Mark DeBellis wrote:
wrote:
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.
Something that happens in the realm of personal experience.
You mean like stubbing your toe?
"Subjective phenomenon" is an oxymoron.
Stubbing your toe involves two components: the objective one (the one
that outside observers can see; the physical collision of toe with
object, as well as any physical noises/body language made by the
collidee); and the subjective one (your experience of stubbing your
toe).
"You're just playing at semantics here."
Actually, Mike's right. A standard use of the word "phenomenon" is to
mean an appearance, and the way something appears to a person is subjective.
Thanks, Mark. Whatever the language we use, I find that internal
experience is something that can be modelled and understood.
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.
Do you mean we'd need evidence in order to have reason to look at
whether the paradigm is limited, or we'd need evidence in order to
decide that it is in fact limited? If the former, that sure looks
circular. Isn't Mike's point that the reason why we haven't seen
countervailing evidence is that it hasn't sufficiently been probed for?
Yeah, that's my point. For example, I would like to see the dozens of
blind tests that controlled for whether the subjects were listening to
sound as sound, or sound as music.
Mike