Chung wrote:
wrote:
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.
IOW, Mike is saying that if you try to look for flying elephants, you
will not find them. If you don't look for them, you're more likely to
(spontaneously) see them.
Well, you've paraphrased my statement but not accurately. In your
paraphrased concept, we definitely run into a problem, that we can't
seem to consciously choose to look for flying elephants in any manner.
But I didn't state such a thing as a "law", an incontrovertible law of
nature.
Also, a flying elephant is not a good analogy for subjective
experience. A flying elephant exists outside the observer.
What I stated is that a person can spontaneously notice something about
the sound, such as "brightness." A person can also ask themselves, "Is
this sound bright or not?" I stated that these are two different ways
of using one's attention, and I see no reason they should observe the
same property of the sound. In my experience, when we are talking about
subtle aspects of sound, they certainly do not represent the same way
of perceiving.
A good definition of my term "conceptualized" might be to say that
there is no distinction between noticing something and looking for it.
For example, we might notice a fire hydrant, and we might look for a
fire hydrant. In either case, it is quite clear what we mean. Our
"concept" of a fire hydrant is stable and well-defined; hence, it is
"conceptualized." It is my assertion that subtle subjective
experiences, while real, do not work on the same level.
Also, I did not state that one was a more sensitive form of perception.
I stated simply that they are different.
This is not a fact.
Of course, Mike can also argue that a fact is a fact as long as he
believes it is a fact 
. That's about the right level of rigor Mike has
displayed so far...
A paradigm which proceeds on the
assumption that there is no such distinction, would not be able to show
that it exists.
IOW, Mike is saying that if you don't think that elephants can fly, then
you will not be able to see flying elephants, no matter how scientific
is your approach to find them.
You don't seem to have grasped which distinction I'm referring to.
Utterly astonishing coming from someone who claimed to be a Caltech
student .
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.
Of course, Mike did not realize that a quick switching, short snippet
comparison (which he appears to strongly oppose) *never* assumes that
there is no difference. In fact, that's what we use to compare mp3
codecs, speaker crossovers, etc. when we need the highest sensitivity to
look for differences.
The "distinction" I'm referring to is not a "difference" between the
two sounds, it's a distinction in the manner of using one's attention.
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.
Of course, Mike did not realize that the DBT/ABX paradigm is not used
with the a priori declaration that there is no difference to be found.
Shall we say starwman? Or simply a lack of understanding, despite Mike
having been here for months now?
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.
IOW, Mike is saying that if you are looking for flying elephants, you
need to look at whether using camera, recorders, any optical instruments
known to man, etc., is defining a limited paradigm.
Pretty much. Makes sense to me. If you are looking for something, make
sure your methods don't interfere with that thing.
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.
I wonder if Mike is saying that (a) audible differences may exist among
components but he is expressing some doubt, or (b) it may be possible
for Mike to prove that audible differences exist among components but he
is expressing some doubt?
In any event, he seems to be uncertain about either the existence of
audible differences, or one's ability to prove that such differences
exist. Utterly astonishing coming from someone who was a student at Caltech!
Curious statement. I would think that being open to multiple
explanations would always be a good thing. I'm not sure what you think
I'm "supposed" to believe, but I certainly don't think anything should
be uncritically accepted---not even research coming out of Caltech.
Mike