Some like deludedaudiophile use the concept "accurate" and "noise" in a confused way
I am thinking one of us knows those terms much better and used them daily. I don’t think it is you. You appear to redefine terms as you see fit.
The method by which scientist can study the way introduction of noise can help non linear detection system is called: stochastic resonance method...
HOW non linear detection ears/brain structured system can use noise in a way an ordinary electrical detection instrument could not?
I had to Google about 10 minutes to form an appropriate response as there were some items I was unsure of.
Do you know a characteristic of a system where stochastic resonance will work? It must be bistable. Your leap of faith in another thread wrt non-linearity in hearing and DAC operation, missed that the researchers in the papers you linked highlighted the non-linearities in the physical nature of the cochlear. It would appear the bistable element in hearing would be neurons that relates to stochastic resonance. That would mean they have an element of quantization, making them digital in some fashion, not analog. Digital has fundamental non-linearity due to quantization too. Do you have anything that reveals limits of quantization of human hearing? If not, I have to assume it would relate to minimum hearing thresholds.
It appears that digital audio has been using this principle as well since its inception with dithering.
Which brings me back to how I should have started this thread and why I do not read your posts. Is there any point you are trying to make, because so far, you have not made one.
To give credit, you are attempting to relate experience to scientific principles even if, in my opinion, your attempts appear misguided. Far too many posts come across as a call to magic.