Now you hear it, now you don't
out...@city-net.com
subjective sound features disappear. It also explains the reverse,ie. why
when two items are said to be switched in a non blind test, but only one
is active at all times,subjective sound features appear and disappear.
When someone reports subjective sound features they really are
experiencing them, but they did not enter the brain via the ears, what one
hears is not always what one gets. Here is a short part of a larger
article about how feedback stored perceptions within the brain strongly
act to form what we experience as sensory reality by modifying the
information that enters the brain:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/science/22hypno.html"
"One area that it may have illuminated is the processing of sensory data.
Information from the eyes, ears and body is carried to primary sensory
regions in the brain. From there, it is carried to so-called higher
regions where interpretation occurs.
For example, photons bouncing off a flower first reach the eye, where they
are turned into a pattern that is sent to the primary visual cortex.
There, the rough shape of the flower is recognized. The pattern is next
sent to a higher - in terms of function - region, where color is
recognized, and then to a higher region, where the flower's identity is
encoded along with other knowledge about the particular bloom.
The same processing stream, from lower to higher regions, exists for
sounds, touch and other sensory information. Researchers call this
direction of flow feedforward. As raw sensory data is carried to a part of
the brain that creates a comprehensible, conscious impression, the data is
moving from bottom to top.
Bundles of nerve cells dedicated to each sense carry sensory information.
The surprise is the amount of traffic the other way, from top to bottom,
called feedback. There are 10 times as many nerve fibers carrying
information down as there are carrying it up.
These extensive feedback circuits mean that consciousness, what people
see, hear, feel and believe, is based on what neuroscientists call "top
down processing." What you see is not always what you get, because what
you see depends on a framework built by experience that stands ready to
interpret the raw information - as a flower or a hammer or a face.
The top-down structure explains a lot. If the construction of reality has
so much top-down processing, that would make sense of the powers of
placebos (a sugar pill will make you feel better), nocebos (a witch doctor
will make you ill), talk therapy and meditation. If the top is convinced,
the bottom level of data will be overruled.
This brain structure would also explain hypnosis, which is all about
creating such formidable top-down processing that suggestions overcome
reality."
michae...@yahoo.com
> Here is a specific scientific account why during blind testing reported
> subjective sound features disappear. It also explains the reverse,ie. why
> when two items are said to be switched in a non blind test, but only one
> is active at all times,subjective sound features appear and disappear.
> When someone reports subjective sound features they really are
> experiencing them, but they did not enter the brain via the ears, what one
> hears is not always what one gets. Here is a short part of a larger
> article about how feedback stored perceptions within the brain strongly
> act to form what we experience as sensory reality by modifying the
> information that enters the brain:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/science/22hypno.html"
>
I discovered this article earlier this week. It's interesting, and what
you don't seem to realize is that this cuts both ways: higher
processing could have you hear differences that aren't there--or have
you fail to hear differences that are there.
The authors of this particular article, as well as you, seem not to
have reflected on the question: "If higher processing or consciousness
influences sensory reality, then which state of consciousness results
in the right version of reality?" For example, you take it for granted
that an ABX quick-switch blind test is the right state of
consciousness.
Mike
out...@city-net.com
"I discovered this article earlier this week. It's interesting, and what
you don't seem to realize is that this cuts both ways: higher processing
could have you hear differences that aren't there--or have you fail to
hear differences that are there.
The authors of this particular article, as well as you, seem not to have
reflected on the question: "If higher processing or consciousness
influences sensory reality, then which state of consciousness results in
the right version of reality?" For example, you take it for granted that
an ABX quick-switch blind test is the right state of consciousness."
What you mention is solved by blind testing, it is then only what the
person knows, or not, about which bit of gear is active that is addressed.
If one wants to think all gear sounds alike or one wants to think the
opposite, both are excluded when blind testing is used. When blind
results approximate the level of guessing then both presumptions are seen
to have been excluded. The higher perception handling areas of the brain
requires foreknowledge of the source of the sensory input in order to be a
factor in the case of hifi gear.
I take nothing for granted, I take the direction the evidence suggests
until it suggests otherwise; which is called science. Slow or fast, abx
format or simple cloth over connections yield similar results, which is at
present the benchmark of evidence by which I'm led to make conclusions
unless and until something else can be demonstrated. Subjective sound
effects are turned on and off when blinding is turned on and off and the
higher perception feedback model elegantly accounts for this.
Keith Hughes
> out...@city-net.com wrote:
>
>>Here is a specific scientific account why during blind testing reported
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/science/22hypno.html"
>>
>
> I discovered this article earlier this week. It's interesting, and what
> you don't seem to realize is that this cuts both ways:
What you don't seem to realize is that this is exactly what we've been
telling you for some time now.
> higher
> processing could have you hear differences that aren't there--or have
> you fail to hear differences that are there.
Exactly so. You seem to miss the significance of that statement
however. The whole point is, the more *non-auditory* sensory input you
have, the less the interpretation of the auditory input is based *solely
on the auditory input*. Whether the additional input is visual, or
contextual (as must happen in any time distal presentation scenario),
the result is the same. The evaluation of the auditory input is, or may
be, compromised. Whether you hear 'more' or 'less' is irrelevant.
>
> The authors of this particular article, as well as you, seem not to
> have reflected on the question: "If higher processing or consciousness
> influences sensory reality, then which state of consciousness results
> in the right version of reality?"
Likely because the question is erroneous. "Higher processing" does not
influence "sensory reality", because there is no such thing as "sensory
reality". And the whole "states of consciousness" construct is *your*
contrivance, and not supported by the article. There is reality (the
objective world), there is the afferent sensory input resulting from
objective reality, then there is the conscious apprehension of that
reality, which is *partially* the result of the actual sensory input,
and partially the result of pattern recognition "algorithms" utilizing
previous experience and other sensory (non-auditory) input.
> For example, you take it for granted
> that an ABX quick-switch blind test is the right state of
> consciousness.
Erroneous conclusion based on the faulty predicate above.
Keith Hughes
michae...@yahoo.com
appropriate interpretation of the evidence. This was scoffed at. Lo and
behold, you are now discussing the interpretation of this article.
Fancy that.
Keith Hughes wrote:
> michae...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > out...@city-net.com wrote:
> >
> >>Here is a specific scientific account why during blind testing reported
> ..... <snip>... >>
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/science/22hypno.html"
> >>
> >
> > I discovered this article earlier this week. It's interesting, and what
> > you don't seem to realize is that this cuts both ways:
>
> What you don't seem to realize is that this is exactly what we've been
> telling you for some time now.
The article states that the brain has many neurons feeding from the
higher centers to the lower centers, and the evidence is that the
signals coming from the higher centers influences the neural images
constructed by the lower centers. Now let's look at how you attempt to
interpret this:
>
> > higher
> > processing could have you hear differences that aren't there--or have
> > you fail to hear differences that are there.
>
> Exactly so. You seem to miss the significance of that statement
> however. The whole point is, the more *non-auditory* sensory input you
> have, the less the interpretation of the auditory input is based *solely
> on the auditory input*.
You appear to be assuming that the signals from the higher centers are
best described as "additional input"--- that the signals come only from
other sensory inputs occurring around the same time as listening to
music. Now let's look at another statement in this article:
"What you see is not always what you get, because what you see depends
on a framework built by experience that stands ready to interpret the
raw information - as a flower or a hammer or a face."
In other words, some of this input results from the processing of the
higher centers, which depend on a "framework." We could discuss what
this "framework" might consist of, and we could provide some evidence
for our statements. We certainly shouldn't go around assuming that the
"framework" is based only on recent sensory input.
Notice this statement that the "framework" is ready to interpret the
raw information. Sound can be interpreted in many ways; for example, as
noise with various attributes such as high and low frequencies, soft
and loud sounds; or speech; or the emotion conveyed in speech; or
music; or any of the myriad attributes contained within music. It seems
reasonable to ask at this point: does the way we are interpreting sound
activate a specific framework; and does that framework influence the
neural images of sound constructed by the lower centers of the brain?
Feel free to provide evidence one way or another answer to this
question. I'm less interested in hearing your unsupported opinion why
the question is "meaningless" or some such.
> Whether the additional input is visual, or
> contextual (as must happen in any time distal presentation scenario),
> the result is the same. The evaluation of the auditory input is, or may
> be, compromised. Whether you hear 'more' or 'less' is irrelevant.
>
> >
> > The authors of this particular article, as well as you, seem not to
> > have reflected on the question: "If higher processing or consciousness
> > influences sensory reality, then which state of consciousness results
> > in the right version of reality?"
>
> Likely because the question is erroneous. "Higher processing" does not
> influence "sensory reality", because there is no such thing as "sensory
> reality".
It influences the neural images constructed by the lower centers of the
brain. (If you don't like the term "neural images" take it up with
Antonio Damsio, consciousness researcher and neuroscientist.)
> And the whole "states of consciousness" construct is *your*
> contrivance, and not supported by the article. There is reality (the
> objective world), there is the afferent sensory input resulting from
> objective reality, then there is the conscious apprehension of that
> reality, which is *partially* the result of the actual sensory input,
> and partially the result of pattern recognition "algorithms" utilizing
> previous experience and other sensory (non-auditory) input.
You're leaving out: where you are choosing to put your attention. If
you have some kind of beef with this suggestion, take it up with the
dozens of psychology books researching attentional mechanisms. I found
dozens of books at the Caltech library asking questions about how
attention works, doing experiments to differentiate between various
models, and so on. That's exactly the kind of investigation we need to
apply to blind audio testing.
>
> > For example, you take it for granted
> > that an ABX quick-switch blind test is the right state of
> > consciousness.
>
> Erroneous conclusion based on the faulty predicate above.
Actually your answer demonstrates my conclusion quite nicely. When you
wrote that "the more non-auditory input you have, the less they
interpretation is based solely on the auditory input," and then you
specifically mentioned sighted testing and non-quick switch testing as
having more non-auditory input, you imply that quick switch blind
testing is the context in which apprehension of sound is most complete
and accurate. You think that when we set up a context in which
non-auditory input doesn't influence conscious impressions, that that
context automatically insures that one has a complete and completely
accurate impression of the sound; whereas I find it much more likely
that in all contexts, a "framework" is active, influencing what one
hears and what one doesn't hear. The framework model and feedback
mechanism makes this conceivable; now we could discuss what evidence
there is for or against such a model.
Mike
Harry Lavo
news:dmcp2...@news2.newsguy.com...
>A little while ago I made the point that real scientists consider the
> appropriate interpretation of the evidence. This was scoffed at. Lo and
> behold, you are now discussing the interpretation of this article.
> Fancy that.
>
>
> Keith Hughes wrote:
>> michae...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > out...@city-net.com wrote:
>> >
>>snip<<
>> Erroneous conclusion based on the faulty predicate above.
>
> Actually your answer demonstrates my conclusion quite nicely. When you
> wrote that "the more non-auditory input you have, the less they
> interpretation is based solely on the auditory input," and then you
> specifically mentioned sighted testing and non-quick switch testing as
> having more non-auditory input, you imply that quick switch blind
> testing is the context in which apprehension of sound is most complete
> and accurate. You think that when we set up a context in which
> non-auditory input doesn't influence conscious impressions, that that
> context automatically insures that one has a complete and completely
> accurate impression of the sound; whereas I find it much more likely
> that in all contexts, a "framework" is active, influencing what one
> hears and what one doesn't hear. The framework model and feedback
> mechanism makes this conceivable; now we could discuss what evidence
> there is for or against such a model.
In fact, Mike, I'd go even further and say (as I and others have said in the
past) that the very lack of an appropriate "framework" when doing
short-snippet, quick-switch testing is most likely what causes a sense of
confusion and fatigue.in these tests. And this latter is *not*
speculation....even the ITU guidelines recognize it as a reality.
out...@city-net.com
a framework built by experience that stands ready to interpret the raw
information - as a flower or a hammer or a face."
In other words, some of this input results from the processing of the
higher centers, which depend on a "framework." We could discuss what this
"framework" might consist of, and we could provide some evidence for our
statements. We certainly shouldn't go around assuming that the "framework"
is based only on recent sensory input."
snip
"I find it much more likely that in all contexts, a "framework" is active,
influencing what one hears and what one doesn't hear."
The framework is formed based on past experience, auditory learning frames
in the context of hifi subjective sound effects. All manner of sources
form this frame. The important part is applying the frame in a context
where it can be useful for feedback to current sensory information. When
the sensory input is in a blind context the frame becomes irrelevant. It
would be like doing a listening alone test using two amps housed in two
identical boxes but having innards of greatly different topology or
whatever one thinks the source of the "magic" that creates audible
differences. No previous frame can be applied because the information and
learning by which frames are formed is missing, or in this example it was
never created. We could reverse the context,ie. put the innards of two
well known amps said to be "different" but swap the boxes housing them.
The frame associated with brand is tied to the familiar box or badge and
one would then evoke the frame one holds for each even though it is now
misapplied.
This would be akin to those tests where two amps are used but no switching
occurs but clear differences are reported, or in the frame of the frames
evoked, pun intended, the results are intelligible but completely wrong
and misleading but very meaningful as to the role of created frames and
feedback evoking "real" differences not existing in the input to the ears.
Stewart Pinkerton
>A little while ago I made the point that real scientists consider the
>appropriate interpretation of the evidence. This was scoffed at.
No, you made the claim that real scientists are interested in
speculation. *That* was scoffed at.
> Lo and
>behold, you are now discussing the interpretation of this article.
>Fancy that.
Lo and behold, you are once again attempting to shift your argument.
Fancy that.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Keith Hughes
> A little while ago I made the point that real scientists consider the
> appropriate interpretation of the evidence. This was scoffed at. Lo and
> behold, you are now discussing the interpretation of this article.
> Fancy that.
Uhm...no, you asserted that real scientists are very interested in
speculation. *That* was scoffed at, for obvious reasons.
>
> Keith Hughes wrote:
>
>>michae...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>out...@city-net.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Here is a specific scientific account why during blind testing reported
>>
>>..... <snip>... >>
>>
>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/science/22hypno.html"
>>>>
>>>
>>>I discovered this article earlier this week. It's interesting, and what
>>>you don't seem to realize is that this cuts both ways:
>>
>>What you don't seem to realize is that this is exactly what we've been
>>telling you for some time now.
>
>
> The article states that the brain has many neurons feeding from the
> higher centers to the lower centers, and the evidence is that the
> signals coming from the higher centers influences the neural images
> constructed by the lower centers. Now let's look at how you attempt to
> interpret this:
>
You seem to have it backwards. The article states first that:
"Information from the eyes, ears and body is carried to primary sensory
regions in the brain. From there, it is carried to so-called higher
regions ***where interpretation occurs.***" <emphasis added>
Followed by:
"The top-down structure explains a lot. If the construction of reality
has so much top-down processing, that would make sense of the powers of
placebos (a sugar pill will make you feel better), nocebos (a witch
doctor will make you ill), talk therapy and meditation. If the top is
convinced, **the bottom level of data will be overruled***." <emphasis
added>
Let's see how you proceed to misinterpret this...
>>>higher
>>>processing could have you hear differences that aren't there--or have
>>>you fail to hear differences that are there.
>>
>>Exactly so. You seem to miss the significance of that statement
>>however. The whole point is, the more *non-auditory* sensory input you
>>have, the less the interpretation of the auditory input is based *solely
>>on the auditory input*.
>
>
> You appear to be assuming that the signals from the higher centers are
> best described as "additional input"--- that the signals come only from
> other sensory inputs occurring around the same time as listening to
> music. Now let's look at another statement in this article:
How you conclude this from what I wrote is a total mystery. Did you
even read it?
>
> "What you see is not always what you get, because what you see depends
> on a framework built by experience that stands ready to interpret the
> raw information - as a flower or a hammer or a face."
>
> In other words, some of this input results from the processing of the
> higher centers, which depend on a "framework." We could discuss what
> this "framework" might consist of, and we could provide some evidence
> for our statements. We certainly shouldn't go around assuming that the
> "framework" is based only on recent sensory input.
Tilting at more windmills. *More* sensory input (e.g. sight) has an
affect on how existing frameworks are applied. Even to the extent that
actual sensory input may be ignored when the pattern recognition
template is sufficiently well developed. I.e., the more non-auditory
input you have, the less correlation there will be between the auditory
input, and the pattern recognition template that is applied. Get it?
>
> Notice this statement that the "framework" is ready to interpret the
> raw information. Sound can be interpreted in many ways; for example, as
> noise with various attributes such as high and low frequencies, soft
> and loud sounds; or speech; or the emotion conveyed in speech; or
> music; or any of the myriad attributes contained within music. It seems
> reasonable to ask at this point: does the way we are interpreting sound
> activate a specific framework; and does that framework influence the
> neural images of sound constructed by the lower centers of the brain?
> Feel free to provide evidence one way or another answer to this
> question. I'm less interested in hearing your unsupported opinion why
> the question is "meaningless" or some such.
Feel free to not read it. Again you have it backwards. The higher
areas of the brain form the conscious images, not the lower sensory
areas. The feedback from the higher areas *filters* the raw sensory
input, not the other way around.
>
>>Whether the additional input is visual, or
>>contextual (as must happen in any time distal presentation scenario),
>>the result is the same. The evaluation of the auditory input is, or may
>>be, compromised. Whether you hear 'more' or 'less' is irrelevant.
>>
>>
>>>The authors of this particular article, as well as you, seem not to
>>>have reflected on the question: "If higher processing or consciousness
>>>influences sensory reality, then which state of consciousness results
>>>in the right version of reality?"
>>
>>Likely because the question is erroneous. "Higher processing" does not
>>influence "sensory reality", because there is no such thing as "sensory
>>reality".
>
>
> It influences the neural images constructed by the lower centers of the
> brain. (If you don't like the term "neural images" take it up with
> Antonio Damsio, consciousness researcher and neuroscientist.)
Again, you have it backwards. And precisely what did I say to lead you
believe that I have a problem with "neural images"?
>
>>And the whole "states of consciousness" construct is *your*
>>contrivance, and not supported by the article. There is reality (the
>>objective world), there is the afferent sensory input resulting from
>>objective reality, then there is the conscious apprehension of that
>>reality, which is *partially* the result of the actual sensory input,
>>and partially the result of pattern recognition "algorithms" utilizing
>>previous experience and other sensory (non-auditory) input.
>
>
> You're leaving out: where you are choosing to put your attention. If
> you have some kind of beef with this suggestion, take it up with the
> dozens of psychology books researching attentional mechanisms. I found
> dozens of books at the Caltech library asking questions about how
> attention works, doing experiments to differentiate between various
> models, and so on. That's exactly the kind of investigation we need to
> apply to blind audio testing.
Feel free to perform such testing.
>
>>>For example, you take it for granted
>>>that an ABX quick-switch blind test is the right state of
>>>consciousness.
>>
>>Erroneous conclusion based on the faulty predicate above.
>
>
> Actually your answer demonstrates my conclusion quite nicely.
Hardly..
> When you
> wrote that "the more non-auditory input you have, the less they
> interpretation is based solely on the auditory input,"
That is correct.
> and then you
> specifically mentioned sighted testing
No, I didn't. I mentioned *visual* input as an example of additional
input that can affect the perception.
> and non-quick switch testing as having more non-auditory input,
As being necessarily contextually different due to affective factors.
Clearly you believe this, or why else do you constantly natter on about
"context"?
> you imply that quick switch blind
> testing is the context in which apprehension of sound is most complete
> and accurate. You think that when we set up a context in which
> non-auditory input doesn't influence conscious impressions, that that
> context automatically insures that one has a complete and completely
> accurate impression of the sound;
A perception based on auditory input alone, without other sensory effects.
> whereas I find it much more likely
> that in all contexts, a "framework" is active, influencing what one
> hears and what one doesn't hear.
Of course it is!! That's the point! In blind testing, the framework
applied is limited to auditory input, and the various emotive/affective
factors (you know, the ones affected by time distal presentations) that
are always present. If you have visual clues, then visual templates will
be 'overlayed' with the auditory templates, and the final template may
be skewed away from the aural, and towards the visual (or other
organoleptic input templates for that matter).
> The framework model and feedback
> mechanism makes this conceivable; now we could discuss what evidence
> there is for or against such a model.
None. A lot of problems with your lack of understanding of the model,
however.
Keith Hughes
michae...@yahoo.com
> On 27 Nov 2005 17:06:15 GMT, michae...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >A little while ago I made the point that real scientists consider the
> >appropriate interpretation of the evidence. This was scoffed at.
>
> No, you made the claim that real scientists are interested in
> speculation. *That* was scoffed at.
I have never used the word "speculation" except in parody of your
usage.
>
> > Lo and
> >behold, you are now discussing the interpretation of this article.
> >Fancy that.
>
> Lo and behold, you are once again attempting to shift your argument.
> Fancy that.
We see you claim this a lot. Care to back it up? I shifted it *from*
what *to* what?
Mike
michae...@yahoo.com
> >
> >
> > The article states that the brain has many neurons feeding from the
> > higher centers to the lower centers, and the evidence is that the
> > signals coming from the higher centers influences the neural images
> > constructed by the lower centers. Now let's look at how you attempt to
> > interpret this:
> >
>
> You seem to have it backwards. The article states first that:
>
> "Information from the eyes, ears and body is carried to primary sensory
> regions in the brain. From there, it is carried to so-called higher
> regions ***where interpretation occurs.***" <emphasis added>
>
> Followed by:
>
> "The top-down structure explains a lot. If the construction of reality
> has so much top-down processing, that would make sense of the powers of
> placebos (a sugar pill will make you feel better), nocebos (a witch
> doctor will make you ill), talk therapy and meditation. If the top is
> convinced, **the bottom level of data will be overruled***." <emphasis
> added>
Of course information is carried from the lower to higher regions; one
of the main points of the article is that information is carried the
other way. In fact there are 10 times as many neurons feeding from
higher to lower centers.
"For example, photons bouncing off a flower first reach the eye, where
they
are turned into a pattern that is sent to the primary visual cortex.
There, the rough shape of the flower is recognized. The pattern is next
sent to a higher -- in terms of function -- region, where color is
recognized, and then to a higher region, where the flower's identity is
encoded along with other knowledge about the particular bloom.
The same processing stream, from lower to higher regions, exists for
sounds, touch and other sensory information. Researchers call this
direction of flow feedforward. As raw sensory data is carried to a part
of
the brain that creates a comprehensible, conscious impression, the data
is
moving from bottom to top.
Bundles of nerve cells dedicated to each sense carry sensory
information.
The surprise is the amount of traffic the other way, from top to
bottom,
called feedback. There are 10 times as many nerve fibers carrying
information down as there are carrying it up."
First of all, let me make clear that I don't object to the notion of
that expectation that influences experience and sometimes overrides
reality. I don't object to the notion that when you compare two pieces
of audio equipment sighted, that you have strong expectations which
influence what you believe that you hear.
I don't object to blind testing.
I just think that when you do blind testing, you should control those
aspects of context that influence what you hear. I have some questions
about how context will influence what we hear, and we can make some
progress trying to answer those questions by considering models of
perception.
So let's consider some models, and see if we can agree. Per the
article above we have something like:
senses --> primary cortex --> higher region where patterns are
integrated --> consciousness
Agree?
Furthermore, the arrows are bidirectional:
senses <--> primary cortex <--> higher region where patterns are
integrated <--> consciousness
Agree?
Now let's look at a quote from the article:
> "The top-down structure explains a lot. If the construction of reality
> has so much top-down processing, that would make sense of the powers of
> placebos (a sugar pill will make you feel better), nocebos (a witch
> doctor will make you ill), talk therapy and meditation. If the top is
> convinced, **the bottom level of data will be overruled***." <emphasis
> added>
I think that the authors of the article have gotten a little confused
on this point. Why do you need feedback in order to overrule the
bottom level of data? Why can't the "general" simply ignore what his
subordinates are telling him; why must information flow the other way?
If you read the rest of the article (it has been taken down; I have it
saved if you need it) it makes the point that the lower areas of the
brain (for example the primary cortex) are changing their processing in
response to the expectations. Now *that* is something that requires
feedback (rather than only feedforward).
Do we agree on that point?
Mike
Keith Hughes
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>>On 27 Nov 2005 17:06:15 GMT, michae...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A little while ago I made the point that real scientists consider the
>>>appropriate interpretation of the evidence. This was scoffed at.
>>
>>No, you made the claim that real scientists are interested in
>>speculation. *That* was scoffed at.
>
>
> I have never used the word "speculation" except in parody of your
> usage.
True, in a narrow literal sense. However, you said:
"... A real scientist, however, finds hypotheticals to be
very interesting. Identifying various interpretations of the data and
designing experiments to sort them out--that is the work of real
scientists."
To which I replied:
"...You really need to get a grip on the difference between
theory and speculation. A "what if" without any experiential
underpinnings is speculation, and while that speculation may be of
interest to some specific individual, or group, scientific investigation
of such is unwarranted."
So no, you did not use "speculation", you used "hypotheticals"
incorrectly when you were discussing speculation.
Keith Hughes
michae...@yahoo.com
No, actually I used the words "hypotheticals" and "interpretation" when
I was discussing "hypotheticals" and "interpretation."
Very telling that you and Pinkerton can only make your points by
changing the language of your opponents.
Mike
out...@city-net.com
aspects of context that influence what you hear. I have some questions
about how context will influence what we hear, and we can make some
progress trying to answer those questions by considering models of"
Context is controlled, the only factor changed is knowledge of the actual
source of the sound at any given time, such as when a cloth is placed
over connections.
"Furthermore, the arrows are bidirectional:
senses <--> primary cortex <--> higher region where patterns are
integrated <--> consciousness
Agree?"
No, without going back, the feed direction is feed back only and some
number of 10 times was mentioned,ie. the stored frame associated with and
built upon previous experience very strongly shapes the perception of what
enters the ears.
This model accounts well for the widely reported subjective sound effects
which switch on and off as blinding is likewise on and off or switching is
said to occur when it doesn't and reported sound effects are likewise on
and off.
michae...@yahoo.com
> "I just think that when you do blind testing, you should control those
> aspects of context that influence what you hear. I have some questions
> about how context will influence what we hear, and we can make some
> progress trying to answer those questions by considering models of"
>
> Context is controlled, the only factor changed is knowledge of the actual
> source of the sound at any given time, such as when a cloth is placed
> over connections.
>
> "Furthermore, the arrows are bidirectional:
>
> senses <--> primary cortex <--> higher region where patterns are
> integrated <--> consciousness
>
> Agree?"
>
> No, without going back, the feed direction is feed back only and some
> number of 10 times was mentioned,
Beg pardon? Information flows both ways.
> ie. the stored frame associated with and
> built upon previous experience very strongly shapes the perception of what
> enters the ears.
>
We agree on that.
> This model accounts well for the widely reported subjective sound effects
> which switch on and off as blinding is likewise on and off or switching is
> said to occur when it doesn't and reported sound effects are likewise on
> and off.
No feedback is required to account for these effects. The general
doesn't need to change his subordinate's minds in order to ignore what
they say.
Mike
out...@city-net.com
Yes, but the article said that the neural connections as feedback were 10
times as much. It is top down processing and the stored "frame"
information greatly shapes what enters the ears. This overwhelms the
signal and overlays on it perception information not in the signal. Thus
we have subjective sound effects reports which are modulated on and off as
knowledge of active gear is on and off.
michae...@yahoo.com
The "subjective sound effects" are not "modulated on and off" when
identity is hidden; in my own blind tests and those reported to me, the
listener continues to hear variations. It's just that they aren't
correlated with equipment identity.
You might want to think about yoru assumption that there is some
condition under which the "frame" is non-existent.
Mike
Stewart Pinkerton
No, what is telling is that you need to resort to semantic nitpicking
in order to deny a false claim that you did in fact make.
To rephrase - real scientists are *not* interested in hypotheticals.
You are not a real scientist, nor even a credible pretend one.
michae...@yahoo.com
LOL! Who's the semantic nitpicker: the one who carefully chooses his
original language, or the one who can only make his point by insisting
that words mean something other than what they do?
BTW, you should tell all those scientists who use the word
"hypothesis," as well as theoretical physicists, that they aren't real
scientists.
While you're at it, call LIGO and tell them no need to perform the
gravity wave experiment, one Stewart Pinkerton believes that general
relativity has already been confirmed, and the possiblity that gravity
waves don't exist is pure "speculation," not worthy of "real
scientists."
Mike
out...@city-net.com
identity is hidden; in my own blind tests and those reported to me, the
listener continues to hear variations. It's just that they aren't
correlated with equipment identity."
How is this different then random, the state most often the result of
blind listening alone testing? The reported "differences" exist only in
the upper perceptions of the brain, returning us to the article again. I
think it possible some random stimulus, even a guess, might evoke an
entirely incorrect frame. Listening alone tests don't ask one to make any
determination but that a difference, any difference, can be attached
correctly in a significant number of examples.
"You might want to think about yoru assumption that there is some
condition under which the "frame" is non-existent."
My example of two identical boxes with different amp innards is one
example where no frame might be assigned, except again as some random
stimulus might do so incorrectly. The brain is always trying to make sense
of what it experiences and is likely to attach a frame, any frame, to
lower the unknowns of the listening process.
Stewart Pinkerton
>While you're at it, call LIGO and tell them no need to perform the
>gravity wave experiment, one Stewart Pinkerton believes that general
>relativity has already been confirmed, and the possiblity that gravity
>waves don't exist is pure "speculation," not worthy of "real
>scientists."
Real scientists make observations, *then* deduce a hypothesis which
they go on to prove by designing experiments to gain evidence. You are
simply speculating with *no* observations on which to base your wild
assertions. That is a critical difference.
Thepork...@aol.com
> On 4 Dec 2005 20:12:05 GMT, michae...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >While you're at it, call LIGO and tell them no need to perform the
> >gravity wave experiment, one Stewart Pinkerton believes that general
> >relativity has already been confirmed, and the possiblity that gravity
> >waves don't exist is pure "speculation," not worthy of "real
> >scientists."
>
> Real scientists make observations, *then* deduce a hypothesis which
> they go on to prove by designing experiments to gain evidence.
Please show us how that aplies to super string theory.
> You are
> simply speculating with *no* observations on which to base your wild
> assertions. That is a critical difference.
Wrong. Just because you do not accept certain observations does not
mean they don't exist.
Scott
michae...@yahoo.com
> On 4 Dec 2005 20:12:05 GMT, michae...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >While you're at it, call LIGO and tell them no need to perform the
> >gravity wave experiment, one Stewart Pinkerton believes that general
> >relativity has already been confirmed, and the possiblity that gravity
> >waves don't exist is pure "speculation," not worthy of "real
> >scientists."
>
> Real scientists make observations, *then* deduce a hypothesis which
> they go on to prove by designing experiments to gain evidence. You are
> simply speculating with *no* observations on which to base your wild
> assertions.
So name one of these "wild assertions." Let's see if you can name even
a single "wild assertion" that I've made and get it right.
I've looked at the observations. I have a question which doesn't appear
to be answered by the observations. It could be one way, or the other
way. The evidence doesn't seem to be sufficient to decide. Therefore,
the existing body of evidence suggests that additional experiments need
to be done.
Mike
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 4 Dec 2005 20:12:05 GMT, michae...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >While you're at it, call LIGO and tell them no need to perform the
>> >gravity wave experiment, one Stewart Pinkerton believes that general
>> >relativity has already been confirmed, and the possiblity that gravity
>> >waves don't exist is pure "speculation," not worthy of "real
>> >scientists."
>>
>> Real scientists make observations, *then* deduce a hypothesis which
>> they go on to prove by designing experiments to gain evidence.
>
>Please show us how that aplies to super string theory.
Oh, the experiments are being designed, but the kit looks like being
kinda pricey! :-)
>> You are
>> simply speculating with *no* observations on which to base your wild
>> assertions. That is a critical difference.
>
>Wrong. Just because you do not accept certain observations does not
>mean they don't exist.
Wrong. No observations have been put forward by Mossey, his wild
speculations are utterly baseless. They are typical of a philosophy
student, not an engineering or science grad.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 4 Dec 2005 20:12:05 GMT, michae...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >While you're at it, call LIGO and tell them no need to perform the
>> >gravity wave experiment, one Stewart Pinkerton believes that general
>> >relativity has already been confirmed, and the possiblity that gravity
>> >waves don't exist is pure "speculation," not worthy of "real
>> >scientists."
>>
>> Real scientists make observations, *then* deduce a hypothesis which
>> they go on to prove by designing experiments to gain evidence. You are
>> simply speculating with *no* observations on which to base your wild
>> assertions.
>
>So name one of these "wild assertions." Let's see if you can name even
>a single "wild assertion" that I've made and get it right.
Ah, that looks like another of your classic "I never used that word"
sidesteps. No biting in that pond today.........
>I've looked at the observations. I have a question which doesn't appear
>to be answered by the observations. It could be one way, or the other
>way. The evidence doesn't seem to be sufficient to decide. Therefore,
>the existing body of evidence suggests that additional experiments need
>to be done.
The evidence is overwhelming. That *you* refuse to accept it, makes no
difference to the reality of the situation.
Thepork...@aol.com
> On 8 Dec 2005 03:22:04 GMT, Thepork...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> On 4 Dec 2005 20:12:05 GMT, michae...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >While you're at it, call LIGO and tell them no need to perform the
> >> >gravity wave experiment, one Stewart Pinkerton believes that general
> >> >relativity has already been confirmed, and the possiblity that gravity
> >> >waves don't exist is pure "speculation," not worthy of "real
> >> >scientists."
> >>
> >> Real scientists make observations, *then* deduce a hypothesis which
> >> they go on to prove by designing experiments to gain evidence.
> >
> >Please show us how that aplies to super string theory.
>
> Oh, the experiments are being designed, but the kit looks like being
> kinda pricey! :-)
There in lies the problem with your position. Sometimes scientists
dabble in that which is untestable for practical reasons.
>
> >> You are
> >> simply speculating with *no* observations on which to base your wild
> >> assertions. That is a critical difference.
> >
> >Wrong. Just because you do not accept certain observations does not
> >mean they don't exist.
>
> Wrong. No observations have been put forward by Mossey,
Maybe you just didn't get them.
> his wild
> speculations are utterly baseless.
What exactly are his wild speculations? How are hey baseless? Answer
these questions and you may find what you have been missing or denying
when it comes to the observations.
> They are typical of a philosophy
> student, not an engineering or science grad.
It does seem typical of the engineering grad to feel complelled to draw
hard lines between such things.
Scott
michae...@yahoo.com
> On 8 Dec 2005 03:23:05 GMT, michae...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> On 4 Dec 2005 20:12:05 GMT, michae...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >While you're at it, call LIGO and tell them no need to perform the
> >> >gravity wave experiment, one Stewart Pinkerton believes that general
> >> >relativity has already been confirmed, and the possiblity that gravity
> >> >waves don't exist is pure "speculation," not worthy of "real
> >> >scientists."
> >>
> >> Real scientists make observations, *then* deduce a hypothesis which
> >> they go on to prove by designing experiments to gain evidence. You are
> >> simply speculating with *no* observations on which to base your wild
> >> assertions.
> >
> >So name one of these "wild assertions." Let's see if you can name even
> >a single "wild assertion" that I've made and get it right.
>
> Ah, that looks like another of your classic "I never used that word"
> sidesteps. No biting in that pond today.........
>
LOL! This is like watching a magician attempt to execute clumsy
sleight-of-hand: you accuse your opponent of side-stepping even as you
execute one yourself. For all your denigration of "philosophers," your
arguments consist almost entirely of cleverly worded soundbites. You
actually are very interested in the meaning of words and language, but
only to try to outmaneuver your opponent. It's transparently obvious to
anyone who is sensitive to language.
It's also obvious you haven't been paying attention to Mark DeBellis
nor I except with the minimum attention required to wedge in one of
your "baseless assertions" replies, or the occasional mirror retort.
Your arguments have always missed the mark, and when called on it,
you've never been able to repeat back any of our statements accurately.
Amazing, considering cutting and pasting from our posts would be a
start. But that wouldn't give you a chance to distort the meaning,
which is why I supposed you've never done even that.
Mike