Chill dude, I'm not saying I'll be the guy to solve this. You are way too emotinally involved here. I'm simply mentioning that this is something that intrests me and I might study.
As for theories of mind, I can name two big ones, and if you clim either has proof as being the theory mind, I can prove you wrong in about 6 seconds:
1) DCTM, Digital Computational Theory of Mind. This is the theory that the mind works something like a digital device where is processes data in sequence to get a result and is composes of multiple dedicated subsystems.
2) CCTM Connectionist Computational Theory of Mind. This is the theory where the mind works like an weighted neural network, that individual units have no data or processing ability in and of themselves, but the overall network processess data to get the desired result.
Both theories have some merit, though ti seems the mind is generally more connectonist than digital. However regardless, neither is completely correct. For more info see Harnish, Robert M. (2002) Minds, Brains, and Computers, specifically chapters 8, 9, 12, and 13.
As for citations to experiements that are inconclusive or show people able to hear difference in blind tests: If you are truly interested, I'll gather citations, though I do not have them on hand. Regardless, most tests that were done and claim to show no perceptable difference can be challenged as being done improperly. As I meantioned, a quick A/B test might not be sufficient to determine perceptable difference. Perception is complex. You can notice your name spoken in a noisy room with no effort but not so for random other words. All tests that I am aware of that show no difference were done in classic, highly limited A/B style.
So the thing is, theories that are equaly probable given the evidence provided can be advanced. As such you shouldn't put too much stock in to the theory that we currently do objectively measure all that is important to perception. I'm not saying to dismiss it outright, but trying to hold it up as truth is a little premeture, it really doesn't meet the standard of strong inference. For more information refer to Popper, Karl (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery.
|