0:00 / 0:00
Cochlear Implants, Hearing Aids, and Microphones - Defining Cheresh - Rav J David Bleich
240 views
Comments(0)
Transcript
Auto-generated transcript. Not time-synced to the video.
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