Chung wrote:
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

To clarify, I think that the perception of right-brain differences is
more obvious in a "beginner's mind" state, in which one hears something
for the first time. They are also more obvious in living with a
component.

And how would you go about proving these claims, in such a way as
to strongly rule out other explanations?


Well, this is where we will never agree, of course, but I don't feel a
need to *prove* these claims. This is because the need to prove, the
need itself, can lead one astray. Every listening test I've ever read
about, that attempted to establish something on an objective level,
seemed to be designed in ignorance of how subtle subjective experiences
operate.

Mike


This reminds me of a post I made on March 24, 2004:
***
Objectivist: Saying that the elephant can fly is an extraordinary claim.
Prove it.

Subjectivist: Proof? This is only an hobby. There is a problem with
objectively proving, because every time you really sit down, bring in
your cameras and recorders, and carefully observe an elephant, you can't
see it flying. The process of trying to catch it flying and that of
observing elephants in nature are two really different tasks. No one has
ever proven that anything could not fly this way.
***

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...c?dmode=source


Well, Chung, what you have written is a parody but not an accurate
statement of the subjectivist position.

First of all, I make no claim that it is somehow inherently impossible
to prove that correctly functioning amps and cd players (CFAACP) sound
different. It may well be possible to prove.

Secondly, it does sound funny when someone tries to claim that bringing
the cameras and recorders somehow makes it impossible to see pink
elephants. Because pink elephants fly in the objective, physical world,
and generally things in the physical world aren't affected by what's
observing them.

Things in the quantuum world ARE affected by the observer. But that may
be neither here nor there.

What is relevant is that the subjective world operates differently than
the objective world, with regards to observers and feelings. For
example, all of the following are DISTINCT phemonoma:

- listening to music, and noticing, "The mids are so sweet."

- listening to music, but specifically to the midrange, and noticing,
"The mids are so sweet."

- asking oneself whether the mids are sweet and deciding yes

All of these experiences get communicated by the same language, which
is "the mids are sweet." However, they arise in different contexts, and
they are absolutely not equivalent experiences. For example, if I
notice that the mids are sweet, and then later ask myself if the mids
are sweet, there is no reason I should come up with the same answer to
that question. What is noticed spontaneously is different than what is
queried.

The fact that these are different experiences is evident from
self-observation. What is also evident is that you can move through the
world just fine *without* recognizing these distinctions. However, the
world becomes a less subtle place. From your use of language, it
appears you do not recognize these distinctions. That's fine--your
reality, then, is consistent, coherent, and can be supported by
experiments *which themselves fail to make the same distinctions.*

However, I make no claim that observations of subtle emotional
experiences are impossible. I claim only that the DBT's I've read about
are like a clumsy giant attempting to walk daintily through a china
shop.

Mike