[MrHaelscheir]

I agree, it seems that pointless debate is exactly what he is trying to encourage.

I find it otherwise hard to imagine that anyone could be so utterly full of sh..t.

It's the same kind of jeerleading one gets when trying to argue with flat earthers on YouTube.

 

[gregorio]

However, your comment above exhibits the same type of hubris. Our ability to detect effects electronically is not what determines if they actually exist.

Obviously that assertion cannot be true. If we can electronically record whatever effects you are talking about, then by definition we can detect them. If there were some hypothetical effect that we cannot electronically detect, then by definition we cannot electronically record it and therefore it cannot exist in an electronic reproduction of a recording. Ergo, our “ability to detect effects electronically” absolutely must be what determines if they actually exist in the electronic (analogue audio) signal we’re trying to reproduce!

If it did, that would mean, for example, a rolled-off treble didn't exist before we invented electronics capable of detecting that. And that's clearly not true.

Contrary to your assertion, that clearly is and must be true! Firstly, your example doesn’t make sense, because if the treble is rolled-off then by definition it does not exist and it didn’t exist before or after we invented electronics to detect that. Secondly, if by “rolled-off treble” you just mean “reduced a little” (IE. There is still some treble) then that brings us back the first point above; if we can’t detect something then by definition we can’t record it and therefore it cannot exist in the analogue signal being reproduced.

What we can say with confidence is that a perceived difference either (1) is measurable; (2) is not measurable with our current ability to measure but might be later; or (3) is wholly or partly subjective/psychological.

As this assertion is a sequitur from the above two assertions, which were false, then this assertion is also false. In fact, there’s just two options: (A) The difference is objectively measurable, therefore it actually exists and might be audible if it’s of sufficient magnitude or (B) The difference is not measurable, therefore cannot be recorded, does not exist in the analogue signal being reproduced (and obviously therefore cannot be audible) and therefore if a difference is perceived, it must be due to a perceptual error/bias.

Unless you're in category (1), you can't definitively discount the possibility that either (2) or (3) could be true.

This further sequitur is also therefore false. Either you’re in category (A), in which case the difference is real and may or may not be audible or you’re in category (B), in which case the difference cannot be real and must be psychological. Your option (2) absolutely MUST be “definitively discounted” because again, the current recording technology ONLY allows for the reproduction of audio properties that are measurable!

Even suggesting (3) is more likely than (2) strikes me as dangerous since we have no reason to believe we've invented the ability to electronically measure all relevant effects that people perceive.

This assertion is also false, it’s a strawman argument because it’s irrelevant whether “we’ve invented the ability to electronically measure all effects that people perceive”, what‘s relevant is that we’ve invented the ability to create, measure/record and reproduce an audio signal. Let’s say hypothetically that there is some real property of an analogue audio signal (or of sound) that we can perceive but not measure (although there’s no reliable evidence that even hints that there might be), still this makes zero difference because again, if we can’t detect/measure it then we cannot record it and therefore obviously it cannot be in the analogue audio signal (or sound) that you’re reproducing. In other words, if such a hypothetical property did exist, we would first have to invent some way of detecting/quantifying it and then some new technology to record and reproduce it, because the current technology cannot! IE. Something other than analogue audio signals and digital audio.

G

 

[KinGensai]

@gregorio
Accusation in the mirror may have been most famously implemented as a propaganda strategy in modern history by Goebbels and Lenin, but it did not start as a deliberate cointel strategy. It's far more primal, rooted in humanity's tribalistic origins. To question the self in those times is to question the tribe, and through reinforcement, punishment is internalized into the individual's shadow.

We believe this tendency passes down through generations [1]. Through what mechanism is unclear, but the phenomenon is noted. Milgram and subsequent replications show that vulnerability to such traits is very widespread.

[1] Davey GC, Forster L, Mayhew G. Familial resemblances in disgust sensitivity and animal phobias. Behav Res Ther. 1993 Jan;31(1):41-50. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(93)90041-r. PMID: 8417727.

 

[castleofargh]

Quasi-modo color:
I pretend to do something with my life for more than a day, and the posts have reached the bottom of the internet. I got 2 billions reports (subjective estimation).
Please leave the insults, sarcasm, religion, Hitler and Celine Dion out of your posts.

This specific message was proposed by "do what I say, not what I do".