Guybrush

A main problem here is that your source is still not trustworthy Science is supposed to be unbiased. It means that you, as a scientist, do your scientific work without a pre-concieved agenda. You are supposed to be objective. Having a specific agenda, like making money, corrupts science.

The thing here is that so far, it doesn't seem like the guy who wrote this has done any research of his own. It looks more like a review and indeed, he seems to quote other articles, although which ones we don't know since you're not pasting a reference list. We don't even know if these articles he supposedly quote are accepted by the scientific community or not.

This guy is just taking claims and backing them and so far, we can't check his sources. He could be misquoting or using them in a misleading manner. He has the motive to do so, he is selling a product after all and is probably not a scientist.

Let's say he is trustworthy .. The text still does not explain how binaural beats can mimic the effects of hard drugs.


You probably think I'm just being difficult and that I don't understand, but I do. I'm working on my own scientific thesis in ecology and work alongside scientists and read articles etc. all the time .. and one of the very basic things all scientists learn is to be sceptic. Especially when there's a motive involved! Believe it or not, but if people want to fool other people, they are quite good at making the incredible seem credible. I'm sure I could back up some rather fantastic claims myself without that much trouble. That's why the guy behind I-Doser is likely not a good source.

__________________
Something Completely Different

CanwllCorfe

No I understand, I know scientists are meant to have an inherent skepticism. That's all fine and well, if you don't like him as a source as well, that's fine too. I am more interested in binaural beats than the actual program or the founder. I am used to skeptics, trust me. (I believe in ghosts... is that a no-no?) I just find the program extremely fascinating because I have had results, and no, I am not actively "searching" for one. The "doses", as they are called, are not all drugs. I have tried sleep ones, which some worked and some were too sensitive for me. There are ones too that have no description other than
"unexplainable". So I can't fake any results because it is still new to me and I still don't know what is going to happen.

Janszoon

If you think it's simply about toretorden "not liking him as a source" I don't think you do understand actually.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

CanwllCorfe

No he thinks he isn't reliable, and that's fine He thinks he isn't because it sounds as if he is biased, and not looking at it skeptically which people in the field of science should do. It makes sense and isn't complex. I could have reworded it.. i'm sorry?

Janszoon

What he's talking about is basically a given when you're looking at data. Whose assessment of a new Ford would you trust, Ford's or an impartial third party's?

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

CanwllCorfe

An impartial third party, yes I understand all of that. He was using sources from various people and took out parts to reinforce his argument instead of getting sources from both sides. We also don't know if those sources that he used are reliable. But it's not like I am doing a project or something. I use the program, I get an effect, and I'm happy. If, in the scientific community, those sources are regarded as undependable or fallible, then that is a shame. But I am not interested in the scientific research as much as I am in the actual product. Is someone that does marijuana interested in doing research on how it can affect them? The only reason I posted those things was to show that he had done research, however if that research doesn't meet your standards, take it up with him.

sumguy

I have heard allot from both sides of this new "Drug". I have even read some news paper reports about angry mothers trying to ban it ("F***ing unbelievable! ) I would be interested in finding out if it worked for the whole "Being able to do drugs and still pass a piss test" aspect. generally speaking though, i would prefer real ones, they have been tested and approved for years.
My thought is this though: Theoretically speaking, if you can recreate the effects of a drug and make your brain get "High" just with audio, couldn't you also make some one mentally challenged, or use it to make people do things against their will. I'm just spit balling ideas for the discussion, but if they could make a case about Marilyn Manson influencing the columbine shootings, what could they do with this one?

That is the point of the placebo test. Make sure people arent lying to get money before it gets mainstream.

__________________

CanwllCorfe

No,, because all you need to do to make it completely ineffective is to think about anything while the dose is being "administered". If you keep your mind busy on other things, you won't get affected by the audio, because in essence, your brain isn't paying attention. As for the placebo concept, can't anything be a placebo? There have been people who are given water and told that it is alcohol and actually get drunk. But for this, if you keep thinking "ohh I wonder what I am gonna feel" or "this is so weird" the whole time then you won't be as affected. For me it's more of a meditative thing than a "drug" or anything like that. About the people wanting to ban it, yeah i'm not surprised I can only imagine how many things are gonna be blamed on it

BoopieJones

I tried "content" - smiled for the first 4 minutes into it then turned it off

Alchohol -felt heavy and tired. Turned it off after like 30 minutes.

Peyote - Body tingled. Heart beat faster, thinking was a little slowed. Did it again this morning, fell asleep. Did it in school and objects seemed to morph a little. I kept going into trances. I was also really wishing it could work.


Marijuana - I fell asleep while listening to this but felt a little bit of an elation although not much.

I think this is false marketing, by naming it as the name of recreational drugs. I was hoping for an experience like one of those and i did not get one. Bah.

sumguy

I think as an effective placebo test you could just get a group of people un-paid participants, have a few people listen to the real stuff. Have a few people listen to a close recreation that isn't programmed to do anything but makes similar sounds, and have a controlled group that listens to like.... John Zorn or something. Tell all of the groups to do the same things. Concentrate, no light, clear your brain... all of that. I think it would be pretty revealing.
And i am into meditation on a personal level. I think it is helpful, and there were times in my own meditations that i have felt similar to "drugged", but that's neither here nor there.

__________________