objective vs. subjective rabbit hole

@snilf 

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.

mahgister

Not that I want to get in to the whole free will debate here, but the fellow in that video pretty much ignored addressing the incompatibilist/hard determinist arguments against free will. He sort of mentioned determinism, but didn’t actually address or "solve" how his idea of free will either 1. Indicates determinism and it's implications against free will is false or  2. Is compatible with determinism

(I’m a Compatibilist, btw)

great post !

I feel in agreement with all you just said...

Only a remark:

If someone says "I can hear things our most sensitive instruments can’t measure" then it requires more justification than their say-so

For sure you are right...

But we must not forgot that sound/music is not about only a certain measured level of some aspect of some information resolution in some scale defining what is possible or impossible to perceive...

Hearing a sound is also in the brain/body a work of not only psychological but of a biological "interpretation" linked to the non linear architecture of the ears design and work...The ear is tuned to catch some complex information package prepared to be interpretated by the ears by the nature of his design and not reducible to a mere Fourier based model of hearing only ...

Some sound are produced by a consciousness for another prepared consciousness and are not perceived even if they can be recorded because they cannot be interpreted...(dolphin language for example or arachneid "music" concept on their extension web body) For example what is the meaning and information weight of silence in a musical sentence or in a speech discourse or what is the information weight of the silence separating the onset of two specific sound and what is the impact on the interpreted threshold of  perception  ?

Then reducing all hearing possiblities to a scale frequencies or some measured sound level or even time level perception pre-supposed possibilities is forgotting that sound are most of the time in nature and speech a complex package of information that the ears is prepared to interpret and we must remember that some aspect of sounds are there only for the human ears to be perceived; bat ears will  interpret sound differently or cat and  a microphone coupled to another tool will not described what all there is to be perceived but will onbly recorded some chosen  aspects  etc ...

Our measuring apparatus can and must be designed with a hearing theory adequately tuned with the actual working of the hearing system to be able to analyse and detect some phenomena natural for the human ears but no so for some measuring protocols or for cats and bats......We dont know all there is to know about hearing plain and simple...

Then the correlation between objective installation and subjective experience is an ONGOING process which is not finished but always in his course..

it is also the reason why we all must learn to listen and why all audiophile must study acoustic and why most serious audio engineer study psycho-acoustic which is a field in progress...

Prof: We don't disagree here about, well, anything, I think. Granted: all causal relationships "presuppose" a connection between cause and effect, and the correlation (sorry: causation) between certain measurements and the correlative subjective impressions is probably no more problematic than most other supposed causal connections. Note, however, that I'm still being cagy here. Hume may be right: the difference between "correlation" and "causation" may be nothing more than "habitual expectation," common sense and physics notwithstanding. But I don't mean to drag philosophy into this again. I completely agree with you that there are "objective measurements" that reliably correlate with intersubjectively identifiable experiences; for audio professionals who work in the no-man's land between measurements (the science that created the equipment in the first place) and customers with desires and expectations, the objective language of measurements may be fully adequate to unambiguously identify features of an audio component that are sought in a given situation.

Sorry for the remarks about Descartes. I guessed you weren't confused about his "foundationalism." But I spent the last two weeks lecturing on Descartes; playing my role as "professor" is a hard habit to break.

Here's the main point, though, to return to the theme of this thread. Few of us are "audio professionals" who have witnessed again and again the correlation (or causation) between certain measurements and a given desired subjective effect. For us mere mortals, then, some kind of non-objective language is our only option in trying to express what turns us on in an audio system. What my OP was asking for was some sort of standard by means of which your subjective impressions can be communicated to me with sufficient clarity to persuade me that you are actually experiencing something I might also expect or want to experience from a given component. I can't have a pain in your tooth, but I can be persuaded by your language that you do. That's what I look for in posts that rave about some feature of our shared hobby.

@snilf

Granted: all causal relationships "presuppose" a connection between cause and effect,

Yes, which is why, wary of going down the nature-of-causation rabbit hole, I couched my reply as a simple appeal to consistency: Insofar as we normally accept X method of inference as establishing causation, it can be justified in applying to the particular case at hand.

and the correlation (sorry: causation)

Ha! That suggests we have similar views on causation :-)

I was happy to read your reply on Descartes in any case. I can understand why my reply could have been read as being confused.

I’ve had lots of fun discussions with people of opposing "world views" on things like Foundationalism vs Coherentism (and other "isms"). In the end I still can’t say specifically where I land, so often enough I’ll just appeal to consistency (which..uh...I guess tips a hat towards Coherentism to some degree...though every time I go down these roads I can sort of argue for different sides. After all consistency/coherency is also a necessary feature of Foundationalism and other isms...).

Hume’s problem of induction has always been fascinating to chew over. (His Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion drew me in to philosophy more than any other book I think).

Probably even more than you, as you apparently have some restraint, I can be a bit annoying on some of the forums for my own tendency to pull things towards the philosophical.

For us mere mortals, then, some kind of non-objective language is our only option in trying to express what turns us on in an audio system.

Yup! We manage to successfully navigate through the world every day, often through just such intersubjective exchanges of information.

This is what I emphasize when trying to talk about this with the more rigid "objectivists" who will wave off even subjective descriptions of different speakers as being too unreliable. Sighted bias confounds the conclusions!

I try to point out that, yes, some level of skepticism about our perceptual inferences is warranted, but it cannot be wholly unreliable since we use this every day to successfully get out our front door, among countless other tasks, as well as relaying information from our "mere subjective sense inference" to one another. "The snow plow blocked the end of our driveway with snow again, so you’ll have to leave time to dig that out..."

So we have on one end, in our most careful empirical inquiry, we want to account for the variables of human biases. That will almost always be the path to the most reliable forms of knowledge. On the other hand, we have the day to day "knowledge" that our casual subjective perceptions are reliable enough to perform all sorts of tasks. We must therefore be able to acknowledge BOTH of these situations, and be able to work from one towards the other for consistency.

We are going to at one point encounter some fuzzy borders where justification may go one way or the other. But my solution has been an appeal to the basis of the simple heuristic most of us use much of the time, which found nice wording in Sagan’s aphorism: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I already gave a nutshell account of how, for me, this plays out in vetting audio claims. The more a claim slides towards the "extraordinary" GIVEN commonly understood features of that gear (e.g. how cables work), the less plausible the claim, the more strict and careful I’d want to be in vetting that claim. The more plausible, the less need for controls in order for the claim to be taken, provisionally, at face value.

E.g. if you tell me you heard differences between two HDMI cables, I’m going to want firmer evidence than your say-so. If you tell me you heard a difference between some Spendor speakers and some MBL omnis, I can provisionally accept the claim given it’s high plausibility on well known technical grounds. This justifies both the use of objective/scientific evidence and the pragmatism of every-day exchanges of subjectively-derived information.

IMO. :-)