If it's purely an engineering challenge why bother designing yet another DAC?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
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.
Just not one that conforms to common English but fine, the point comes through. To be fair I misused delusion to find adjacent space to this use.

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 makes no sense to me. An 'illusion' filtered through hearing damage must impact certainty of accuracy. Acuity, sobriety, anything interfering with perception does. Also be aware differentiating 'with certainty' between what you frame as valid illusion vs deluded illusion is by no means trivial when all experiences are received via illusion, including the evidence to determine if an illusion is deluded. But this is drifting too far afield.
It still appears to me that your conceptual framework is founded on a notion of audio reproduction that must replicate some almost Platonic ideal of an event otherwise it's wrong and, since this is considered nearly impossible, accuracy of reproduction is nonsensical in principle. Audio reproduction that successfully and fully recreates the total auditory experience of being at the original concert event in all respects except for one seat left, right, fore or aft of the microphone is therefore inaccurate and entirely a matter of taste. Hearing Mahler's 4th as Slipknot becomes as 'accurate' as hearing it one row too far back. That appears a value judgement that raises interesting ramifications on what it means for audience members scattered across the hall experiencing one idealized event.

That would be remarkable.
Or lucid dreaming. People can be aware their perceptions are false.
 
Also be aware differentiating 'with certainty' between what you frame as valid illusion vs deluded illusion is by no means trivial when all experiences are received via illusion

The non-trivial nature of ascribing certainty in making that distinction is the basic premise of what many of my posts in this thread have concerned.

An 'illusion' filtered through hearing damage must impact certainty of accuracy. Acuity, sobriety, anything interfering with perception does.

Indeed, but accuracy is not the issue. The issue is the certainty given to a perception that is the result of delusion and for which, without objective validation, any such validity is unwarranted. What exactly that delusion is of is not the concern: It might be the nature of fingering of a bass string, a just-audible conversation in a control room caught on a studio microphone or mistaking a trumpet for a Hammond organ that would be obvious to people of normal hearing. All of us are capable of delusion in our perceptions at any level.

It still appears to me that your conceptual framework is founded on a notion of audio reproduction that must replicate some almost Platonic ideal of an event otherwise it's wrong and, since this is considered nearly impossible, accuracy of reproduction is nonsensical in principle.

The notion that audio reproduction is a precise replication of a recorded event is non-sensical, but that is not the issue. Even in a reproduction system offering perfect wavefront reproduction, we would still be capable of errantly perceiving information because we would have no reference to know otherwise. The issues of certainty therefore remain.

Audio reproduction that successfully and fully recreates the total auditory experience of being at the original concert event in all respects except for one seat left, right, fore or aft of the microphone is therefore inaccurate and entirely a matter of taste.

No audio reproduction can be that successful and what is produced is indeed a matter of taste. My previous posts allude to the skill of engineers in often producing a more pleasurable listening experience at home than at the recording event. As mentioned previously in this thread, accuracy is a misnomer.

That appears a value judgement that raises interesting ramifications on what it means for audience members scattered across the hall experiencing one idealized event.

Indeed, and concert seats range in price accordingly. Modern hall design also often attempts to create many areas with small hall-like acoustics to maximise the number of good (expensive) seats.

Or lucid dreaming. People can be aware their perceptions are false.

I should have made that exception, my apologies. Outside of that particular contentious state, I still maintain awareness of oneself in a dream is post-rationalisation.

And in spite of my not agreeing with much of your contribution, I thank you very much for your well-considered response and I look forward to your reply. Long may the enquiry continue! :)
 
soundbloke,

All cognitive learning is conscious. It is the level of consciousness and its extent in time that varies markedly. But it remains impossible to acquire knowledge of something without first becoming aware of it. The distinction in what I have posted here is the cognitive part - and what I have grouped as knowledge, namely the information of which we perceive - that is of which "we know we know" - or at least think we do! Philosophy heh!

The whole of out neural network is capable of learning - even the "simple" reflexive servo-like networks in the spinal cord that elicit basic movements. This is then unconscious learning. However, our perception is created solely from our cognitive representation of our sensed reality and the response of all those other parts to it. And in developing such perceptions, each new percept arises from conscious awareness of the error between our sensed reality and the prior perceptual model of it.

I should have made this more clear previously. My apologies. Although I am not so sure I have explained it clearly now!

Brushing aside philosophy is a regrettable attitude. Philosophy has historically brought clarity to what science has been incapable of coping with. The conception of cognition is one of the fields where science has failed miserably. The arcana of consciousess cannot be solved by scientific methods and go beyond the boundaries of psychology. I find the prevailing scientific viewpoints muddled.

Cognition is made up of perception and consciousness.

Perception consists of two elements: sensation and image, brought forth by sense organs and supporting brain functions. Perception has primordial biological importance, evolved for identification, detection and fast decision making. Perception does not afford content nor demonstration only form, is memoriless, timeless but essentially spatial, nonconceptual, omissive, not aimed at knowing the material world but translating it into sensations, creating a shifting temporary image depending on context and mental state.

Consciousness (awareness, intellect, experience) is an exclusively human mental faculty. Knowing is a property of consciousness. Perception is the only way of knowing. Knowing is becoming aware, which happens whenever an image becomes an object of intellect.

Taking place under a highly efficient, memoriless, timeless, impersonal, autonomic regime, nonconscious events are immediate, unintentional and uncontrollable, while in the distractive realm of consciousess, the acquisition of knowledge, memorization and recollection are cumbersome attentive processes. The presence of consciousess complicate things significantly. The extremely obscure, complex processes of consciousess occurring on different mental planes mixed with nonconscious bodily mechanisms are just too intricate for science to untangle.

Nevertheless, you have made a bunch of nice statements in this thread.

¤¤¤

“We don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are.” - Anaïs Nin

Logic is not applicable to Nature, theories are not testable against observations, assumptions of reality cannot be proved, perception is illusory and consciousess is private so how in the hell is the (in)famous scientific objectivity possible? It is not, of course, but science must be made to appear objective at all costs and against all odds in order to meet the criteria for being considered as science - alleged numerical exactness and supportability by solid proofs serving as distinguishing factors from religion, ethics and the disdained, nonexperimental, speculative, logically indeterminate philosophical metaphysics. Science has long been insanely mathematized and the truth conditions determined by the sneaky concept of logical necessity.
Such an elevated degree of naïve self-deception.
 
Brushing aside philosophy is a regrettable attitude. Philosophy has historically brought clarity to what science has been incapable of coping with.

The remark you reference was not meant to "brush aside philosophy" at all. It was instead intended to avoid an inevitable philosophical circular argument that was alluded to previously (and to remain on-topic). I am not sure that philosophy brings clarity, however, rather it temporarily bridges the voids apparent in current scientific understanding.

The conception of cognition is one of the fields where science has failed miserably. The arcana of consciousess cannot be solved by scientific methods and go beyond the boundaries of psychology. I find the prevailing scientific viewpoints muddled.

I disagree entirely and current research is moving quickly towards developing a rational model of consciousness - and even to describing that which has previously been declared to be undefinable. In this respect, it is the philosophy that is left sounding muddled.

Cognition is made up of perception and consciousness.

Not exactly. Perception and consciousness are the results of cognition. Cognition is the process by which they are produced.

Perception ...is memoriless...

This is fundamentally incorrect. Perception is the result of memory. It is the prediction of the sensed future (present) based upon prior acquired knowledge (memory).

Consciousness (awareness, intellect, experience) is an exclusively human mental faculty.

There is no justification for such a statement. Only specific human consciousness is unique to humans - although possibly this is as unique to each individual as it is to any other conscious entity.

...The extremely obscure, complex processes of consciousess occurring on different mental planes mixed with nonconscious bodily mechanisms are just too intricate for science to untangle.

You have created some ill-defined "mental planes" that complicate the issue. Consciousness is not too intricate for science to untangle, but it is likely some of the oft-repeated vagaries embedded in philosophy will decrease in frequency as the science advances.

Nevertheless, you have made a bunch of nice statements in this thread.

Thank you. I am glad too that it is still provoking thoughtful comments and constructive criticism.

Logic is not applicable to Nature, theories are not testable against observations, assumptions of reality cannot be proved, perception is illusory and consciousess is private so how in the hell is the (in)famous scientific objectivity possible? It is not, of course, but science must be made to appear objective at all costs and against all odds in order to meet the criteria for being considered as science - alleged numerical exactness and supportability by solid proofs serving as distinguishing factors from religion, ethics and the disdained, nonexperimental, speculative, logically indeterminate philosophical metaphysics. Science has long been insanely mathematized and the truth conditions determined by the sneaky concept of logical necessity. Such an elevated degree of naïve self-deception.

I disagree fundamentally with much of this, however. Mathematics is not intended to provide such answers. It is instead a language that allows us to communicate descriptions of our reality in a concise, testable and (hopefully) error-free manner. Mathematics might in time permit a complete description of our reality, even if it fails to pinpoint the underlying universe from which reality arises. And in that, there exists the distinct possibility for a complete exposition of consciousness.
 
soundbloke,
there is a necessary clash between philosophy and science. Anyway, our diverging positions confirm that consciousness is personal. l can barely agree with myself.

Scientists have poor ability to interpret. They should not make representational models but observations and notes.

It is mandatory to clarify and delineate the concept of Perception and Consciousness otherwise any theory remains a jumble like the Freudian psychoanalysis. Freud tried to explain complicated conditions with a narrow idea, in a - if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail - manner. The issue needs to be integrated into a much wider perspective.

The Freudian psychoanalysis is not science, but sheer spiritualism and voodoo practices. That`s why it`s so popular.

Once learned that is the process that HRTFs model and that continue subconsciously contributing to our perception.

Head-related transfer function??? This sounds like utter nonsense.
 
Head-related transfer function??? This sounds like utter nonsense.

You will find HRTFs have been in use for decades.

there is a necessary clash between philosophy and science. Anyway, our diverging positions confirm that consciousness is personal.

There is no reason for a clash since both are forms of enquiry. A clash only occurs when someone becomes unduly entrenched in a position and closes their mind to other explanations.

Scientists have poor ability to interpret. They should not make representational models but observations and notes.

No, scientists should be free to follow wherever their intuition takes them and adopt whatever methods help them best in that role.

It is mandatory to clarify and delineate the concept of Perception and Consciousness otherwise any theory remains a jumble like the Freudian psychoanalysis. Freud tried to explain complicated conditions with a narrow idea, in a - if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail - manner. The issue needs to be integrated into a much wider perspective. The Freudian psychoanalysis is not science, but sheer spiritualism and voodoo practices. That`s why it`s so popular.

I have made a clear delineation between perception and consciousness, based on a neurological framework. The "jumble" of psychology has arisen because it pre-dated such a framework.
 
Well why shouldn't there be? Why shouldn't he have a high opinion of his viewpoint on reality?

He's aware of our limitations, aware of how we process information and what that can all mean when it comes to eventual perception.

Others here want to sweep that under the rug because it puts a pin into the bouncy castle they like to sit atop. Instead of facing reality and accepting that their subjective impressions are, most likely, hogwash.

Soundbloke is open to being shown that subjective impressions should be taken seriously when scientific evidence shows that to be the case. But various other individuals are completely closed off to the idea of being shown that these differences they claim they can hear are all imagined.

To some, being shown that their subjective impressions are actually wrong, would completely destroy their relationship with audio. It's all they've got and it would reduce the hobby down to something where they'd have nothing to do any more except listen to music. For others it would destroy their livelihood. For a few it would spur them in other directions, such as designing and building stuff by measurements and being content when what they are building actually works in the way it's intended..

If soundbloke did have any agenda it would be trying to open the minds of a few by getting them to test, with suitable scientific method, if they can hear what they claim they can hear.
 
Ever think some might have a natural sense for reality?

I’m not referencing myself (although I do relate) and being told that all are lost in some sort of illusion is off putting, there is but one reality and we all share it......how it’s processed and seasoned to taste is of course individual, but we are all still connected by the same reality.
 
Ever think some might have a natural sense for reality? I’m not referencing myself (although I do relate) and being told that all are lost in some sort of illusion is off putting, there is but one reality and we all share it......how it’s processed and seasoned to taste is of course individual, but we are all still connected by the same reality.

Reality and an individual's private perception of it are not the same thing.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.