HUMAN SENSORY PERCEPTION

[Gregadd]

HUMAN SENSORY PERCEPTION
I was watching pop science star Neil de Grasse Tyson(sp) on television. He was discussing the issue of scientific proof. I've never liked him because of what he did to the Planet Pluto). To paraphrase he said that if you claim to know and your was based the five senses any credible scientific gathering would not only dismiss you out of hand but would not even continue to listen. That if your basis of knowledge was i smelled it, heard it, saw it, felt it or tasted it would be so unreliable as to be unworthy of consideration. Now let us put aside the period where we lack metrics or machines and they only thing we could rely on was our senses. His comment was fair enough.
If I had been there I would posed the following question. If our purpose is to stimulate the five senses then how do we scientifically evaliate that effort. There is only one way to do that Inquire of the subject. Does it taste like butter? Does it smell like rain? Does it feel lite down? Does or look real? Finally does it sound real.
The final step has to be human perception. Did you in fact achieve provoke the desired response. The human is and must be the final arbiter.
On cannot follow a formula for the perfect steak and then try to eliminate the final step. The taste buds. As variable and maddening as that is there is no way around it.

 

[Site7000]

So true. l recently read on a different forum (reddit) another "pro v consumer" put-down of audiophiles based on "the pros need accuracy to hear the warts and all," so they win. I suddenly realized "they want to listen to warts!" Seriously, pros make their money listening to warts. So their idea of "accuracy" is simply hearing warts. Does musicality or the meaning of the music mean anything to them? No. On the other hand, there are a ton of well-respected audiophile components that are at least as low in measured distortion as any "pro" equipment, such as Boulder, Trinity, Chord and many, many others. They just aren't designed to emphasize warts. That's in addition to the fact that we don't listen to test tones and the fact that real music is far more complex than we have been able to devise tests for (other than listening for extended periods of time). Do you know of any tests that measure depth of soundstage? Separation of instruments? They don't even listen for that.
People have a need for simple answers and a need to be "right" and a need to be smarter than the next guy. So they come endlessly to audiophile forums to leave their piss marks. But now that I know they are glorifying the hearing of warts, I can safely stop caring. I listen to music. That simply isn't their goal.

 

[thedudeabides]

I think you are saying that the individual listener must be the final arbiter of the musical truth (sonic quality, performance, etc.) and the emotional impact thereof.

 

[Gregadd]

Let's take didning for instance. You can quench your hunger and thirst at McDonalds. Or better still in your own kitchen. Fine dining is another matter. restaurant ambience such as smell, lighting ,music, visual clues all are factors. Wine selection, presentation al leading to the taste buds which work in tandem to create the experience.
One woould not hold a cooking contest that was recipe only.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Let's take didning for instance. You can quench your hunger and thirst at McDonalds. Or better still in your own kitchen. Fine dining is another matter. restaurant ambience such as smell, lighting ,music, visual clues all are factors. Wine selection, presentation al leading to the taste buds which work in tandem to create the experience.
One woould not hold a cooking contest that was recipe only.

Right. Fine dining is another story.

One woould not hold a cooking contest that was recipe only.

Most do but fine dining is not a cooking contest.

 

[Gregadd]

Right. Fine dining is another story.

Most do but fine dining is not a cooking contest.

I think you make a distinction without a difference. certainly you do noot suggest fine restaurants are not competing?

 

[Simon Moon]

HUMAN SENSORY PERCEPTION
I was watching pop science star Neil de Grasse Tyson(sp) on television. He was discussing the issue of scientific proof. I've never liked him because of what he did to the Planet Pluto). To paraphrase he said that if you claim to know and your was based the five senses any credible scientific gathering would not only dismiss you out of hand but would not even continue to listen. That if your basis of knowledge was i smelled it, heard it, saw it, felt it or tasted it would be so unreliable as to be unworthy of consideration. Now let us put aside the period where we lack metrics or machines and they only thing we could rely on was our senses. His comment was fair enough.
If I had been there I would posed the following question. If our purpose is to stimulate the five senses then how do we scientifically evaliate that effort. There is only one way to do that Inquire of the subject. Does it taste like butter? Does it smell like rain? Does it feel lite down? Does or look real? Finally does it sound real.
The final step has to be human perception. Did you in fact achieve provoke the desired response. The human is and must be the final arbiter.
On cannot follow a formula for the perfect steak and then try to eliminate the final step. The taste buds. As variable and maddening as that is there is no way around it.

The problem is, that human perceptions and our senses are pretty easy to fool. The number of experiments is way too long to even begin to even begin to list.

Not to mention our confirmation biases, our faulty memories, misinterpretation of sensory input, etc.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I think you make a distinction without a difference. certainly you do noot suggest fine restaurants are not competing?

Yes, commercially, but not necessarily on their cooking.

 

[Gregadd]

The problem is, that human perceptions and our senses are pretty easy to fool. The number of experiments is way too long to even begin to even begin to list.

Not to mention our confirmation biases, our faulty memories, misinterpretation of sensory input, etc.

The question what do we mean by 'fool'" Where we fooled or is it our predicted response to stimuli way off?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

The problem is, that human perceptions and our senses are pretty easy to fool. The number of experiments is way too long to even begin to even begin to list.

Not to mention our confirmation biases, our faulty memories, misinterpretation of sensory input, etc.

Yes and the more variables you throw into the mix, the worse it gets.

 

[Gregadd]

Yes, commercially, but not necessarily on their cooking.

we can fight the hypothetical ad infinitum.

 

[Gregadd]

Yes and the more variables you throw into the mix, the worse it gets.

Oh yes how simple a single variable world would be. Much more boring though.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

we can fight the hypothetical ad infinitum.

It was not hypothetical. It is a failure of communication and I prefer to leave it at that.

 

[tima]

To paraphrase he said that if you claim to know and your [knowledge] was based [on] the five senses any credible scientific gathering would not only dismiss you out of hand but would not even continue to listen.

If you claim to know what you are experiencing (not why or how) who can deny your account? Yet that knowing is not in itself sensorial. Science itself is a value proposition.

 

[Gregadd]

If you claim to know what you are experiencing (not why or how) who can deny your account? Yet that knowing is not in itself sensorial. Science itself is a value proposition.

So then do we alter our response, stimulus or subject?assuming we question the result..

 

[tima]

So then do we alter our response, stimulus or subject?assuming we question the result..

I'm sorry, the result of what?
I was reacting to the tv guy.

 

[Gregadd]

McGurk effect
a common argument in favor of the fallability of human perception. When you examine it closely it actually is a testament to the worlds best computer-the human brain.

• McGurk effect - Wikipedia​

  

  McGurk effect - Wikipedia

  en.wikipedia.org
  
  The McGurk effect is a perceptual phenomenon that demonstrates an interaction between hearing and vision in speech perception. The illusion occurs when the auditory component of one sound is paired with the visual component of another sound, leading to the perception of a third sound. The visual information a person gets from seeing a person speak changes the way they hear the sound. If a person is getting poor quality auditory information but good quality visual information, they may be more likely to experience the McGurk effect. Integration abilities for audio and visual information may also influence whether a person will experience the effect. People who are better at sensory integration have been shown to be more susceptible to the effect. Many people are affected differently by the McGurk effect based on many factors, including brain damage and other disorders.
  
  • Background
  • Internal factors
  • External factors
  • Other languages
  • Hearing impairment
  • Infants
  • See also
  
  It was first described in 1976 in a paper by Harry McGurk and John MacDonald, titled "Hearing Lips and Seeing Voices" in Nature (23 December 1976). This effect was discovered by accident when McGurk and his research assistant, MacDonald, asked a technician to dub a video with a different phoneme from the one spoken while conducting a study on how infants perceive language at different developme…
  Wikipedia · Text under CC-BY-SA license

• Videos of McGurk Effect​

  bing.com/videos
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  2:12
  McGurk effect - Auditory Illusion - BB

 

[Gregadd]

We can see then the amazing brain/computer correctly deciphers both words correctly. Forced then to choose between what the ears hear and the eye see (lip reading) it chooses the visual. It is not tricked at all.