On Jul 29, 11:03 am, Michael Mossey wrote:
A basic fact about listening to music is that context affects what you
can perceive. Musicians exploit this. MAGICians exploit this too in
the visual realm. Your INTENTION affects what you can perceive. Your
intention even affects how the lower neural circuits process raw
stimuli. For a discussion how your intention actually changes how you
process signals, see
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/science/22hypno.html?
ei=5070&en=968c0cb9ab848d69&ex=1185854400&adxnnl=1 &adxnnlx=1185702379-
xWx02NnMb9D0ytIAKCNlLw
and for a demonstration how you can completely miss important signals
if you are tied up looking for something else:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=490946
In the face of evidence like this, the burden is on DBT advocates to
show that they _don't_ skew perception, if they wish us to believe
they are relevant to other listening contexts.
Prove a negative? No, thank you. But once again, you marshal evidence
that supports my argument, not yours. Yes, human perception is quirky
in all sorts of ways, but it is quirky in ALL listening contexts. None
of the examples you've cited occurred in DBTs, after all. So again,
the claim that listening in DBTs is in any way different from
listening in other contexts remains unsupported. Not only have you no
support for your position, but you've shown us no reason why we should
doubt the relevance of DBT results.
snip
One of the semantic games you're playing is to insist that a concept
have a precise definition or else it's not real.
Please stop projecting your own misconceptions on me. All I've done is
to demand that YOU define the terms you use. After all, you can't
expect me to have a serious debate with someone who uses verbal
ambiguity to suit his "argument."
That's fine if we are
talking about, say, organic chemistry, but when we are talking about
the perception of music---sorry, nothing is precisely defined.
Exactly--you can't even define your own terms. So you're saying, "I
can't tell you what 'perception of music' means, but you have to prove
that DBTs don't inhibit it in any way." Can't you see how ridiculous
that is?
snip
I'm just asking you to provide some evidence in the face of all the
reasons why DBT listening should skew perception
What reasons??? You haven't provided a shred of evidence about DBTs at
all.
that it does NOT skew
perception. After all, that's what you assume when you make equipment
recommendations based on DBT results. You're assuming this is true;
now let's see you provide some evidence for it
Obviously, I cannot, and it is
not my obligation to do so. You've made the assertion that there are
"significant aspects of the signal" that are not "available to
consciousness." You need to tell us what those "aspects" are, and why
they are not "available," whatever that means.
The experiment with the gorilla above shows in a general way why this
can happen.
This is your evidence--the gorilla experiment? Let me try to explain
it to you: Everybody SAW the gorilla. The gorilla is not a black hole.
So it reflects light, which enters the eye and strikes the retina,
which sends a signal to the brain via the optic nerve. So the image of
the gorilla reaches the brain. If you doubt this, you have to tell us
which part of physics and/or biology you wish to deny.
The problem is that while the image reaches the brain, nobody NOTICES
the gorilla. Is that, then, your argument about DBTs--that subjects
don't notice everything about whatever they're listening to? But you
yourself admit that people never notice everything about whatever
they're listening to. So how are DBTs in any way deficient if they
share with other listening contexts the very attribute you say is so
critical?
This is why you have to be more specific. You have to tell us--or at
least hypothesize about--what specific aspect of musical sound can't
be perceived in a DBT but can be perceived in other contexts. If you
don't do that, then you're not only demanding that I prove a negative.
You're actually demanding that I prove something you already know to
be false. That is, if people *never* notice everything, then how could
I possibly prove that DBT subjects *do* notice everything? Again, do
you see how ridiculous your line of "argument" is?
bob