IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!
- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.
- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.
- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

[what has science done] From: ABX testing vs. unconscious perception/d, From Topic ID: 94050
icstm
post Mar 16 2012, 12:31
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: 25-January 12
Member No.: 96698



SOME THOUGHTS

All this talk about skin “hearing” music, “feeling” the vibrations of the music etc raises for me a separate debate.

Whilst I completely agree that ABX is an excellent tool for spotting consciously detectable differences (ie respondents must be wilfully aware of the difference to make their choice) what about our unconscious decisioning? Just the other day their was a BBC documentary “out of control” which they were explaining how your unconscious mind is often calling the shots and influencing the decisions you make.

So we have 3 different types of tests:
1) Signal waveform analysis (as was used to check to see if JPlay was doing anything or FLAC v WAV using Audio DiffMaker
2) ABX audio testing (man in the middle) for checking for conscious discrimination of different samples
3) Enjoyment factor (or some other form of what some philosophers call qualia)


I am not saying to know that our skin reacts to sound or anything like that however I can believe that there is more to our enjoyment of music than just what our ears hear, for example I was at a classical concert yesterday and we slipped from the back to some seats in the front where we could feel the power of the music more in our bellies. Is this just due to the increased volume and would our ears have provided our brains with sufficient information if I had desensitised my stomach – I am not so sure. Now clearly in this example I was conscious of this effect, but there may be others I was not and yet still added to my overall enjoyment.

So even assuming that enjoyment is a wholly conscious act there could be unconscious inputs that the brain turns into conscious states. However these states could be impacted by the ABX test in 2 ways:
A. Not enough time is allowed for in playing the samples for these unconscious inputs to take effect
B. The act of enjoying a concert vs the act of trying to spot differences mean the brain is trying to do different things and thus doing the second might not require the same inputs as used in the first (I assume we are happy that the outputs of those 2 exercises are likely to be different and in a different form

Now bear in mind that for this thread I am in the 16/44 is sufficient for playback camp – I am still saying I am not fully satisfied that tests (1) and (2) are sufficient to provide complete proof. It is a bit like evolution (as some other poster mentioned). There is some proof for the theory, there are many wholes (for example in the fossil line) however there is no proof for any other theory...

This post has been edited by icstm: Mar 16 2012, 12:39
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
andy o
post Mar 19 2012, 02:47
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 1292
Joined: 14-April 09
Member No.: 68950



QUOTE (icstm @ Mar 16 2012, 03:31) *
It is a bit like evolution (as some other poster mentioned). There is some proof for the theory, there are many wholes (for example in the fossil line) however there is no proof for any other theory...

Holes such as...?

Get with the program. What you just said up there is straight from the creationists' "Intelligent Design" tactics handbook.

And just like that, the thing about "enjoyment" you say ABX tests fail to capture, is a common theme from ABX denialists. Not that you're one, I don't know that.

This post has been edited by andy o: Mar 19 2012, 02:51
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
icstm
post Mar 19 2012, 12:55
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: 25-January 12
Member No.: 96698



QUOTE (andy o @ Mar 19 2012, 01:47) *
QUOTE (icstm @ Mar 16 2012, 03:31) *
It is a bit like evolution (as some other poster mentioned). There is some proof for the theory, there are many wholes (for example in the fossil line) however there is no proof for any other theory...

Holes such as...?

Get with the program. What you just said up there is straight from the creationists' "Intelligent Design" tactics handbook.

And just like that, the thing about "enjoyment" you say ABX tests fail to capture, is a common theme from ABX denialists. Not that you're one, I don't know that.

Holes such as lack of a complete record of the fossil line.
Do we have fossils (or DNA) from every creature in our line from start to homo sapiens? No. Does that mean that these is 100% complete evidence that mankind came from some RNA protien shake, no. Does that mean I do not beleive in evolution, no.

What you and saratoga miss is that ABX measures a conscious recording of a conscious event. (A known known to use a US defence sec. speak...)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
andy o
post Mar 20 2012, 00:59
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 1292
Joined: 14-April 09
Member No.: 68950



QUOTE (icstm @ Mar 19 2012, 03:55) *
Holes such as lack of a complete record of the fossil line.
Do we have fossils (or DNA) from every creature in our line from start to homo sapiens? No. Does that mean that these is 100% complete evidence that mankind came from some RNA protien shake, no. Does that mean I do not beleive in evolution, no.

Those are complete non sequiturs. Obviously this is way off topic, I don't know why you brought it up. Can't find the other post mentioning evolution from a quick search, but the analogy doesn't hold, if only from the gross misconceptions about it which, again, are straight from the creationists' confusion tactics. Think about it. How many fossils do you think there should be? How many is enough, and how do you detemine the discrete number of species? Do you expect that for evoluion to be completely correct, no dead bodies of any species should have completely disintegrated, in 3.5 billion years? This is OT, so I won't say any more, but you should look up the answers if they're not obvious to you. And from what I understand, fossils aren't even the strongest type of evidence for evolution, that comes from molecular biology.

There is no such thing as a missing link. Once you find a fossil, you just fill that "gap" but create two more.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Mar 20 2012, 02:59
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 2182
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (andy o @ Mar 19 2012, 19:59) *
QUOTE (icstm @ Mar 19 2012, 03:55) *
Holes such as lack of a complete record of the fossil line.
Do we have fossils (or DNA) from every creature in our line from start to homo sapiens? No. Does that mean that these is 100% complete evidence that mankind came from some RNA protien shake, no. Does that mean I do not beleive in evolution, no.

Those are complete non sequiturs. Obviously this is way off topic, I don't know why you brought it up. Can't find the other post mentioning evolution from a quick search, but the analogy doesn't hold, if only from the gross misconceptions about it which, again, are straight from the creationists' confusion tactics. Think about it. How many fossils do you think there should be? How many is enough, and how do you detemine the discrete number of species? Do you expect that for evoluion to be completely correct, no dead bodies of any species should have completely disintegrated, in 3.5 billion years? This is OT, so I won't say any more, but you should look up the answers if they're not obvious to you. And from what I understand, fossils aren't even the strongest type of evidence for evolution, that comes from molecular biology.

There is no such thing as a missing link. Once you find a fossil, you just fill that "gap" but create two more.



It also shows a profound ignore-ance (literally) of the role of inference vs direct experience of phenomena, in science.

There are many natural events that we don't 'experience' directly because they are distant in time or space or scale (e.g., too slow or fast or large or small), but that doesn't necessarily limit us from making confident inferences about them....including the basic inference that they *happened*.

"100% complete evidence" is not what science waits for, or requires. It's a straw man argument.


Meanwhile, we're still waiting for that fossil rabbit in Cambrian strata...that's the sort of thing it would take at this point to 'disprove' evolution as we know it.





Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th July 2014 - 02:06