[skrivis]

I actually held an Intelligent Chip in my hand, but the experiment I had in mind would have consumed all the "charges", so we put it aside. However, I concluded that the chip wasn't large enough (they are tiny!) to hold enough power to allow them to read any disc information straight through the metal of a CD player case, so it's impossible for them to recognise disks they've already treated (as the manufacturer claims) - let alone read and rewrite a CD in any way, shape or form. So apparently, they have ESP. In which case, I hope it wasn't offended by what I was thinking when I looked at it.

This isn't really what they're claiming for them. They're claiming esoteric quantum effects with no proof the experimental work actually applies to an Intelligent Chip used with a CD and CD player.

Supposedly, coherent quantum superposition will change the CD media to be totally optically transparent. Since the laser that illuminates the CD will also (and this is questionable) illuminate the Intelligent Chip, you then get Quantum Entanglement between the Chip and the CD. (They provide nothing that would indicate that Quantum Entanglement would lead to Coherent Quantum Superposition, let alone prove that Quantum Entanglement could even happen with a typical CD player and an Intelligent Chip sitting on top of it.)

The explanation at: http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina64.htm is basically a lot of mumbo-jumbo that they hope will confuse and dazzle the prospective sucker... I mean customer.

Call it snake oil, say they're full of shit... whatever. It's not scientific.

Clark, I know you find these have a beneficial effect, but it simply can't work as they describe, and there's either some other explanation or they're pulling the wool over your eyes. From what I've seen of this product, the effect is solely between your ears.

[kfr01]

Intelligent Chip... lol.  What a joke.  I mean, can anybody really seriously claim that this voodoo works?  Can they measure it?  

Crap like this is why people hate audiophiles.  

[clarkjohnsen]

Intelligent Chip... lol.  What a joke.  I mean, can anybody really seriously claim that this voodoo works?  Can they measure it?  

Crap like this is why people hate audiophiles.   :roll:

Or alternatively, "Call it snake oil, say they're full of shit... whatever. It's not scientific."

There may be perfectly good reasons to hate audiophiles, but there are plenty more reasons to hate people who sneer at others, especially when no audition has taken place. Fortunately, such sophomoric attitudinizing carries no weight here.

Among those hundreds who have heard -- excuse me, been fooled into thinking they heard -- the Intelligent Chip, and have gone on record with it, we may number Steve Harris (editor of HFN&RR) and four assistants, Ken Kessler, John Curl, Bobby Palkovic, Bob Crump, Bill Gaw (EnjoyTheMusic) and yours truly. Among that crowd one may count many university degrees in science, several of them advanced.

But none of that matters to scalawags who dismiss something they were never taught in school as "voodoo", "snake oil" and "shit". By the way, gentlemen, a course in vocabulary expansion might benefit you all.

clark

[lonewolfny42]

[/list:u]

Photo's from Emil's March 2005 Rave - Intelligent Chip
[/list:u]

[miklorsmith]

Doubters jump off the train at different stops.  Some say amps make a difference but not wires, others will admit that wires affect sound but not vibration control, etc, and still others will agree optical enhancement has potential but not wooden knobs or the "magic chip".

Seriously, a lot of the folks over at AH will tell you with a straight face that no CDP, amplifier, wire, or anything but your speakers and room has ANY affect on the sound unless the piece is literally broken.

If the detractor has personally experienced what they profess and can support their opinion based on that, it means more to me.  This doesn't mean I automatically believe what they say however, as I've been in rooms with people and have come away with different impressions.

However, the blind, pinata swinging based solely on one's inability to comprehend the forces at work gets no credence from me.  Calling others out as stupid with an eye-rolling emoticon doesn't heighten standing, intelligence, or strength of argument either.

The intelligent chip doesn't make any sense to me, but having not seen/heard it I'm not judging it either.

[kfr01]

But none of that matters to scalawags who dismiss something they were never taught in school as "voodoo", "snake oil" and "shit". By the way, gentlemen, a course in vocabulary expansion might benefit you all.  

You, sir, could use a course in not taking other's opinions of unscientific and unproven products personally.  You, sir, did not take the high-road you imply others should take by responding to my undirected comment in the manner that you did.  You called me a scalawag because I called a product voodoo?  

Rather than taking my opinion of the product personally, please link me up to any expert reviews and other scientific results you may have.  

What, sir, do you honestly expect the public to think?  Do you expect us to blindly purchase these products so that we can "see for ourselves?"  You must realize that unscientific and unproven products like the "Intelligent Chip" seem like a blatant scam to everyone new to this hobby.

It is not unreasonable to hold such an opinion such as mine.  Please don't fool yourself into thinking that reasonable people believe unsubstantiated marketing claims of new products; even with endorsements from experts in the field.  

No, it is the burden of the firm to sell me the product.  I will not give them the benefit of the doubt.

However, the blind, pinata swinging based solely on one's inability to comprehend the forces at work gets no credence from me. Calling others out as stupid with an eye-rolling emoticon doesn't heighten standing, intelligence, or strength of argument either.

My pinata swinging was not based solely on my "inability to comprehend the forces at work."  I was not attempting to heighten standing, intelligence, or a strength of argument.  I was expressing a quick opinion, admittedly less than eloquent, late at night on an internet forum.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

We, as consumers and free beings, still have the right to form and express opinions about products, even harsh, uneloquent, and sarcastic ones, right?  

... I won't post an opinion on the Intelligent Chip again.  I didn't realize I was personally offending anybody with my late-night comment about a product.  You'd think I brought up religion or politics.    Seriously, I'm done with it.  Peace.

[nathanm]

The Intelligent Chip really works!  For instance, once I tried playing a Mannheim Steamroller CD with the chip "installed" and the disc drawer violently ejected, tossing the CD onto the floor.  Other times when playing CDs engineered by Neil Kernon it boosted the bass considerably and replaced triggered kick samples with better ones.  If that isn't intelligent I don't know what is.

[ScottMayo]

This isn't really what they're claiming for them. They're claiming esoteric quantum effects with no proof the experimental work actually applies to an Intelligent Chip used with a CD and CD player.

Yeah, yeah. Some possible ideas:

1) It recomputes and rewrites bits. (I know that's impossible. It's a question of available energy.)

2) They have a hitherto unknown quantum effect (they've been quoted as claiming it's quantum, but not in writing on their web site) that recovers lost information, in defiance of Information Theory. If they have a quantum technique for regenerating lost information (according to their website, it was lost during the cutting process, so it really is lost: forget entangling or other humdrum tricks) then they're in a great position to dictate terms to AT&T, no, actually, the US government. The ability to recover lost information has some wonderful implications for modern physics. Which is pretty good for a bunch of audiophiles who sell from behind a PO Box and hitherto hawked small rubber cones.

3) They are in touch with mystic forces, beyond the comprehension of man, and to even question their technique is to question the meaning of reason and reality itself. To which I say, cool, can I smoke some of that? And to which I add, DON'T screw with these people.

4) It's bald bleeding hokum, and reviewers really are that gullible.

My favorite is 3, but it's not the one I believe.

[James Romeyn]

This is not directed at anyone or any post in this thread.  

A presuppositionist believes that every belief only exists in the context of another belief that is automatically considered true for the later belief to be true.  You believe your name is whatever you believe it is because that's what you've always been called & you read a birth cirtificate that you believe is yours.  Do you remember your birth event?  Probably naught (pun intended).    

The funny thing about this is that eventually, the source of every single belief is something unproven & unprovable.  The source, at the very root, of every belief, no matter what that belief is, is human choice.  Eventually the "pre"-supposition that supports every belief, is thin air, human imagination, whatever.  The best word to describe it is choice.    

This insults & offends some people, as I'm sure it will here, because when you get right down to it, there is absolutely no difference whatsover between religious "faith" & "science".  This is because, as described above, faith is eventually the very source of every belief.  No matter what evidence a person observes, that person will in the end believe whatever in the world they want to believe.  

This explains why each & every "scientific" measurement has a range of error.  An "inch" or a "millimeter" has no absolute value.  None.  It is purely abstract.  In the end, it's whatever you say it is.  It also explains why science is so fleeting, why so many paradigms fully believed to be cast in stone in the past, were eventually blown to smitherenes by subsequent "scholars".  It also explains the phenomena of getting two scholars with equal top-flight expertise, who are given the exact same list of facts regarding any scientific subject, yet they give different analysis of the fact, different diagnosis, different treatments, etc.  This baffles juries & makes it very difficult to come to a consensus, especailly when both sides have spent big money on dueling "experts".    

Humans come to diametrically oppossed views on many subjects.  It doesn't matter if its science or religion or politics, because they really are all exactly the same from from this philosophical point of view.  The best thing to do is to accept this, & to not offend others just because they made a different choice.

On a practical level, to quote scientific jargon to support one's belief that an audio product is physically incapable of providing good value to an audiophile, & to deride a person who does not agree with you, is disrespectful or possibly worse.  Especially if that person has no direct personal experience with the product, & is using "scientific" third party reports for his case.

[JohnR]

But that doesn't mean that you can simply throw out established scientific principles willy-nilly.

Or, to adapt miklorsmith's analogy, if you don't get off the train *somewhere*, you *will* be taken for a ride

[ScottMayo]

The funny thing about this is that eventually, the source of every single belief is something unproven & unprovable. The source, at the very root, of every belief, no matter what that belief is, is human choice. Eventually the "pre"-supposition that supports every belief, is thin air, human imagination, whatever. The best word to describe it is choice.

I am reminded of a true story. Over tea, a discussion between some students (essentially epistemological in nature - this happened at L'Abri) started between a believer in an Eastern philosophy (don't remember which one, so I'll stick with 'Eastern') and some folk from a more Western perspective.

The Easterner announced that there was no difference between cruelty and kindness; they were merely matters of perspective, a choice of view, as you might say. One of the other students immediately got the hot tea pot from the stove, and balanced it, steaming, over the Easterner's head.

"What are you doing?"

"There is no difference between kindness and cruelty," the Westerner quoted back, without hesitation.

The Easterner got up and left, but not, I think, before a point had been made clear to him.

Not everything is a matter of perspective, and some things are universal and absolute. Scalding hot tea would be one of them, but there are others.

However, I grant you that if everything is a matter of perspective, if there are no possible absolutes, and it's all based in human imagination as you say, then there's no point in my commenting on Intelligent Chips. In fact, that there would be absolutely no basis for anyone to discuss any aspect of audio with anyone else. Why bother? Audio is sense-data, a pure perception. From what you say, there's no possible way to establish a shared frame of reference, so there's no point in discussing anyone's perceptions. I mean imagine you're trying to sell someone something: what do you say? "I think speaker X is worthwhile, but frankly, for all you really know, I'm a Japanese-speaking pygmy penguin, and this speaker you listened to is really a porcupine, and you can't know otherwise because perception is only a choice, so maybe my opinion is not really very relevant."

On the other hand, if there is something called reality, and if humans are capable of reason, then I can't imagine anyone objecting to attempts to understand, explain, prove, disprove and categorize. And in such a world, certainly "charlatan" is one of the worst possible things to be. So please hold me excused while I question - directly, pointedly and without pulling punches - things manufactured by those I believe to be charalatans. You might as well, because I'll do it, very cheerfully, until I'm proven wrong.

As far as I'm concerned, pointing out that a product cannot work as the manufacturer claims it does, is a public service. It tells you that the manufactuer is either grossly confused (unlikely in this case, IMHO) or lying, and those are good things to know before spending money.

Now you've bloody gone and done it. An hour wasted on philosophy.

[eico1]

...Fortunately, such sophomoric attitudinizing carries no weight here...

Just 2 weeks on this board and already...?

steve

[_scotty_]

A rebuttal of an argument

This insults & offends some people, as I'm sure it will here, because when you get right down to it, there is absolutely no difference whatsover between religious "faith" & "science". This is because, as described above, faith is eventually the very source of every belief.

Begging The Question (Assuming The Answer, Tautology):For the above argument to be valid this statement must be true.




 

The funny thing about this is that eventually, the source of every single belief is something unproven & unprovable.

The only thing necessary to refute this argument is a belief supported by the knowledge of material evidence or logical proof and not
based on faith.
Common definitions of: material evidence, science,and scientific method.
Common definitions of faith :1 , Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith


Material evidence (Law), evidence which conduces to the proof or disproof of a relevant hypothesis. --Wharton.
Science:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Scientific method:

The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=scientific%20method
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=material%20evidence

This explains why each & every "scientific" measurement has a range of error. An "inch" or a "millimeter" has no absolute value. None. It is purely abstract.

 
Definition of abstract,Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abstract
Contradictory Premises. ["An "inch" or a "millimeter" has no absolute value.None. It is purely abstract."] This assumption has to be true in order for the argument to be valid. An abstract has no concrete basis in reality. It is, by it's nature, an unquantifiable concept. Measurements are the essence of a concrete concept and are a quantification of reality.
Both the inch and the millimeter have an absolute value. See definition of meter. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=meter
Whether a scientific measurement has a range of error or an absolute value does not make  it an abstract concept or subject to the individuals whim as to it's value. If this were the case no discipline of science dependent on a mathematical understanding of physical relationships between things would not be practical. Mechanical engineering is one example.
Whether or not a bridge stays up is not subject to one saying the numbers
are what ever I want them to be. If you get them wrong it falls down.

"No matter what evidence a person observes, that person will in the end believe whatever in the world they want to believe."

This is something I witness every day and this conclusion does seem to be valid.

[James Romeyn]

However, I grant you that if everything is a matter of perspective, if there are no possible absolutes, and it's all based in human imagination as you say, then there's no point in my commenting on Intelligent Chips. In fact, that there would be absolutely no basis for anyone to discuss any aspect of audio with anyone else. Why bother? Audio is sense-data, a pure perception. From what you say, there's no possible way to establish a shared frame of reference, so there's no point in discussing anyone's perceptions. I mean imagine you're trying to sell someone something: what do you say? "I think speaker X is worthwhile, but frankly, for all you really know, I'm a Japanese-speaking pygmy penguin, and this speaker you listened to is really a porcupine, and you can't know otherwise because perception is only a choice, so maybe my opinion is not really very relevant."

On the other hand, if there is something called reality, and if humans are capable of reason, then I can't imagine anyone objecting to attempts to understand, explain, prove, disprove and categorize. And in such a world, certainly "charlatan" is one of the worst possible things to be. So please hold me excused while I question - directly, pointedly and without pulling punches - things manufactured by those I believe to be charalatans. You might as well, because I'll do it, very cheerfully, until I'm proven wrong.
...

Many would agree the lines between cruelty & kindness are sometimes blurred.  I just had to put down a wonderful but very very old cat.  Would it have been better to wait till it was crying out in pain from its arthritis?  Would it have been better to wait till it starved to death because it couldn't eat any more?  

Don't put words in my mouth.  I believe in absolutes with all my heart & soul.  Some deny absolutes.  An old acquaintance got very mad every time I asked him if he absolutely was sure there were no absolutes.

Eventually you must absolutely take something for granted (faith) to believe anything you believe.  You can not prove everything.  The nature of belief is that there is a presupposition in front of the belief.  When you keep going back to the source you eventually must take something for granted.  There is a term called "self-evident".  The very words describe something that the person believes does not require justification.  You either automatically believe it or others who believe will automaticallay believe there is something wrong with those who do not believe.  They are automatically considererd wrong.  Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, not my intent to offend any scientists here.

Commenting on a chip could be considered very different than saying that anyone selling it is a liar or a cheat, especially when the "comment" is made by someone who has never even seen it.  That is contrary to primary source science.  That is in fact quite unscientific.  That is, to me,  more like religion.  Such as, "I've read that can't be true so I'm here to tell you it doesn't work, & anyone saying it does work is a liar." How "scientific" is that?  "Commenting" sounds much less critical, along the lines of, "you know, from what I've read, I personally don't know any way on earth that thing could work, but as Iv'e never witnessed it, I'm open to contrary opinions."

[James Romeyn]

Definition of abstract,Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abstract
Another Tautology. ["An "inch" or a "millimeter" has no absolute value.None. It is purely abstract."] This assumption has to be true in order for the argument to be valid. An abstract has no concrete basis in reality. It is, by it's nature, an unquantifiable concept. Measurements are the essence of a concrete concept and are a quantification of reality.
Both the inch and the millimeter have an absolute value. See definition of meter. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=meter
 
Whether a scientific measurement has a range of error or an absolute value does not make it an abstract concept or subject to the individuals whim as to it's value.  If this were the case no discipline of science dependent on a mathematical understanding of physical relationships between things would be practical.  Mechanical engineering is one example.
Whether or not a bridge stays up is not subject to one saying the numbers
are what ever I want them to be. If you get them wrong it falls down.
 ...

An argument about science can quickly start to resemble a religious argument, which I'd prefer to avoid.  

I read your definition of a meter & I agree with it.  On first glance it appears the definition of a meter is concrete.  But upon close examination, the concrete definition of a meter utilizes a flawed & imperfect measuring device to define it, called a clock.  Because all clocks have an assumed rate of error, one person's meter only perfectly matches another's when they utilize the same clock.  When different clocks are used, the definition is different.  Unfortunately for your defintions above, this rate of error is the antithesis of "absolute".  It can in fact not be absolute because there are very very very accurate clocks, but all are imperfect.  These are factual statements.  So this is where your argument turns to dust.  Equal to the clock's error rate, the definition of a meter is purely abstract.  Read your own defintions.  How can you say it is concrete, then simultaneously say it is allowed some form of deviation, as long as it's within a certain range of error....it's still an inch or a meter?  What is your acceptable error rate?  Is that acceptable error rate universal?  Yes, this is actually science, but all I'm doing is pointing out the obvious, that a scientist's definition of exactly one meter is limited by the accuracy of the measurement device.  Under oath, all he can say if asked the following question: "Is the measurement & definition of a meter flawed by the exact error rate of the clock used to measure it?", is a resounding..."Yes".  It is, to use your words above, "unquantifiable" to the extent of the clock's error rate.  To the extent of the clock's error rate, a meter is in fact, purely & only "abstract".          

I noticed no reply was made to my statements about the so called scientific concrete beliefs that over time have been blown to smitherenes by subsequent better science.  Ditto the fact that some medical professionals with the absolutely highest credentials, even some who may have the exact same training, come to diametrically oppossed opinions regarding treatments & diagnosis.  Where did the term "second OPINION" come from if science is so pure & concrete?  All science is practiced by flawed humans.  Scientists, just like religious believers, tend to want ot overlook & minimize past errors in their belief systems.  Remember "duelling experts" in the courtroom?    

The fact is that scientists design bridges, airplanes, jets, cars, tires, spacehips, all kinds of stuff.  How many errors of these scientists would I have to list here to support my claims in this thread?  Does the Firestone/Ford debacle, several hundred dead people, & several billion in damages ring any bells out there?  Bridgestone builds F1 championship winning tires & they also were responsible for the Firestone tires that resulted in many SUV deaths.  Was it Bridgestone's fault or Ford for not warning people that PSI's are more critical in SUV's vs. passenger cars, & SUV's handle like crap because they are too tall & must not be driven like passenger cars?  The courts never really decided, again, because of duelling experts.  Ford paid scientists to blame the tires, Bridgestone scientists said the SUV's handle like crap & require critical PSI monitoring.  In the end I got nice little pressure warning monitors on my SUV........  

How many flawed designs by scientists would convince & be enough to support my claims?  Still, no matter, as I stated, it's all in the end a human choice to believe whatever you want to believe.  The fact that we all have rulers & other reasonably accurate measurement devices to cut wood, & scientists have cute little force equations to design bridges that usually work safely, does not in any way refute anything I've stated above.  I recently took a rescue systems class wherein we measured & cut wood for shoring for rescue operations.  We got the job done, but you wouldn't want the guy who builds your next home to use the same acceptable error rates when cutting the wood for your kitchen cabinets....or soundroom.

[kfr01]

The fact is that scientists design bridges, airplanes, jets, cars, tires, spacehips, all kinds of stuff. How many errors of these scientists would I have to list here to support my claims in this thread? Does the Firestone/Ford debacle, several hundred dead people, & several billion in damages ring any bells out there? Bridgestone builds F1 championship winning tires & they also were responsible for the Firestone tires that resulted in many SUV deaths. Was it Bridgestone's fault or Ford for not warning people that PSI's are more critical in SUV's vs. passenger cars, & SUV's handle like crap because they are too tall & must not be driven like passenger cars? The courts never really decided, again, because of duelling experts. Ford paid scientists to blame the tires, Bridgestone scientists said the SUV's handle like crap & require critical PSI monitoring. In the end I got nice little pressure warning monitors on my SUV........

This is a bad analogy.  Bridgestone doesn't put F1 championship tires on street cars because of COST.  Ford and bridgestone could make nearly industructable TANKS built on current technology or science.  They don't because no one would be able to afford them.  

Moreover, don't confuse bad business decisions with the limits or merits of science.  Millions of people DO get to work safely every day because of sound scientific principles being applied a million times over in our cars, roads, and other infrastructure.

You attempt to use human flaws and business decisions to discount the merits of science.

Your reasoning is flawed.  The fact that there are error rates and non-absolutes in life does not discount the underlying scienctific principles; especially when we can account for the error rates to accomplish design goals.

Taking what we currently know about how things work, and making a judgment, comment, or hypothesis about a suspect product and its marketing claims based on this knowledge, is, in my opinion, valid and O.K.

People do it all the time.  It is one way we make buying decisions.  Hundreds of times a year we ask: "Will this product work?"  We then have an internal dialogue in which we may, validly, decide, "knowing what I know about reality, and everything I've learned to this point, this product seems like a complete scam - I won't buy it."  

People have a right to form opinions and comment about products without buying the product!  I'm not even talking about the intelligent chip anymore.  I could care less; there's no way I'll buy one.  I'm talking about the right to comment and the burden of proof and selling here.  You want my money you better put forth a decent and reasonable explanation as to why you deserve it.  If I don't think a product will work, I'm going to voice my opinion.

[_scotty_]

Another argument containing circular reasoning or Tautalogy with non-sequiter.

Eventually you must absolutely take something for granted (faith) to believe anything you believe. You can not prove everything. The nature of belief is that there is a presupposition in front of the belief. When you keep going back to the source you eventually must take something for granted. There is a term called "self-evident". The very words describe something that the person believes does not require justification. You either automatically believe it or others who believe will automaticallay believe there is something wrong with those who do not believe. They are automatically considererd wrong.

 Circular reasoning see brackets
[Eventually you must absolutely take something for granted](faith) to

believe anything you believe. You can not prove everything.

The nature of belief is that there is a presupposition in front of the belief.

When you keep going back to the source you[ eventually
must take something for granted.]
Non-sequiter
The term Self- Evident is unrelated to presupposition, belief or faith.
When one observes the sun is overhead in a cloudless sky neither presupposition or belief is necessary to be cognizant of it's presence.

See definition of belief ,presupposition, self evident and faith :Main Entry: be·lief
Function: noun
: a degree of conviction of the truth of something esp. based on a consideration or examination of the evidence —compare KNOWLEDGE, SUSPICION

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

belief

n 1: any cognitive content held as true [ant: unbelief] 2: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying" [syn: impression, feeling, notion, opinion]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Self- Evident :Requiring no proof or explanation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=self-evident

Thank-you,kfr01, I can't type fast enough to keep up with the rate that Jim
can supply arguments with flaws in reasoning.
Scotty

[skrivis]

Or alternatively, "Call it snake oil, say they're full of shit... whatever. It's not scientific."

There may be perfectly good reasons to hate audiophiles, but there are plenty more reasons to hate people who sneer at others, especially when no audition has taken place. Fortunately, such sophomoric attitudinizing carries no weight here.

Among those hundreds who have heard -- excuse me, been fooled into thinking they heard -- the Intelligent Chip, and have gone on record with it, we may number Steve Har ...

I think that you're taking it too personally. I derided the product and its "inventor."

As for all of the people with advanced degrees who like the product, can you produce a quantum physicist that will state that the explanation I cited is truthful and logical?

If you consume a bar of chocolate, it's quite possible that the ingredients will alter your state of mind and you'll find that listening to music is more pleasurable. The difference is purely mental, and "between your ears." Is that a bad thing?

(I'm assuming that the reports of chocolate having endorphin analogues are correct.)

I proposed that there was some other explanation for the beneficial effects that you hear than that given on the web site I cited. How do you get from there to assuming I had made an ad hominem attack?

[skrivis]

Yeah, yeah. Some possible ideas:

1) It recomputes and rewrites bits. (I know that's impossible. It's a question of available energy.)

2) They have a hitherto unknown quantum effect (they've been quoted as claiming it's quantum, but not in writing on their web site) that recovers lost information, in defiance of Information Theory. If they have a quantum technique for regenerating lost information (according to their website, it was lost during the cutting process, so it really is lost: forget e ...

Regarding #2, I thought the explanation I cited was on the manufacturer's site. Was I incorrect?

[_scotty_]

The original argument.

This explains why each & every "scientific" measurement has a range of error. An "inch" or a "millimeter" has no absolute value. None. It is purely abstract. In the end, it's whatever you say it is.

The above argument is still invalid, it's conclusion,"In the end, it's whatever you say it is." is not supported.  
  Abandoning this conclusion does not make the abstraction argument valid. Your later arguments required earlier arguments and the conclusions drawn from them to be valid for subsequent arguments to also be valid, when your earliest arguments were invalidated everything based on them was also invalidated. That is why later points in your argument were left unaddressed.  Further arguments based on the same flawed premise are not valid either for reasons that have already been elucidated.
Scotty[/u]