Cochlear Implants, Hearing Aids, and Microphones - Defining Cheresh - Rav J David Bleich

I want to talk about several things with regard to the first is the um Shalomi Cipher who I think he's been mentioned here or hearing aid and of Waldenberg says nobody raised any issue whatsoever with us wearing a hearing aid. Well, I'll I'll raise a little chirp little tiff if I'm not sure but just we clarify the Indian number two I want to defineish and part of number two is two separate problems one is the manish after the in Vienna and a counterpart in London that the talk about what about these whom we managed to educate. They have dinner. Don't they have dinnerish? Another is related also to the same problem. Now please correct me if I'm wrong in Kuhov olive I could not find in the nim any reference to a real pak who got you know suddenly became death either result of an accident of or old age. This is unfortunately something what happens with people as they get older they hearing diminishes and I know of at least one who became mish who couldn't hear a word no matter no hearing would help and he was also blind unfortunately which is also a terrible maz to be he was dumb and deaf and blind for he could talk but help much but >> where do you have again >> I have but I do have sources in your sim why they're not here I don't know but there's I I can't remember anything nor with a quickor did I find anything in Kufra uh number four I want to talk about hearing aids for purposes of being Yates And for that matter for rabbis making at least certainly but even under a with a hearing a with a sorry a microphone I have no problems with nobody has to hear the nobody has to read the I think it's a big k or whatever that's the shamosis there's for reading and finally ly uh cockular implants which is a new form of hearing aid but it's far far different from most hearing aids. So let me begin number before I begin I've written about uh modern day karoshim in volume two of contemporary problems and as always when I go back and I read things I wrote decades ago I would write it much differently now if I were to writing it I hope it would be more analytic and would have further sources uh so that and again I wrote about it in volume in volume seven with regard to cocker implants which is quite different from the original article on implants which appeared in tradition. I just made a glancing reference to the original article and proceeded to say why this has to be reviewed. Uh I'm not sure the muscon is the same because I'm I'm I'll explain why. I hope we'll get to cart implants. I am novel with regard to the to the science of the implants because the same m gave different information to me and to somebody else. So I don't know I don't know what the mus is but we'll talk about whatever there is to talk about a little bit later but to begin with the sources first we have I'm sorry that person is that person is a um he's not aish except for come through in a second but a shame of that calls anabor calls a pa is what the calls now that sounds very much as everything depends upon the hash a person who can't hear is a kerish and if he's a madab then as far as theora is concerned he's a he's not a kerish even though he's an animeha and we'll have to explain why but it turns out that the gammor knew the science of couple a couple hundred years later more than hundred years more than a couple hundred years later in any event in we have twoas the first is the The Rambam talks about aas who is a as distinct from what is a shame and what is this is a distinction the Rambam makes and we'll have to define what it is. However, uh the problem is that the Rambam seems to be contradicting the Gmorrah. The Gomorrah says that a madaba is a why we'll see in a moment's telling me he's still he's still he has to be where did he get this from and why that's even more than where he got it from and it seems to contradict the gamorra as is pointed out by the magishna on the raam comes along to cast Mishna and says that when the gammorra says mid means he doesn't hear the way other people hear normal people hear but at the very minimum means now the real problem that I have and the only realish that I want to talk about today whether I'm right or wrong I don't know but at least this novel is why do you need a shmeakas what is the shmeas going to do here so let me digress a little bit because I think that's the s of the ram and the sid of the gammora. Uh there are cognate words in in in several languages Greek, Arabic and loenes. In Arabic is called in sorry Greek is called the logos. Logos is a homonym in Greek. It means word and it means reason. And unfortunately it has been mistransated. The English translators didn't know whe they were translating the word or reason particularly in the work that I cannot cite in these hallowed precincts but that's one in Greek it's clear that logos it means reason and means speech in Arabic kala the mutakalamim which the Ramban translates as the midream now the raan was misunderstood >> does that too >> you're But Rama was misunderstood. They left Saj alone. I don't know why. But they said that they know the scholars. >> Yeah. He he knows better than >> I like at the end and olive >> at least. Yeah. Okay. >> That's not Yes. Correct. >> Yes. Okay. Okay. So the scholars thought that the Rambam was making fun of the Kalam philosophers of the Arab philosophers when he called them. They thought that they had picked in the kudis which is like he is his spiral I'm sorry if the reads it instead of read over midair is a is apile and what it means to translate it in Yiddish of itself. That's what the word means in that context. It's a hispile, not an ordinary peel. And they thought that he was saying this and in effect, if we're to translate midab into English, that you translate as prattlers, that these people didn't know what they were talking about. That's why he calls them midab. Now in point of fact he was paying them a high compliment because in lenient kesh a midab if you look at the hierarchy of created entities the midab is the one who's on top he's sitting on top because he talks or he reasons that's the word means both speech and reason just as it did in Greek and just as it does in Arabic there's a double connotation to the word so there is a relationship between speech and reasons that just an accident. The relationship between speech and and and and reason the Rambam was ordered in Megala. I'll talk about a little bit later, but the best source for all of this is Hobbes and the Leviathan in which he says that to the best of his knowledge, humans are only people who talk and humans are only people have reason. Forget about dolphins. Dolphins are supposed to have speech. I don't know about that. I don't know that's deep or it's not deep. But uh he says that's because uh he thinks that that speech gives rise to reason. There were among the philosophers who thought it was reason that gave rise to speech but I'm not terribly interested in which came first the chicken or the egg. He recognized that the two came together in his language. He says that all reason is sublingual speech. If you couldn't speak you couldn't think. What are you going to think in? Some people speak is think in one language other people speak in other languages. Uh it's a well-known phenomenon. Most people speak in their native langu think in their native language dream in their native language count money in their native language. mentioned already a child psychiatrist in San Francisco and she says that part of the problem victims of trauma if they experience trauma preverbal age it's difficult to work in psychotherapy because the memories were laid down in a preverbal way and kind of accessed a verbal way the whole the whole experience was preverbal and it's almost inaccessible >> very interesting she's a a hobby Leviathan do you have a have a copy or something or reference friends, you know, not now. If you can get it to me, I'd appreciate it. Okay, that's not not important. But let me go back to what we're talking about. Uh there's clearly a a correlation uh between reason and speech. Now, what the correlation is precisely, we'll have to see in a moment. Uh I want to talk about now about kish and how this relates to the notion of kish. Uh there aren't all that there many many sources. I the particularly with regard to the modern Shila of the educated hish who certainly has intelligence as you talk about intelligence in the nonhalic sense of the term uh but the question is and what is the status of and why now I think it's he's one of the major sources for this not it's not doesn't have a lot there but it's very important uh he points out correctly to the best of my knowledge at least that we don't have a yus to tell me that is falseish is for we've got sources but forish nobody has sources and when we talk we talk about cotton all in one breath it sounds as if aish is just another kind of a cotton cotton doesn't have das and aish doesn't have das a certainly doesn't have d so it sounds as if they're all the same name Alman points out that how do you know this just because they're all linked together they're together in school for whatever whatever purpose but we don't have a yusa all together now what that means is one of two things and this is I think it's elementary it's Greekish uh although the word as was pointed out earlier by some by raig uh aish is either possible abus and mkitz either because he does not pass or because it could be there's no nothing else is possible. It's one of the two. So we have now what if you're going to ask me what is I think that there are several naminas. The first is if you have aish who has D aish who solves quadratic equations. You have a who saw us with the deaf and dumb if you like can't speak can't hear and clearly this person has doubts. We give multip and he passes them with flying colors. He clearly has doubts if he tells like the ones that are the graduates of the school for the death and dumb it must be on the other hand if it's all it's not I'm sorry it's not a by definition is by definition not you may be deaf and dumb but that's not what calls It's a lockic term. It's one who is who is deaf and dumb, has no reason, no intellectual capacity. If you show me one who does have intellectual capacity then by definition but what I have to say was when talks about it's not talking about if you have it's not that's what what this is all about. Now, if you'll ask me what my Navkamina, the first one I gave you already, I think that there is a second and I can't really prove it. My second is whether you have a he's now don't tell me he's smart just like the graduates of the Vienna School for the Definite D. We still call himish. You were once a p and now you're not but you are you can't think anymore or says you can't think this doesn't count. I would say that they're totally zeb now uh the sources I have are really sparse. The best source that I have and I don't have it in front of me but you can find it the ra in in trumis the very beginning of trumis the bartanura says that a has no das he says is like a I think it's as clear as can be there are lots of people who quote the raam together with the rav but I don't think the rambom is as clear as the rav is at all on the contrary I see something in the rambom which I think is very important But it's not the definition. It's this second that I gave you. Whether a person who was aish was a shame and now became aish whether he has a category ofish or not the unlike the raman goes out of his way in the perish has to tell me that he was a if he was aish and he's that tells me if he can out if he can now talk theish and now can talk he's telling me that he is a PKF or holdover or he can be tyr once he can start speaking he can be tyum now the as soon as he learns how to speak that's good enough we take it for granted that he knows whatever he knows now um uh the uh is is the hardest of all to demonstrate although there seems to be a bach and a not a um a a bach and a shak uh and there's then a primagodim dominic with regard to all of this. So it seems to me that there's clearly two possibilities and I would say that I would go so far as to say that it is a m is the tour and the ra for a very simple reason. The Raman tells me that a shameha has to that a shmea has to be a madabas and he's not a madab I'm sorry yes a mab a says mabakas because if he's a v then the rabang still thinks that he has the status why isab If he heard nothing and how we're assuming that you have to be able to hear speech in order to develop intelligence if he's an then why do I care if he's a madab he didn't wasn't able to develop reason in the first place and my probe the litmous test is whether this he has he has intelligence the litmus test is whether he's got intelligence or not is whether he's Aas or whether he's not ashameas, he doesn't have to hear everything. You don't have to have an IQ of 175 in order to be considered intelligent. He hears some things. So he knows some things were able to teach him some things. You weren't able to teach him other things. If you taught him the minimum, I don't know what the minimum is, butases. We'll talk about that a little bit later. That as long as he's able that is made on him that he has reason. So is fine. you can't speak at all. So, there's no reason there. That doesn't work. Uh, and the Rambam is not telling me that you have to have some type of reason. And without reason, you're all totally in reason. If you insist, you can talk about the the tour and say the tour doesn't know of any. And every is not I don't care intelligence, doesn't have intelligence. I don't care is also good enough but a shmeas will make him no longer a aish. So that would be a way of saying that this basic turns out to be a musining. Now I think that there are other things that are contingent there upon uh and for that I have one very interesting source which is not quoted source I know by anybody else it's a sakin of the bestim it's in volume it's the best and reseudenberg and kulitz raber has written aboutish other places in the sicilar but this is something which he doesn't address in the other places now the the there are whole lists of sources with regard to uh the educated uh some of which are quoted here some of which are not quoted here but if you look in um part volume two of problems There are lists and lists of sources both ways. Uh but the point here is that the bezon it's an interesting case. The bezen here is dealing with a young lady from Iran who wanted to become a guarist. Problem was she was a Irish a real Irish. Now when I wrote about it I didn't have it sucked in and that's because the press made a big tuml about it. hadn't been written but was that they refused to take her to gearis why it's a separate problem forget about the guy that's not our problem today but this is discrimination uh you know you've got to make accommodations for the disabled and not making accommodation for the disabled it's unconstitutional or whatever terrible failure uh and that's that context I wrote about the status of a an intelligent I didn't use the word but that's clearly what was going on here in terms of the is the is the lang the braid as it say split down the middle I think there's many sources one way as there are the other way >> in the leng of the braid in the length and the width >> in the in the length Yes. There's a clear uh why there's a mist. It's easy now. They don't they don't tell me this this is or is it simply a measure of who's got das who doesn't have das but it's clear that's what they're saying. They don't have to put in so many words. No, a baby without a name is also a baby. You don't have to give it a name for it. It's clearly what they're saying. In any event, the uh um the sagdin is significant because it deals with two separate issues that have nothing to do with any they have a lot to do, but they're not the same as what we're talking about now. First of all, what's a madab and what's a shmea? What's a shmea? We have earlier sources for the best of which is or at least the most authoritative of which is the I have never seen a near trumpet, but it seems to me the near trumpet probably works like a megaphone. So if you put in your ear instead of, you know, talking on it, you know, to the whole world. Uh, a person that hears without he doesn't hear speech. He hears sounds. The sound of the tree falling in the forest. If you can hear the tree falling in the forest or you can hear thunder. Uh that doesn't make you a pak. The measuring rod is the speech. I don't think that's a great but he's telling me this. He says which in light of what I said before is what what do I care about this for? Why is a simmon that he is a pak? Because he's a madab means he has a reason. Otherwise, he wouldn't be able to learn how to speak in the first place. He had to learn how to speak because he has reason that go hand in hand. So, uh he's telling me and I want want to want to know the point that the business is making is that people lots of deaf people so-called deaf quotation marks. They're not really deaf. And when they listen, they hear a little bit and they lipre and the two together tell them what's going on or at least most of what's going on. They fill in with the uh the lip reading. Instead of hand signals, they're reading lips, but with together they're able to figure things out. The whole point that the BZ is making is that lip reading is not not shi that lip reading doesn't count. And he says, you want to know where the person is lip reading. There are two ways to do this. I'll tell you whether somebody's lip reading or whether he's hearing because he's got some kind of residual hearing or he's hearing on his hearing aids. Some people with hearing aids are hearing because they have the hearing aid plus the lip reading and together they're able to follow conversations. Talk to him from the back. If he's lip reading, he won't understand you. If you talk to him from the front and he understands you and not from the back, it means he's lip reading. Or use numbers. I'll tell you better. use monosyllables because what's happening with filling in with the lip reading. He's caught a couple of syllables. He caught something to the lips. He puts them together. He puts the syllables together. If you have a mono syllable like a like numbers numbers are all, you know, up to 10 up to 10. They're all monosyllables. So if he hears them, he's hearing a divor. If he can't hear numbers, that means he can't hear a divor. That's that's the criterion. That's number one. Then there's a second problem with regard to what's called speech. Well, it's called speech. Now, they don't give the example, but it seems to me that somebody who stutters has got perfectly good speech. Somebody can be do deaf and talk and stutter. Well, stutter stuttering speech. That's good. But there's something else that they call or whatever you word they use. I don't quite know what the etmology is, where it comes from, but there's guttural speech. And guttural speech isn't really speech. I know of only one I knew only oneish who couldn't hear and couldn't speak. He was deaf and dumb and he had guttural speech. I couldn't understand it and I don't think anybody else could understand it. But he communicated with not with sign language, but he communicated in what in one way or another. And people seem to be able to parse out what some of these gut sounds were supposed to be. But to me, I didn't hear a single sound. The question is, what is this lotion loyim? And what's real speech? At what point is it speech and what point is it not speech? And Desdon says, of course, if you if you need speech of one kind or another according to the Rambam, it's got to be real speech. If it's not real speech means with the that you are hearing the words that said you're hearing the real sound of the word that doesn't count speech that's their pro when you hear somebody talking is he talking just indistinctly that you strain yourself you understand or is there something missing in the I don't think that's true but that's for my reason if I was right in the first point I think I'm right in the second point as well the uh uh again there are people who do all of this. I had in my shoo two brothers. One was a paodel and the other who was perfectly rational but he couldn't hear. He wore hearing aids and his speech was I won't say guttural. It was beyond guttural but I couldn't understand him. His brother understood perfectly. The brother understood everything that he was saying. And I suspect there must have been something wrong with me. Not rude. Not with regard to him. He must have had this in this this whatever they're calling it was words had to be there otherwise how the brother know this was not using sign language and it wasn't reading lips. Uh so apparently he he was speaking clear enough for some person who was really smart knew how to figure it out. He knew whether he was talking or not. Yeah >> understands a baby much better than anyone else. It's not because understands the different words are what the different things are saying. >> Again, we have an expert on the on the child development and reason and speech of a child. It seems to me that children aren't a very good example, particularly children who are interacting with parents because children don't speak in in in in full syllables. I I'll give you an example. One of my my oldest daughter when she was small, she kept saying dy and I had vagu idea what she was talking about until uh her cousin walked in whose name is and she says do and puts out her hand to the cousin. She was clearly trying to say a full word and at that point I didn't understand it after I knew what it meant. So now every time she says I know what she means. Uh but that's only because I've been let in on the secret. Not because I've been able to, you know, translate the experience one form or another. It's not because she's communicating in full speech. Is that called a for purposes of haveish who says do orish says instead of mama or something? Yes. I don't know what I feel. What about someone has totally unrelated not neurological smoker has completely rejected me but they learn esophageal speech HG Wells Dr. what was his name Maria Mariah who is his bad guy who creates all kinds of things >> Dr. Maro >> Maro Maro okay Dr. Maro he gave his animals larynxes so they should speak he wanted to make them he wanted to make them rational so he gave him a larynx also uh I don't think he gave them anything else except a larynx and you call that speech now I I don't know what an artificial larynx does for a person I I I know how it works but is they no longer I'll take and I'll give him again you're making several presumptions you're telling me has a and now you want to know whether the speech is good enough. I will soon tell you that if he's not a he clearly is does. That's what I was next line next sentence going to be. And the Rambam says you have to have a little you know I have to have a little because I want to know whether you're really a sheha. A shmea means that you understand not that you hear sounds but can you pick up things from hearing which means you develop reason. The only way I'll know that is your madabas. If you're madabas, you can know some things. I don't have to IQ test. Whatever the sheer is, that's good enough. Which leads me to what I think is a kush. The heon says we don't know the boundary between what's this what's this called lag or lush and lag whatever they call it and real speech. But someplace there has to be distinction. Somebody stutters that's not there's example. Someone stutters we know it's speech. Something between I don't know. And then there's a kind of speech the guttural speech as I called it which is certainly not speech. Now I if you have if if you're telling me that this is and you've developed a uh a a a artificial larynx or whatever they do there to create some sto in the uh in the throat so that you can talk through your f not using vocal cords but you learn how to how to use the airways in order to talk. It would seem to me it's the same shila and I I think this is artificial. I don't think that this is natural. I'll give you other things that seem to be artificial and seem to be totally in the sha. So if you're telling me that I need a midab forget about the shme for all I know and you're doing something with artificial speech artificial speech is a speech. If you're talking about reason then I can find other ways of doing give an IQ test. He had I know he had reasons from before I got this this carcinoma that's how it would seem to me but you're absolutely right that this is one of the other nav nobody talks about that but they should is considered to be a a a madab not a madab particularly if you're dealing with whose person may also otherwise makes for the raam is not like the raam uh but this seems to me exactly to fit into precisely what we're talking about. So we've got the uh uh the best couldn't make up its mind says it's I don't know how you could make up your mind. What's the difference between this what I call gutal speech and what is considered acceptable speech but it's got to be a real speech just like the hearing has to be real hearing and not some some kind of artificial hearing of one kind or another half hearing hearing. They make a difference between hearing and hearing whom means I can hear if I try hard enough. Means that you shout in my ear. I'll know every word you said because I just have to have some kind of uh amplification of the sounds. But I'm perfectly capable of hearing all of this if you shout in my ear. Whereas if at the end I don't hear real speech. I didn't hear anything. That doesn't count at all. And they make the same thing with regard to Dbor. There's Dbur that's understandable and there's dur which is I would say that if I'm right with regard to my raam I couldn't care less if it's hyagim makes no difference whatsoever because a person speak people can learn what he means uh and that means that he's perfectly rational the difference between the dur of dbour and other kinds of dur is whether I have to supply my own reasoning to your speech to order to figure out or hearing to figure out what you're saying or hearing the same thing in reverse. If you are speaking this and I understand what you're saying then I don't know that you have reason in order to speak. However, I do know one thing that if I can figure out what you're saying, I use my reason to figure out what you're saying. Which means that if you said it so I should understand it, you're communicating with me on the level of reason. You had to understand what you were gutturalizing to coin the term. Otherwise, it wouldn't make any sense to me. The fact that I know what you're saying means that you had reason in order to say what you said, which means that the speech is a riot that the uh uh uh the verbalization that you went through was a verbalization that reflected reasoning. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to speak in the way that I would understand. As long as I can understand what you're talking about, whether it's or not, it seems to me absolutely good. Now, I don't of anybody who says something of the sort because we go looking for all the sources they split down the middle and you have at least this this who says we don't know how you determine what rises to lion or what sinks to lag and which rises above lag. But if there is such a with regard to the definition of and it's totally in whether it's then I or it's whether it's reason then if it's totally in reason then I need nothing in between nothing else will help and I have to have a real divor or a real shy and nothing's going to help including artificial voice and if it's a m matter of reason the Nike test will also work uh the diploma from the dev dum school in Vienna or from London will also be sufficient for these purposes. That's why how I think that you and I think is with regard to as well is how pointed out I don't have a depends on reason and if it all depends on reason then if it doesn't all depend on reason and where do I know a distinction between or where is there any kind of that draws me a difference is that's how I would understand these different in now let me talk a little bit about hearing aids and maybe then a little bit about um about the implants the uh talk about hearing aids you have to talk about microphones now one of the things that says in I think it's B uh he talks about all those people who think he will be creat. You're not hearing a human voice at all. You know he you're not you do not hear a human voice. Now if you want how how to prove it it's really very simple to prove that besides the fact that it's uh you know in terms of science it's elementary but uh I have on occasion spoken in public not on besides chabas and when I speak during the week it's almost invariably on a microphone and I wanted to experiment what to what can I possibly hear my own voice if I'm talking over a microphone I want to know whether the people out there are hearing even if they wanted to could they hear my voice or couldn't they so I did an experiment experiment is was to pace around the microphone and I can tell you that there are times when I can hear myself loud and clear. I can also hear the microphone. Trey Kohley, who cares? I did. I can hear both. And there are times when I talk to the microphone, I can't hear myself talk. I can hear the microphone talking, but I know it's a microphone. It's not me. Uh, but I don't need this to prove it. Uh, when you're talking to a microphone, you're taking sound waves. The sound waves go into the microphone and the sound waves cause the diaphragm or crystal. I understand the diaphragm better. The diaphra causes the the the diaphragm to move exactly in sync with my voice and the diaphragm produces sound waves. The only way I can hear any sound, it seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, if you have a vacuum, you can't hear anything, you hear only because sound waves go through some medium. They go through the the air, the ether, who knows what. And then they some way or another they hit my inner ear. And the inner ear causes the uh uh the celia, the little hairs on the inside of the eard drum. They cause them to move and that stimulates the auditory nerve. It's the eighth cranial nerve. And you hear, you don't hear with your ears. You hear with your brain. It's the nerve that causes you to hear. And unless you can stimulate the nerve, you're not hearing. So what you have in a microphone is something very strange. The the diaphragm. I didn't realize it until I years ago. I began I began doing whatever little research I could do on microphones. It turns out that not only does the diaphragm create its own uh hearing its own ways, but you hear the whatever goes on in the ear is as a result of what the diaphragm did and then it changes into some kind of electric waves. And the electric waves reproduce speech. And then in the inner ear it make causes the little the the fluid to move which causes the hairs to the cockia to to vibrate and low you hear. But it seems that when you're hearing there it sounds to me that's like aishi because I'm making the diaphragm move. The diaphragm is making something in the in the ear move and that's creating new speech. So I've got the third speech when I hear it's really the third speech. Of course that's not speech. That's speech. That would be speech. Remember doesn't go through the mechanics or the science but he says how in the world could this possibly work? It can't work. It's not not hearing anything. Fine. So I had problems and uh uh you people I hear people making on the microphone telephone if telephone is even more removed you're transferring all kinds of weird things I don't know about uh in fact I can consider almost I once read a whole article about somebody who wanted to know whether you can say terra on the microphone or braas on sorry telephone or bras on telephone because the waves Go throwim and you're not allowed to say as if there would have been a voice in these >> also between us and them >> sorry >> between also >> so they're going in between those >> oh okay if he's standing there though. All right. I'm not sure he's standing there because it's causing one telephone and to another telephone. Who who said it was going to understand? But I'm not sure anything else is I mean to me this is total I I just can't be my hand. I can't get my mind around it. There's no sound in between. There's a sound in my throat and a sound on the other end. What's going on in between? I don't know. And I don't care. You want to know whether it's a sound or not a sound? I know it's not my sound that's coming out the other side. Somebody else's sound. Some other sound. It's a mechanical sound that's coming out, not a human sound. How in the world, you know, you talk about a microphone, you know, somebody can say, "Who cares? Microphone, voice, it's all the same thing." Don't confuse me with things that uh it's not orishen you have to know little bit of physics to know what it's all about and it doesn't count. I don't know. That's not what says. But some people might think that. I don't know. When we talk about telephone, I don't understand how you extend that to telephone because that you don't have to have any science whatsoever to know that the sound that you're hearing is not the sound that went into the telephone. It may sound exactly the same. Uh it's certainly not the same, which is why I have problems with regard to cival on a telephone. I'm not sure it's the voice of the husband. I don't I don't think it's the voice of the husband. Does that help or not? I don't know. Maybe if new helps. If doesn't help, this certainly doesn't help. I think it definitely can't help because doesn't help but that's the uh that's the problem with the ordinary microphone. Uh the let me go well we'll come to the hearing aid in a second. Reme had any problems. He thought that a um uh that a microphone is perfectly okay for kishdollah and for everything else. And as I said before to be the seems to be the whole so you have to be everybody and I can do it on on a on a microphone. So the only aes to push the microphone away so they should be able to hear you talking not the microphone talking uh and nobody seems to be for that. I don't think they even realize that there's a problem because you know they'll understand but the sweet nobody seems to to recognize. There's some people who are, but I don't know out out there. It's not not uh the information when he talks about the micro the hearing aid. Uh he shouldn't have had any problem with hearing aids except if he realizes that it's a klushi instead of a kcheni. I don't know what the difference is whether it's a kcheni or kosi or a ki. What difference does it make? So he should have had no problems at all. But there's a interesting cha in which he says that hearing aids are perfectly okay but only if the person has a certain degree of hearing. Now before I go to revelation I think that the basic underlying premise till rea redefined it. is very simple and that takes me to my safer. If a person has you hearing aids don't help unless you have some residual hearing. Microphones won't help for a deaf person because all the microphone can do is amplify an existing sound. If you don't have an existing sound, it's not going to do anything. The difference between an ear trumpet and a megaphone is is that or for that matter a khavor. A kohhavor is the coheni. Kohhavara is the soundwave creating new sound waves and those sound waves come back and you there's a gap in time. So first you hear the first soundwave, then you hear the second soundwave. It bounces off the side of the cave and it comes back and you're hearing a second sound wave and it's clear. It's an echo. That's what the sound weight is. The echo is a uh and that's that's pretty clear. A megaphone that we have said that the megaphone or the ear trumpet they're both the same are perfectly okay because it simply magnifies the existing sound. Well, that's what he means. What he's telling me is megaphone does something different. The begold also causes the sound to bounce back but not as a distinct sound. This is it coaleses the old sound the new sound became one sound. It's uh it's a the old sound had the echo or merely the new sound and told me they don't have to have a pure sound. You can enhance the sound. The sound is enhancing itself. Is it called or my understanding of megaphone is that ordinarily I speak uh whatever sound it's producing is being diffused throughout the atmosphere and here the solid sound prevents it. So just my voice being instead diffusing it's all my voice being >> corrected. But why am I here? I need a microphone for it. >> Was that not called Sheni? >> Why isn't it called Sheny? >> Was the same voice that is >> It's not the same voice. How why is it louder than without the megaphone? >> Was I'm not losing I'm not losing. >> You didn't lose the first one which is another way of saying that the second one superimposed on the first doesn't make any difference because you're hearing the first. >> No. No. If I were if if I didn't have a pri I would certainly be arguing here that a megaphone is no good. >> No good. >> I don't I don't need a second sound because or now I'm speaking now I'm lo you're losing some of the volume to the side and here the original sound has been concentrated and it's one voice being being n it's not being lost to the side. It's being directed more narrowly. Same original voice. >> Oh, you're telling me that it's not allowing any sounds to escape out there. >> That focus is the sound. That's not the way I understand the literature. >> I understand literature is telling me that yes, there are it's bouncing back. He hit the side and it bounced back. >> At least what the physicist. >> He has a physicist. I don't know any of this. This I'm just I'm repeating what I've been fed one way or another. >> There's an electronic megaphone and then there's >> electronic megaphones are microphones. >> That's that's >> I wasn't talking about that. >> Why can't they tell you full of >> it just reflects the sound? Yes. Reflects the sound from the sides and it bounces back on the original ones which give it a higher volume which means I have two sounds. >> It's amplifies it. That's right. But that's not what he's saying. >> Dr. Cooper is saying something else. >> He's telling me that it >> wasting not wasting. >> We're not when I talk the same thing that >> No, no, no, no, no, no. He's telling me that when I talk, there's a lot of sound waves that are wasted. >> I talk, you hear the ones that directed you, but there are a lot of sound waves that are going who knows where. >> They reverberating. >> They're not verb. They're gone. They're lost. Forget it. They're not there. And outside to reverberate from they're just they're lost. >> I'm That's what he's saying. And he's telling me the megaphone doesn't let them escape. It keeps them in so that you hear an amplified sound. That's not my understanding. And ask. Don't ask me >> what does he say? >> My understanding is that I need the megaphone not just to prevent the sounds from escaping although I presume it does that too but it causes the sound to bounce back. It's really a khavor only it bounces back before I finish hearing the first sound. So they kind of become a simultaneous tracholi and these are tracholi which are as trai making up the words is what the says is >> just reverberating both the sound that was coming directly >> but not as separate sounds I know they are separate sounds >> they come together and the regular sounds >> and now they come together and they become more audible. They're higher in tone, but it's now a it's now a a single sound made of two sounds. >> What's the difference between that and >> having Yeah. >> Yeah. Because I don't hear the same time. Kolhavora, I hear two sounds at two separate times. >> Megaphone, I hear two sounds at one time. >> That's just because the reverberations are longer. If you're in a smaller room, you'll hear it faster. Right here, there is a reverberation in my voice. I hear it right now. >> We're talking about two separate things. You're talking about an echo that you hear from your voice. That's not a coil. If you hear an echo, that's not a coil. It's kolivar. >> That's not kolivar. Kolivar. If you're hearing two separate sounds, it's called cor. If you can't distinguish between the two sounds, it's called kaola. It's what I call in hemp amplifying the original sound, which what I said a few sentences ago. If I were living before the preod, I would first want to argue who says this is a This is not a normal coil. You took a coil, you took a second coil, and you put them together. And you want to tell me I did maybe, but without it can't be a single coil because it's two coils. You just put them all together. Who says one coil's not the first coil is not bottled, the second coil? Thank he says the first coil is not bottle, the second coil. And I understand it even on my gear, not Dr. Cooper's gear set. on my gears is because the it's a second coil bounce back the first coil but who cares as long as they're not perceived the two separate coilies then it's one coil a microphone is two separate coils everybody knows it's two separate coils so people receive a megaphone >> a megaphone I I I understand as the ear trumpet that's what I'm describing I have now I'm describing a megaphone not a microphone >> a megaphone a microphone >> a microphone is a new coil. I know that for sure >> I I understand it as a new coil. I mean not new coil a new coil which is created and superimposed upon the first. Add 10 and 10 you get 20. At 10 dB on the first another 10 dB I get 20 dB but it's two separate coas only they are indistinguishable to my ear. >> What makes it saying that a megaphone is two separate the second one back in so that it joins and adds on. >> Right. Right. >> I'm saying what's the difference between that and any reverberation that I have if I'm speaking outdoors speaking in this room here. There's reverberation. I hear it in my own voice sitting right here. My voice is more amplified than if I was standing outside. If my voice comes off this, off that off there, and it comes back. >> Sure it does. >> So what's the difference between that and the megaphone? >> It's a megaphone. >> So it's all the same. If I say if I read the regular indoors >> Oh, you're telling me that indoors you have the same problem? >> Yes. >> It proves I'm right. >> It's just a scaling issue. >> No. Yes. Yes. Again. All right. If you're telling me that if if this would if the pre wouldn't have said it, you would have come and argued that even indoors I get a coil avora that there is no such thing as no coil of >> wherever you are indoors you're going to do it. Depending on how hard >> that's why I think my analysis is correct. >> Okay. But then how can say that a megaphone is a problem? I didn't say it's a problem. >> Two coloss you're telling me that in this room it's two coloss. >> Why is it the same code? >> Whatever you say that I'm not using here. >> Why? But why? Forget that. You're not using that >> natural definition of I'm speaking one. >> As long as I hear it as one. Whatever I hear is one coil is one coil >> because it's not coil. You're saying the same thing. I'm explaining the science. I'm telling you that it's because the co the the the sound has bounced back and amplified the original coil and you hear it as one. >> Okay. >> Right. Whatever you hear is one is one. A microphone you do not hear as well. >> Okay. Good. We're on the same page. >> Okay. Yeah. Dr. >> What's the difference between that? >> He is telling me it's different science. He is telling me that there's not that that the room is a bigger problem than the megaphone. The megaphone doesn't allow airways to escape and that's why I hear it louder. >> That's why I'm checking on the coordinates. >> He say he say megaphones don't make them bounce back. I'm saying they bounce back. He says they don't bounce back. They just don't escape. Sound waves can escape if you let them. The megapones doesn't let them escape. Maybe >> here is a brisk one piece. Is it the stirring or the sugar? It doesn't escape. So it no >> I I can analyze that also. >> Okay. This is quite different. This is a real >> All right. All right. So So where was I? Uh the Yes. The the hearing aids. The hearing aids have microphones. So if a microphone is no good, a hearing aid is also no good. uh I think the person who wears a hearing aid presuming that he's hard of hearing in two ears that he has to take off both hearing aids and I said before there's residual hearing I don't know if it's enough to hear Migill or not let him stand right next to the va the listen if he hears he hears and if he doesn't hear in using microphones and hearing aids aren't going to help you at all on my analysis of a hearing aid and therefore you are safe from your if you forget about if you want to know he's a or not I said he's not a he has hearing so how can he possibly be a he's got a hearing aid and the hearing aid tells me he's got reason if you want to know well he's got two ears and he's listening carefully and he can hear with the other ear also tioli you're good enough I hope but I would say the same principle here but the that's as far as the sacral line is concerned Raisha shouldn't have had any problems because he thinks that a microphone is like everything else. So all that the um all that the hearing aid is as far as analyzes it is is another kind of a microphone but says he I'm probably interpreting him and I hope I'm intering him correctly. What I think he's saying is that you have to have some kind of hearing otherwise amplification isn't going to help because there has to be something on the amplification to be kalan. Let me re-ransate it. We all know the minimus a sheritt is a sher if I can see it. I take a drop of water and I put under a microscope. That's not called the sheretss because the sherets which you can't see that's not called the sheretss. He seems to be saying that a sound which you can't hear isn't the sound as far as you're concerned. And don't tell me you're amplifying that sound and now you can hear it. You didn't have a sound to amplify in the first place. It's microscopic sound. Point a new term. In fact, microscopic sound for a bunch isn't a sound. Now I have two questions. It's not not shak two things I want to know from number one uh the trumpet I presume who told you that without a megaphone I have a shear of hearing maybe this guy is such aish that without a megaphone he can't hear enough whatever your shear is I said no no no residual hearing at all he'll tell me that the ear trumpet doesn't help Unless he can hear something. Now I know I can tell if you shout in his ear and he ears he hears something. Less than that I don't know. So you're telling me that you can't use some a a a ear trumpet either unless you can hear something? I haven't seen anybody super says that. Uh that doesn't make very much sense to me. Now that's number one. Number two, and is not not responsible for this, but Raina Alman told me that if I do a um uh a genetic implant from a lemon onto a X-ray, it's not hard even though the gene that I'm implanting is invisible to the naked eye. says he even did in two two volumes different people put them out. I'm saying anybody was mai if anything they had different manuscripts maybe taught different things different times but he says that it's okay because uh it's kind of a sort is so small nobody can see it and there's nothing but if you're in the laboratory you're touching with it you're putting it into a nest and things are happening as a result that you can't call say it doesn't exist that's why I say non-COVID lights sometimes you have to take characters into the law has to be cognance of it. If you can see the results uh what about measurement I can see the results because if there was nothing there I couldn't hear if I see something under a microscope and I can manage to do something with it heav says it counts. So if I have something which nobody can hear, it doesn't have the shear of the basic like there's a sharia who says that if I with it doesn't is good enough but that's only whether I want I want I want to know if or not either way I don't really think it's terribly important because it seems to me that if a microphone with a microphone isn't hearing then A hearing aid is certainly not hearing. It's worth the microphone because instead of being a sheni, it's a who knows what. All kinds of things going on there. Now that takes me, it's overtime, but a little bit the the implants. the cockular implants uh as I heard from a mum professor of aiology who I presumed was a baram he was telling me that's got nothing to do with a micro a microphone and nothing to do with a hearing aid that the is that the cockular implant and it's it's in volume seven it's just the scientific process is defined in the late language but in detail I is rather clear detail. I'm trying to give you a uh ledom synopsis of it. He tells me that the cockar implant goes right into the cockia and it moves the the uh the fluid which is what happens in all hearing and that fluid stimulates the sili and that causes the auditory nerve to hear. So in effect you bypassed everything. All you did was you caused hearing to take place in the neuro section of the hearing problem which means there's no second coil there's no coin there's no cohavor here and I thought there was a porch there's no khavar and turns out that's right there is no kahora there's interesting things here that I don't know about what's going on here is that in the cockular implant there is a microphone and you talk into the microphone and instead of creating sound waves in the middle. It does all kinds of electrical things and you collect electronic waves that now go and stimulate something else. So you don't get a cohavor bensa but you get a kind of a electronic coil bensa. Now that's quite different from what I described in the first place. What I described in the first place I s I assume couldn't present the problem. uh I didn't care about the things that were happening inside because it was the stimuli were going directly to whatever goes into the ear. I presume that somebody is aish and you because his bones are diseased, you know, three little bones in there and you replace them with some kind of a prostthesis. I don't think anybody would claim just because it's made out of plastic or wood or who knows what instead of bone that makes any difference. You have to hear through those little bones. I know that is in the auditory nerve. That's what told us. They realize it's all going on in in in the brain. As long as you stimulate it, you stimulate it. Whatever stimulates d a direct stimulus upon the uh the auditory nerve is what we call hearing. And I know it's not a direct stimulus auditory nerve. It's a direct stimulus on these three little bones in the fluid. That seems to be good enough because we call that hearing. So, how do I care what got there? That's what the the uh the the uh implant is supposed to be doing for me. Once you tell me that the implant is creating all kinds of electrical things in between I don't know anymore. It's creating not a new debour in the microphone. There's act the way it's described is like if I could creep into it, I would probably hear the voice. Okay, I can't creep into it. I don't hear the voice. They told me the sound waves that when I speak into a microphone, so I call the koshi. Not only that, the kosheni is a diaphragm, but inside this little contraption, there are sound waves being created. I can't hear them. I don't know why. Probably because they're subclinical or something of the sort. But they tell me that they're sound waves because it's got to go be translated back into sound waves in order to work on the auditory nerve. And that's what the implant has managed to do for you. You don't have to re-transate them into sound waves. But there are all kinds of things that are going on here inside that wouldn't be here without the implant. And it's not stimulating the nerve directly at that point. I don't know anymore. Is this called Shmea or is it not called Shmea? I don't know. I don't know where it makes terribly much difference because people who have car implants can't hear without the car implant. So again what I said before uh either it's or in >> the three people implants still can't hear word even though I showered them. So I >> uh well I I I don't have that much experience but I know the people who I talk to have implants they hear perfectly well. I mean I can't tell you 100% but you can have normal conversations. >> Maybe it's by allocution. No, >> what age they were when they got >> uh that may be true >> because you I think there's a certain period of acclamation. You've got to learn how to know what's going on there. I think you have to learn how to think basically. You auditory nerves are telling you how process thought or how to process the sound and turn it into thought because all sound is thought. Well, now we're learning how to do it in a in a rather different way. Anyway, it's coming. >> I texted my who was his in my class at PhD in physics. So, I'll I'll I'll relate. guys. And I said, "Rebby, three