Objectivity is based on subjective experience

[jabbr]

@erin this is a nice story, however when we use the term "objective" we are discussing a measurement, typically from a piece of equipment that has its own specifications. Its always good to be precise about what we are discussing. 

[jabbr]

23 hours ago, erin said:

We could only arrive at the objective measurement from our subjective experience. Without the subjective experience the objective measurement would only be theoretical. 

 

Is English your primary language? In English we would say something like "The purpose of objective measurements is to improve subjective experience" ... is this what you mean?

[jabbr]

22 hours ago, davide256 said:

measurements are a great tool for physical phenomena. Which music enjoyment is not, it's a complex biological phenomena impacted by heredity, physiology,

culture and education. There is a reason music is taught as an art and not a science. It's complicated and everyone's "test instrument" is different.

 

measurements do measure physical phenomena such as audio signals. 
music enjoyment is typically subjective and not typically measured with an instrument. 
 

it is critical to understand the difference between a measurement and a subjective experience. It’s also critical how to relate the two eg the epistemology of “sense data”

 

it is critical to understand the difference between music as an art, and audio electronics as a field of engineering. it’s critical to understand the difference between measuring things and listening to things. 
 

nelson pass has written about this.

[jabbr]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Funny You.

English is not my primary language and I perfectly understand what Erin meant. It looks like you try to twist it to your (being a scientist) benefit ? haha

 

Proving my point. I don't need to twist anything to my "scientist benefit".  The relationship between subjective experience and measurements has been discussed for greater than a century as part of the philosophy of science, I'm rather well aware.

 

"We could arrive at the objective measurement only through our subjective experience."

 

That's frankly absurd. If we take a typical audiophile who has extensive listening experience and knows what he likes (there are vanishly small numbers of women audiophiles save @Teresa)  ... this hypothetical person need not have any experience with performing measurements nor would they be expected to guide the measuring process.

 

In order to perform measurements, there needs to be an understanding of both the theory and practice of electronics. Thats physics.

 

Good experimentalists don't blindly measure, of course the selection of measurements are guided by the goal.

 

We could do an experiment, lets take 100 pure subjectivists who admit to have no knowledge of physics nor electronics and ask them to design some new measurements pertaining to audio. That would be frankly absurd. 

 

[jabbr]

7 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that in any formal system (like Mathematics) there will always be a number of theorems that are true but can't be proven so. Does it mean that Truth is subjective?

 

Quine addressed that!

[jabbr]

6 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

But Jonathan, it seems that you did not get my gist.

So I *am* this audiophile with "more than" experience. I hear differences anywhere from miles, blindfolded (lol). I also have those measurement tools.

The rest is history.

 

I am not addressing this to any person, rather the statement itself which makes no sense in English.

 

Or course you may use your subjective experiences to guide the decision about which measurements to perform. This does not mean the measurements are "based on" the subjective experiences. Einstein used thought "experiments" to guide which measurements should be done (by other scientists), you may also use thought experiments or you may use subjective listening and then you design and build a circuit, and measure in the course of doing this, and then listen again. So this is how I say this in English:

 

The measurements we perform are guided by our subjective experience.

 

In English, "guided by" and "based on" have different meanings. 

 

6 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

So now what ?

Am I imagining it all ?

or do I need better measurement gear ?

... It is the (subjective) former which requires the latter - and in that sequence. That's what Erin's message was (but I am not Erin). There is nothing absurd about it.

 

You and Erin can decide to use your own means of communication, you may have a shared understanding and communicate telepathically, however if you wish to communicate precisely, then the words that are used must also be precise.

[jabbr]

7 hours ago, zerung said:

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that if we know everything about where a particle is located, we know nothing about its momentum thereafter, simply because its momentum then goes ballistic..or unpredictable.or so I understand.

So even the most objective observation will be a subjective action thereafter......

 

What is a "subjective action"? You seem to be, to use an English colloquialism, mixing apples and oranges here. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle discusses the limits of precision in (objective) measurements. I don't comprehend how its says anything about subjective human experiences, which are not at the quantum level.

[jabbr]

On 3/12/2021 at 10:45 AM, zerung said:

There is no objective observation.

 

whatever ... really I know what a measurement is and how to use them in engineering and science. Let’s just use the term “scientific observation” ... like for a voltage or current, these are measured with equipment. You could stick your finger in a light socket to get an idea what a voltage means to you subjectively but let’s not get too cute.

On 3/12/2021 at 10:45 AM, zerung said:

The Heisenberg principles states that even an objective observation, where the location of the particle is made via objective deduction - resulting is successfully locating a particle, there after becomes unpredictable, simply as one is observing the particle.

 

Every objective view is subjective. All objective measurement via gauges, meters & the likes and measuring very well - does not mean that you get the perfect machine..I dont know what is the point of this statement? Perhaps to state that perfect measurement does not give perfect sound (In Audio).

 

ok so yeah you’ve got no idea what a measurement is and the fact that all measurements have error. A known error in a measurement does not make it subjective.

On 3/12/2021 at 10:45 AM, zerung said:

 

Is human subjective experience not derived at a quantum level? That is one theory. Which at the best is just that. Ultimately IMHO I opine that Objective/Subjective view is a blurred position, not a binary position as many think it to be.    

 

 

I think the fact that rhodopsin responds to photons means that human sensory experience is “derived at a quantum level” — every sensor has noise and errors.but so what? The physics of noise is quite interesting. That said it has nothing to mean that the existence of noise means that everything is subjective. 
 

The terms “objective” and “subjective” are terms that seem to exist only on audiophile fora, but if we can’t at least understand what a measurement is and the fact that all measurements have limits or precision ie a noise floor, then there is no hope of discussing this — this subforum is however for “objective” as defined the @The Computer Audiophile and let’s stick to this. If you are trying to say that measurements are all ultimately subjective then we just aren’t speaking the same language.

[jabbr]

31 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I was thinking about this. The fact that this hobby has a subjective enjoyment part and an objectively measurable component makes it fairly unique. 

Yes. In photography, although there can be equally passionate arguments between eg Leica vs Nikon vs Zeiss lense owners, the physics of the optics, sensors and publication media doesn’t seem to fall under the same dispute.

[jabbr]

12 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said:

...perhaps what to measure can be said to be subjective (and the decision to measure at all--but almost everyone dislikes that guy), the measurement objective, and the interpretation of the measurement subjective? 
 

 

Oh 1000% yes
 

Quote

It's a sticky wicket, IMO, but I truly respect the engineers and scientists that have "learned the rules" and later uncovered new "rules." I married one (she has strongly advised me to stay out of this discussion, BTW). 😉

 

 

It should be obvious that a single crude measurement such a THD does not predict SQ. That said we need to, at least, understand the difference between measurements in general and subjective listening enjoyment eg SQ. Measurements might be done for marketing reasons and the objective solely to sell product. 
 

Quote

 

Honestly, if we don't take some things as at least practically objective, we'll never get the plane off the ground.

IMO that's an important underlying aspect of @jabbr's post, though I would not propose to speak for him on this or any other topic. 

 

That’s my point.