Okay, so I understand that your opinion is that my assertions are not
science and are "evidence-free". You have an extremely low opinion of
my thought process, and you attempt to insult me by claiming I'm even
lower than the Intelligent Design folks.

Regarding intelligent design folks and identifying holes in the theory:
I'm not aware of anything you think you can't explain. That's part of
my objection: once you model subjective perception (musical "feeling")
as an arbitrary function which a priori is not explainable, then by
circular reasoning you end up with nothing unexplainable.

I happen to think that experiments about perception should be informed
by observations on the "inside". I do not claim one is above the other:
but when observations from the "inside" suggest a certain model, then
experiments to confirm or rule out that model should happen. If
invoking "insider" knowledge is not science, then so be it.

OTOH, I think that you have a very specific notion of what "science"
should be, and that's just your opinion, and not a universal truth
about how one should investigate the world. You remind me of the
behaviorists in biology.

And furthermore, basing your entire model on a small set of
experimental methods is in my opinion not scientifically sound, even if
you end up with nothing you can't explain.

Mike