Beware the audio guru

Remember the comment about 10% ? And the ensuing ping pong?

:)

In my line of work, I rely on experts not junk science. When a speaker designer tells me speaker specs are meaningless, I believe him. When an engineer who design DACs tell me to use an aftermarket Ethernet cable, I trust him. When members, who are self-proclaimed experts, give unqualified and untested opinions, I question their credentials. 

I rather preferred the, "No goats, no glory", which(based on the flick) I found hilarious(KUDOS, Geoff). Sometimes I feel as though I’m stuck on the Antelope Freeway, being forced to listen to 24 hours of the Barney and Friends theme song, wishing for an All Weather Climate Control, when reading these....whatevers. Then again, no one compels me to visit(save the invitations, not to). Back to audio, or the other side of the record? Have fun!

teo_audio,

I am admittedly opening a can of worms that I may not actually have time to follow up on (due to work), but just some comments:

teo_audio wrote: Objectivity is a state of mind in a purely subjective reality. Everything in this place runs through a subjectivity fundamental filter.

Well that certainly goes against much of the standard philosophical conceptions of "Objective" and begs the question against arguments for an objective reality. Typically, philosophically speaking, "Objective" refers to mind-independant facts - that is states of affairs/relationships and/or ontological entities that exist regardless of anyone’s (and any Mind’s) perception, beliefs, emotions or opinions about the matter.

So, for instance, the moon existed before anyone was around to have an opinion on whether the moon exists or not, and it’s existence doesn’t change with anyone’s opinion that it doesn’t exist.

Your first statement at least seems to imply that the fact "everything" runs through our subjectivity, that therefore all existence is "subjective" not objective. But that would be a non-sequitur. It doesn’t follow; there may be objective aspects of reality that we are perceiving via our first person subjectivity.

That is, after all, why we can talk about false beliefs and their consequences. Someone can believe all he wants that water will have the same properties as gas when poured in to his car’s gas tank. But his belief doesn’t alter reality and this is why we can easily predict: he won’t be getting anywhere in his car on that belief. Same would go for anyone believing he will remain floating in the air should he jump off a balcony.
That there is a reality independent of his beliefs explains and predicts why his beliefs can’t accurately predict what is going to happen; whereas we can.

Objectivity is merely and agreed upon individually derived mindset. Objectivity only exists in your mind. It’s a convention. A concept. A projection. Nothing more.

Again, this appears to be conflating concepts. That objectivity is an agreed upon concept or description - a convention - does not logically entail that the thing it is *meant to describe* doesn’t exist.

The labelling of certain snakes as venemous, or the divisions between reptiles and mammals are "conventions" in terms of their use, but that doesn’t mean that what they are meant to refer to doesn’t exist.

Similarly, if philosophers say "Objective reality is that which does not depend on a beliefs and opinions in order to exist" then they can explore if such aspects of reality fit that description. And it does seem to be the case. You can ask questions like "if this aspect of reality does not change based on a human belief about it, what consequences does this imply?" Well, it implies that if you can take beliefs that make alternative claims about the nature of X, and show how they do not change X - that the consequences stay the same as if X did not change based on someone’s belief. And this suggests we can have "true" (more accurate) beliefs vs "false" beliefs. You can say "IF this aspect of reality is as I think it is, objectively, then we should see X if we do Y..."

The fact that such hypotheses often enough fail shows that this is not some sort of circular reasoning that admits of no falsification.

Anyone who thinks objectivity is a real thing, really needs to get back to psych 101 class and get mentally slapped about and around for quite a while, until they let go of that fundamental logic error. :)

Anyone who thinks objective reality isn’t a "real thing" is invited to jump off a balcony on their opinion they won’t fall to the ground. ;-)

Finally, this other one:

And is part of how we create our own sensory input filter and apply previously cognated aspects to our new cognition, as a short cut in time, in order to posses a faster form of sensory recognition in the given moment. Ie we pull from our library of heard and seen things, when we encounter the new.

This is why some say that cables make no difference.

They’ve wired themselves to be aurally ’blind’. Seriously

Does that not also imply the converse: that the same aspect of people’s cognition that can lead them to "blind" themselves to their own rash inferences? For instance "I’ve been told cables sound different - or I have heard difference in some cables before - therefore there’s going to be and is a difference between these new cables"?

(And so this can lead to assuming and even perceiving differences - as their beliefs alter their perception - were none exist).

Surely all the mental heuristics that lead to biases operate in both (many) directions, right?

Therefore it leaves us asking: What method can we use to determine whether a sonic change is due to an illusion generated via bias we have inherently or picked up through experience, or whether those differences come from truly audible differences?

The differences have real world consequences.

Cheers,

(And like I said, I’m not sure I can go much further interacting on this one).

+1 prof! Your reply to teo is the best I've seen! You've nailed it down tight! Much appreciation! Do you teach a course on Logic and Philosophy at a local college?