Talk:Neurophone

Gentlemen, please,

Does aural harassement mean anything to you?

Simplicity Speaking,

Tar get

Factual accuracy disputed
At first I thought this was talking about devices that work through the well-known mechanism of bone conduction. However, this is something different, and between the claims in the article about the NSA confiscating the device, and the claims made by the inventor that "The Neurophone is really an electronic telepathy machine. Several tests prove that it bypasses the 8th cranial nerve or hearing nerve and transmits sound directly to the brain. This means that the Neurophone stimulates perception through a 7th or Alternate Sense!" it seems very unlikely that the description of the "neurophone" as it now exists is the mainstream view of the device. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for assisting with this article even if only through discussion. As well, I suspect some of the claims about the neurophone as dubious and so my research (based on the articles under the external links section) involved cautious selection of information which would not be too far-fetched. Anyhue, what do you impugn: this Wikipedia article or the externally linked articles? Please, if you have any further data, insight, or knowledge of more unambiguous references on the neurophone, I welcome discussion on this device and of course contribution to the article would be respected even further. --JimmyT 03:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Antaeus' comment seems to be based on his incomplete and ORIGINAL RESEARCH, as he doesn't even know what the "mainstream view" of the device is. --JimmyT 13:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I presume you mean of the device, not the advice. As far as the mainstream view, I can tell you that it does not regard "telepathy", electronic or otherwise, as ever having been documented to exist.  If you have information on the neurophone from reliable sources, provide it.  If all you have is information from unreliable sources (such as http://www.worldtrans.org/spir/neuro.html, which actually presents "popularized by Hulda Clark" as if this was a recommendation) then prepare to have it treated as unreliable information. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no reliable source providing claims about telepathy in this article. If you are going to dispute anything now, then lets here it. --JimmyT 16:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only is the information not reliable, but it's also unclear. The neurophone website says that transducers are required while the wikipedia article says that voltage can be applied directly to the skin (anywhere in the body?)--msabino 16:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Telepathy? What telepathy?
No one ever mentioned anything like it regarding the Neurophone. AFAIK, the device supposedly works by "nailing" the time-based encoding of the human hearing sense. According to Flannagan, every "sense" has a different time-base that brain uses for demuxing. By transmitting the signal through nerve endings beneath the skin, but encoded as hearing, sound is passed to the brain regardless of the neural path the signal had to pass through on the way in. -- [Orcinus] 21:04, 17 March 2006 (CET)


 * "The Neurophone is really an electronic telepathy machine. Several tests prove that it bypasses the 8th cranial nerve or hearing nerve and transmits sound directly to the brain. This means that the Neurophone stimulates perception through a 7th or Alternate Sense!" (emphasis added) -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh goody, you're including a quote of a quote of a quote, completely rid of any context, and from a very reliable source (Nexus magazine o_O) none the less, but ignoring the official information presented on the Neurophone website. Riiiiiight. Good job! Just the stuff that makes Wikipedia tick. Just BTW: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=telepathy+site%3Aneurophone.com&btnG=Google+Search -- [Orcinus] 17:47, 19 March 2006 (CET)

What is disputed
What exactly do you impugn? In discussion you foster suspicion over the article's portrayal of the neuorophone, contending that you doubt the description matches a "mainstream view" but in your first edit summary (and immediately prior to adding disputed tag) you question the report about the NSA. Please clarify and clearly discuss all your disputes on the neurophone talk page or kindly leave the article to someone who's intent is inclined toward knowledge rather than irresolute enforcement. --JimmyT 21:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Since Antaus Feldspar won't communicate, I will restore the claim about the NSA. I believe references are listed on the page already. --JimmyT 13:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What is your point?
Antaeus, I would value your compos mentis in contention apropos. --JimmyT 20:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for peer-reviewed sources
This article needs to be written around a peer-reviewed source. There's no reason to believe that any of this is accurate. User:Tenebrous 14:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. This is Wikipedia, not a Scientifically approved journal or anything like that. --JimmyT 08:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's no reason that this should even be on wikipedia. The science behind the concept is bad, the device itself claims to do almost nothing, and nothing I've seen gives any indication of notability within any field, with the possible exception of futuristic snake oil devices. User:Tenebrous 03:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Bye. --JimmyT 08:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, Jimmy? Was "Bye" supposed to be your signal that you wanted the kind of "continued discussion", the lack of which you claimed as your justification for removing the disputed tag?  Is "Bye" how you usually continue discussions? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No. A quick review will show that I have been willing to discuss things more than you or Tenebrous. "Bye" is just my exclamation of prognostication of Tenebrous' inability to carry on with a neutral and intelligent discussion. His POV and OR contention of BAD SCIENCE may have its place in a Scientific Review Journal or $keptics blog, but not Wikipedia. --JimmyT 16:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

it's so easy to say 'bad science'. many successful inventors were at first accused of 'bad science'. first of all - the article should include the fact that this inventor has been very widely publicized already at the age of 17, by mainstream media. this alone should be a clue to taking him seriously. also the references I would like to see would be of the NSA confiscation and withholding of the patent. it would also be very easy to prove. and by doing so, you can show that the guy may have had a point..


 * Thats right. And since Wikipedia isnt a scientific review journal, its users shouldn't be making original research to whine "bad science" or "pseudoscience" like a couple kooktics have tried to do without showing verifiability. --JimmyT 14:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a scientific review journal. However, Wikipedia is also not a random collection of information. Wikipedia places a great deal of value in reliable sources, and considers peer-reviewed sources to be just about the best ones available. The LIFE magazine article I'll accept as a reliable source--I'm also going to track down that issue and see if it actually says what Mr. Flanagan's website says it does. The rest of the information in this article does not come from reliable third-party sources, as per WP:V: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources." Please produce sources which meet this standard. Tenebrous 08:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're not paying attention. We need to get a copy of a report from Tufts University and one of the Wikipedia editors has said that he can probably to dig it up. Receiving sound without the use of ears or human hearing senses is not an outlandish claim. It's just new to YOU and you don't know anything about it or understand it, so you're apparently afraid of it for some reason or another. --JimmyT 12:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And you're assigning opinions to me that I do not hold. I could really care less about telepathy, electronic or otherwise. What I want are sources which meet the standards of Wikipedia. Why is this such a problem? Tenebrous 13:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Frivolous dispute and AFD?
Initially, Antaeus placed a dubious marker and a dispute notification on the article, and then left comments on the this talk page about his uncertain POV over the "mainstream view". I considered his discussion, responded and sent a message to his talk page. He didn't respond to any of my messages. So I corrected the article as per to the points he discussed and removed the dispute notification Without any communication at all to this talk page, his talk page, or my talk page, Antaeus replaced the dispute notification. He did not clarify his contention but left a vague hint of his dispute in the edit summary so I removed the notification again because his dispute was unfounded. I left another message on this talk page AND his talk page to find out exactly the basis of his dispute and suggested he shouldn't edit the article if he is going to enforce his POV in an unsure manner. AGAIN, as a replacement for providing me with enlightenment and addressing content, he accused my message of being uncivil. I responded then decided to just move on with discussion at this talk page. Still yet, without any clear communication, Antaeus came to the article and added an UNREFERENCED notification. Because some references were already in the article, I removed UNREFERENCED. To honor Antaus' irresolute dispute, I replaced the dispute notification. Then I corrected some of the article because it was not simply the inventor was making claims. And yet again, without any discussion at all on the topic, Antaeus caused trouble by reverting my changes. I un-did his revert but he reverted again still with no discussion. About 2 weeks later I repeated my messages to Talk:Antaeus Feldspar in hopes that he would finally talk about it. Antaeus called me a troll and said it was the last response I would get from him. But he did respond to this page criticizing my spelling and avoiding the discussion by asking me about my communication to another user. Another couple weeks went by and then the article was frivolously nominated AFD. Seeing that I was not alone is keeping this article, I decided to do be productive and try to do some editing. Seeing no valid dispute, I removed the dispute note and corrected the claim about transmitting sound to the brain. I was not suprised one bit to find Antaeus suddenly at the article placing the dispute tag based on his vacillating dispute. --JimmyT 20:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is much too long to read so I didn't. This article is about a device that's its inventor thinks is the next best thing since sliced bread while a lot of main stream science debunks it. The article should reflect that by stating the inventors claims and not wording them as fact. It is entirely reasonable to have a for and against argument, but it should be in the article and carefully balanced so the reader can decide for themselves. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "This article is about a device that's its inventor thinks is the next best thing since sliced bread while a lot of main stream science debunks it." Just for the sake of factual correctness, please write up the above statement in the article with links to apropriate sources debunking the whole thing. Maybe that will finally end this... -- [Orcinus] 17:55, 19 March 2006 (CET)


 * We are here to contribute what can be verified, not to discuss scientific validity. It wont end... open wide and swallow!!! --JimmyT 08:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Garglebutt you should have read my message. Are you here to cause trouble? --JimmyT 08:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is currently contentious so the {disputed} tag should stay. Oh and if you kids can't play nice the article I'm sure your input into the article will end up being curtailed. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Policies on civility have nothing to do with attribution of references. --JimmyT 08:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The neurophone has been patented, the number is given in the article. Have fun trying to "debunk" it. --JimmyT 08:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So has the [Cheese-Filter Cigarette], but that doesn't mean it fulfills the inventor's claims. Civility is in regards to the obvious aggression between some of the editors. References should be evaluated by editors outside of the active dispute as otherwise there will never be consensus. I came here to make progress. Garglebutt / (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If the Cheese-filter cigarette is patented on the claim that it filters smoke through cheese then the claim is no longer limited to the inventor. Now lets talk about this statement you made above: "Oh and if you kids can't play nice the article I'm sure your input into the article will end up being curtailed." Since you seem to know the difference between civility and verifiability, then explain how "kids who can't play nice" results in "input into the article" "being curtailed." I will assume good faith in your presense here but so far you are contridicting yourself in words and action. If you are here to make progress, then prove it to us. Right now we need to work on verifiability, see my comment regarding a report from Tufts. --JimmyT 12:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Lossless compression algorithms that compress every possible input have been patented. For those not familiar with what that means, we are more likely to see a working perpetual motion machine, since that would only contradict every experimental observation ever made confirming the laws of thermodynamics, instead of openly breaking the laws of mathematics.  The patent system is provably not in a state where the existence of a patent is confirmation from a reliable source of any claims about the invention -- not its originality, not the basis on which it functions, and not even that it functions in the first place.  Meanwhile, your idea that if there are two people in the world who both assert that something is so, this means we list their claims as true and remove all reference to anyone disputing or doubting their truth, is an idea not supported in Wikipedia policy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Tufts University
The primary source would be a report written by Dr. Wayne Batteau in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Tufts University. We should get a copy of this for verification. --JimmyT 09:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What's all this arguing about ?
(ALLOW me to say please that of the Neurophone and it's use(s) would never have been delisted as a patent application unless DARPA had already proven it to be useful.

Having read the book ' Towards a new Alchemy ' by Nick Begich, a book which was written in the mid 90's , about Flanagan's discoveries , when Flanagan started selling the neurophone again , i can tell you that there is'nt any great mystery about this device. The neurophone creates a 5 volt signal which is passed through 2 electrodes that can be placed anywhere on the body, touching the skin. The signal created within the nervous system of the user is understood by the brain as a sound. Some early experimental users have reported that the device also stimulates a telepathic ability, which develops with increased use of the device. The telepathic ability occurs when people are not using the neurophone, which means that the neurophone itself is not a telepathic device. Having said all this, these reported claims are not proof and point to the need for further investigation. Some of the ideas about the neurophone being a telepathic device may result from two users being plugged into the same neurophone, ie. both users would be experiencing the exact same sound creating some sort of link between the pair , in much the same way that two people watching TV may discover that they are thinking exactly the same thing simply because they are focused on the same thing .82.20.58.74 11:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Dan