You cannot hear with CI .. ??

shel90 said:
Yea I agree with it..what does it have to do with what we are discussing?
Click to expand...
It was a response to your response. All of which have been part of the discussion.
 
rockdrummer said:
When I say language aquisition I am referring to the ability to learn how to speak. Understanding speech will obviously vary depending on the surroundings. Some with CI's can actually understand in noisy rooms depending on the programming and the individual.
Click to expand...

This is what threw me off...it looked like u were saying that speaking is language aquisition itself which is why I asked u for clarification. That was all...
 
shel90 said:
This is what threw me off...it looked like u were saying that speaking is language aquisition itself which is why I asked u for clarification. That was all...
Click to expand...
No worries. It didn't appear that you and Boult agreed with the clearification I provided. It's all good!!!
 
Tsk, tsk ***Shaking my head***

What a crazy thread with everybody trying to figure out whether or not the cup is half full or half empty. It was nothing but an exercise in futility (or better put as some people have mentioned an exercise in semantics).

Then there was the comparison between a CI and a pacemaker. Not sure what to make of that nonsense as that degenerated quickly.

For some of us, a CI actually provides significant benefits to the point that we can act as if we are hearing provide the CI is working properly. Is that a point of contention? If it is then somebody needs to get a grip on life. It just doesn't flipping matter if we take if off or the battery dies that we are deaf. There is no denial on that score...none, nada, zilch. As long as the CI is working and we can make sense of the world as the hearing generally do, then the rest of the discussion is a moot point. It doesn't even matter if it is what we call "quote" natural or artificial hearing (rolling my eyes). I don't really notice the difference between how I heard things with my HA (prior to my CI) and how I hear things now with the CI. Heck, I hear lots more with my CI than I ever did with my HA.

The main point of contention here was all about the "reality" of many CIers who still require some sort of visual clues to assist them with their hearing. It can be using ASL, lipreading, and other means. From that standpoint, I have to agree one wouldn't be like the hearing. But what I don't get why it really matters at all. The person with the CI knows the score and the people who interact with the CIer knows the score. In other words, who is fooling who? Well, yes people tend to fool themselves all the time and it is a common human trait of humanity. Put another way, the hearing aren't fooled as they can tell if a CIer can "wing" it or not. I guess it all comes down to expectations...

My two cents on this topic...
 
sr171soars said:
Tsk, tsk ***Shaking my head***

What a crazy thread with everybody trying to figure out whether or not the cup is half full or half empty. It was nothing but an exercise in futility (or better put as some people have mentioned an exercise in semantics).

Then there was the comparison between a CI and a pacemaker. Not sure what to make of that nonsense as that degenerated quickly.

For some of us, a CI actually provides significant benefits to the point that we can act as if we are hearing provide the CI is working properly. Is that a point of contention? If it is then somebody needs to get a grip on life. It just doesn't flipping matter if we take if off or the battery dies that we are deaf. There is no denial on that score...none, nada, zilch. As long as the CI is working and we can make sense of the world as the hearing generally do, then the rest of the discussion is a moot point. It doesn't even matter if it is what we call "quote" natural or artificial hearing (rolling my eyes). I don't really notice the difference between how I heard things with my HA (prior to my CI) and how I hear things now with the CI. Heck, I hear lots more with my CI than I ever did with my HA.

The main point of contention here was all about the "reality" of many CIers who still require some sort of visual clues to assist them with their hearing. It can be using ASL, lipreading, and other means. From that standpoint, I have to agree one wouldn't be like the hearing. But what I don't get why it really matters at all. The person with the CI knows the score and the people who interact with the CIer knows the score. In other words, who is fooling who? Well, yes people tend to fool themselves all the time and it is a common human trait of humanity. Put another way, the hearing aren't fooled as they can tell if a CIer can "wing" it or not. I guess it all comes down to expectations...

My two cents on this topic...
Click to expand...

Ok but it still was an interesting debate. :D
 
shel90 said:
Ok but it still was an interesting debate. :D
Click to expand...

But its not really and I think the point Cloggy was trying to make initially is that although his daughter is deaf, she can hear with her ci. It does not make her a hearing person nor does it mean she is no longer deaf it means exactly what he said: she is a deaf person who can hear.

To then argue over the "quality" of that hearing makes no sense. Today, actually yesterday, my daughter phoned me from school about a problem she was having and we talked about it. What difference does it make how she heard my voice and how I heard hers-it did not mean we had any less of a conversation.
 
sr171soars said:
Tsk, tsk ***Shaking my head***

What a crazy thread with everybody trying to figure out whether or not the cup is half full or half empty. It was nothing but an exercise in futility (or better put as some people have mentioned an exercise in semantics).

Then there was the comparison between a CI and a pacemaker. Not sure what to make of that nonsense as that degenerated quickly.

For some of us, a CI actually provides significant benefits to the point that we can act as if we are hearing provide the CI is working properly. Is that a point of contention? If it is then somebody needs to get a grip on life. It just doesn't flipping matter if we take if off or the battery dies that we are deaf. There is no denial on that score...none, nada, zilch. As long as the CI is working and we can make sense of the world as the hearing generally do, then the rest of the discussion is a moot point. It doesn't even matter if it is what we call "quote" natural or artificial hearing (rolling my eyes). I don't really notice the difference between how I heard things with my HA (prior to my CI) and how I hear things now with the CI. Heck, I hear lots more with my CI than I ever did with my HA.

The main point of contention here was all about the "reality" of many CIers who still require some sort of visual clues to assist them with their hearing. It can be using ASL, lipreading, and other means. From that standpoint, I have to agree one wouldn't be like the hearing. But what I don't get why it really matters at all. The person with the CI knows the score and the people who interact with the CIer knows the score. In other words, who is fooling who? Well, yes people tend to fool themselves all the time and it is a common human trait of humanity. Put another way, the hearing aren't fooled as they can tell if a CIer can "wing" it or not. I guess it all comes down to expectations...

My two cents on this topic...
Click to expand...

+1!
 
rick48 said:
But its not really and I think the point Cloggy was trying to make initially is that although his daughter is deaf, she can hear with her ci. It does not make her a hearing person nor does it mean she is no longer deaf it means exactly what he said: she is a deaf person who can hear.

To then argue over the "quality" of that hearing makes no sense. Today, actually yesterday, my daughter phoned me from school about a problem she was having and we talked about it. What difference does it make how she heard my voice and how I heard hers-it did not mean we had any less of a conversation.
Click to expand...

I think the argument was more about language acquisition depending on the child's abilitity to pick up language. If the child is picking up only 50% of what is being said then that means the child is not getting full access to language. I think that was the driving force behind the argument. That's all.
 
sr171soars said:
Tsk, tsk ***Shaking my head***

What a crazy thread with everybody trying to figure out whether or not the cup is half full or half empty. It was nothing but an exercise in futility (or better put as some people have mentioned an exercise in semantics).

Then there was the comparison between a CI and a pacemaker. Not sure what to make of that nonsense as that degenerated quickly.

For some of us, a CI actually provides significant benefits to the point that we can act as if we are hearing provide the CI is working properly. Is that a point of contention? If it is then somebody needs to get a grip on life. It just doesn't flipping matter if we take if off or the battery dies that we are deaf. There is no denial on that score...none, nada, zilch. As long as the CI is working and we can make sense of the world as the hearing generally do, then the rest of the discussion is a moot point. It doesn't even matter if it is what we call "quote" natural or artificial hearing (rolling my eyes). I don't really notice the difference between how I heard things with my HA (prior to my CI) and how I hear things now with the CI. Heck, I hear lots more with my CI than I ever did with my HA.

The main point of contention here was all about the "reality" of many CIers who still require some sort of visual clues to assist them with their hearing. It can be using ASL, lipreading, and other means. From that standpoint, I have to agree one wouldn't be like the hearing. But what I don't get why it really matters at all. The person with the CI knows the score and the people who interact with the CIer knows the score. In other words, who is fooling who? Well, yes people tend to fool themselves all the time and it is a common human trait of humanity. Put another way, the hearing aren't fooled as they can tell if a CIer can "wing" it or not. I guess it all comes down to expectations...

My two cents on this topic...
Click to expand...

Whenever I debate about CIs, I am thinking of small children especially those from birth to 5 years old. I dont usually really think of older children or adults cuz they already have a language and coping skills if the CI doesnt work for whatever reasons.Same thing goes for what approaches in the other threads. I am very passionate about making sure that all deaf/hoh children have full acess to language not partial like I did growing up and miss out on so much. That's all.
 
Cloggy said:
I have said many times.. "My daughter is deaf. She can hear." since for me "to hear" means "to perceive sound"... and she does that.... One of the arguments in the CI debate is the "With a CI you are still deaf since whatever you hear is not the same as normal hearing." It's artificial...
Artificial...
So in order to live, your hearts needs to beat....
Someone with a pacemaker is actually dead... since this heart beats due to a device. It's "artificial".
And this heart beating is not the same as our hearts beating....

So....
With a CI you cannot hear....
With a pace-maker you are dead....

There must be an error in this reasoning somewhere.......
Click to expand...
Ulitmatly I would defer to Cloggy for his intent but based on the first post of the thread it seems he is trying to make a point that with a CI one can hear. Then from a pathalogical view he compares the CI to a pacemaker in an attempt to make a point. From there it seems the discussion took a couple of tangents as some do. I think the jist of the thread is to reiterate his view on his daughters condition as being deaf but she can hear. Depending on your view you may agree or disagree with this. Again I think its the pathalogical vs. cultural view on deafness that fuels the tangents and then erodes to an agrument on semantics that has nothing to do with the original point. As Mr. SR171sors so elequintly put it

It just doesn't flipping matter if we take if off or the battery dies that we are deaf. There is no denial on that score...none, nada, zilch. As long as the CI is working and we can make sense of the world as the hearing generally do, then the rest of the discussion is a moot point. It doesn't even matter if it is what we call "quote" natural or artificial hearing (rolling my eyes). I don't really notice the difference between how I heard things with my HA (prior to my CI) and how I hear things now with the CI. Heck, I hear lots more with my CI than I ever did with my HA.
Click to expand...

There is always going to be people with differing views on deafness and other conditions and that's ok. Sometimes agreeing to disagree is a more productive approach than trying to sway the other side to your camp. For some people that will never happen. I see strong wills on both sides that most likely won't change. So you have a choice to either continue an endless debate or agree to disagree and move on. I suppose there is always a chance you may sway someones opinion but knowing the key players here, I really don't think that will happen. Just my opinions and I would again defer to Cloggy to clearify his intent.
 
rockdrummer said:
I guess this is what I mean about semantics. Perhaps I mis-used the word. The discussion is going off on a tangent about an analogy made between a CI and a pacemaker. As you well know there are two major views on deafness. His is the pathalogical one. If you go into the discussion knowing that, it will be more productive. IMHO.
Click to expand...

Actually, the post you refered to was one made by rick48. I know that cloggy prefers the pathological perspective: however, his comparisons of two separate pathological conditions to illustrate his point was disconnected and invalid. As the old saying goes, you can't compare apples to oranges and come up with any useful information.
 
rockdrummer said:
Just my opinions and I would again defer to Cloggy to clearify his intent.
Click to expand...
Just starting a good discussion. And to get a feeling of how CI is perceived.
Not just for me, but also for others that "misuse" the "it's not hearing argument."

And like stated before..... SR171sors, using CI, said it all...
"Heck, I hear lots more with my CI than I ever did with my HA."

For people coming here looking for information regarding deafness, CI etc, these kind of arguments are difficult to fight.
I have been through it... and being in messageboards makes one think about the whole process.

I have never seen someone stating
My child has CI; now she is not deaf anymore because she can hear."​

but many times parents are adressed as if this is what they are saying.
I hope that with this little thread, people will think more about what is is like to hear.
I do not know what it is like to be deaf.
Some deaf people do not know what it is like to hear.
And some have experienced both....

Instead of fighting each other with what we know, we should learn from each other with what the others know....

And remember....
(off topic..)

There is no road to happiness.....Hapiness IS the road.!!!
 
jillio said:
Actually, the post you refered to was one made by rick48. I know that cloggy prefers the pathological perspective: however, his comparisons of two separate pathological conditions to illustrate his point was disconnected and invalid. As the old saying goes, you can't compare apples to oranges and come up with any useful information.
Click to expand...
My point is that the discussion gravitated to the analagy which in my opinion detracted from the subject. From my perspective the subject is how do people describe someone that is deaf but can hear with a CI. The analogy was used to make a point and re-enforce the subject. I agree that it's not the best analogy but nevertheless, I understand it's intent and the viewpoint that it came from. It doesn't mean I agree or disagree with it, but just that I understand it. To me to harp on the analogy adds nothing productive to the conversation. Again.. just my personal opinions for what it's worth.
 
If a CI is merely a compensatory device that provides a sense that someone deaf does not otherwise have, then for many people the same could be argued for a hearing aid. I can't hear anything without my hearing aid. With a hearing aid, I use what I have of my 'natural' function (which is really quite negligible) and suddenly I'm able to perceive conversation, talk on the phone, or tune my guitar.

Is a cochlear implant like a pacemaker? Clearly not... but the comparison is important in that having a cochlear implant or a pacemaker forces users of these devices to accept a sometimes painful dependency on a part of ourselves that does not really "belong" to us. CIs do help people hear, and pacemakers do help people live. Both are artificial means to do something which we perceive as natural. It's hard to reconcile those differences.
And while a cochlear implant is an artificial device, it is inherently tied to organic elements of our body-- the cochlea, the auditory nerve, and the brain, just as a pacemaker becomes intimately tied to flesh and blood as well.
In terms of perceiving sound differently with a CI, and whether this constitutes as hearing, everyone perceives things differently. I had more hearing when I was young but I have never 'heard' sound in the same way that someone with normal hearing does, and yet no one questioned that what I was experiencing was hearing. Likewise, the same should be true of a CI, and is really a matter of perception. For some people, it sounds "right" or "natural," for others, "artificial." Both constitute receiving sound stimuli, but the person whose CI sounds "natural" is more likely to believe what they are experiencing is hearing than the person who finds it "artificial." And yet both are receiving sound stimuli.
The real debate seems to be a deeper philosophical issue about how we experience phenomena. And if we want to delve into that level of consciousness, we'd soon find that all of our senses are a subjective rendering of the world anyway.
 
rockdrummer said:
My point is that the discussion gravitated to the analagy which in my opinion detracted from the subject. From my perspective the subject is how do people describe someone that is deaf but can hear with a CI. The analogy was used to make a point and re-enforce the subject. I agree that it's not the best analogy but nevertheless, I understand it's intent and the viewpoint that it came from. It doesn't mean I agree with it but just that I understand it. To me to harp on the analogy adds nothing productive to the conversation. Again.. just my personal opinions for what it's worth.
Click to expand...

Understood. My point was simply that when a faulty analogy is taken at face value, it contributes to the plethora of faulty information and provides a sense of false security for some.

I tend to get a bit long winded and picky when deafness is described in such limiting terms as hearing or not hearing. Since the 19th century, the trend has been to categorize as one or the other, and to design all treatments to bring not hearing in line with the standard norm for hearing. And since that time, the education, the communication skills, and the self esteem of our deaf population has been on a steady decline. As with so many other things, I simply believe that deafness must be seen in a holistic perspective, as part of the whole person and not limited to auditory function. History teaches us that when we include the cultural, sociological perspective in design of educational methods, our deaf children thrive and become well adjusted and high functioning, happy, and confident. Trying to separate deafness from the individual and treat it as a pathological condition in isolation has not been successful. If this approach was successful, none of these discussions would be necessary. And, once again, I am getting long winded, so I will stop!
 
:gpost:
Franz K said:
If a CI is merely a compensatory device that provides a sense that someone deaf does not otherwise have, then for many people the same could be argued for a hearing aid. I can't hear anything without my hearing aid. With a hearing aid, I use what I have of my 'natural' function (which is really quite negligible) and suddenly I'm able to perceive conversation, talk on the phone, or tune my guitar.

Is a cochlear implant like a pacemaker? Clearly not... but the comparison is important in that having a cochlear implant or a pacemaker forces users of these devices to accept a sometimes painful dependency on a part of ourselves that does not really "belong" to us. CIs do help people hear, and pacemakers do help people live. Both are artificial means to do something which we perceive as natural. It's hard to reconcile those differences.
And while a cochlear implant is an artificial device, it is inherently tied to organic elements of our body-- the cochlea, the auditory nerve, and the brain, just as a pacemaker becomes intimately tied to flesh and blood as well.
In terms of perceiving sound differently with a CI, and whether this constitutes as hearing, everyone perceives things differently. I had more hearing when I was young but I have never 'heard' sound in the same way that someone with normal hearing does, and yet no one questioned that what I was experiencing was hearing. Likewise, the same should be true of a CI, and is really a matter of perception. For some people, it sounds "right" or "natural," for others, "artificial." Both constitute receiving sound stimuli, but the person whose CI sounds "natural" is more likely to believe what they are experiencing is hearing than the person who finds it "artificial." And yet both are receiving sound stimuli.
The real debate seems to be a deeper philosophical issue about how we experience phenomena. And if we want to delve into that level of consciousness, we'd soon find that all of our senses are a subjective rendering of the world anyway.
Click to expand...
 
rockdrummer said:
My point is that the discussion gravitated to the analagy which in my opinion detracted from the subject. From my perspective the subject is how do people describe someone that is deaf but can hear with a CI. The analogy was used to make a point and re-enforce the subject. I agree that it's not the best analogy but nevertheless, I understand it's intent and the viewpoint that it came from. It doesn't mean I agree or disagree with it, but just that I understand it. To me to harp on the analogy adds nothing productive to the conversation. Again.. just my personal opinions for what it's worth.
Click to expand...
+1
 
rockdrummer said:
My point is that the discussion gravitated to the analagy which in my opinion detracted from the subject. From my perspective the subject is how do people describe someone that is deaf but can hear with a CI. The analogy was used to make a point and re-enforce the subject. I agree that it's not the best analogy but nevertheless, I understand it's intent and the viewpoint that it came from. It doesn't mean I agree or disagree with it, but just that I understand it. To me to harp on the analogy adds nothing productive to the conversation. Again.. just my personal opinions for what it's worth.
Click to expand...

Rockdrummer,

The short answer we usually give is that our daughter is deaf but she uses a ci to help her hear. To those who are interested, we will usually attempt to describe how it works and its limitations.
 
Back
Top