That is a straw man argument, Wurcer knows it and you should too. Both sides have already agreed that the advertising is false. The disagreement is whether the devices can affect audio reproduction in any way at all. Some people have found that they can, usually for the worse, sometimes for the better.
By the way, an objective scientist wouldn't be resorting to straw man tactics in the first place. Nor would he countenance the use of such tactics by another.
No they have not.
The Bybees were brought into this discussion by someone else, not me. I refer to them because they are a such a good example of the delusion of which I have discussed. You would do better to put some effort instead into detailing the many errant assumptions you stated that I have made in this thread. I am still waiting...
I have to believe that they think they can hear them, but I am certain in this particular case that their perception is entirely delusional.
Any resistance or inductance inserted line level/speaker level is going to change the sound, whether or not ones system is sensitive enough to relay it is one hurdle, the other.... is the listener in touch enough with the system to perceive it.
I think your interactions here are very biased and leave no room for scientific exploration.
Has there been some scientific exploration into Bybees here, other than Scott's?
No. It might change the system objectively, but that change might not be audible.
That is just absurd. Of that I am absolutely certain.
It seems to me that even if (accepted for the sake of argument) their perception is 100% not rooted in reality its still the perception they experience. So are you saying they perceived something but did not experience that (delusional) perception? If so that seems to me contradictory, but I may be missing something.
What they think seems irrelevant here, we're just dealing with what they perceive.
You experience your perception, not your reality. So if your perception is "rooted" in reality or is a creation of your mind, it is still an experience, it is what you think.
Maybe in your delusion it is absurd.
No, I know that I am of an enquiring mind, willing to accept even that I am completely wrong if evidence leads me to that conclusion.
To me, what I perceive is my reality. Not to say that it corresponds with 'reality' though as I admit I might be subject to delusion (in your definition of it).
Right (excluding the 'what I think' bit, that's beside the point). So back to my original question - how do you know those persons Markw4 referred to did not experience what they said they experienced? (Even if it was delusional).
I don't see how the idea of a personal reality helps or has any meaning here?
Your reality is the real, physical world that you sense. Your perception is the cognitive model you form of it. Confusion is best avoided.
I have not said they did not experience it, just that, in the case of the Bybees, if they did experience any effect then they were deluded.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.