Laurel or Yanny? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

What do you hear?

Laurel
18
69%
Yanny
8
31%
#14915662
Yanny.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14915664
I hear yanny, but I know it's actually laurel. I also see white and gold when I look at "the dress", so obviously I am just consistently on the wrong side of meme history.
User avatar
By Rancid
#14915665
Yanny,

An audio expert was saying that the reason some of us hear different words is because that audio has a large amount of higher frequency sound. Thus, not all of us are able to hear all the higher frequencies.
By B0ycey
#14915666
Heisenberg wrote:I hear yanny, but I know it's actually laurel. I also see white and gold when I look at "the dress", so obviously I am just consistently on the wrong side of meme history.


Being that everything is relative, what is the correct side? This is why I find these things facinating.

I was reading that it is believed that depending on the size of you ears determines what you hear. And the dress was down to the amount of receptors you have in your eyes. But I think it might be just as simple as to how the brain interprets the information it is given and people are trying to find answers where there aren't any. Whatever the real reason is, I think it is amazing how people who share the same universe can see and experience things differently within it.

I am a blue dress and Laurel person btw.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14915669
B0ycey wrote:Being that everything is relative, what is the correct side? This is why I find these things facinating.

Because the actual recording is of a guy saying "Laurel" for vocabulary.com. So it should be "laurel".

Fwiw, I can now hear both. "Laurel" is what you get if you focus on the lower frequencies, and "yanny" is what you hear if you listen in for the higher frequencies.
#14915670
B0ycey wrote:Being that everything is relative, what is the correct side? This is why I find these things facinating.

I was reading that it is believed that depending on the size of you ears determines what you hear. And the dress was down to the amount of receptors you have in your eyes. But I think it might be just as simple as to how the brain interprets the information it is given and people are trying to find answers where there aren't any. Whatever the real reason is, I think it is amazing how people who share the same universe can see and experience things differently within it.

I am a blue dress and Laurel person btw.


I am a Berkeleyan, so it does not surprise me at all.

I saw the dress as white and gold BTW.
By B0ycey
#14915671
Heisenberg wrote:Because the actual recording is of a guy saying "Laurel" for vocabulary.com. So it should be "laurel".


I think you missed my point and went straight to the conclusive. Nonetheless, sound is nothing more than waves ripping through air. What you experience is what you brain tell you to experience. And in that sense, everything is relative and both sides are correct.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14915674
B0ycey wrote:I think you missed my point and went straight to the conclusive. Nonetheless, sound is nothing more than waves ripping through air. What you experience is what you brain tell you to experience. And in that sense, everything is relative and both sides are correct.

No, I understood your point - I was just pointing out my reasons for saying which one was "correct".

I have an aversion to the "everything is relative" worldview because it seems to be primary cause of our political culture becoming so babyish. Everyone has "their truth" now. So it should be pointed out that the "correct" answer to "laurel/yanny" is, in fact, laurel, so that we don't all end up splitting into two deranged opposing factions over it. ;)
By B0ycey
#14915680
Heisenberg wrote:No, I understood your point - I was just pointing out my reasons for saying which one was "correct".

I have an aversion to the "everything is relative" worldview because it seems to be primary cause of our political culture becoming so babyish. Everyone has "their truth" now. So it should be pointed out that the "correct" answer to "laurel/yanny" is, in fact, laurel, so that we don't all end up splitting into two deranged opposing factions over it. ;)


The question was in fact "What do you hear?" Not "what is it?"

But like VS I am also Berkeleyen. And I also believe in Einstein's theory of relativity, so naturally I don't have the same aversion as you do to the term. But I do agree it's a not worth slitting into deranged opposite factions over a bit of fun. So we will have to disagree and move on.
#14915703
B0ycey wrote:To some extent so am I. So we can agree on one thing.


aren't you an atheist or an agnostic or something?

If so, you cannot be a Berkeleyan.

You may be a Humean skeptic, but not a Berkeleyan.
By B0ycey
#14915710
Victoribus Spolia wrote:aren't you an atheist or an agnostic or something?

If so, you cannot be a Berkeleyan.

You may be a Humean skeptic, but not a Berkeleyan.


Philosophy isn't based on religion VS. Being most of matter is empty space, I think Berkeley is very accurate on his notion of immaterialism.
#14915713
@B0ycey,

Berkeley's Immaterialism is incoherent without theism as theism is a part of the philosophy at the fundamental level. This has nothing to do with religion per se, but the system of phenomenal idealism is exclusively theistic from its own claims. Berkeley's system was an apologetic system first and foremost and it was also a system where everything exists in created and Uncreated Consciousness.

Its not merely a rejection of matter, but of phenomenal reduction to conscious-content, the causal origination of such being a Supreme Mind called God.

This is how Immaterialism accounts for causal origination, objectivity, etc.,

Berkeleyan Immaterialism without theism is Hume's philosophy. Plain and simple.

To say you can be an atheist and an immaterialist is as silly as saying you can believe in immaterialism and be a physicalist. Its nonsense.
By B0ycey
#14915720
Victoribus Spolia wrote:@B0ycey,

Berkeley's Immaterialism is incoherent without theism as theism is a part of the philosophy at the fundamental level. This has nothing to do with religion per se, but the system of phenomenal idealism is exclusively theistic from its own claims. Berkeley's system was an apologetic system first and foremost and it was also a system where everything exists in created and Uncreated Consciousness.

Its not merely a rejection of matter, but of phenomenal reduction to conscious-content, the causal origination of such being a Supreme Mind called God.

This is how Immaterialism accounts for causal origination, objectivity, etc.,

Berkeleyan Immaterialism without theism is Hume's philosophy. Plain and simple.

To say you can be an atheist and an immaterialist is as silly as saying you can believe in immaterialism and be a physicalist. Its nonsense.


Unfortunately I don't have the time to rebutted this, but Berkerley's conclusion that perception requires the need for a God doesn't remove the philosophical elements of his work. Nor is it essential to appreciate it. I once ushered you to a link of a thread of mine that was based on Berkerleys work. You ignored it. Perhaps I might address this in a new thread one day if you bring it up again. Until then I maintain I am Berkelyen in some extent, as I too accept immaterialism. Nothing we perceive is real. Our minds create the universe around us. It is that simple.
By B0ycey
#14915723
Heisenberg wrote:Only on PoFo could "laurel or yanny" turn seamlessly into a discussion about fucking Berkeleyan Immaterialism. :lol:


See you say that, but Berkeley was actually on my mind when I bought this topic forward. Only by coincidence did VS mention him first. The links to these 'tests' and Berkeley are not clear unless you bring immaterialism into the fold. So your cynical scepticism is fair but unwarranted.
#14915724
B0ycey wrote:Unfortunately I don't have the time to rebutted this, but Berkerley's conclusion that perception requires the need for a God doesn't remove the philosophical elements of his work.


I never said it did, but to call yourself a Berekelyan immaterialist is inaccurate.

B0ycey wrote:Nor is it essential to appreciate it.


I don't deny this.

B0ycey wrote:Until then I maintain I am Berkelyen in some extent


Your qualification here is necessary, so you are a berkeleyan in the same way that you are Christian because you believe the golden rule seems like a good idea. :lol:

B0ycey wrote:Nothing we perceive is real. Our minds create the universe around us. It is that simple.


This is also not in Berkeley. This is not Berkeleyan at all and is a caricature.

Berkeley did not deny the reality of the world, he just denied that it had a mind-independent reality and origination. The table is real, because what makes it real is its sensible qualities: "hardness, brownness, etc."

Furthermore, Berkeley denied that "our minds" create the world around us. According to Berkeley, when it comes to the perception of created beings (humans) our mind is passive. We receive our phenomenal states extra se

If you merely deny the existence of matter and physical causation, I would say you are well on your way, but you have not graduated from Hume to the real master; the good Bishop.

I can show you how preposterous your claims are and why you should join Christian theism, philosophically speaking.

I can bring you to the true position from which Berkeley's Immaterialism really originated, and by his design no less.
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 17 May 2018 22:34, edited 2 times in total.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
How Many Genders Are There?

I am not convinced that it is. People chang[…]

@Decky The omelette looks OK if you are vegetar[…]

I don't think this is true. It certainly isn't […]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDlI-t25D7c Thi[…]