"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
news:t9dSb.180943$xy6.868893@attbi_s02...
Harry Lavo wrote:

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
news:dFXRb.177445$na.287359@attbi_s04...

Furthermore, a sighted test always involves several different
parts of
the
brain, because you're using your eyes, as well as your memory of
everything
you have ever heard, read, or thought about the products you are
comparing.
To claim that sighted listening is more sensitive because it
involves
fewer
parts of the brain or less mental processing simply runs counter
to
the
facts. It is LESS sensitive precisely because it involves MORE
processing
in
MORE parts of the brain.


Bob-

Would you care to restate that as an opinion or an hypothesis?

No, I would not. Expectation bias is an established fact, Harry. And
it
occurs precisely because the brain is simultaneously processing
loads
of
non-sonic information at the same time that it is trying to come to
a
conclusion about the sonic information. Eliminate the sources of
non-sonic
information, and you create a far more accurate test.


I take it then that there is no neurological support for your claim?

What, do you deny that there is neurological evidence that visual and
sonic
information are processed by different parts of the brain? Do you deny
that
long-term memory (of, say, equipment reviews) resides in yet another part
of
the brain? And while we're at it, do you deny that we learned anything
about
how the mind works before the invention of the functional MRI?

Please do not go condescending on me. And please don't start trying to put
the onus on me. You made a statement that implied that one part of the
brain being active diminished the sensitivity of another part. I questioned
whether this was fact. You gave me your rationale instead. I asked if
their was neurological evidence of this. You haven't answered.

Yes, musical processing and emotional processing and visual processing do
take place in different parts of the brain as far as I know. Now I asked
you a question in response to your assertion that "It is LESS sensitive
precisely because it involves MORE processing in MORE parts of the brain".
That is a statement presented as fact which should be supportable by
evidence. I have asked you for it, since I believe it is your
opinion...considered...but still just your opinion. A bit like a
subjectivist "guessing" at a technical mechanism to explain their
observation. I am still waiting and you can still back off presenting it
as "fact".