Learsfool wrote:
Learsfool - I understand that you believe that colorations are always present in music reproduction. About this point we are in agreement. I have a four questions for you:
(1) Do you believe that colorations can be either increased or decreased?
(2) Do you believe that colorations can be evaluated as to their euphony or “dysphony” by individual listeners?
(3) Do you believe that judgments about euphony/dysphony have ANY consistency across multiple listeners?
Learsfool wrote:
In introductory philosophy classes, a thought experiment is often discussed called “spectral inversion.” It asks students to consider the logical possibility that what I see as red, for example, you see as blue. Many people wonder about this possibility outside the context of philosophy classes. But unlike most of them, philosophers take the problem quite seriously.
The possibility of spectral inversion is just one example of a whole class of thought experiments designed to highlight the PRIVACY OF SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCES and the INACCESSIBILITY OF OTHER MINDS. Your suggestion that “each listener will perceive colorations differently” strikes me as a version of this attitude, except that, rather than being agnostic about the percepts of other minds, you believe that the percepts of other minds are sufficiently different from person to person to make agreement about colorations impossible. In a way, you are saying: What I hear as “red,” you hear as “blue.” So, my last question for you is:
(4) Is this your view?
I believe that colorations are ALWAYS present, and that an absence of them is not possible in music reproduction.
Learsfool - I understand that you believe that colorations are always present in music reproduction. About this point we are in agreement. I have a four questions for you:
(1) Do you believe that colorations can be either increased or decreased?
(2) Do you believe that colorations can be evaluated as to their euphony or “dysphony” by individual listeners?
(3) Do you believe that judgments about euphony/dysphony have ANY consistency across multiple listeners?
Learsfool wrote:
When I made the analogy about coloration being in the ear of the listener, I meant that each listener will perceive these colorations differently, and that this is ultimately subjective…
In introductory philosophy classes, a thought experiment is often discussed called “spectral inversion.” It asks students to consider the logical possibility that what I see as red, for example, you see as blue. Many people wonder about this possibility outside the context of philosophy classes. But unlike most of them, philosophers take the problem quite seriously.
The possibility of spectral inversion is just one example of a whole class of thought experiments designed to highlight the PRIVACY OF SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCES and the INACCESSIBILITY OF OTHER MINDS. Your suggestion that “each listener will perceive colorations differently” strikes me as a version of this attitude, except that, rather than being agnostic about the percepts of other minds, you believe that the percepts of other minds are sufficiently different from person to person to make agreement about colorations impossible. In a way, you are saying: What I hear as “red,” you hear as “blue.” So, my last question for you is:
(4) Is this your view?