Can't tell whos the bigger moron, this PhD from Caltech of all places supposedly, or Neil Young..
Here's how anyone with a shred of education, and basic deductive reasoning can dismiss this nonsense:
Put another way, if a sensitive, world-acclaimed innovator denounces his industry and its technology for undermining human dignity and brain function, something big is up .
Yes, the probability of ignorance, stupidity, but mostly a mental neurosis such as a psychosis diagnosis if VERY "up". (the former mostly being attributed to the author since he purportedly has had higher levels of education.
Science needs to get emotion right, and sound is in the way.
Oh fuck off retard.. This bullshit all-or-nothing fallacy: "If you don't know everything about one aspect of our discussion, then your science is to be disregarded in totality".
Only to then have to look like a complete buffoon when he realizes all current understanding is due to scientific exploration, and the only reason we have placeholder words like "happy" and such is for laymen that don't have to get a college education before they describe the brains' pathway of neurons and hormonal interactions between synapses just so that they indicate pleasure. Science inches every second toward revealing even these eye-rollingly cringe commentaries on "science can't explain emotion", or "science can't explain the MIND".. as if to indicate either of these aspects are some supernatural intangibilities removed from the physical brain.
But this is how science denial always works, these retards always co-opt discoveries they can no longer deny and simply move on to aspects science lacks the foundation and logistics and time to fully explore. And ALWAYS make the "oh so if you can't fully explain it, therefore my X irrational, unsubstantiated machinations on the matter are true - or you simply can't speak because you can't answer every question I have"..
How on Earth can someone from Caltech make this following claim, I can't imagine. Whoever issued this man a PhD should suffer legal penalty, and I say this fully outside of everything I've talked about here. I just want to draw your attention to this one completely idiotic and pernicious claim (this basically proves the author is either a lair, or in need of medical attention if you can say the following after finishing up an education from CalTech.
Overall, the comments cluster into complementary philosophies, which might be called theory vs. experiment.” They raise the deepest issues possible pertaining to interpreting reality: How much should we trust the laws of nature versus how much should we trust our own sensory experience? Of course, people who notice differences in sonic texture will say so, as the reader comments above refer to the experiential data of “color,” “depth” and such. But other people, those who know certain laws of physics always apply, will assert the primacy of natural law bluntly, as one might assert the self-evidence of 2+2=4.
The unfortunate asymmetry of such discussions is that while one individual sensory experience doesn’t speak to anyone else’s, and thus doesn’t insult them, the reverse isn’t true. Invoking a law of nature that says certain experiences can’t possibly exist does, in fact, insult anyone having that experience. In such discussions, the “scientists,” in effect, call the “musicians” stupid, insensitive and/or hallucinating.
Yes in this very specific instance I am calling you, and the droves of boasters, stupid AND hallucinating. Stupid because you should know better that after decades of putting audiophiles to the test, they have ALL failed in their mythological-level claims (thus you should know as a scientist why its not good using human subjectes in every validation procedure is a scientific reality long established). Hallucinating because not only do you not see the horrendous track record of every single one of these failures, but also for deluding yourself with machinations of someone who hasn't the faintest clue of basic high school science education foundations are.
How many more objective failures do these lunatics need to abandon this stupidity?
Worse with this author as he is a "biophysicist" and "neuroscientist", maybe he can explain to us in a future article what the actual pathway of these sorts of mental neurosis' are on the psychical brain-wiring level. But even then I'd imagine we'd get some idiotic super-natural explanation.
