with more questions than answers. Specially when, then, you read something like this:

http://www.nature.com/news/simulations- ... am-1.14328


----------



## germancomponist

Musicologo @ Tue Dec 10 said:


> These topic leave me with more questions than answers. Specially when, then, you read something like this:
> 
> http://www.nature.com/news/simulations- ... am-1.14328



Interesting!


----------



## dedersen

While that paper is certainly intriguing, I feel obliged to point out that that it in absolutely NO way, not even remotely, validates some of the...non-conventional...ideas put forth in this thread.


----------



## Nuno

dedersen @ Tue Dec 10 said:


> While that paper is certainly intriguing, I feel obliged to point out that that it in absolutely NO way, not even remotely, validates some of the...non-conventional...ideas put forth in this thread.



Resistance is futile!


----------



## Nuno

Ok...here is a scientific study that proves that propagated sensation along the meridians of energy exists objectively (as I described by personal experience before in this thread)

http://phys.org/wire-news/147782472/pro ... ively.html


----------



## Musicologo

Nuno, the "problem" of acunpuncture and other similar therapies is that they are just that: "therapies", they are not "medicine".

The difference? Medicine tries to understand causes and effects. Tries to understand the process. You start in a -> b -> c. So when you prescribe a medicin you know it will have an effect because you know the causes and the processes involved so you can produce a substance that will work on that process.

In therapies is the reverse. You had a long tradition of trial and error, and you know the therapy works. You know that using a needle in some point it triggers an effect. But you don't know WHY it happens. 
You don't know the cause, neither the way it works. Then someone made up explanations a posteriori inventing terms to try to explain it. But those explanations most of the time have no grounds at all neither they seem reasonable.

Is like someone knowing "if I drop a ball it will fall. I KNOW THAT and I know it works. now why does the ball drops? Well it's because of the blue dragon."

So, from my knowledge up to now I can say that: I respect some therapies, because there is empirical evidence among many years of trial and error and many humans suffering the effects, that they work. But I don't accept the theories or the explanations given for them to work. And I would like science to find one day WHY do they work and give a reasonable explanation for the fact. When that day happens perhaps we can even optimize the use of needles and discover even better ways to use them.


----------



## Nuno

Olá Musicólogo  



Musicologo @ Wed Dec 11 said:


> Nuno, the "problem" of acunpuncture and other similar therapies is that they are just that: "therapies", they are not "medicine".



Medicine comes from the latin word _Medicina_, which means the Art of Healing. Even in Portugal, the Law for the Complementary Therapies recognize Acupuncture as part of the Tradicional Chinese Medicine (TCM). :wink: But that is not important...




> The difference? Medicine tries to understand causes and effects. Tries to understand the process. You start in a -> b -> c. So when you prescribe a medicin you know it will have an effect because you know the causes and the processes involved so you can produce a substance that will work on that process.



Is it so? Conventional medicine has an allopathic approach, it uses drugs to treat or suppress SYMPTONS or pathophysiologic process of disease, usually not addressing the causes of illness. It is focused on disease. It’s a reductionist system based on the CARTESIAN view of Man it does not see the whole picture, thus it is disconnected from nature.

Imagine you’ve been having migraines almost every day. You go to the doctor and he prescribes you painkillers, which will make the pain go away but obviously it will return because your pill was only blocking some agents of pain in your organism. Is medicine here addressing the causes? 

Or, imagine you’ve been depressed. You start taking Xanax and begin to feel better. But after a few months, you try to stop taking those pills because you are starting to feel some side-effects: you are feeling more and more fatigued, have headaches, and started to miss work. But then, as soon you miss your first pill, you start to experience the withdrawal symptoms and you feel worse than ever. Is this healing, was the substance working? Don't agree that this therapy process was only masking symptoms, and that the underlying factors of the depression are still there?




> In therapies is the reverse. You had a long tradition of trial and error, and you know the therapy works. You know that using a needle in some point it triggers an effect. But you don't know WHY it happens.



Yes, you know how it happens in terms of energy (Qi). There are thousands of books explaining it. But, you have to start by study and practice at least five years to begin to understand it. I understand, however, that’s not a satisfactory explanation for you because it involves a shift in the paradigm of thinking.



> You don't know the cause, neither the way it works. Then someone made up explanations a posteriori inventing terms to try to explain it. But those explanations most of the time have no grounds at all neither they seem reasonable.



That is not true. It happened the other way around. TCM has its roots in Taoism. Ancient taoists spent an enormous amount of time just observing nature and the interactions of forces that exists in the natural world and from there they developed the concept of Yin and Yang. They saw mankind (microcosm) only as part of nature (macrocosm), and so they applied the same natural rules to describe the energetic dynamics in the human being. Of course the development of herbal formulas and the use of acupuncture points involved a lot of trial and error but most of the theory were already there, or evolved from those philosophical foundations.



> Is like someone knowing "if I drop a ball it will fall. I KNOW THAT and I know it works. now why does the ball drops? Well it's because of the blue dragon."



This is only your right brain thinking.



> So, from my knowledge up to now I can say that: I respect some therapies, because there is empirical evidence among many years of trial and error and many humans suffering the effects, that they work. But I don't accept the theories or the explanations given for them to work. And I would like science to find one day WHY do they work and give a reasonable explanation for the fact. When that day happens perhaps we can even optimize the use of needles and discover even better ways to use them.



I doubt it, because that would mean that this knowledge had been filtered through the reductionist lens and thus lose its holistic view of the human being, which is the essence of traditional medicine.

As a final note I just want to say that I’m not against conventional medicine, I see a lot of benefits in the conventional methods: surgery, life support systems, urgency, clinical exams, just to name a few. And I don’t like the term alternative medicine, either. I prefer the term complementary medicine because it’s what we do; we complement each other very well. 

You will see, Integrative Medicine is the future…


----------



## TimJohnson

I got in touch with my inner-self once. Never bought cheap toilet paper again.


----------



## ProtectedRights

@TGV:

Another thing that occurs to me, I just want to mention it.

So you think you, with your PhD in NeuroSciences, can explain the world in full.

Don't you get the unreal overestimation of yourselves capabilites here? Try thinking of some guy in the 17th century, capable of e.g. explaining the planets movements and whatever. He says a piece of metal weighing a ton will never be able to fly. A bulb of glass with a small wire in it won't ever emit light. Later, jets and light bulbs / electricity are invented/discovered.

What is the difference to you? You live 350 years later. So now you tell me science knows everything one needs to know? You gotta be kidding me.

What really turns me off is how you overestimate yourself. You assume that only the laws of physics known until today apply and that there is nothing else. You deny that there might be a layer or a level of reality that we cannot yet see with physical methods. Like they didn't see electricity back in those days.
This is the worst thing, that you think that you can be sure that there is nothing more to reveal. To the contrary, you say everything can be explained with the rather coarse rules we have found until today.

Just think of it this way. Stay open. Allow that something might be discovered in the future that we don't know today. A new dimension, where completely new rules apply. Which might explain free will and so forth. Just stay open minded and don't make the error to think that you can explain everything and that you know everything one needs to know. For your daily life that might work out pretty well, but for discussions about the transcendent it sucks.


----------



## Nuno

Yes, that is the most important, don't believe in us, but stay OPEN MINDED!

o-[][]-o


----------



## pinki

Hannes I want to thank you for those posts. Inspired. Whenever I get into this situation I always end up arguing as Protected Rights has...emotionally (because I'm a musician!)

But I can see clearly now that a logical rational stance is the only way to take on the "science explains, or will eventually explain everything" brigade, who seem so utterly rigid in their views. Fighting fire with fire as Mr Byrne said.

When I'm writing music I always try to totally eliminate any of those flaky and unpredictable emotions .... and get it on a purely rational basis devoid of feeling. Works wonders.


----------



## Udo

*The tuning of musical instruments today has a negative impact on listeners ....*

Below just one excerpt from something I had bookmarked (and there's much more when you follow the link below :wink: ).

"The tuning of musical instruments today has a negative impact on listeners:

Back in the old days of orchestral music and earlier, instruments were tuned to C 528Hz, which is called the Solfeggio Scale. The 7 notes in this scale harmonize with the 7 main chakras of the body.

Unfortunately, around the 1940′s, when modern musical instruments were being invented (ie the electric guitar and electric pianos), this tuning was changed. The Rockefeller foundation sponsored the music industry. In doing so, they guided the development of modern instruments. As a result, modern instruments were now tuned to A 440Hz instead of Solfeggio scale of C 528Hz. If you go to a music store to buy a guitar tuner for example, they are all tuned to A440 by default.

Paul McCartney and John Lennon played some of their most famous songs in 528Hz!

Stupification of the Human Race through Mainstream Music

The 528 frequency resonates with the chakra system, while the 440 hz dissonates it–specifically with the throat chakra, basically shutting it down; by destroying one link in the chain, the rest cannot connect with each other. The tuning of the instruments at A440 interferes with the flow of energy in the chakra system"

http://beforeitsnews.com/beyond-science ... 41232.html


----------



## Udo

..... and of course, there's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... tern_music

Earlier I also posted: "Explainer: what is music therapy?" www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35406


----------



## Musicologo

We are all open minded, I guess. We are just not open to believe in unreasonable or illogical claims that go against evidence, facts, or information we already possess. Or even more, to believe in something stupid when there are other explanations more adequate for any phenomena. 

Example: If I do a logical thinking and find out that my migraine is because of high blood pressure because I've eaten a lot of salty food earlier, I don't use a painkiller nor a needle nor a prayer. I drink two glasses of water to dilute the salt concentration in my body and my migraine goes away.


----------



## dedersen

ProtectedRights @ Fri Dec 13 said:


> What is the difference to you? You live 350 years later. So now you tell me science knows everything one needs to know? You gotta be kidding me.
> 
> What really turns me off is how you overestimate yourself.


Ah, but that's really the exact opposite of what is really the case, isn't it? Science deals with empirical, reproducable evidence. Predictions should be reproducable by different people, in fact it should be entirely objective, in the sense that the person conducting the experiment has as little influence on the outcome as at all possible. And it's open-minded in the extreme, in that empirical evidence trumps ALL other things, including what beliefs you might cling on to.

This is in pretty stark contrast to the views presented by some posters here, who base claims pretty much solely on personal experiences and beliefs. "I feel this", "I know this", "look inside yourself". These are all entirely subjective, personal pseudo-arguments that amount to saying "I believe this is true, thus it must be true". THAT is overestimating yourself. It also represents a very human-centric view of our world, in that the inner belief of humans somehow represent a deep truth about how the world functions. I don't feel the need to place myself in the center of the entire universe quite that strongly.


----------



## dedersen

Udo @ Fri Dec 13 said:


> ..... and of course, there's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... tern_music
> 
> Earlier I also posted: "Explainer: what is music therapy?" www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35406


Tthe article you link to has this interesting snippet:

"The ability of music to change our mood seems to be related to the production of different chemicals in the brain. Endorphins triggered by music listening and music-making provide a kind of natural pain relief, where dopamine leads to feelings of buoyancy, optimism, energy and power."


----------



## germancomponist

pinki @ Fri Dec 13 said:


> When I'm writing music I always try to totally eliminate any of those flaky and unpredictable emotions .... and get it on a purely rational basis devoid of feeling. Works wonders.



+1

This is not as easy, but it is a very good way ... .


----------



## Richard Wilkinson

Nuno @ Thu Dec 12 said:


> As a final note I just want to say that I’m not against conventional medicine, I see a lot of benefits in the conventional methods: surgery, life support systems, urgency, clinical exams, just to name a few. And I don’t like the term alternative medicine, either. I prefer the term complementary medicine because it’s what we do; we complement each other very well.
> 
> You will see, Integrative Medicine is the future…



Do you know what they call alternative medicine that's been proven to work?



Medicine.




A couple of people here trotting out this ridiculous false idea that we're claiming "science has all the answers".
Of course it doesn't - science has all the _questions_. It's very different. 
Chakra noodling and nude gregorian chanting and homeopathy don't really seem all that confident in asking questions, as the application of sense does their credibility a great deal of harm.


----------



## Nuno

-1

What would be music without emotions and feelings..!?


----------



## germancomponist

wilx @ Fri Dec 13 said:


> A couple of people here trotting out this ridiculous false idea that we're claiming "science has all the answers".
> Of course it doesn't - science has all the _questions_. It's very different.
> Chakra noodling and nude gregorian chanting and homeopathy don't really seem all that confident in asking questions, as the application of sense does their credibility a great deal of harm.



+1

Scientists claim that the whole world and the universe is just a meaningless coincidence. :mrgreen:


----------



## re-peat

Nuno @ Fri Dec 13 said:


> What would be music without emotions and feelings..!?


Music.

_


----------



## Nuno

Musicologo @ Thu Dec 12 said:


> Example: If I do a logical thinking and find out that my migraine is because of high blood pressure because I've eaten a lot of salty food earlier, I don't use a painkiller nor a needle nor a prayer. I drink two glasses of water to dilute the salt concentration in my body and my migraine goes away.



Your confusing migraine with a simple headache. Migraine is a syndrome not well understood by conventional medicine and its triggered by many things. In TCM the mechanism is described by disorders in the Liver energy(to put it extremely simple) and there's evidence that acupuncture is much more effective than conventional treatments for migraine.


----------



## Nuno

re-peat @ Fri Dec 13 said:


> Nuno @ Fri Dec 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would be music without emotions and feelings..!?
> 
> 
> 
> Music.
> 
> _
Click to expand...


Yes, but without emotions and feelings.


----------



## germancomponist

Nuno @ Fri Dec 13 said:


> Yes, but without emotions and feelings.



Emotions and feelings become ridiculed by many scientists . The hardest are those who use it in every sentence, the words "logical" or "illogical". :-D


----------



## Nuno

germancomponist @ Fri Dec 13 said:


> Nuno @ Fri Dec 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but without emotions and feelings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emotions and feelings become ridiculed by many scientists . The hardest are those who use it in every sentence, the words "logical" or "illogical". :-D
Click to expand...




That reminds me programming language for computer... :D


----------



## dedersen

germancomponist @ Fri Dec 13 said:


> Nuno @ Fri Dec 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but without emotions and feelings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emotions and feelings become ridiculed by many scientists . The hardest are those who use it in every sentence, the words "logical" or "illogical". :-D
Click to expand...

What a mindnumbingly silly thing to say. You don't know a whole lot of scientists, do you, Gunther?


----------



## pinki

wilx @ Fri Dec 13 said:


> A couple of people here trotting out this ridiculous false idea that we're claiming "science has all the answers".
> Of course it doesn't - science has all the _questions_.
> It's very different.
> Chakra noodling and nude gregorian chanting and homeopathy don't really seem all that confident in asking questions, as the application of sense does their credibility a great deal of harm.



Asking questions is indeed a useful way to interrogate the nature of reality and the efficacy of propositions. But it is only partially successful and there needs to be in my experience other complimentary ways. But it's always difficult to get a discussion such as this away from the either/or. I leave that to Hannes.

I become more and more concerned at the somewhat dogmatic nature of those for whom science explains the core nature of existence and those for whom the only viable way to investigate anything is through a rigorous asking of questions of the external.

A little less polarisation goes a long way to expanding ones awareness. (The "trotting" and "noodling" language hardly engenders mutual respect across the debating platform)

And interestingly I was being sarcastic when I said I always try to avoid any emotion and feeling when writing music but I find it fascinating that some here on a composers forum thought I was being serious! Each to their own.


----------



## germancomponist

dedersen @ Fri Dec 13 said:


> What a mindnumbingly silly thing to say. You don't know a whole lot of scientists, do you, Gunther?



Oh no, it is not a mind numbingly silly thing when I say this. I said "many scientists", not "all".


----------



## Richard Wilkinson

germancomponist @ Fri Dec 13 said:


> Emotions and feelings become ridiculed by many scientists



Could you give me an example of this? Say, any time in the last 1000 years? 

Look up 'strawman argument'. Some people here are presenting this totally false idea that science somehow is incompatible with experiencing love, joy etc. I can't work out where that has come from. Perhaps it makes it easier to be opposed to the 'rational' part of this debate as you can comfort yourself that scientists eschew emotion and ridicule the idea of marvelling at a great work of art, weeping at an opera, falling in love. But that's utter bullocks, and I think you probably know that. 

When we discovered the earth orbits the sun, did the sun disappear? Did it get colder? Did we become bored of the idea of exploring space?


----------



## pinki

wilx @ Fri Dec 13 said:


> But that's utter bullocks, and I think you probably know that.



I udderly resent the way you milk the argument


----------



## Richard Wilkinson

pinki @ Fri Dec 13 said:


> wilx @ Fri Dec 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's utter bullocks, and I think you probably know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I udderly resent the way you milk the argument
Click to expand...


Hey - I have no beef with you.


----------



## re-peat

Nuno @ Fri Dec 13 said:


> Yes, but without emotions and feelings.



I very much hope so.

_


----------



## Polarity

*Re: The tuning of musical instruments today has a negative impact on listeners ....*



Udo @ Fri 13 Dec said:


> .........
> Paul McCartney and John Lennon played some of their most famous songs in 528Hz!
> ......
> The 528 frequency resonates with the chakra system, while the 440 hz dissonates it–specifically with the throat chakra, basically shutting it down; by destroying one link in the chain, the rest cannot connect with each other. The tuning of the instruments at A440 interferes with the flow of energy in the chakra system"



If I'm not wrong, you have C at 528Hz when you tun A to 444Hz.

So for less confusion, the three main tunings in question are A-432, A-440 and A-444.

the curious thing is that also for A-432 they say is in tune with chakra system.
So, which between the two really?
Or can be both as well? (A-432 and A-444).

personally if A-432 can give a warmer and fatter overall sound I think I will go for it.


----------



## germancomponist

re-peat @ Fri Dec 13 said:


> Nuno @ Fri Dec 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but without emotions and feelings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I very much hope so.
> 
> _
Click to expand...


Haha, great for film music... .


----------



## germancomponist

...


----------



## ProtectedRights

Lots of the pro science guys cannot even stay focussed in the discussion. Once I got you on something you just flee to some other detail so you won't have to admit that your limited view might not be right. 

Let me say again that I don't know what's right or wrong either. BUT I have the courage to admit this. I am courageous enough to leave things open and unanswered.


----------



## TGV

ProtectedRights @ Fri Dec 13 said:


> So you think you, with your PhD in NeuroSciences, can explain the world in full.


Nope. Never said so.



> Just think of it this way. Stay open. Allow that something might be discovered in the future that we don't know today. A new dimension, where completely new rules apply. Which might explain free will and so forth. Just stay open minded and don't make the error to think that you can explain everything and that you know everything one needs to know. For your daily life that might work out pretty well, but for discussions about the transcendent it sucks.



1. I'm perfectly open-minded. Just show me some proof according to widely accepted standards and I'll accept it.

2. I'm 100% sure we're going to discover something that we don't know today. But how do you think we are going to discover it? By just by-passing research and rational reasoning? How do you think we came at the point where we could treat cancer or construct semi-conductors?

3. Once more: I cannot explain everything, but the "air vibrations" thing can be considered explicable by known mechanisms.

4. Ad discussions about the transcendent: I do not have to believe there is anything supernatural (which is what you mean, right?) in order to accept the world, or to investigate it. If you do need that, you're stepping away from any science, since by definition the supernatural cannot be studied by science. You're also ignoring common sense, since there is no proof of any interference of the supernatural with our world.

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen" (whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent). By referring to the supernatural in a discussion, you're abandoning logical reasoning. That means ending the discussion. Everyone is free to believe whatever he or she wants, but one's belief can never be an argument in a rational discussion, unless you consider people unequal.

Edit: typos


----------



## Musicologo

About staying open.

1. Most of the apples are blue. Blue is the color of sky and sea, it represents life. Therefore apples represent life, are life. It's good for you you eat them.

2. Apples are green, yellow, red. Some might even have other colors. It depends on their genetic material. Apples have nutrients. When eaten, they will provide chemical substances that will aid your body to function.

3. There is a rare variant of apples that are orange. Those apples have a genetic mutation that makes them produce a rare amount of vitamin C and antioxidants normally not present in other apples. They are very good for your health.

4. Red apples are good for your health because they reflect the spectrum of frenquencies that resonate with your digestive system. Yellow apples reflect another frequency and so they are very difficult to digest and in the end they make you waste more energy than they give it to you. So you should stay away from yellow apples.

Do these claims make sense? Which of them make sense and why? All these discussions are around things like this. There are things that just seem more reasonable than others regarding the references and information we already possess. As simple as that. There are things that we simply don't have enough information today to evaluate if they are true or false and will stay open until further analysis and more information. There are other things that to some people might seem reasonable because of their ignorance or beliefs but to others will simply sound stupid because they possess information that contradicts those claims, or simply the articulation of concepts and logic is absurd. There might be others which seem true today that may be false, but today, evidence seems to support them and they seem reasonable, etc...


----------



## pinki

I think that the discussion is not so much about the validity of evidence based investigation but rather whether there is room for a way of being and and a way of experiencing the world that is outside the world of epistemological discourse. And whether that way of being and experiencing can have a validity and weight whilst not in any way standing up to the rigours of scientific questioning.

We live in a post Dawkins world populated still by indigenous peoples. Are they all just ignorant "savages"? (sic).


----------



## Musicologo

That's a nice wrap up of the problem pinki!
Moreover I'd say its difficult to establish whether _scientific knowledge_*S *can co-exist with doxa and when something is "scientific" and not "doxa", or if it is all a continuum of "knowledges" some more "valid" than "others" dependent on the perception and amount of information one already possesses... and so it's a vicious cycle.


----------



## TGV

A very vicious circle. If you're not careful, it'll bite you!

Anyway, there is room for being in the world in whatever way you like. I think science is in this respect about as tolerant as you can get. Certainly a lot more tolerant than most religions I know of. However, science is about universality, and therefor objectivity over subjectivity. It hence excludes mystical knowledge. Any information is valid, as long as it's acquired by a verifiable method, and as long as it's not contradicted by at least equally reliable information.

About the indigenous people, I'd say: they're not savages. That's a burdened term from the kind of 19th century beliefs that created nazism. However, when they are uneducated, they can be considered ignorants (in the literal meaning). There's nothing wrong with that, but I wouldn't trust them to build a long traffic bridge, although quite a few tribes too have acquired objective knowledge about their environment.


----------



## pinki

TGV @ Sun Dec 15 said:


> A very vicious circle. If you're not careful, it'll bite you!
> 
> Anyway, there is room for being in the world in whatever way you like. I think science is in this respect about as tolerant as you can get. Certainly a lot more tolerant than most religions I know of. However, science is about universality, and therefor objectivity over subjectivity. It hence excludes mystical knowledge. Any information is valid, as long as it's acquired by a verifiable method, and as long as it's not contradicted by at least equally reliable information.
> 
> About the indigenous people, I'd say: they're not savages. That's a burdened term from the kind of 19th century beliefs that created nazism. However, when they are uneducated, they can be considered ignorants (in the literal meaning). There's nothing wrong with that, but I wouldn't trust them to build a long traffic bridge, although quite a few tribes too have acquired objective knowledge about their environment.



The problem here is indeed one of epistemology! Unless the debate encompasses a place in the middle where the methods of "aquiring information" are up for discussion, the discussion does not really go anywhere. Please read my post again! 
You say there is no knowledge without education, that the indigenous person is an ignoramus without education, but again I refer back to Hannes expansion of the idea of looking within as well as without. 
We are all the products of our cultural upbringing. There is after all a branch of knowledge called the philosophy of science!


----------



## TGV

Methods of acquiring knowledge have been debated for millennia. One of the important conclusions is that subjective knowledge is, well, subjective, and not transferable between two people. You can close your eyes and think for as long as you want, but when your knowledge cannot be translated into some objective statement, it doesn't help our common knowledge.

And what holds for Westerners gathering their knowledge from pure introspection, also holds for anybody else. It is very hard to obtain an objective and true statement from it. I'll repeat that Descartes did that, came up with his cogito, but didn't get beyond that, except to conclude that it leads to solipsism.

I acknowledge that indigenous tribes can acquire objective knowledge. Most of it will be about their direct environment, plants, tree, animals, weather, and they teach each other in that knowledge. But for the rest, they are of course ignorant.

Yes, we are products of our upbringing, but that only makes objective and verifiable knowledge more important. If I can communicate with a Chinese researcher, it is because of that, not because we both rely on (culturally dependent) introspection.


----------



## Den

Opss. I saw this thread now.
I have to say few things about this. We are almost 80% made of water.
Intro to Energy:
It is easy to connect your pulsing cells and energy meridians to the flow of energy in our Earth and Sun. You can quickly discover the quantum field of possibility organically for yourself. This blog is all about the mind-body-celestial connection. When I say celestial I actually mean natural, kinetic, electromagnetic, multidimensional, plasmatic energy ~ I'm talking about the earth, stars, black holes, and all the particles. Some of which are too small for us to discover, nevertheless those particles are one conscious system doing its job. A huge flow is bombarding us constantly – the Sun is traveling at around 134 miles per second with Earth in tow!

Understanding these fields is a fundamental and powerful truth of nature. Even if you’re not aware of it, you’ve most likely experienced this connection in the Field that transcends time and space. Such as knowing something is wrong before someone says a word, or thinking about someone and minutes later they call. Homes and businesses have energy fields too, you can feel it the moment you walk in the door. 

You also feel energy in music. As the research on the Mozart Effect has proven, our brain functions differently depending on the music we hear. 

In Japan Dr. Masaru Emoto has demonstrated that water changes its crystalline form when researchers change their thoughts or expose the water to various types of music and prayers:
Source:
http://www.lightactive.org/2013/10/is-this-what-it-is-post-1-of-2.html (http://www.lightactive.org/2013/10/is-t ... -of-2.html)


----------



## dedersen

Wow...."discover the quantum field of possibility organically"..."natural, kinetic, electromagnetic, multidimensional, plasmatic energy"...it has so many sciency words, it MUST be true!


----------



## Den

dedersen @ Sun Dec 15 said:


> Wow...."discover the quantum field of possibility organically"..."natural, kinetic, electromagnetic, multidimensional, plasmatic energy"...it has so many sciency words, it MUST be true!



Yep.. How is weather in Copenhagen?


----------



## dedersen

Cold and dull. It's a country of 10 months of autumn with dashes of winter and summer here and there.


----------



## Den

dedersen @ Sun Dec 15 said:


> Cold and dull. It's a country of 10 months of autumn with dashes of winter and summer here and there.




Oh I see. 

There is a real conspiracy behind music in two ways. First way is 440Hz.

http://www.medicalveritas.org/MedicalVeritas/Musical_Cult_Control.html (http://www.medicalveritas.org/MedicalVe ... ntrol.html)

Hanns Eisler and Theodor Adorno, were featured performers in the musical projects serving military and commercial interests, juxtaposed with artistic and philanthropic objectives.

This best explains why this activity is linked in time, subject matter, Foundation funding, and the Rothschild-Rockefeller increasing war investments in Germany, Great Britain, and the US, to establishing the Western World’s standard musical tuning of A=440Hz frequency.

In 1910, motivated by a grant provided by the Rockefeller Foundation for the American Federation of Musicians, the initial effort to institute A=440Hz standard tuning had limited success in America. In Europe, the initial effort had near zero impact. Additional promotions were needed to secure the music world’s acceptance of A=440Hz that was perceived as less pleasant, or dull when compared with other frequencies described below. 

Ironically, and most revealing about the Anglo-American cartel arrangement, to persuade European musicians to accept this tuning, and the British Standards Institute (BSI) adoption of it in 1939, Rockefeller-Rothschild “black-op” officials employed Nazi party propagandist, Joseph Goebbels. At that time, Goebbels was advancing to become England’s greatest media nemesis.

In other words, the A=440Hz frequency was instituted at the precise time WWII preparations were being finalized by the petrochemical-pharmaceutical war financiers. Hitler’s Germany invaded Poland officially starting WWII on Sept 1, 1939. Only three months earlier, following widespread rejection of the A=440Hz frequency vibration by musicians worldwide, Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels argued on behalf of this, apparently very important, intrusion into musical artistry, effectively persuading Hitler’s supposed enemies in Britain to adopt this allegedly superior standard tuning for the “Master Race.” 

A=440 Versus A=444 Standard Tuning

Research and developments in musical weaponry, tuning with dissonant frequencies, yielding the latest and greatest war making technology for broadcasting “mass hysteria,” was finally instituted in 1939--speciously adopted, thusly, according to Cavanagh:

Success was achieved at a 1939 international conference held in London. Presumably as a compromise between current tendencies and earlier pitch standards, it was agreed that the international standard for concert pitch would thenceforth be based upon A=440 Hz — very close to the Royal Philharmonic’s A=439 Hz of dubious derivation. The B.B.C. began to broadcast the A=440 Hz tuning note, which, for the sake of accuracy was produced electronically.

Not coincidently metaphysically, the interval between A=440Hz (equivalent to F#=741Hz in the ancient original Solfeggio scale) and A=444Hz (C(5)=528Hz in the ancient original Solfeggio scale) is classically known as the Devil’s Interval in musicology, due to its highly aversive disharmonious sound made when these two notes are played simultaneously.(36)

More harmonious alternatives have been obviously suppressed. For instance, during the past decade, A=444Hz (C(5)=528Hz) analysis 



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lt0KdjK4m8
After this John Lennon was killed.


----------



## ModalRealist

This thread simply astounds me. The quantity of BS *from all directions* in here is unrivalled. Yes, there's plenty of unprovable, hand-waving neo-new-age non-hypothesis lying around; but also the responses against much of this material are extremely poor. Some of the views and arguments from scientific proponents are just Class A arrogant misunderstandings.

Frankly, everyone here should go back to writing and making music - tuned to whatever you'd like. Either that, or take a long hard and very critical look at whichever set of propositions - whether you would say they were scientific or otherwise - you currently subscribe to.

I just finished interviewing undergraduate applicants for Physics and Philosophy at the university where I work and many of them had more carefully constructed and believable views than what has been on show in this thread.


----------



## pinki

TGV @ Sun Dec 15 said:


> Methods of acquiring knowledge have been debated for millennia. One of the important conclusions is that subjective knowledge is, well, subjective, and not transferable between two people. You can close your eyes and think for as long as you want, but when your knowledge cannot be translated into some objective statement, it doesn't help our common knowledge.
> 
> And what holds for Westerners gathering their knowledge from pure introspection, also holds for anybody else. It is very hard to obtain an objective and true statement from it. I'll repeat that Descartes did that, came up with his cogito, but didn't get beyond that, except to conclude that it leads to solipsism.
> 
> I acknowledge that indigenous tribes can acquire objective knowledge. Most of it will be about their direct environment, plants, tree, animals, weather, and they teach each other in that knowledge. But for the rest, they are of course ignorant.
> 
> Yes, we are products of our upbringing, but that only makes objective and verifiable knowledge more important. If I can communicate with a Chinese researcher, it is because of that, not because we both rely on (culturally dependent) introspection.



TGV you use the words 'information' and 'knowledge' interchangeably. I'm not sure they are the same. Really your argument is self referential so I don't know there is anywhere to go. You are arguing that 'objective knowledge' is the goal. So I don't know what to add...you are right of course if that is the goal. I am try ing to discuss something else..


----------



## Nuno

Do you think it is possible to prove the existence of the Global Consciousness? 

Is it objective, or subjective perceived, a paradox?


----------



## Den

Nuno @ Mon Dec 16 said:


> Do you think it is possible to prove the existence of the Global Consciousness?
> 
> Is it objective, or subjective perceived, a paradox?



I can give you a links where I found a lot of answers about this topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6n-fIHGia8

100 Monkey experiment
http://www.mindopenerz.com/the-100th-monkey-effect-a-critical-mass/ (http://www.mindopenerz.com/the-100th-mo ... ical-mass/)
DNA Phantom Effect
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H7szhBgyVA
DNA is a Torsion field antenna ! !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6adHSKxF2A
Russians Change DNA with Frequency Experiments 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycyZ-VhdH1s


----------



## germancomponist

Den @ Mon Dec 16 said:


> Nuno @ Mon Dec 16 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think it is possible to prove the existence of the Global Consciousness?
> 
> Is it objective, or subjective perceived, a paradox?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can give you a links where I found a lot of answers about this topic.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6n-fIHGia8
> 
> 100 Monkey experiment
> http://www.mindopenerz.com/the-100th-monkey-effect-a-critical-mass/ (http://www.mindopenerz.com/the-100th-mo ... ical-mass/)
> DNA Phantom Effect
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H7szhBgyVA
> DNA is a Torsion field antenna ! !
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6adHSKxF2A
> Russians Change DNA with Frequency Experiments 1/2
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycyZ-VhdH1s
Click to expand...


Great finds, thanks!

I have watched the first one the other day and it is opening your eyes and ears!


----------



## Nuno

Den @ Mon Dec 16 said:


> Nuno @ Mon Dec 16 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think it is possible to prove the existence of the Global Consciousness?
> 
> Is it objective, or subjective perceived, a paradox?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can give you a links where I found a lot of answers about this topic.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6n-fIHGia8
> 
> 100 Monkey experiment
> http://www.mindopenerz.com/the-100th-monkey-effect-a-critical-mass/ (http://www.mindopenerz.com/the-100th-mo ... ical-mass/)
> DNA Phantom Effect
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H7szhBgyVA
> DNA is a Torsion field antenna ! !
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6adHSKxF2A
> Russians Change DNA with Frequency Experiments 1/2
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycyZ-VhdH1s
Click to expand...


I only watched the 100 Monkey Experiment and it seems a good answer to my question. 

Thank you! I'll watch the other videos later... 

Namaste


----------



## Ed

Well this thread sure has continued down the toilet.... ~o) 

For all the anti-science among you, if you want to claim we can know things with a method that is not the scientific one then please do explain what that is. All the arguments in this thread can be boiled down to this, and nothing else matters. If you want to reject the scientific method, or say that it is inadequate in some way, and that you know of a better way that produces demonstrable verifiable results then you need to show that. If you can't demonstrate it then you can't say you know it. I have given plenty of examples already of how everyone uses the scientific method in their own lives, they just choose to reject it when it doesn't happen to align with their strongly held beliefs. There are a lot of people here that have very high standards of evidence for some things and next to no standards for other things, but act as if people are close minded for not believing.

And Hannes, I hate to pick on you what with someone like ProtectedRights posting in this thread, but this is complete nonsense:



Hannes_F @ Tue Dec 10 said:


> The outside world exists and has its reality for everybody and everything in it, however the cause and substance of everything is what could be called Spirit-Matter-Consciousness-Life that can exist in infinitely different grades of states and represents itself as matter if being in a very fettered state. For me this is the only logical philosophical solution for the otherwise unsolvable dilemma that life and consciusness should somehow generate from dead matter-points.



And Im not saying that to be insulting. I mean it literally is nonsense. You talk as if these are real terms and not just word salad in an attempt to make it sound more legitimate. "_dead matter-points_"? "_Spirit-Matter-Consciousness-Life_"? Seriously? Literally every single part of what you said doesn't make any sense. 

I have said it before, but I would love to believe that my consciousness can exist outside my brain, rather than my consciousness being a product *of *my brain, but unfortunately I can't force myself to accept nonsense arguments in favour for it just because I'd want it to be true. You said this is "the only logical philosophical solution". If you want to bring in logic into this then it means it could at least potentially be a scientifically valid hypothesis. So if you say you have a logical argument that can back this up then please explain what that is. 

There is a difference between being open minded and being so willing to believe in anything that your brains fall out.


----------



## Nuno

Ed @ Tue Dec 17 said:


>



Well, you have all the answers in front of you and you still CAN'T SEE IT.


----------



## Ed

Nuno @ Tue Dec 17 said:


> Well, you have all the answers in front of you and you still CAN'T SEE IT.



Wat?

Did you read my post? If you can't demonstrate that your claim is true then its no different from any other. I want to know what is really true and because of that I like to have logic evidence and reason. If you know of an accurate way to know if a claim is true that does not use those things then please show us. Otherwise, you can make claims and day dream all day in your fantasy world, but don't ask me to accept it without a reason.


----------



## Svencanz

This is hardly "rocket science"...
We know that "nails along the blackboard" makes us feel bad - and we also have experienced how music makes us "feel good" - right?
So the effect of music and sound on feeling is established.

There would be no harm whatsoever in exploring how 432 tuning would affect our emotional body - none whatsoever. If it would be "better" at affecting us.

I believe there is a strong connection between maths, music, physics and so forth at play here - Bode's Law and so forth. 
I also happen to be a professional astrologer - and if these types of topics freak you out (because it is "outside of science") then being freaked out is probably what you need to be.... the stuff I have seen while practicing astrology did freak me out severely for the first 10 years or so. Not much freaks me out today.

Sven


----------



## Nuno

Ed @ Tue Dec 17 said:


> Nuno @ Tue Dec 17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you have all the answers in front of you and you still CAN'T SEE IT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wat?
> 
> Did you read my post? If you can't demonstrate that your claim is true then its no different from any other. I want to know what is really true and because of that I like to have logic evidence and reason. If you know of an accurate way to know if a claim is true that does not use those things then please show us. Otherwise, you can make claims and day dream all day in your fantasy world, but don't ask me to accept it without a reason.
Click to expand...


Are you so rational to the point that you need a scientific proof of the power of love?


----------



## Ed

Nuno @ Tue Dec 17 said:


> Are you so rational to the point that you need a scientific proof of the power of love?



Love is a feeling. Paranoia is a feeling. Sadness is a feeling. Anger is a feeling. I can experience those things right now. The words "love, sadness, anger" are just describing the feeling. If I was an artificial intelligence and lacked emotions, like Data in Star Trek, I wouldn't need to have scientific evidence for feelings because I could observe them in others. What would I need scientific evidence for? The question of why we have emotions is another matter entirely.

EDIT: I just realised I gave your question too much credit. I thought you asked me if I needed scientific proof that love exists. What "power" does love have? Is it some metaphysical power? Yes, you are going to need evidence of that.


----------



## pinki

Ed you are just hilarious. I mean it...I don't want to say it it insultingly, but you are truly hilarious. 

What more is there to say Ed, you've proven you are hilarious. And that's a fact! o=<


----------



## germancomponist

The devil laughs at his own worries. ...


----------



## Ed

pinki @ Tue Dec 17 said:


> Ed you are just hilarious. I mean it...I don't want to say it it insultingly, but you are truly hilarious.
> 
> What more is there to say Ed, you've proven you are hilarious. And that's a fact! o=<



Why thank you! Of course if you are saying I'm wrong please do point out how


----------



## pinki

I wouldn't dare to say you are wrong Ed. I mean how could I ever prove it? :lol: You are always right! It's been proven unequivocally by the greatest minds in Christendom! And that's a fact too! _-)


----------



## Ed

pinki @ Tue Dec 17 said:


> I wouldn't dare to say you are wrong Ed. I mean how could I ever prove it? :lol: You are always right! It's been proven unequivocally by the greatest minds in Christendom! And that's a fact too! _-)



I am certainly not always right.... 

If you notice there are people in this thread that expect others to believe their claims just because they say so or because feels. I am very sorry that I have higher standards than that. That's not being closed minded, that's understanding that you need a way to tell the difference between what is true and what isnt. 

I won't say that what they claim is 100% impossible, what Im saying we have no way to tell if they are right and no reason to seriously consider it. If you want to say you just have "faith" in it, no problem, because with faith you just have to believe. But if you want to make a "logical" argument or claim there's evidence for it, then you cant complain if people hold to those standards find it lacking.


----------



## ProtectedRights

What is currently being discussed? Science guys neglecting existence (or the power) of love until it is proven with scientific methods? Gimme a break!!!!!!!!


----------



## andreasOL

ProtectedRights @ Wed 18 Dec said:


> What is currently being discussed? Science guys neglecting existence (or the power) of love until it is proven with scientific methods? Gimme a break!!!!!!!!



No...it's non science guys expressing their fear that those powers will disappear should science one day explain them...which AFAIK noone has ever claimed...why are non science guys not open for both "the power of love" and "explanation"...

A break...good idea


----------



## Richard Wilkinson

ProtectedRights @ Wed 18 Dec said:


> What is currently being discussed? Science guys neglecting existence (or the power) of love until it is proven with scientific methods? Gimme a break!!!!!!!!



Nope. That's what a couple of people are trying to suggest, perhaps because it makes them feel more able to criticise or ridicule the other side of the argument. 
But nobody that I've seen is saying love, emotions etc aren't real. They're saying it's quite obvious that emotions exist, and if you wanted or needed to you could come up with some details on the processes by which various emotions manifest. 

You're completely making up the most ridiculous strawman arguments and then arguing against them. "_hahaha. Scientists don't believe emotions exist. Well that's silly because.._." 
That's completely pointless though, as you're arguing with a point of view that nobody so far has ever expressed.


----------



## Nuno

> What "power" does love have? Is it some metaphysical power? Yes, you are going to need evidence of that.



There's evidence of the power of love everywhere...


http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/r ... ng-1891457

http://webneel.com/webneel/blog/40-most ... y-showcase

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristides_de_Sousa_Mendes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_mandela

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles ... power-love

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Schindler

...


----------



## Richard Wilkinson

Nuno @ Wed Dec 18 said:


> What "power" does love have? Is it some metaphysical power? Yes, you are going to need evidence of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's evidence of the power of love everywhere...
> 
> 
> http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/r ... ng-1891457
> 
> http://webneel.com/webneel/blog/40-most ... y-showcase
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristides_de_Sousa_Mendes
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_mandela
> 
> http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles ... power-love
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Schindler
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


You missed a couple.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShN8UIk5-mw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5dYNAjoBAM


----------



## Nuno

wilx @ Wed Dec 18 said:


> Nope. That's what a couple of people are trying to suggest, perhaps because *it makes them feel more able to criticise or ridicule the other side of the argument*. .


----------



## ProtectedRights

@Nuno:

Don't let them challenge you to provide proof for something. Proof / evidence / reproducible experiments are scientific methods. But science can't grasp love anyway because it is out of their construct of reproducibility, objectivity, exactly specified conditions, and the like. 

The good thing is, we who are open to things beyond science can feel the power of love. Science guys restrict themselves to accept only those things that they can prove with their restricted(!) set of methods. They actually restrict the world they live in quite drastically. All transcendent, mystical, emotional, they miss all that. Pitiful crowd.


----------



## germancomponist

BTW, I like your new avatar. Ed!


----------



## Nuno

ProtectedRights @ Wed Dec 18 said:


> @Nuno:
> 
> Don't let them challenge you to provide proof for something. Proof / evidence / reproducible experiments are scientific methods. But science can't grasp love anyway because it is out of their construct of reproducibility, objectivity, exactly specified conditions, and the like.



I gave them the strongest argument you can give. I just wanted to highlight that. There's nothing to prove in that matter.


----------



## Den

Ed @ Tue Dec 17 said:


> Nuno @ Tue Dec 17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you so rational to the point that you need a scientific proof of the power of love?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Love is a feeling. Paranoia is a feeling. Sadness is a feeling. Anger is a feeling. I can experience those things right now. The words "love, sadness, anger" are just describing the feeling. If I was an artificial intelligence and lacked emotions, like Data in Star Trek, I wouldn't need to have scientific evidence for feelings because I could observe them in others. What would I need scientific evidence for? The question of why we have emotions is another matter entirely.
> 
> EDIT: I just realised I gave your question too much credit. I thought you asked me if I needed scientific proof that love exists. What "power" does love have? Is it some metaphysical power? Yes, you are going to need evidence of that.
Click to expand...


I have one video for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKSWSwii7es

When it claims what 2012 brought for us from this video, here is the proof.
http://humansarefree.com/2011/04/amazin ... ating.html

http://2012indyinfo.com/2013/01/22/bbc- ... man-cells/

We are going to have 12 strand DNA again, like we had in the time of Atlantis civilisation. Confirmed.
This is huge!


----------



## andreasOL

ProtectedRights @ Thu 19 Dec said:


> @Nuno:
> 
> ...
> Science guys restrict themselves to accept only those things that they can prove with their restricted(!) set of methods. They actually restrict the world they live in quite drastically. All transcendent, mystical, emotional, they miss all that. Pitiful crowd.



I beg your pardon? Do you read?

Show them one posting where one of them restricted one's acceptance to only those things one has proof of?


----------



## ProtectedRights

@andreasOL: erhh, the power of love?!?!?!? Do YOU read????


----------



## Lawson.

I'm too lazy to read all 7 pages (only read the first one), but this caught my eye:



Gabriel2013 @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> As a side note. A lot of professional musicians don´t know that for a string player F# is not the same as Gb, or that a piano is not in reality tuned perfectly.



I'm a string player, and a F# is the same as a Gb. At least, that's what I've always known. Feel free to correct me.


----------



## Stinki

Just curious - is 440 Hz always 440 Hz to us?

If our hearing is perceiving vibrating air, would there be a difference with high and low air pressure systems?


----------



## vasio

I don't buy that there is a conspiracy here. But this thread has got me curious. No offense intended but I'm more interested here in knowledge based on facts and truth (and not convenient distortions to support religious or cult-like fervor). 

Still, I like to keep an open mind and explore ideas. And not let my own opinions (subjective thinking) spoil objective purity and thus scientific curiosity.

Ahead is a one of the few videos that (at least for me) 1) avoids any kind of conspiracy thinking; 2) focuses on actual historical references and mathematics, 3) doesn't seem intent to convey some kind of spiritual or hidden religious message or agenda. 

You decide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY74AFQl2qQ&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY74AFQ ... e=youtu.be)


----------



## Frederick Russ

moved to off topics.


----------



## Den

Forgotten In Time: The Ancient Solfeggio Frequencies

What Are The Ancient Solfeggio Frequencies?

These original sound frequencies were apparently used in Ancient Gregorian Chants, such as the great hymn to St. John the Baptist, along with others that church authorities say were lost centuries ago. The chants and their special tones were believed to impart tremendous spiritual blessings when sung in harmony during religious masses. These powerful frequencies were rediscovered by Dr. Joseph Puleo as described in the book Healing Codes for the Biological Apocalypse by Dr. Leonard Horowitz. I give honor to both of these gentleman for the part they’ve played in helping return these lost frequencies back to humanity.

The Six Solfeggio Frequencies include:

UT – 396 Hz – Liberating Guilt and Fear 
RE – 417 Hz – Undoing Situations and Facilitating Change 
MI – 528 Hz – Transformation and Miracles (DNA Repair) 
FA – 639 Hz – Connecting/Relationships 
SOL – 741 Hz – Awakening Intuition 
LA – 852 Hz – Returning to Spiritual Order 

When Dr. Joseph Puleo was researching the tones, he was directed to a Monsignor at a university in Spokane WA, who was head of the mediaeval department. Following a 20 minute conversation, the

"Can you decipher Mediaeval Latin?’
‘Absolutely!’
‘And you know the musical scale and everything?’
‘Absolutely!’
‘Well then, could you tell me what ‘UT - queant laxis’ means?’
After a brief pause, the Monsignor quipped, ‘It’s none of your business’ 
Then he hung up."1

Additionally, as Dr. Puleo researched the tones further, he came across a book on Gregorian chants by Professor Emeritus Willi Apel who "argued that the chants being used today were totally incorrect, and undermined the spirit of the Catholic faith."1 Moreover, Professor Apel reported that "one-hundred fifty-two chants were apparently missing. The Catholic Church presumably "lost" these original chants. The chants were based on the ancient original scale of six musical notes called the Solfeggio."1 Trust me, nothing is lost, it’s just neatly put away; however, they cannot hide from the masses what is energetically placed within the Soul.

More:

http://www.redicecreations.com/specialr ... eggio.html


They don't want humans to become spiritually aware, because they need cattle to use it for work and taxes.
You can easy manipulate cattle, but you cannot manipulate spiritually aware person whatever they do....


----------



## sin(x)

The affinity for mysticism, quackery, and pseudoscience that a lot of people in music display depresses me to no end. I'll recommend Sagan's “The Demon-Haunted World”, not at least for his superhuman ability to stay serene and respectful in the face of utter inanity (he clearly was a bigger man than I).

Also, Ed… keep it up and I might be forced to marry you.


----------



## Den

OK.
Lets check who who knew this and created successful career.
After John Lennon Imagine album tuned to 444:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETxmCCsMoD0

Voila.


----------



## Den

*Truth*

Truth

Or simply put it against 440.
What sounds better?
This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua9HsJJdtY0
Or This?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR8D2yqgQ1U



Skyfall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pel340JGjzw
Or this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeumyOzKqgI


And like always "The Winner Takes It All"! Tuned to 444Hz!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyIOl-s7JTU


----------



## Den

*Paul McCartney Plays in 528Hz to Obama*

Who plays 528 Live...

http://vimeo.com/68155739

This video had been previously posted on the Internet, and was removed for unknown reasons.


----------



## TGV

I think we should send this thread to Dan Brown and read "The Lost Chants" next holidays.


----------



## Den

*The Vacuum Connection*

This is the most important detail for humanity.
The Vacuum Connection
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gWp4JEnIvU

Nassim Haramein finished "Unified Field Theory" that Einstein never finished.
"The POWER of SPIN" by The Resonance Project / Nassim Haramein
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJOBnoqk_0Q


----------



## dedersen

Wowzer, this thread somehow managed to turn even more bizarre. Impressive.


----------



## TheUnfinished

So... this isn't a weird thread then.


----------



## G.R. Baumann

Greetings,

aside from the original topic, this thread has touched so many aspects, hehehe, which makes it a little difficult to contribute in a concise and meaningful way, so, forgive me for taking a short cut by recommending a book to read. 

"The Universe In A Single Atom - The Convergance of Science And Spirituality"

http://www.randomhouse.com/book/80501/the-universe-in-a-single-atom-by-dalai-lama

There is also a 6 hours audiobook version available on iTunes read by Richard Gere. 

That latter I was particulary impressed with, as by the very nature of the literature, this ain't easy to read by any standards, not even for an actor, but I learned that Richard is a Buddhist himself, which explains the reason why it came across so very well.

I can highly recommend this to those interested in such fundamental questions, and somehow there seem to be quite a few around here. :lol: 

Best wishes
Georg


----------



## choc0thrax

Homeopathy... the power of love... Richard Gere...

I've been patiently waiting to join in the craziness but I'm still waiting for the joint to reach me. Remember it's puff puff pass, people.


----------



## Den

G.R. Baumann @ Sun Dec 29 said:


> Greetings,
> 
> aside from the original topic, this thread has touched so many aspects, hehehe, which makes it a little difficult to contribute in a concise and meaningful way, so, forgive me for taking a short cut by recommending a book to read.
> 
> "The Universe In A Single Atom - The Convergance of Science And Spirituality"
> 
> http://www.randomhouse.com/book/80501/the-universe-in-a-single-atom-by-dalai-lama
> 
> There is also a 6 hours audiobook version available on iTunes read by Richard Gere.
> 
> That latter I was particulary impressed with, as by the very nature of the literature, this ain't easy to read by any standards, not even for an actor, but I learned that Richard is a Buddhist himself, which explains the reason why it came across so very well.
> 
> I can highly recommend this to those interested in such fundamental questions, and somehow there seem to be quite a few around here. :lol:
> 
> Best wishes
> Georg




Hi
Thanks for the link, sounds interesting.
Religion is somehow topic that is banned from all music forums.

But this book comes from Dalai Lama, and he has very impressive knowledge about everything. I am always openminded and always collecting informations.

Also I want to recommend this book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Source-Field-Investigations-Civilizations/dp/1455828521 (http://www.amazon.com/The-Source-Field- ... 1455828521)

I never had more interesting book about hidden science.
Introduction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR-klTa1y54

Impressive.


----------



## germancomponist

I hope I get my example finished asap... .


----------



## G.R. Baumann

Den @ Sun Dec 29 said:


> Religion is somehow topic that is banned from all music forums.



I was considering this as well, but this literature recommendation is no religious book per se.

In my own understanding, and perhaps this touches the orginal topic a little bit as well, the intersections of faith and neuroscience for example are many. Tenzin - As an agnostic, I rather refer to the Dalai Lama as Tenzin which is hist first name - has done great work by enabling communication between the greatest minds of the century. It started all back in 1987 and his conversations with Carl von Weizäcker, Francisco Valera, David Blohm and Robert Livingstone about Quantum Physics and Neuroscience initially lead to a regular meeting and exchange in form of the Mind and Life Institute.

http://www.mindandlife.org/dialogues/


----------



## G.R. Baumann

In addition, in 2013 the theme was "Mapping The Mind", for those of you who did not come across the subject, this is what it is about:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mapping-the-mind

http://www.brain-map.org/

Here you can find many videos from the past years.

http://www.youtube.com/user/mindandlifeinstitute


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard

I really really really really really want VSauce to do a video on this now.


----------



## Den

*Conspiracy To Change the ancient music scale to equal temperament*

Mathematics is the fundamental basis in understanding the origins of musical scales. Clearly there is an underlying rationale behind composers and musicians producing a multitude of physical and mental responses to listeners of music throughout the world.

There are significant errors with the minor third and major sixth and the resulting dissonance was intolerable to audiences in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries delaying the widespread introduction of this system until the mid 19th century. Even well into the 19th century, sceptics of the equal tempered tuning of instruments criticised the non-Pythagoras system:

"The modern practice of tuning all organs to equal temperament has been a fearful detriment to their quality of tone. Under the old tuning, an organ made harmonious and attractive music. Now, the harsh thirds give it a cacophonous and repulsive effect."[10]




http://nahoo.net/academic/maths/temperament/




Pythagoras considered that music contributed greatly to health, if used in the right way…He called his method 'musical medicine'…To the accompaniment of Pythagoras' his followers would sing in unison certain chants…At other times his disciples employed music as medicine, with certain melodies composed to cure the passions of the psyche...anger and aggression.'


http://www.tokenrock.com/sound_heali...al_healing.php

Naturopath Stephen Lindsteadt explains that an 'interruption or distortion in the range, strength and coherency of the body's electromagnetic system leads to breakdown in the body's self-healing mechanisms.'
Bingo!

And here is a free book about this conspiracy.
Direct download:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/attachme ... -music.pdf

Some quotes/

In “orthodox” Pythagoreanism C to G is 2:3 while G to C is 3:4, in violation of the commutative principle whereas in commutative classical Western science – the Greek Miracle – C to G is 2:3 and G to C is 3:2. Again this means that the so-called “Pythagorean Skein Equivlanet” used by conspiracy activist Dr. Leonard Horowitz is fake – the Western gematria promoted by Horowitz is a “divide and average” system, not real Pythagorean harmonics. Archytas applied his Babylonian equation stating that the arithmetic mean times the harmonic mean equals the geometric mean squared in order to double the cube. As Professor Borzacchini states:In “orthodox” Pythagoreanism C to G is 2:3 while G to C is 3:4, in violation of the commutative principle whereas in commutative classical Western science – the Greek Miracle – C to G is 2:3 and G to C is 3:2. Again this means that the so-called “Pythagorean Skein Equivlanet” used by conspiracy activist Dr. Leonard Horowitz is fake – the Western gematria promoted by Horowitz is a “divide and average” system, not real Pythagorean harmonics. Archytas applied his Babylonian equation stating that the arithmetic mean times the harmonic mean equals the geometric mean squared in order to double the cube. As Professor Borzacchini states:
According to this opinion the original, crucial problem for the Pythagoreans because of the general role of music in the social and political establishment, was the “cutting of the tone” (the interval between the fourth and the fifth, i.e. the ratio 8:9) in two ‘equal’ parts. In other words the problem was to find x such that 8:x = x:9. Obviously 17/2 is too high, 33/4 too low, and so on. Archytas succeeded in proving that in general it was impossible to cut a superpaticular ratio, i.e. to find a x such that n:x = x:n+1 in the ancient Greek arithmetic (roughly we could say in rational arithmetic). From this general result, for n=1, we get the irrationality of the square root of 2.237



“Comma of Pythagoras.” This means, in basic principle, that as the perfect fifth music intervals were multiplied to create the 12 notes of the music scale the fifths didn’t quite return to the same value of the octaves expanded 
– the division was not quite even between the octaves and fifths. This meant that the ratios were not rational – were not true logos – but
instead were “alogos” or irrational. So did Pythagoras really teach “All is Number and Harmony” if this Harmony did not exist?

In the West we are taught that Pythagoras did not! Instead what happened is that the natural resonance of the perfect fifths were compromised or averaged out, as presented by Archytas. But, as I’ve stated, this is a lie and a cover-up of the true secret teachings of Pythagoras – which were really teachings of alchemy to access true consciousness. As physicist Lawrence Gage states: “It is not so much that science lies to us about nature, but that its presentation is incomplete. The lie is to pretend that science presents us with the full and only truth about nature.”241 So what Archytas did was instead to take the Law of Pythagoras whereby string length is the inverse proportion to frequency – Archytas reversed it using weights or string tension (instead of string length) as inverse to frequency (based on the actual musician instrument tunings).

So Archytas then took the double octave, the “Greater Perfect System,” as four but it is also the square of the octave used by Pythagorean number theory. The result is that four times or the square of the weight to stretch the string now makes twice the frequency, instead of half the frequency at double the string length. This was the “bait and switch” trick that was the direct inspiration, later, for Newton’s inverse square law of gravity!242

A “straight line” geometric progression of rising perfect fifths 2:3 and/or falling perfect fourths 4:3...allows their “Spiral” results to be imagined as a near- approximation to equal-temperament.... Five other pitch classes...display Just alternate thirds of 5:4 at contrary angles to their spiral fifth relatives sharing the same names, but parallel to opposites above and below. In the four outer corners, the two systems converge at the tritone – G-sharp with a-flat, and A-flat with g- sharp – more closely than the pure and tempered musical fifths at G and A.... This “dragonfly” projection offers a mainly “subliminal” window on processing the acoustical events in the soul.


----------



## Den

*Effects on human blood*

Lets see how this 528Hz tone affects our blood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q52t68Q2aHw


----------



## dedersen

EDIT: nevermind...


----------



## Nuno

Interesting... today I found, accidentally, that Hollywood Orchestral Woodwinds is tuned to 332hz. (I did not check if the other Hollywood libraries, but I guess it's the same thing ...)

I found this when I was trying to compare the VSL Woodwinds with HOW and they sounded terrible out of tune together (VSL is set to 440hz).

Nice one EastWest =o 

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/12/21/heres-why-you-should-convert-your-music-to-432hz/ (http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... -to-432hz/)


----------



## dedersen

Oh, the insanity.


----------



## Den

How about this song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KkZeV7zjd8

How you are feeling while you listening this song, it is tuned to 444=A
where C=528Hz


----------



## Den

New Bryan Ferry Album tuned in 444Hz.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43R_m1vxU-c


----------



## creativeforge

ProtectedRights @ Wed Nov 27 said:


> to be more specific: science people neglect anything that is not in the reach of science. science cannot explain emotions. science cannot explain why a minor chord transports sadness while a major chord transports happiness. now why would you believe that science can explain the 432 Hertz thing??



So well said... it's not either or. The music we make is not just scientific, people don't react powerfully to music out of a mental scientific understanding, but it's wider than that - beyond words. Children can express emotions through colors, lines or music, even before they start thinking in alphabetical format and words concepts. They already use these to say something beyond words. 

To relegate music and its impact on the world and beings around us to a mere scientific demonstration that can be repeated, misses the point that it's never the same even when repeated. Circumstances are different, people change moods, equipment differs, etc. But I could not make enjoyable music using out of tune instruments, and that's where science comes in...


----------



## Musicologo

I'll just leave this here I saw on another forum that pretty much sums up:

Cron said:
«All of the reading you'll be able to find about this is pseudoscientific twaddle concerning energy frequencies and karma and healing and shite. 432 (as a number) has more factors than 440 - that's it: that's the argument for it. It'd be mental enough even if it didn't rely on the implications that:

A: The second is a 'divine' unit of duration, and that waves only have properties because their frequencies are measured as such.
B: Base 10 is a divine method of counting
C: Numbers are themselves divine (but only integers, not numbers with a fractional component)
D: All music is variations on sine waves playing an A. No other notes (or their harmonics) to think about
E: That A wasn't an arbitrary choice around which to tune-up in the first place
F: Something to do with crystals probably
G: Etc ad infinitum

Other than pissing those with perfect pitch off, I don't think you'll accomplish anything else. Music sounds 'richer' when it's slowed down and 'tighter' when it's sped up. Nothing unusual there. Tune a full semitone down and the music will sound even richer! Actually, I'm pretty sure most of the examples there ARE tuned down by something approaching that. No way is that less than a quarter tone's difference.»

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 9&t=415282


----------



## creativeforge

This took the cake: 



> In prose reminiscent of someone suffering from years of self-imposed constipation, Horowitz writes:
> 
> "The monopolization of the music industry features this imposed frequency that is “herding” populations into greater aggression, psychosocial agitation, and emotional distress predisposing people to physical illnesses and financial impositions profiting the agents, agencies, and companies engaged in the monopoly."



Although I believe in the "meta" physical nature of music, this is quacky. There were savage wars before industrialization, there are savage wars now during industrialization and there will be wars no matter who does what to whom. That's how bullies and narcissists get what they want, it hasn't changed. 

We can however link the increase of mechanical noise in the workplace, to increased stress, depression, aggressive behavior and self-destruction. Anyone can see that a quieter environment is better for health and healing. If anything, silence, more than music and sound, could contribute to people's well-being... but certain sounds ARE appeasing, and resonate deep within...


----------



## muk

Some simple facts, maybe they can ground the discussion a bit:

Not everything that exists has been understood and explained with scientific methods. Otherwise there would be no need for further research.

Just because something is being researched, that doesn't mean it can't be felt anymore. That should be obvious.

Everybody can believe what they want, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

Now, let's have the concrete example of homeopathy. Mr. Hahnemann claimed that a sickness best can be cured by similar stimuli to the one(s) that induced the sicknes. Another claim of homeopathy is that the efficacy of an ingredient gets stronger when you dilute and shake it. The globuli that are sold as homepathical medicament are based on these assumptions.
So far, science has been able to prove that the underlying claims how homeopathy is supposed to work are wrong. (Note: this does not prove that homeopathy does not work. It proves that Hahnemanns explanation why it is supposed to work is wrong). Let's have a look at the potency-hypothesis: if it was true, you should be able to potentize alcohol. But if you do this, and swallow the highly potentized alcohol, nothing happens. According to homeopathy-logic, while having no actual alcoohol in your bloodstream, you still should be extremely inebriated. Because that's the effect of alcohol on our organism, and this effect is claimed to be potentized. But obviously that is not happening. So this hypothesis is readily falsified.
Of course this still does not prove that homeopathy does not work. In fact, it could work in a completely different way than Hahnemann himself thought it does.
But so far, scientific methods have not been able to prove that globuli have any other effect than placebo. Nor have homeopaths been able to prove it. All that exists are stories of individuals claiming that sickness xy has immediately been cured after taking the globule z. If some of them are true: good for those people! But they can not count as evidence, at least not by the exacting standards that school medicine have to fulfill.

Summary: the claims how and why homeopathy is supposed to work have been falsified. Nobody so far has been able to show that homeopathic globuli have any other effect aside of placebo. Homeopathists do claim that it works, however.
Based on these facts known to us now everybody can decide for themselves whether they believe that homeopathy works or not.

About the healing powers of the 432 Hz tuning: From what I've read (and I read only few of the texts mentioned here) it seems to be a similar case (as it is with many esoteric claims). I tend to not believe such claims until some sort of evidence is given that it is true (and no, single individuals testimonies do not count as strong enough evidence in my books). After all, that's what common sense tells me, and which is often reversed in esoteric circles. If you choose to believe something simply because science hasn't been able to debunk it, go ahead. For me that's no evidence. But as written above: everybody can believe what they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody.

If music has healing powers, I think these are psychological (ie inside of you) and not in the soundwaves or anything. The positive effects listening to music can have are not hard-coded in the sound waves and have nothing to do with tuning. Rather, it has an effect because of what listening to music signifies to you, what you are connecting with it. Because of the positive remembrances you may have etc. At least that's what I think is most plausible for now.


----------

