The one thing human perception is not, is accurate.I said it to you alrady but you reverse to this " commom place evidence" accusating me of his negation...
Do you think i am so stupid?
Dont lend to my words a meaning opposite to a fact no one could contradict being sane ..... A tool for example microscope or a telescope exceed any eye on some power of resolution, i never negate that and no one here save the more idiot will ever negate this....Same observation is valid for ANY tools in ANY field...
There is 2 meanings to the word "accurate"...
--- Accurate by numbers.... Exactitude FOR SOME CHOSEN PARAMETERS AND FOR SOME CHOSEN DIMENSION for a tool.... In this context the eye is a mere tool...
--- Accurate for the encompassingย human perception, withย many unknown parameters and many unknown dimensions RELATIVE to the chosen complementaryย tool measuring process...In this context the eye is NOT a mere tool...but the cause and main actor in the recreation of the perceptive experience...
Accurate for a microphone response or accurate for hearing are not the same...They could be equivalent
but NEVER equal....
If they would be reducible to one another psychoacoustic will not exist... We will be able to replicate all there is to human hearing.... And human hearing will be only a mere tool like any other...
But we cannot....