How can someone with less acuity be deluded about perceptions of which they have no awareness? Some are more capable (a necessary requirement) and though possibly deluded still FAR more likely to render accurate auditory assessments than the deaf. Yes, from a distance everyone in this thread could even be deluded about participating in this thread and at any moment will wake up in Dallas, Texas but these are silly arguments.
No such indication was made, at least no more so than to say something like: We are here today because you have agreed to participate in a listening experiment... (then followed by a recitation of the procedure to be followed).
Last edited:
“And you may find yourself
Living in a shotgun shack
And you may find yourself
In another part of the world
And you may find yourself
Behind the wheel of a large automobile
And you may find yourself in a beautiful house
With a beautiful wife
And you may ask yourself, well
How did I get here?”
The whole point of a delusion is that one is unaware of it (excluding those which are affirmed by evidence to the contrary as previously highlighted): Normally awareness serves to correct a delusion. The context here is instead whether or not subjective assessment is reliable without any objective confirmation. (There is also a secondary issue regarding the assumption of linearity in any objective measure too). But the existence of people with different levels of hearing acuity (assuming it is not zero) is an irrelevance to the discussion of whether one's perception is delusional or otherwise: The mechanism of perception is the same.
Again, your use of the word 'delusion' seems to be your own pet interpretation. I tried googling to see if others in the field of neurology or neurobiology are using it the same way you are but no luck so far: Google Scholar
Maybe I'm using the wrong search terms? Looks like the scientific definition still hinges around mental illness or other serious physical abnormalities.
While we are at it, you also seem to be developing your own psychological theories about how delusions form and then are processed by conscious awareness. Perhaps I am mistaken and you can helpfully point me to some literature underpinning your statements about that?
I stand by all I have said and you obviously need look at more up to date references. But I will no longer enter into any conversation with you until you either make public the errant assumptions you stated I had made (for which you have been asked several times) or you retract your criticism. I am not here for mud-slinging.
All perceptions are 'delusional' in the sense of being abstractions from information collected by bodily biochemical receptors. Sight, touch and temp included. Not demonstrated is how this justifies extending the use of 'delusional' to the pathological sense of divorced from the information provided by those receptors as implied by extreme relativism. Imperfection of perception is not an argument for complete incoherence. Perceptions while abstractions still provide correct information of our surroundings, otherwise it's scientifically unclear how we survive without a total restructuring of our understanding. The auditory reports provided by a near-deaf 90 year old are not as valid as those of a healthy +20 kHz teen. When your life depends on it don't choose the colour blind to defuse a bomb.
All the above is of course the naive realist scientific perspective as I understand it. Not touching the Continentals with a 10 metre pole. I also suggest you can know you're in a dream just from the content of the delusion without contrary objective evidence. Deceased family members are still gone.
There is profound difference between illusion and delusion that has been set out previously many times in this thread.
Precisely because it emanates via the same mechanism regardless of the 'scale' of the delusion and its consequences.
I have never stated it was.
This is not correct. Our cognitive apparatus is prone to errant perceptions that remain until the point at which we become aware of the error.
I have never implied otherwise.
Only via post-rationalisation.
Given the definition of 'illusion' is a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses defining delusions as 'incorrect' illusions is an interesting private language. It also suggests some form of direct Platonic access to 'correctness' bypassing the 'illusory mechanism' of perception, and that this 'knowing' somehow changes the experience of perception as opposed to its post-rationalization. Even this quote/response/quote/response appears to imply hearing acuity both matters and doesn't because the listener might be deluded in some vague sense.
Not in my experience. Yours may vary.
It is not private language and you are welcome to provide your own nomenclature if it will aid understanding.
No because one's entire perception is an illusion. It is distinct from reality and the sole experience of oneself.
I apologise if I have not made it clear: This does not concern hearing acuity, rather it concerns the certainty with which one assumes a perception is based on a real event or whether it arises as a delusion - and specifically in this thread, in the absence of any objective measure to confer certainty (or otherwise).
That would be remarkable.
That's the crux of audio electronics debates. Some believe that they are above the commoners' level so that they don't need verification. Others do that intentionally out of business interest. For some others, it's both.
Change of heart? Just recently, you were trying to stop one side from posting what they post.
Well soundbloke, now I know where you are coming from. Dr. Vanderkooy is the key.
If you accept his input, then we now have common ground.
For the record, I corrected Dr. Vanderkooy and Dr. Lipshitz more than 40 years ago for their 'simple' oversights in double-blind testing, and they have been constant critics of me and ANY colleague of mine, including Dr. Matti Otala, Dr. Malcolm Hawksford, as well as Richard Heyser, and many others. They believe, what many here believe that nothing really matters when it comes to audio electronics for the last 40+ years. I have personally debated at AES with both critics privately, back 40 years ago. They are the guys who changed the AES into a useless commercial society.
Also, without an electron microscope, I don't know any other way to actually show Buckytubes in a Bybee product. (not all products, just one) SY had the same challenge, but he did not choose to use it either.
I already know what the Bybee devices do sonically, the question is to the actual mechanism used inside. I don't need your opinion about it further.
If you accept his input, then we now have common ground.
For the record, I corrected Dr. Vanderkooy and Dr. Lipshitz more than 40 years ago for their 'simple' oversights in double-blind testing, and they have been constant critics of me and ANY colleague of mine, including Dr. Matti Otala, Dr. Malcolm Hawksford, as well as Richard Heyser, and many others. They believe, what many here believe that nothing really matters when it comes to audio electronics for the last 40+ years. I have personally debated at AES with both critics privately, back 40 years ago. They are the guys who changed the AES into a useless commercial society.
Also, without an electron microscope, I don't know any other way to actually show Buckytubes in a Bybee product. (not all products, just one) SY had the same challenge, but he did not choose to use it either.
I already know what the Bybee devices do sonically, the question is to the actual mechanism used inside. I don't need your opinion about it further.
Last edited:
I am unaware of your publication, but I have already provided in this thread the errant assumption in double-blind testing. I have, however, yet to find any error in any of Lipshitz and Vanderkooy's work, so I hope you can enlighten me.
I don't care what is in them, I want to know how you envisage they have any effect measurable effect whatsoever, let alone an audible one.
No, you just think you know what they do sonically. Eschewing my opinion does not reduce the chance that you are simply deluded in your perception.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.