Originally Posted by JadeEast
1. The brick at my head impact is a physical event. The perception of sound is a phenomenological event that presents itself to our consciousness awareness.
Your second sentence is grammatically and semantically appalling: in attempting obfuscation you have lost the ability to convey meaning - which may well have been what you intended. Leaving aside the utter pretension of your phrasing, "the perception of sound" is a process, not an event. You should have written "The perception of ***A*** sound is a phenomenological event that presents itself to our consciousness awareness."
But even then you'd deserve stoning to death for English Abuse: what is the difference between a phenomenological event and any other event? How is "conscious awareness" different to "awareness"?
Indeed, wouldn't a person possessing either shame or taste simply have written "When we hear things our mind is involved as well as our ears"? This isn't any deep insight - indeed in context it is trite to the point of stupidity - but at least it is honest and clear, and pretentious and stupid is much worse than just stupid.
My contention is that we experience the world always inside a particular context, we don't (and possibly can't) know all the things that influence and shape our experience
No, this is not your contention. This is vague bs that has no meaning so it is not a contention. It would become a contention if you had the nerve to say something definite (What part of "context" had what "influence"?) but at the point you do then you will have nowhere to hide and will look ridiculous even to yourself. Unless of course you are trying to say that the above has a significant effect all the time - in which case it is a mystery how the computer you are using works, as it is based on theory gained by experiment, which by your reasoning should be unreliable to the point of being useless.
Your interaction with your friend isn't free of bias and influence on his perception, even if you think they aren't there. To clarify, I'm saying that your friend did hear what he heard and a difference between your set up and his is probably noticeable and measurable, but the context isn't free of influence.
You are now being even sillier. You are trying to claim that
- A sound quality that existed
- That was heard in an informal blind test where no cue was given to expect a difference
- That was so large a difference was reported even though an opinion on sq wasn't sought
- With no definable cues to bias expectation upwards (indeed cues were arguably negative, because HD25s look that damn cheap!)
..Was only heard because because of biases you can't even suggest.
This is, of course, just two things: "ab" and "surd".
Edited by scuttle - 2/17/13 at 12:36pm