Do Solfeggio Frequencies heal and should we not redefine the prime numbers?
-
- addled muppet weed
- 106163 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
-
- addled muppet weed
- 106163 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
or that this could be why some people think there is healing properties, they've heard of music therapy and are jumping ahead 
-
- addled muppet weed
- 106163 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
-
- Boss Lovin' DR
- 12741 posts since 15 Mar, 2002 from the grimness of yorkshire
He's on about this gubbins;
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Solfeggio_frequencies
"...Apparently, an individual by the name of Dr. Joseph Puleo (in mid-1970s) discovered "solfeggio frequencies" through a series of pareidolic numerological calculations involving Bible verses, and it is claimed that these frequencies are "ancient" and "sacred" and were frequently used and sung before being "forgotten" by the modern world.[3] How we were able to measure the exact frequency of sound back then is not addressed."
-
- addled muppet weed
- 106163 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
ah, the bible...
well tbh, this sounds more like sorcery, which according to the bible, isn't allowed! so stop it!
well tbh, this sounds more like sorcery, which according to the bible, isn't allowed! so stop it!
-
- KVRAF
- 11193 posts since 19 Jun, 2008 from Seattle
Indeed. He wasn't trying to make a point pro or con, but seeing if those frequencies could be used/combined in a more "musical" context.
I have been interested in, and involved in (to varying degrees) sound and rhythm therapy for decades, but this numerology based "Solfeggio Frequencies" crap, as well as the whole "432" vs 440 (et al) conspiracy crap I burnt out on discussing long ago. Other than if anyone prefers a tuning of 432 (for their specific acoustic instruments, primarily), then go for it, but know that it is just another tuning, nothing more.
Notwithstanding, 'sound' and 'music', IS a *vibe* (perceptual/relational) interaction. As such, it has or can have an 'effect', in large part relative to ones receptivity and/or susceptibility to that 'vibe'. Consciously, or unconsciously.
For my part, I love the sound of the wind singing through the trees. The rustling of leaves. Wind chimes. Birds songs. The Surf! Babbling brooks. etc. ... Persevere.
I'm not a musician, but I've designed sounds that others use to make music. http://soundcloud.com/obsidiananvil
-
- Boss Lovin' DR
- 12741 posts since 15 Mar, 2002 from the grimness of yorkshire
Plus, there's also the very real positive effects of music as an activity, rather than just as a passive recipient, be it singing and dementia sufferers, or learning an instrument for those with learning difficulties etc etc. Well researched and effective therapies, as opposed to this 432 etc detritus, which is so often accompanied by other bonkers irrational anti-science shite in the name of 'wellness'...Shabdahbriah wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 3:05 amIndeed. He wasn't trying to make a point pro or con, but seeing if those frequencies could be used/combined in a more "musical" context.
I have been interested in, and involved in (to varying degrees) sound and rhythm therapy for decades, but this numerology based "Solfeggio Frequencies" crap, as well as the whole "432" vs 440 (et al) conspiracy crap I burnt out on discussing long ago. Other than if anyone prefers a tuning of 432 (for their specific acoustic instruments, primarily), then go for it, but know that it is just another tuning, nothing more.
Notwithstanding, 'sound' and 'music', IS a *vibe* (perceptual/relational) interaction. As such, it has or can have an 'effect', in large part relative to ones receptivity and/or susceptibility to that 'vibe'. Consciously, or unconsciously.
For my part, I love the sound of the wind singing through the trees. The rustling of leaves. Wind chimes. Birds songs. The Surf! Babbling brooks. etc. ... Persevere.
-
- KVRAF
- 2488 posts since 15 Apr, 2004 from Capital City, UK
My initial voice criticising people's immediate crushing of an idea still holds true. The level of "er yes, I know everything there is about everything and I absolutely tell you this is a load of balderdash" is just typical for a bunch of grown men who think they've got everything figured out and are far too interested in buffing up each others fancy collars and belts. I can tell you you haven't got everything figured out and if that hurts you and all your cleverness, tough titties. Grow up and consider there are things you, nor me, nor anyone currently live on earth could possibly consider as true.
Science is a moving lump of knowledge; idiots believe it is in its final form. If you don't understand that, you can't be included in this conversation.
Some of you guys occasionally sound like you might be ok guys, and you make interesting art, but then these puffed-up "I have all the answers" things appear and I wonder if the real value of these communities is to make yourselves feel better about what little you know.
I'm not saying I know everything, because I most definitely don't, but I know better than to say, explicitly, anything about which I know nothing. I can comfortably say "I don't know if there is anything more about how sound-waves interact with resonant objects than we currently understand" and I'm fine with that. I'm fine with not knowing yet. I'm not ok with people who definitely don't know the answer to things saying they do. The current understanding is NOT the final answer.
That's my problem. Whether you, dear reader, suffer from this, I do not know.
The only answer to this OPs question is "we don't fully understand if there is any relationship between sound waves and how nature heals itself, yet" and "no, prime numbers do not need to be redefined" - numbers are a tool, nature doesn't behave with numbers in mind - we use numbers to solidify observations we've made about nature, and some number groups appear to match certain observations about nature. (see periodical cicada life cycles) - we go around the sun, cicadas have no awareness of this, (well, many humans barely do.. but anyway..) we observe that they emerge in 13/17 year life cycles. 13 and 17 are a couple of the lowest prime numbers we know of. These cicadas behave like this all the time, probably having evolved over thousands of years. We don't know if they do to avoid predators or to protect the gene pool - because, you see, they don't actually know why they do it even though they've been doing it for as long as they can remember.
For us to admit that we don't actually know why a thing happens, but to have a few well-observed and informed guesses is absolutely acceptable and expected. People who spew "I can tell you for a fact, this particular complex natural phenomena - I have a grip on it, and am fully aware of it in all it's different forms and can comfortably tell you it isn't a thing" are not looking to inform; they are looking to build their ego.
Enjoy your 'conversation'
Science is a moving lump of knowledge; idiots believe it is in its final form. If you don't understand that, you can't be included in this conversation.
Some of you guys occasionally sound like you might be ok guys, and you make interesting art, but then these puffed-up "I have all the answers" things appear and I wonder if the real value of these communities is to make yourselves feel better about what little you know.
I'm not saying I know everything, because I most definitely don't, but I know better than to say, explicitly, anything about which I know nothing. I can comfortably say "I don't know if there is anything more about how sound-waves interact with resonant objects than we currently understand" and I'm fine with that. I'm fine with not knowing yet. I'm not ok with people who definitely don't know the answer to things saying they do. The current understanding is NOT the final answer.
That's my problem. Whether you, dear reader, suffer from this, I do not know.
The only answer to this OPs question is "we don't fully understand if there is any relationship between sound waves and how nature heals itself, yet" and "no, prime numbers do not need to be redefined" - numbers are a tool, nature doesn't behave with numbers in mind - we use numbers to solidify observations we've made about nature, and some number groups appear to match certain observations about nature. (see periodical cicada life cycles) - we go around the sun, cicadas have no awareness of this, (well, many humans barely do.. but anyway..) we observe that they emerge in 13/17 year life cycles. 13 and 17 are a couple of the lowest prime numbers we know of. These cicadas behave like this all the time, probably having evolved over thousands of years. We don't know if they do to avoid predators or to protect the gene pool - because, you see, they don't actually know why they do it even though they've been doing it for as long as they can remember.
For us to admit that we don't actually know why a thing happens, but to have a few well-observed and informed guesses is absolutely acceptable and expected. People who spew "I can tell you for a fact, this particular complex natural phenomena - I have a grip on it, and am fully aware of it in all it's different forms and can comfortably tell you it isn't a thing" are not looking to inform; they are looking to build their ego.
Enjoy your 'conversation'
-
- Boss Lovin' DR
- 12741 posts since 15 Mar, 2002 from the grimness of yorkshire
You may wish to inform your 'critique' (such as it is..) by focusing on what people have actually said, rather than what you want them to have said.CinningBao wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 10:41 am My initial voice criticising people's immediate crushing of an idea still holds true. The level of "er yes, I know everything there is about everything and I absolutely tell you this is a load of balderdash" is just typical for a bunch of grown men who think they've got everything figured out and are far too interested in buffing up each others fancy collars and belts. I can tell you you haven't got everything figured out and if that hurts you and all your cleverness, tough titties. Grow up and consider there are things you, nor me, nor anyone currently live on earth could possibly consider as true.
Science is a moving lump of knowledge; idiots believe it is in its final form. If you don't understand that, you can't be included in this conversation.
Some of you guys occasionally sound like you might be ok guys, and you make interesting art, but then these puffed-up "I have all the answers" things appear and I wonder if the real value of these communities is to make yourselves feel better about what little you know.
No one has claimed to 'know everything'
No one has claimed science is an unchanging monolithic entity
Have another go, without the flailing ad hominem nonsense.
-
- KVRAF
- 2575 posts since 2 Jul, 2010
That isn't really how scientists think, it's a hollywood strawman that people can feel superior to. Scientists I've work with understand that established "laws" have a limited domain of usefulness, and that further refinements and phenomena can be discovered.
There is a difference between this caricature insisting without evidence that something is not, and the more common behaviour - requiring a high standard of evidence that something unexpected and unexplained is.
There is a difference between this caricature insisting without evidence that something is not, and the more common behaviour - requiring a high standard of evidence that something unexpected and unexplained is.
Last edited by imrae on Tue Dec 27, 2022 5:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 2488 posts since 15 Apr, 2004 from Capital City, UK
@one_who_tugs_donkey: I've re-read the thread and you're right. Nobody has stated outright that there is definitely no connection between sound waves and how they might affect living material (which is the crux of the conversation) but the mockery of these ideas doesn't bring any value to the conversation.
We mock the things we don't understand, I guess that's what happening here. I'm not saying I totally understand it either, but I do embrace anybody else's drive to make sense of it for them.
We mock the things we don't understand, I guess that's what happening here. I'm not saying I totally understand it either, but I do embrace anybody else's drive to make sense of it for them.
-
- Boss Lovin' DR
- 12741 posts since 15 Mar, 2002 from the grimness of yorkshire
Surely, given the length of time this stuff has been batting around, you'd think there would be some attempt at empirical measurement, and some data either confirming or falsifying the hypothesis? Let's be seeing it then!CinningBao wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 11:33 am @one_who_tugs_donkey: I've re-read the thread and you're right. Nobody has stated outright that there is definitely no connection between sound waves and how they might affect living material (which is the crux of the conversation) but the mockery of these ideas doesn't bring any value to the conversation.
We mock the things we don't understand, I guess that's what happening here. I'm not saying I totally understand it either, but I do embrace anybody else's drive to make sense of it for them.
I have no problem with ideas, it's the seeming negation of the need for evidence which sticks in the craw, and directly goes against the scientific method. It's akin to the post-modernist type tripe about all viewpoints having an equally valid 'truth', no matter the lack of philosophical and/or empirical support.
Some people in this thread have previously made detailed and valid critical objections to the hypothesis itself (e.g. on measurement grounds, base 10 bias etc..) yet these questions remained unanswered even before addressing the lack of any corroboration.
As previously, it's unfortunately increasingly common (and dangerous in some cases..) that such unsubstantiated 'theories' are taken as factual, or of equal validity to those extensively tested with a view to falsifiability.
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 33298 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
Personally, I dont believe that (somewhat suspect) claims about'scientists' are any kind of valid argument that an easily-recognisable notion of psuedoscience should be afforded credence. The appended notion that knowing that a specific instance of pseudoscience is pseudoscience is somehow an intellectual claim to 'know everything' is, well, flawed.
Some of the character assessments that result, such as expressing one's opinion being self-aggrandisement, and a need to grow up, could do with being examined more reflectively.
The fact that science has not afforded us a 100% complete, 100% proven knowledege of the workings of our universe does not inherently make any and all instances of pareidolia (and their manifestation as 'explanations' of those workings) somehow worthy of taking seriously. Might as well claim that the inability to cure the common cold is argument enough that phrenology should be treated as valid.
Some of the character assessments that result, such as expressing one's opinion being self-aggrandisement, and a need to grow up, could do with being examined more reflectively.
The fact that science has not afforded us a 100% complete, 100% proven knowledege of the workings of our universe does not inherently make any and all instances of pareidolia (and their manifestation as 'explanations' of those workings) somehow worthy of taking seriously. Might as well claim that the inability to cure the common cold is argument enough that phrenology should be treated as valid.
my other modular synth is a bugbrand
-
- addled muppet weed
- 106163 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
i tend to mock everything tbhCinningBao wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 11:33 am @one_who_tugs_donkey: I've re-read the thread and you're right. Nobody has stated outright that there is definitely no connection between sound waves and how they might affect living material (which is the crux of the conversation) but the mockery of these ideas doesn't bring any value to the conversation.
We mock the things we don't understand, I guess that's what happening here. I'm not saying I totally understand it either, but I do embrace anybody else's drive to make sense of it for them.
myself most of all, and especially my own beliefs. (the magick for example, i may sound like i was taking the piss and was, but have studied the forgotten sciences/dark arts/occult wisdom, since my teen years)
humour for me, is a crutch it's true, as i was bullied a lot at school, and found that making bullies laugh, got them to beat me up less.
over time, it just became how i interact with others, not everyone gets it and many people think im a dick, but it's just who i am...
and while i don't particularly buy the furthest reaches of the proposal here, im more than happy to discuss it, as a thought experiment if nothing more.
the issue with such things being taken seriously, is if people (not here, but in general) as with any untested theory for healing, those who will think it can replace conventional medicines and cause themselves injury or worse.
and while they may be few and far between, it does worry me that someone might.
i enjoy chatting about more esoteric things, but in the context of a forum, where my words can be read long after im dead, id rather err on the side of caution and have a laugh about it.
in person, i may (not sure) get much deeper
hope this helps explain at least my part here (also come on, bollocks/music of the spheres, that's comedy gold!!) and that i bear no ill will, especially not at chrimbo!!
-
- KVRian
- 906 posts since 3 Sep, 2011
