Looking for Skeptics
- Thread starter Cassidy
- Start date
- Status
desertgal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,198
With a bunch of silent .wmv files? I bet even the Daily Mail won't run it.
desertgal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,198
Tried that. Didn't work. But, really, it's up to a doctor to determine if someone is truly mentally ill. All we can do is say we think there's a problem. I think most folks here try to avoid the "truly".
Last edited:
SezMe
post-pre-born
In my view, this is the most important question that has been asked of scrappy.
Last edited:
SezMe
post-pre-born
Har, har. Pixel42 made a funny.
SezMe
post-pre-born
Precisely.
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
A pleasant little ditty from my childhood:
I hate Bosco!
Bosco's bad for me.
Mommy puts it in my milk
To try to poison me.
But I fooled Mommy,
I put it in her tea.
And now there's no more Mommy
To try to poison me.
IXP
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,395
Tracey,
I am about to explain why I think you are interpreting sounds produced on “silent” recordings as spirit voices. I ask to read this very long post, try to understand it, ask questions if necessary, and let us know what you think.
I do not claim to be an expert in voice recognition, voice synthesis or the psychology of human verbal communication, though I do claim to be far more knowledgeable than the average person. I have been a computer programmer and electronics hobbyist for over 40 years and have taken an interest in speech synthesis, speech recognition, and digital sound.
At one time, I worked on a speech synthesis system of my own design. It involved recording, using my own voice, all of the phonemes (basic consonant and vowel sounds) of the American English language, then putting them together to form words and sentences.
One thing that struck me, right away, is that I could not record the “L”, “R” and “W” sounds such that they sounded right when I replayed them. They all sounded the same. I would record all three and I could not tell which was which.
It also occurred to me that these are the very sounds that children and non-native speakers (particularly Chinese and Japanese) have trouble making clear when speaking English. My conclusion is that we do not reliably hear these sounds differently. And if one cannot distinguish them in hearing, one cannot produce them correctly in speech.
So, suppose a native English speaker is listening to speech and there is an “L”, “R”, or “W” sound in the speech. Let’s say the speaker is saying one of the three words;
Rip, Lip, or Whip
I contend that a listener could not distinguish these words 100% of the time. Let’s say it is 80%. I also contend that a computer program could do a little better. Why? Because it can store the actual sound and apply a lot of analysis to distinguish between the subtle differences. Let’s say it can get it right 90% of the time.
Now let’s change the test a little. The speaker says of the following sentences:
Let ‘er rip.
Whip it good.
or
No more lip, son.
I contend that a typical American English speaker from my generation and similar upbringing would get the word correct 100% of the time when used in one of these sentences. Whereas, the computer program would do no better than it did with the single words.
Why? Because s/he is using far more than the sounds to determine what was said. S/he is using context (the other words in the sentence), his expectations, and his memory of hearing something similar before. Indeed, speech recognition involves all of one’s knowledge and expectations, and is very, very effective for humans. Computer programs, on the other hand, do poorly by comparison.
In fact, research into speech recognition systems has discovered that the sounds we hear do not have enough information to make out what they are saying. The only reason we are able to do it so well is that extra context, expectation and experience that we, as human listeners rely upon.
So how does this make spirit voices? Here is my theory, reject it if you will, but please try to understand it.
You are making recordings that contain a lot of random, speech-like sounds. In fact, you have already confirmed (in the recordings made by Calebpriime) that not any sounds will do, they have to be at a certain volume level etc.
Then you ask a question and listen to them. Asking a question is actually an important part of the process. Why? Because it sets up your expectations of what you will hear. Your brain struggles to hear anything that might be responsive to that question. When we expect to hear certain things, regardless of whether the sound actually contains that answer, we try to make sense of it.
The human brain, as I have already said, is very good at making sense of ambiguous sounds. So you take these random speech-like sounds, and you try very hard to make sense of it. And you do! Except that there was no sound there that supported the interpretation you came up with. It was all in your interpretation of ambiguous sounds.
When others listen to the same sounds you hear, they do not hear it. If you tell them beforehand what to listen for, they might hear it. If they really want to believe you, they almost certainly will hear it. This is not spirits, it is psychology.
I believe I have explained adequately everything that you are experiencing. Let’s discuss it from here. Please tell me why my explanation is wrong, or why voices from spirits is a more likely explanation.
IXP
I am about to explain why I think you are interpreting sounds produced on “silent” recordings as spirit voices. I ask to read this very long post, try to understand it, ask questions if necessary, and let us know what you think.
I do not claim to be an expert in voice recognition, voice synthesis or the psychology of human verbal communication, though I do claim to be far more knowledgeable than the average person. I have been a computer programmer and electronics hobbyist for over 40 years and have taken an interest in speech synthesis, speech recognition, and digital sound.
At one time, I worked on a speech synthesis system of my own design. It involved recording, using my own voice, all of the phonemes (basic consonant and vowel sounds) of the American English language, then putting them together to form words and sentences.
One thing that struck me, right away, is that I could not record the “L”, “R” and “W” sounds such that they sounded right when I replayed them. They all sounded the same. I would record all three and I could not tell which was which.
It also occurred to me that these are the very sounds that children and non-native speakers (particularly Chinese and Japanese) have trouble making clear when speaking English. My conclusion is that we do not reliably hear these sounds differently. And if one cannot distinguish them in hearing, one cannot produce them correctly in speech.
So, suppose a native English speaker is listening to speech and there is an “L”, “R”, or “W” sound in the speech. Let’s say the speaker is saying one of the three words;
Rip, Lip, or Whip
I contend that a listener could not distinguish these words 100% of the time. Let’s say it is 80%. I also contend that a computer program could do a little better. Why? Because it can store the actual sound and apply a lot of analysis to distinguish between the subtle differences. Let’s say it can get it right 90% of the time.
Now let’s change the test a little. The speaker says of the following sentences:
Let ‘er rip.
Whip it good.
or
No more lip, son.
I contend that a typical American English speaker from my generation and similar upbringing would get the word correct 100% of the time when used in one of these sentences. Whereas, the computer program would do no better than it did with the single words.
Why? Because s/he is using far more than the sounds to determine what was said. S/he is using context (the other words in the sentence), his expectations, and his memory of hearing something similar before. Indeed, speech recognition involves all of one’s knowledge and expectations, and is very, very effective for humans. Computer programs, on the other hand, do poorly by comparison.
In fact, research into speech recognition systems has discovered that the sounds we hear do not have enough information to make out what they are saying. The only reason we are able to do it so well is that extra context, expectation and experience that we, as human listeners rely upon.
So how does this make spirit voices? Here is my theory, reject it if you will, but please try to understand it.
You are making recordings that contain a lot of random, speech-like sounds. In fact, you have already confirmed (in the recordings made by Calebpriime) that not any sounds will do, they have to be at a certain volume level etc.
Then you ask a question and listen to them. Asking a question is actually an important part of the process. Why? Because it sets up your expectations of what you will hear. Your brain struggles to hear anything that might be responsive to that question. When we expect to hear certain things, regardless of whether the sound actually contains that answer, we try to make sense of it.
The human brain, as I have already said, is very good at making sense of ambiguous sounds. So you take these random speech-like sounds, and you try very hard to make sense of it. And you do! Except that there was no sound there that supported the interpretation you came up with. It was all in your interpretation of ambiguous sounds.
When others listen to the same sounds you hear, they do not hear it. If you tell them beforehand what to listen for, they might hear it. If they really want to believe you, they almost certainly will hear it. This is not spirits, it is psychology.
I believe I have explained adequately everything that you are experiencing. Let’s discuss it from here. Please tell me why my explanation is wrong, or why voices from spirits is a more likely explanation.
IXP
Patchwork Moth
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2012
- Messages
- 59
Nicely said IXP.
I think of it like this. The first syllable of my forename is the same as a common everyday object. Any number of times I have responded to someone who isn't talking to me because they have included this word in their general chatter. I'm so 'tuned in' to this word that I hear my name in some very unlikely places (and a few embarrassing ones!). Our brains try to make sense of random noise and pick out the important parts, like someone saying our name, and fit them into our personal understanding. If you're desperate enough you can find the answers to things even in white noise. Pareidolia is just our minds providing the link between what nonsense we are seeing/hearing and fitting them into our own reality (or lack of).
Hope this makes sense, I'm sure someone will be kind enough to let me know if it doesn't- I'm here to be educated.
I think of it like this. The first syllable of my forename is the same as a common everyday object. Any number of times I have responded to someone who isn't talking to me because they have included this word in their general chatter. I'm so 'tuned in' to this word that I hear my name in some very unlikely places (and a few embarrassing ones!). Our brains try to make sense of random noise and pick out the important parts, like someone saying our name, and fit them into our personal understanding. If you're desperate enough you can find the answers to things even in white noise. Pareidolia is just our minds providing the link between what nonsense we are seeing/hearing and fitting them into our own reality (or lack of).
Hope this makes sense, I'm sure someone will be kind enough to let me know if it doesn't- I'm here to be educated.
Well said, IXP, and good comment, Patchwork Moth.
I'm sure we've all been fooled by pareidolia, and we're not ashamed to admit it.
Who's not ashamed of being being fooled by pareidolia?
I'm sure we've all been fooled by pareidolia, and we're not ashamed to admit it.
Who's not ashamed of being being fooled by pareidolia?
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Sure, in this context:
Scrappy's response on flaccons's guest book page:
..... would nearly indicate Scrappy to be an instant True Believer. There may likely be more to it.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
We used to have a cat who could recognise his name and respond to it. But he would also respond to any word that started with the same vowel and consonant, whichever way round they were.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Krikkiter
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,282
Obviously I'm new to this conversation so please excuse any misunderstandings, but after reading as much as I could stand, my understanding is that there seems to be an issue regarding the alteration of audio after uploads - especially regarding whether or not the upload style changes the audio file in any way.
To show that it doesn't one could simply import both files into an audio DAW (something decent rather than Audacity - Reaper is fairly decent and free for the demo), expand the view - you can do this to the point where the wave forms are so magnified that they appear as single lines - and compare the wave forms visually. If a person were so inclined they could even do a screenshot of both and overlay one on top of the other.
Hope that adds something. If not, apologies for the interruption.
To show that it doesn't one could simply import both files into an audio DAW (something decent rather than Audacity - Reaper is fairly decent and free for the demo), expand the view - you can do this to the point where the wave forms are so magnified that they appear as single lines - and compare the wave forms visually. If a person were so inclined they could even do a screenshot of both and overlay one on top of the other.
Hope that adds something. If not, apologies for the interruption.
malicus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,766
But but the spirits can alter files and leave no trace on waveforms or checksums.
Checkmate, Mr Bond.
I am still trying to contact Tracy with out success. I read this post twice and it makes very good sense. Tracy isn't actually allowed to ask the spirits questions. Tracy asks many questions, Tracy hears answers she don't like. Tracy never mentioned mountains but they continuously request this. I am aware that she is purchasing a new lap top where no voices should be present. Paredolia really can not account for her 3 minute intake of breath, which left her on antibiotics for 2 weeks, due to her skin in her mouth and throat peeling off. Paredolia doesn't account for her altering my silent file, nor the voice on my lap top that has only been present since june. I have made a note of this post and texted it to Tracy. Thank you for this post.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,331
Scrappy emailed me to say he listened to both the files I sent and he initially thought both were silent. Listening again he thought one of them now had some interference on it, so he asked me to check the originals. I did so and both are unchanged and their MD5 hashes are unaltered.
I should say that neither of the files was ever truly silent. Both have background noise, though one is substantially quieter than the other. It was the noisier file which scrappy remarked on as having gained interference. I suspect he just wasn't listening at a loud enough volume setting the first time around.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,331
Firstly, I'm not entirely comfortable with your deciding to share another member's medical history with the internet.
Secondly, that aside, I don't think anyone here would be likely to propose pareidolia as a cause of those symptoms, nor to suggest antibiotics as a treatment for pareidolia.
Thirdly, "3 minute intake of breath". What?
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
- Status