Delusion is more succinct.
I have started writing something along those very lines...
Isn't that the point? We're not consciously aware, other than as a historically recent intellectual abstraction, of the biochemical mechanisms translating atmospheric molecular vibrations into the subjective perception of a violin. We don't consciously learn to differentiate and calculate interaural delay and head shadowing into source localization. Much of it is baked into our 'hardware'. Learning audio perception, at least at the fundamental level, isn't a conscious process. You are conscious of the end result - noise is there - but localization is a completely artificial and automatic biomechanical process beyond the grasp of consciousness.
Or maybe we're discussing at cross purposes.
As a "realist", you refer not to reality but to your perception of it. Ultimately you have very little certainty with which to state that your individual perception is realistic, even though to you, like to anyone else, your individual perception of reality appears to be real. Simply, you cannot perceive what you do not know; More completely, even "you" is a product of your perception too.
The point was that we do not possess an HRTF: That is an engineering construction that models the processes in our minds that have no knowledge of an interaural delay, for instance, but only the information sensed as a result of it.
You are only conscious of new information that you cognitively assimilate now (which extends to include differences discerned from that you have previously "known"). What has been learned is then subsumed in a nominally subconscious part of your cognition. But in order for that learning to have occurred, you must first have been aware of it. And localization or any other part of our auditory perception is no different.
Your terms appear too vague. "Information" for example can be internal/subjective or external/physical. There is no path to localization that we know save for HRTF + biochemical transport and processing. HRTF exists and is easily measurable, what do mean by possess?
Am I getting whiffs of solipsism?
The derivation of the HRTF has been developed over many decades and I believe the AES just published an anthology (?). Before it was developed, nobody had any knowledge of what it was.
Piaget's work describes a psychological model that requires a higher level abstraction of the "mind". The basic concept of perceiving information as we are discussing here has so far skirted around the issue of the perception of the self that would bridge the gap to psychology.
I have done my best to steer this discussion away from such as my last post hopefully shows.
I meant information in its scientific sense, although it would probably be better to qualify (limit) it here to that which is discerned from noise.
HRTFs are linear models of the processes that yield our perception of objects in the space around us. We learn what those objects are, their capacity to occupy the space around us and what they sound like when they are there. Once learned that is the process that HRTFs model and that continue subconsciously contributing to our perception.
I didn’t say unacceptable excuses, I said the excuses were unacceptable to me. Your way would infer I meant they were unacceptable for all.
My premise is somehow we are all linked on a basic innate level much like any species is.
Yah we kindly derailed here a little 😀
The delusion is I thought I could speak British!
I’ve got a semi photographic memory......I say semi because I can’t really control it, in fact if I try too hard it definately doesn’t work!
I assure you when it works it’s dead nuts accurate, I can study a set of plans once and build the entire house.....done it several times.
I can redesign in my head make changes to the plans and about like pressing ‘save’ the change sticks.
There’s things happening I’m definitely not aware of, it’s almost like processing.
Now that I think about it most everything I do is off from normal in as it’s usually self taught. Maybe I’d make a good test subject!
In other words it was not ‘imagining’ more a direct recall.
I’m thinking the two interact
That sounds more correct
Bollocks (better?) it’s all about averaging, looking at things from all perspectives.......I’m even processing your perspectives even though I disagree, I do not dismiss.
where do you think ‘feel’ comes into play? As in ‘it doesn’t feel right’ but there’s no specific reason.
Last edited:
As a point of divergence from the topic, you might consider that photographic memory as our "default", but that for most it is distorted by the emotive drivers that confer meaning on the objects that draw our focus and to the detriment of all that lies outside.
Whether you actually acquire any new information or fill it it as you recount it would be the pertinent question I would suggest: Bizarre as it may sound, your perception of what you do might not be reliable.
I missed this bit... Interact underplays the linking of the various neural network elements and nothing I have said disputes that even slightly. What I have been referring to here is the means by which information is perceived - and whether it has a basis in reality or otherwise.
There are things archived in my head like it were video snippets, good, bad, ugly, pretty......I fully understand how some could be haunted by such things if they didn’t understand it. recalls every time in the same fashion.....never different. I’m not saying I’m infallible, I screw up plenty, especially if I’m disinterested. But when applying myself it’s on time.
Was just trying fill you in on what I base my viewpoints on.....not bragging if that’s what it looks like. I’m really quite humble, and don’t like revealing my inner self all that much.
Interesting input, Bob! I have one of those memories, myself. I still say: "Trust your own ears" That works for me, and I tend to ignore those who challenge what we can trust in our own personal experience.
This bit I saved answering. Feeling (and the concept of qualia) cannot be answered with any degree of certainty as yet as far as I know (and not at all according to some!). It would likely require a definition of the self that is doing the feeling too - and hence we head off topic once again. I will suggest here, however, that developing better models of auditory perception can be done without such concerns: In knowing if a subject discerns information (or not) does not require how they feel about it - although it is very likely that how they are feeling will alter their capacity to discern the information in the first place. As remarked previously, we are very non-linear.
I never meant to infer you were bragging. It is a fascinating skill to have and one I have seen others similarly equipped grow to hate. Neither did I imply that you were infallible, only that you might not know if you were because you have the capacity to use your prior acquired knowledge to fill in the gaps you did not actually learn.
Which brings matters neatly back round to the issue at hand. You do not actually trust your ears, you trust your perception of what you infer your senses are perceiving. In that perception there exists a spectacular capacity for delusion. And although objective measures have the possibility to resolve or affirm the fidelity of our perceptions, there exists at present (and likely long to continue) a shortfall in blind testing procedures too. Certainty in any conclusion is misplaced - even one you "know" to be true...
Thanks John, I’ll always trust my instincts over most everything else.
Some of the things I read here are sobering in the sense that I thought everyone was on a more level playing field......obviously not!
Soundbloke, go ahead and start that new thread I’ll let this one go back to topic,
What was it anyhow?
Oh yah, why yet another dac? why not..... there should be as many dacs as there are us snowflakes! 😀
Some of the things I read here are sobering in the sense that I thought everyone was on a more level playing field......obviously not!
Soundbloke, go ahead and start that new thread I’ll let this one go back to topic,
What was it anyhow?
Oh yah, why yet another dac? why not..... there should be as many dacs as there are us snowflakes! 😀
If someone could come up with a testing protocol to make a personalized dsp profile for each ‘reality’ then program it into a special ‘customizable’ dac....add Dirac for the room......now theres a sales pitch for ya. Don’t forget to send the royalty checks !
Quoted for future reference.
One of the downsides of internet forums is that no matter how clear the explanation is, there will always be some who won't get it.
Is there a listening test of audio electronics that you are convinced by?
You left out "IMO".
Does it have a pinch of peek added?