The invention of measurements and perception

@stevecham 

Welcome to the camp of the wrong as well. None of that jazz you're talking about has anything to do with the actual conscious perception of anything. None of that can be pointed to as the actual substance of a thought or emotion or the various constructs we create arbitrarily. Unless you're telling me that those folks there can take their measurements and definitively tell the exact thoughts and feelings of a human being, you're not even close to understanding what I'm talking about. 

Like I told cleeds, go argue this stuff with the finest minds in the science. They're clearly not in the biology labs at U. Oregon. 

@kosst: "Unless you're telling me that those folks there can take their measurements and definitively tell the exact thoughts and feelings of a human being, you're not even close to understanding what I'm talking about."

You give an inch and they take a mile, so predictable.

Did I say that? Of course we can't (yet) quantify emotion, perception, thoughts, intentions...sheesh...

What I was trying to convey, and obviously failed, was to simply state that such emotions, perceptions, thoughts, intentions, etc., are all subjected to the same physical properties that govern the universe. We just don't have all the details (yet). Look, if we can imagine something, it can (eventually) be realized, simply because all thought follows the same mechanisms, forces, fields, enegetics, albeit in combinations that are highly, highly complex. The laws which govern the baryonic (observable) universe mandate it. The laws of thermodynamics shall not be trifled with.

Can we get back to measurements and perception please? Given that we have the same complement of cone cells in our retinas, the blue you see is the exact same blue I see.

stevecham
What I was trying to convey, and obviously failed, was to simply state that such emotions, perceptions, thoughts, intentions, etc., are all subjected to the same physical properties that govern the universe. We just don’t have all the details (yet). Look, if we can imagine something, it can (eventually) be realized, simply because all thought follows the same mechanisms, forces, fields, enegetics, albeit in combinations that are highly, highly complex. The laws which govern the baryonic (observable) universe mandate it. The laws of thermodynamics shall not be trifled with.

>>>>>Be that as it may, what is missing is the *subconscious* interaction of the brain with its surrounding, the evolutionary development of conscious and subconscious extrasensory perception and conscious mind over matter abilities. When you sitting there in your chair there’s a lot going in your brain - that is beyond your control - other than interpreting acoustic waves. This is why colors are important for (perceived) sound quality, and shapes, and books, and CDs and newspapers, as I’ve already pointed out.

The more CDs and or LPs and books one possesses the worse his sound will be. The irony is that those audiophiles who perceive themselves as High Enders can never enter the gates of Audio Nirvana. They dug a hole so deep they can never get out. But they get used to the sound. Modern neuroscience and physics is lagging behind what some audiophiles already know. I don’t reckon NASA or AES or MIT will be scrambling to study these audiophile ideas any time real soon so don’t hold your breath. People are so hung up on physics and electricity and the “science of hearing.” That’s so 1980s. Can’t see the Forest for the Trees.

kosst_amojan

What I mean by "what’s with you" is you repeatedly come at me out of pure ignorance, such as now, or you’re just inventing a circumstance out of thin air to reframe something I’ve said, like you did the last we met on the Tekton thread with your "one complaint" silliness.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. Frankly, you sound paranoid. Your claim that, "In the strictest scientific sense, there is no such thing as music, or sound, or color, or hot or cold," is absurd. Your notion that I suffer from "pure ignorance" for noting that is equally absurd.

You have acquired a cherished religious belief, which is fine. But your fervor is proselytizing it, and insisting that your faith is an Absolute Truth, is where you run into trouble with those who think for themselves.

Beware the audio guru.

These discussions remind me of analagous discussion in epistemology except the study of listening is much easier than the studying of reading because a music listener doesn't have to think about the worldviews of the composer, intended audience, and players, (but maybe do for the worldviews of the HiFi manufacturers and audio engineers - <i>pace</i> Benchmark DAC).I find @khosst_amojan's arguments closest to the worldview of pessimistic realism, itself a depressing subset of modernism which has been replaced by post-modernism precisely because it collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. My own worldview identifies most clearly  with critical realism which does allow for currently unmeasurable differences in waveforms to be audible after a critical dialog and yes I can hear the difference power cables make even though those differences are currently unmeasurable. That said I've yet to see any serious attempt to verify the Shunyata thesis that the first few feet connected to the transformer change the behaviour of the transformer?