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

wrote:

Most of Moore is devoted to explaining the results of playing test
signals to subjects. The test signals are chosen, and the differences
between them (such as amplitude or pitch) are chosen.

Well, of course, because Moore is building on prior work which shows,
among other things, that this is the most effective way to investigate
such questions. Just because you don't know the science, doesn't mean
the science doesn't exist.

snip

I think that investigating perception should be informed both by
introspection and experiments. You don't count introspection as
"evidence." I do.

And is it any wonder that I label your arguments pseudoscience?

And finally, you haven't shown me any evidence that isn't based on a
fixed model of how subjective impressions are formed.

So? The model works. And you haven't got any alternative model that
works.

snip

The "currently accepted scientific standards" would not be able to
determine if A & B are audibly indistinguishable, if the distinction
between them was a matter of musical beauty.

You miss the point. The current model holds that any difference in what
you should be calling "perception of musical beauty" can only be the
result of differences that are audible in standard DBTs. It does not
matter that current experimental standards can't detect something that
can't happen.

If you could offer some evidence that it CAN happen, however...

bob