AudioBanter.com - View Single Post - A model of the brain, & quick-switch

wrote:

I know that you have a body of data which is consistent, but it would
appear that most or all of the blind tests supporting your position
were not designed in acknowledgement of basic subjective phemonena,

What is a subjective phenomenon? I'm only familiar with the objective
kind.

such as the fact that a spontaneous observation of a property of sound
A involves a different perceptual mechanism than asking oneself, yes or
no, if A is present in the sound.

This is not a fact.

A paradigm which proceeds on the
assumption that there is no such distinction, would not be able to show
that it exists.

But a paradigm that assumed the distinction was irrelevant could. And
so far, the only "distinctions" I've seen made by subjectivists have
been either fanciful or semantic.

You're
the one who thinks there's some big mystery here.

Precisely. My statement was that the objectivist prefers to choose a
paradigm in which the more mysterious observations are declared a
priori to be not worthy of investigation, probably because he doesn't
like having untidy dark corners in the universe.

One doesn't "choose" a paradigm. This is a scientific paradigm, and
there are no dark corners in the little bit of the universe involving
differentiation of audio components. Everything you claim, the paradigm
can explain. That's why it's the paradigm.

We're also the ones
who are willing to be proven wrong.

What you don't seem to be willing to do, is to look at whether your
standards of proof have themselves defined a limited paradigm.

Sure we are. But we'd need evidence that this is the case.
Specifically, we'd need phenomena that we cannot explain. So far, we
haven't seen any.

You're the one who admits he can't
prove ANYTHING.

I didn't say I can't prove anything. I said that I don't feel a need to
prove that audible differences exist among components. It may be
possible, however.

It may indeed be. But, leaving your personal needs aside, the burden
of proof still rests on those who think the paradigm is wrong.

bob