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

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. What you are talking about (and
doing) is misinterpretation of an objective phenomenon (which is, of
course, redundant). The objective phenomenon we are talking about is
this: You listened to something twice, and it sounded different to you
the second time. That is objectively true. The problem comes when you
try to explain that difference.

That I said the words out loud "I hear a difference" is objective. What
exactly I heard, or what experience I constructed out of those sounds,
is subjective.

Indeed. And the truth-claims you make about the *device* that produced
the sound, are testable.

In an extreme case (auditory hallucination) you can 'hear' a 'sound' where
there is *nothing* producing it, outside of neural activity.

But the quotes are definitely needed to write that sentence.

So, why gives such primacy of place to uncorroborated subjective
claims? What value does an uncorroborated claim of
'it sounded like this to me' have, to anyone else?

--

-S