Re: Magic 104 the empathic channel

[larry@cs.com (Larry Spence)]

In article <C4ptI3.Iwx@chinet.chi.il.us> jorn@chinet.chi.il.us (Jorn Barger) writes:
>
>Your (distorted) paraphrase "belief in the supernatural" makes it sound like I 
>want people to buy Ouija-boards and obey channelers-- 

Sorry, that wasn't my intent.  But thinking you can imprint vibes onto a
mag tape isn't _that_ far removed from Ouija boards... it's tempting to 
just _deny_ the phenomenon of the Ouija board, isn't it, Jorn? %)

>what I want is to *win general agreement* 

In Love-Hounds?  Yeah, right. %)

>that *what we feel in our hearts* as kind and good and 
>healthful and responsible is *real* and *counts*, as a general rule, 

"What we feel in our hearts" is notoriously unreliable a lot of the time.
Sometimes it's dead-on, other times a blind alley.  I wouldn't want my
employer or the leader of a major country to run things based solely on his 
perception of "vibes."  Experiences that can't be validated by consensus
-- "general agreement" -- are in general useful only to the person who
experienced them, unless you're into blind faith (there's a Mr. Koresh 
holding for you on line 2, Jorn).

>and to go 
>beyond the sort of Asimov-Drukman-Trump scornful-materialism that argues, 
>more-or-less, "My bad vibes are unassailable because science disproves vibes."

Oh, I definitely believe in "vibes," possibly even telepathy under certain
conditions.  I just don't think you can imprint them onto specific tracks
of a cassette tape.  The fact that such a mechanism occurred to you, and that
it would involve "vibes," and that we "need more spirituality in the world,"
doesn't imbue your theory with any higher probability of truth IMHO.  

>(Asimov was a shameless egotist-- did everyone run across Jack Sarfatti's 
> [digression deleted]

Check your ad hominems at the door, please.

>I think it's related to the concept of *personal space*-- psychologically, 
>we're very sensitive to our personal territory, always needing to mark it 
>subtly with some sort of *imprint* of ourselves.  I saw a Nova once 

Nova, Asimov, Sarfatti ... no wonder you have a dim view of science. %)

>where an 
>architect observed people in *city plazas*, always adjusting the placement of 
>their chairs, even just very slightly, before they sat down!  (He recommended 
>that plazas ought always have chairs that can be adjusted, to indulge this 
>'superstitious whim'. ;^)

Sure, but maybe it's just a mechanism for releasing tension caused by urban
spaces.  Just because an explanation appeals to your unsubstantiated beliefs 
doesn't mean that it's any more likely than other (and possibly simpler)
explanations.  Here's an example: I claim that the reason why magnetic tapes
get duller sounding and noisier with age is that there's a _psychic bond_
between the recording and the soul of the artist, such that as the artist
ages and loses his hearing and mental acuity, the tape is synchronously
rendered more muted, less sharp, etc.  If I didn't know squat about how
tape deteriorates with age, and chose to ignore points like "why doesn't
the tape go silent when the artist dies?", I might think that I had a 
pretty cool theory.  If someone comes along and says, "er, Larry, you 
haven't had your caffeine yet, there's a very simple physical mechanism
at work here," should I rail at them that they're science-obsessed boors
who haven't an ounce of spirituality?

>I'll also bring in at this point the whole *biological* mystery of 
>individuality, which is critical in immunology because all diseases are 
>(supposedly) failures of the immune system to isolate non-self invaders.  

I'm not saying that it's absolutely impossible for telepathy, telekinesis,
self/other breakdown, etc., to occur.  But isn't it more likely that you 
would detect an imprinting by simply touching or looking at an object, as 
opposed to the imprinting "knowing," for example, that it should only affect 
the two tracks that are playing forward, despite the fact that there are four
tracks passing under the heads at any given moment?  What if my life is going
great when I listen to side A of the tape, but I never listen to side B until
two months later, when things aren't so good?  Are you saying that there are
different imprints stored on each pair of tracks?  The fact that listening
to each side of the tape (years later) brings back a different emotional
memory seems to imply that, doesn't it?  Yet the idea that psychic imprinting
can selectively record on tracks 1&2 versus 3&4 seems pretty contrived IMHO.

Just to add some Kate-related content, what happens when you play an imprinted
tape backwards? %) %)

>And 
>this is bound to be related to this whole urge-to-mark-space-as-mine.  Or 
>consider how comfortable we are with our own saliva, so long as it stays in 
>our mouths, but if you spit into a clean glass, it's *really* gross to 
>consider drinking it back up.  Even in that trivial gesture, we've completely 
>redefined it as non-self, really dramatically!
>
>This whole area is conspicuously *incomplete* in terms of scientific
>theory.

You only need a new theory when existing theories fail to explain observed
phenomena.  For example, analogous to your saliva example, some people, as
soon as they discover that someone who they've been talking to in email is
a female rather than a male, will alter their tone of writing, word choice,
etc.  Do we need a new scientific theory to explain this?  In the spit 
example, we could note that small children don't have these fears, some 
societies don't mind it, etc., and reasonably hypothesize that it's social 
conditioning/norms.  More complex theories with "hidden variables" are only
needed when we can't explain things with simpler theories.

>> For me at least, the fact that the CD will (very likely) produce the exact
>> same sounds as it did 10 years before will _increase_ the sense of deja vu.
>
>Notice that you're stating *as fact* what you expect to perceive ten years 
>from now.  Rather prejudicial, I'd say. (Your "very likely" doesn't modify the 
>prediction about your feelings, but the prediction about the audio-data-
>integrity, as I read it.) 

Point conceded.  I should have said, "will _increase_ the likelihood of a 
sense of deja vu."  But surely you're not arguing against "the phenomenon
of deja vu" ((c) Monty Python) -- we are just disagreeing on what is causing
the deja vu, right?

>This is the Asimov-problem in a very pure form: 
>we've been conditioned to value *his generation's* models of reality more than 
>*our own immediate experience*.

Aw, come on.  Our immediate experience is often massively deceptive and self-
contradictory.  For example, there are still plenty of people who feel, deep
down in their heartofheartofhearts, that African-Americans are inferior, that
Arabs are evil, etc. ad nauseam.  Should they ignore objective information
(IQ tests, medical evidence, comparative religion, etc.) and go with what 
their emotions tell them?  Hey, I'm _all for_ newer and more all-encompas-
sing models of reality; if the old ones don't work, throw 'em out.  But 
until you test a model against something that other people can reproduce,
why should anyone but you believe it?  I'm not _telling_ others not to 
believe it, I'm asking why shouldn't we be skeptical?  Why should we believe
the spoon-benders, et. al.?  Should we all be totally uncritical of every-
thing and believe any theory that posits a spiritual mechanism?  If not, 
how do we separate the gems from the wooly thinking?  Just on a "sounds 
good to me" basis?

>> I think Psychology 101 already has it covered.
>
>My, you found Psych 101 *intellectually satisfying*???  How embarrassing for 
>you! 

Duh, you missed my point -- that Psych 101 is really, really primitive stuff,
it explains very little about human behavior, yet it easily provides a full
explanation for the "imprinting" scenario without recourse to hidden variables/
mechanisms.  How embarassing for you.

>It's not a fair test to condemn my argument on the grounds that the 
>information-channel is not 100% clear, or even 10%, probably.

I'm claiming that if you took two identical tapes, but played one in your
room while experiencing some trauma, while the other was ten miles away,
then later tried to pick the "traumatized" tape (assuming nice double-
blind conditions, etc.), that you couldn't do it by just listening to it,
at least not more often than by chance.  If you consistently picked the
right tape even 5% more often than predicted by chance, I would be floored.

>MY experience, 
>though, is that under the ideal conditions of a soft medium that you imprint 
>on repeatedly in a time of intense emotion, abandoned for a longish period, 
>and then returned to after the emotion has faded, you may well expect stronger 
>sentiments from hearing that particular tape than a similar copy, and a hard 
>medium like CDs doesn't allow this effect.

This is going to sound like a rehash to anyone who reads rec.audio, but...
why do you automatically discount the possibility of self-deception?  You can
certainly tell whether you're listening to a tape or a CD, so you already
have major cues.  You know that you are predisposed to look for a spritual
mechanism (because we need more of that sort of thing).  So why are you so
sure that despite clear bias and heavy cues, that you've cut through all that
and have detected emotional imprinting?  Because you're biased?

>***THINK 
>ABOUT YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE***  Don't limit yourself to what you've been told 
>your experience is 'allowed' to be. 

Please... you're not dealing with some robotic scientist in a white lab
coat, believe me.

>I can't really say I'd expect to gain much value from listening to someone 
>else's tapes, unless maybe they were someone I really cared about, to where I 
>was willing to make a great effort to empathically 'get inside their head'.  

But in that case, you'd already be predisposed to "know" what their emotional
state was.  You seem to be backing down from any claims that could be 
conclusively verified. %) 

>It's not like a Polaroid!

Well, you're the one using terms like "imprinting," implying that something
subjective is objectively being put onto the tape.

>> If they have conflicting responses (e.g., to a tape of _TSW_), what is the
>> imprint on the tape?
>
>I can *imagine*, at least, if I were trying to get inside the previous owner's 
>head, empathically, that I might sense that they didn't really vibe with a 
>particular song.  So I'm listening along to the tape of TSW my friend has laid 
>on me, and "Reaching Out" comes on, and I sense *less empathic closeness* to 
>my friend, sensed thru this 'astral' dimension. 

OK, that's very testable.  Either you can sense that sort of thing with a
probability greater than chance, or you can't.  You've made a claim that we
can get some consensus on.  Why aren't you rushing to try such an experiment,
so you can prove us all wrong?  Remember, you can't be "tainted" with advance
knowledge of which tracks your friend liked -- it's gotta be double-blind if
you want to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

>But my own reactions to RO 
>are going to be hard to see past, too, so it's not likely to be clearcut, very 
>often.

Bingo!  Given what you just wrote, can you see why I claim that your "detect-
ing" an imprint is occuring primarily or entirely inside your head, as opposed
to being "received" from the tape?  

>Again, if you're listener #3, it would be critical whether #2 had bothered to 
>listen for #1's reactions, and the most you might hope to hear is #1-as-heard-
>by-#2.  This is all artificial and hypothetical, though.  There are simpler 
>examples where the phenomenon makes better intuitive sense, if you seriously
>care to try and understand what I'm trying to say.

I would like to understand it.  Please give us these examples.  So far, the
ones you've given should be fairly easy to test.

>Notice, people, how strange and improbable these arguments sound, how tempting 
>it is to just *deny* them... 

Yo, Jorn, I am _not_ "just denying" them!  I am trying to argue logically.  If
there is some shared basis other than logic and experiment that you would like
to use to determine who's right, please tell us exactly what it is.

>but if you look without prejudice, they're 
>*perfectly plausible* both from the point of view of our daily, direct, 
>experiencing, and also, equally, plausible in terms of what 'Known Science' 
>should allow. 

Again, lots of (not all!) things that appear to jive with "daily experiencing"
are b.s. -- people used to think the earth was the center of the universe.
As far as "what 'Known Science' should allow" -- just because it _could_ 
happen (via some undescribed mechanism) doesn't make it any more probable 
than other things that _could_ happen, except by force of your biases.  

>The kneejerk 'scientism' that pretends they're proven impossible is *pure*
>egotism.

So, anything that anyone suggests should be _assumed true_ until proven 
otherwise?  And BTW, people have been trying to demonstrate such effects
for many years -- it's not like you're the first person to come up with
this sort of hypothesis.  I'm not saying "proven impossible," but rather
"shown highly improbable until reproducible evidence to the contrary is 
discovered."

>while subtle sensing of feelings and 
>emotions is an everyday, every *moment* thing, if you just have the self-
>confidence to notice it.)

Please, the bit about how we've all been cowered by Big Bad Science into
burying all our subtle perceptions is a strawman.  I don't rule out the
possibility that some sort of general emotional imprint may occur onto
objects, but the idea that the imprinting is occuring in some sort of
media-format specific way that distinguishes digital from analog is IMHO
a product of very wishful thinking.

>(Alan Watts had a fine title for one of his books: On the Taboo Against 
>Knowing Who You Are. Notice, all, how these self-appointed enforcers are all 
>roused to venomous defense of their denial-systems, and show *no* sign of 
>giving the tiniest thought to my arguments, or even reading them 
>carefully...)

You must have missed a lot of postings that our site got just fine.  At any
rate, I'm glad you haven't been "roused to venomous defense" like those cold,
unfeeling scientists.  

>Kate content?  Absolutely!  Her whole career and philosophy is about waking 
>up to other dimensions.  Her own attunement beyond the narrow window of 
>consensus reality is where her genius finds its roots. 

Perhaps the point is to _expand_ consensus reality to encompass things which,
unlike the "traumatized tape" phenomenon, are not explainable by current
science.  Excursions outside consensus reality only serve a useful purpose
if they can be demonstrated to others... I would think that you'd be anxious
to show us evidence that this isn't just "all in your head."  Just guessing,
but does it bother you when "mysterious" things turn out to have mundane
explanations? 

>And the rampant 
>Denialism in the world is more than likely the major villain behind her 
>recent timidity about publishing.

Do you have any more evidence for that theory than for your claim about
magical recording tape?  Again, you seem to believe something based solely
upon the fact that it's what you'd _like to believe_.  BTW, are you saying
that Kate only wants to preach to the choir?  Isn't her art needed now more
than ever?

>I can't think of a likelier group than the 'Hounds to appreciate what I'm 
>saying.  

Another gross generalization.  I can't think of a likelier group than 
the 'Hounds to _discuss_ what you're saying.  Are we all supposed to go,
"oh, that sounds like something that Kate would agree with! [insert quoted
lyrics here] oh, yes!"

>I'm not inclined in the least to let myself be backed down by a 
>handful of tyrannical boors.

Please don't back down, I'd like to see you (or anyone else) address the 
above points.

>You t.b.s are a blight on human reason, 

Har, har, har!  Here we (some of us) are trying to argue logically, and 
you're calling us a "blight on human reason"!?!  I thought _you_ were 
arguing against the oh-so-stifling bonds of reason...  ROFL^2

>and your fury is sheer territorial ego,

Hm... (checks desktop)... still only the 31st.  Well, I'm glad that you're
"staying centered" and not getting too worked up about this.

>pompously imagining that you have a right to decide what experiences are 
>granted respect, and which are drenched with contempt.

I _respect_ your experiences, I just totally disagree with your theories
that attempt to explain them.  Can you see the difference, or has your
emotional reaction blinded you?

>Well, piss on you back! 

More spirituality... that's what the world needs, by gum.  %)

>This is an *arts* forum, your preconceptions carry no weight here, 

...but yours do.  Got it.

>please shove your scientism up your bloody butts.  I assert my freedom and my 
>rights!

The Jorn Manifesto.  At least you said "please."

-- 
Larry Spence
larry@cs.com
uunet!csccat!larry