I don’t really believe we have free will nor is there an overarching design but that’s a different discussion.
objective vs. subjective rabbit hole
There are many on this site who advocate, reasonably enough, for pleasing one’s own taste, while there are others who emphasize various aspects of judgment that aspire to be "objective." This dialectic plays out in many ways, but perhaps the most obvious is the difference between appeals to subjective preference, which usually stress the importance of listening, vs. those who insist on measurements, by means of which a supposedly "objective" standard could, at least in principle, serve as arbiter between subjective opinions.
It seems to me, after several years of lurking on and contributing to this forum, that this is an essential crux. Do you fall on the side of the inviolability of subjective preference, or do you insist on objective facts in making your audio choices? Or is there some middle ground here that I’m failing to see?
Let me explain why this seems to me a crux here. Subjective preferences are, finally, incontestable. If I prefer blue, and you prefer green, no one can say either of us is "right." This attitude is generous, humane, democratic—and pointless in the context of the evaluation of purchase alternatives. I can’t have a pain in your tooth, and I can’t hear music the way you do (nor, probably, do I share your taste). Since this forum exists, I presume, as a source of advice from knowledgable and experienced "audiophiles" that less "sophisticated" participants can supposedly benefit from, there must be some kind of "objective" (or at least intersubjective) standard to which informed opinions aspire. But what could possibly serve better as such an "objective standard" than measurements—which, and for good reasons, are widely derided as beside the point by the majority of contributors to this forum?
To put the question succinctly: How can you hope to persuade me of any particular claim to audiophilic excellence without appealing to some "objective" criteria that, because they claim to be "objective," are more than just a subjective preference? What, in short, is the point of reading all these posts if not to come to some sort of conclusion about how to improve one’s system?
- ...
- 151 posts total
All reality are linked to assumptions, because a reality is a complex set of dimensional phenomena which we perceived only a part relating to our own assumptions.. an exemple: we assume that fires burns no ?
yes we assume and fires burn us... But suppose someone assume other thing ? listen this video carefully... Dont go with your reflex this is impossible like unicorn orbiting Mars... it is 46 minutes but is anything save boring... 😁😊
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj7iqdj1wT8&list=PLnQJF3Qi_4_CGFyisehOpLvbpDhdIe_ld&index=179&t=1s |
I can assure you that Anirban Bandyopadhyay who " came to limelight for inventing nanobrain[4], in 2008, built a 16 Duroquinone molecule-based brain-like computer[5] that looks like a wheel or sliced neuroglia[6] acts like a brain for nanomachines." do not speculate about an overarching design in belief scpeculation... he designed all parts of his nanobots with the guiding principles of an overarching design on integrated clocks spanning from the atoms to the solar system and beyond... ... Then this is not belief but experimental science...
For free will it is an experience not a belief only, like consciousness is an experience not only a belief... It is an experience in the way a chosen ethical motive can power our action to a freely chosen adopted goal ...For example a hunger strike to protest violence like the late south African leader Mandela did...It is a free spirit here...Impossible to break his free will...
|
The free will theorem is also interesting by his implication if free will exist..
Anirban Bandyopadhyay concept of "conscious machine" illustrate how the possibility of free will is programmedin the design of the cosmos itself which is a conscious machine like our body is... The difference between A.I. with bits and Q-bits and non Turing conscious machine based on a geometrical/primenumbers language expressing and controlling an indefinite chain of synchronizing clocks at all scales is enormous... The difference between a soul and a conscious machine another thing completely... I cannot enter in it here and describe those three kind of being... In a word an A.I. lived in an external relation to a corner of one universe... A conscious machine is integrated potentially and actually to one universe and is internally related to its totality ... A soul inhabit more than one universe and more than one body... |
Thanks for the reply. Of course, this presupposes that the subjective correlate ("warmer" male voice, or whatever) is causally connected to that measured phenomenon. I'd disagree that it "presupposes" such a thing - it is justified on the same basis people accept cause and effect relationships almost everywhere else. When I employ an EQ boost it changes the subjective impression reliably in the same way as putting your finger on a too-hot stove element reliably causes pain. Deciding intersubjectively that we sense certain frequency boosts as "warmth," or will refer to it as such, is similar to our agreement to refer to a skin burning as "painful." It all has fuzzy edges of course, but that's our lot as human beings.
I'm not saying it isn't, but I think a lot of folks on this site would want to say so, or would want at least to say that there are other, and important, subjective impressions that don't correspond to any known measurement.
That's fine for anyone to claim of course. But the same is said by virtually every dubious belief system. Psychics, cults, New Age Wellness fairs and various pseudo-sciences are full of people making the same appeal to save their hypotheses. If someone says "I can hear things our most sensitive instruments can't measure" then it requires more justification than their say-so, if it is to be sifted from all the similar noise as plausible. I'd think you agree? As to Descartes, thanks also for the reply. To be clear (and I can understand why it may not have been clear in how I quickly wrote it): I'm certainly aware of Descartes Foundationalism. By referring to "Descartes' doubts" I was referring to the part in which he employs doubt to first "level" the foundations, questioning all possible assumptions, before building it up again on a purportedly firm foundation. I think many people new to that level of epistemic skepticism - the "doubt" part - can at first be taken with the doubting and wield the "doubting" cudgel with glee. Rather than any emphasis on how we can justify claims to knowledge. That's also what I meant by tossing in the term radical skepticism: The tearing down part feels more fun, at first :-) Cheers.
|
- 151 posts total