Trouble is, the DBT tests that are easy to use are flawed, like foobar's - and to do something that is physically based would be very arduous to carry out rigorously - all the little shortcuts that are typically taken, just to make it happen, pull the carpet out from under the test's credibility.
The world still continues to turn, even though people make critical decisions using sighted, subjective, sensory evalutions in many parts of it - making all decisions the correct, "technical" way would cause the planet to grind to a halt, from the workload.
All of this can be reasonably resolved by applying a bit of intelligence to the situation, but that might mean some people can't be as lazy as they appear to be ...
The world still continues to turn, even though people make critical decisions using sighted, subjective, sensory evalutions in many parts of it - making all decisions the correct, "technical" way would cause the planet to grind to a halt, from the workload.
All of this can be reasonably resolved by applying a bit of intelligence to the situation, but that might mean some people can't be as lazy as they appear to be ...
Sighted "testing" won't work, no matter how intelligent one is. See the McGurk Effect here: Try The McGurk Effect! - Horizon: Is Seeing Believing? - BBC Two - YouTube
Mike
Mike
Why do people think that 'cute' anomalies like this prove something? If sight, and the brain, is so easily fooled, can't be depended upon, why the hell are we allowing people to drive around lethal missiles ... ?
It demonstrates that hearing can be fooled, not sight.
Anyway, we're working on it. Did you see the recent report about Google's new steering-wheel-less cars? And we're a "long way down the road" where it matters more, namely piloting of aircraft.
It demonstrates that hearing can be fooled, not sight.
Anyway, we're working on it. Did you see the recent report about Google's new steering-wheel-less cars? And we're a "long way down the road" where it matters more, namely piloting of aircraft.
Self flying airplanes are far easier to design than self driving cars, and have been in production for decades. Cruse missile anyone?
Certainly not. Seeing the gear does affect what you hear, some people will admit this, but they have techniques that allow this effect to disappear at will......so they claim.Just wondering, did posting that make me a troll?
Mike
Last edited:
But the landing of the latter can get a bit rough, I hear ...Self flying airplanes are far easier to design than self driving cars, and have been in production for decades. Cruse missile anyone?
Both senses can be fooled, in the right circumstances - just like any mechanical system could be. What we're really talking about is the ability of the ears to register the little clues that distinguish subtle variations in quality, something they do excel in - how easy is it to fool people into thinking they're listening to live instruments, vs. hifi? That's the criteria I use - is the quality good enough to fool me?
But the landing of the latter can get a bit rough, I hear ...
Both senses can be fooled, in the right circumstances - just like any mechanical system could be. QUOTE]
How can a lever be fooled? Or a pulley? Mechanical systems can't be fooled. They can break, but not fooled? Sight and sound are electrical systems anyway.
That sounds pretty suicidal to me - and I'm sure they've got the young child suddenly running out in front of the car to chase a ball completely under control, . The first time that happens, won't the lawyers have a fun time pulling Google to bits ...IAnyway, we're working on it. Did you see the recent report about Google's new steering-wheel-less cars?
I'm fine with override systems - you are in control, but some specialised sensor, with hyper reflexes, can slam on the brakes, or swerve, a split-second earlier - that makes sense.
So, what if you will try to behave this way?All of this can be reasonably resolved by applying a bit of intelligence to the situation, but that might mean some people can't be as lazy as they appear to be
But the landing of the latter can get a bit rough, I hear ...
- how easy is it to fool people into thinking they're listening to live instruments, vs. hifi? That's the criteria I use - is the quality good enough to fool me?
Impossible, as hi-fi is coming from resonators, be it 2 stereo, or more. You could record each instrument seperatly, then have a seperaye speaker for each one, positioned in the same spacial arrangement as the live performance, and it might get closer, but we can't use how 'live' does it sound. Unless it gets close enough to fool your senses. Except, I thought your senses couldn't be fooled?
The mechanical system has to rely on sensors, and processing of their input to make sense of the situation. Both of these subsystems could be limited in capability and/or faulty.How can a lever be fooled? Or a pulley? Mechanical systems can't be fooled. They can break, but not fooled? Sight and sound are electrical systems anyway.
What, you mean bow down before the "wisdom" of Authority Figures?So, what if you will try to behave this way?
That's exactly what I'm after - for my senses to be fooled. Different qualities of less than realistic sound is not the issue, only a means for troubleshooting issues.IUnless it gets close enough to fool your senses. Except, I thought your senses couldn't be fooled?
That's what make my job easy - all I have to ask is, does the sound approach the point of fooling me?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Member Areas
- The Lounge
- Funniest snake oil theories