Trust your ears

[AnotherSpin]

Wonderful story. Describes the case of chronic audiophilia very aptly and colorfully. And, of course, it's not about this type of lunacy only.

[AnotherSpin]

2 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

Unfortunately, the idea of unreconciled (incompatibilist) free will fares worse than reconciled (compatibilist) free will, contrary to our libertarian instincts; that is to say, neither of these ideas are very satisfying.  Likewise, acceptance that there is no free will is even less satisfying (due to it's implications for moral responsibility and human dignity).  Nonetheless, I don't see how this is an example of where the truth may lie "in between" -- rather, you have free will or you don't (a binary condition).

 

 

If you have a free will could you choose your next thought? 

[AnotherSpin]

48 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

If I could choose my next thought, then it must be the case that I could choose to choose my next thought.  But herein lies a regress that always ends in darkness.  This morning, I looked out the window and the sun was shining and I smiled.  No need for words, my friend.

 

Exactly. And there is no no need to choose anything for sun to shine and for day to be beautiful. By the way, can you choose your next thought? 🙂

[AnotherSpin]

Also, human perception does not remain unchanged. It is something that changes constantly and is never the same. We don't hear the same recording the same way in the same set of equipment. And if we hear it as "the same", it's only because the mind has once again tweaked and leveled our perception. Similarly, we don't see the same object the same way every time we look at it, we don't feel it the same way when we touch it, etc.

[AnotherSpin]

3 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

I don't have any friends as rich and extravagant as your friends.

 

 

I agree, I trust my ears (with long term listening) even when the results don't seem logical! Such as preferring music from my $254 Yamaha Blu-ray / SACD universal player more than digital files played through my $800 Teac UD-501 DSD USB DAC. I have no doubt that the DAC in the cheap Yamaha player is much cheaper than the DAC in the 3 times more expensive Teac DAC. It doesn't make sense to me, still I have to go with my ears and enjoy the music. 

 

 

I'm also totally content with my audio / video system. I'm a subjective, however I have zero interest in upgrading fuses or trying out $1000 power cables. Please don't put all subjectives in the same basket.

 

No one has ever challenged me, no one tells me I have to upgrade my equipment. If they did I wouldn't feel the need to do what someone else tells me to do, I do what I want. Thus, I have no problem with extravagant spendthrifts whither they are spending on audio equipment, cables, $1,000+ perfumes, purses, body creams or $100 hamburgers.

 

I'm perfectly happy with my $30 per pair Monster cable interconnects, $3 per foot Monster speaker cables, and stock power cords. Music through my system when playing the best engineered and mastered recordings sounds very realistic. In short I am thrilled with my audio / video system. 

 

What other people spend or don't spend on anything doesn't bother me as it is their money. BTW I paid $1 for my perfume from Dollar Tree.

 

And that makes perfect sense. Our contentment lies not in fuses or cables, but within us. When we are balanced and at peace, everything sounds awesome. How much was spent, a lot or a little is irrelevant. Trust your self.

[AnotherSpin]

Any and each object, or thought, or feeling appears in our subjective knowing only. There is no other way for us to know it. As such perception is subjective.

[AnotherSpin]

6 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Does that mean that objective reality doesn't exist and we shouldn't attempt to know or understand it? You can sit forever in Plato's cave and assume that the shadows you perceive represent the best reality you can hope for, and that you'll never be able to break the chains. Or you can try to break out into the light and work towards seeing the world the way it really is. Your choice.

 

How exactly are you going to know what is outside your knowing? Can you demonstrate the existence of objects outside the knowing subject? How about breaking the chains of the conceptualizing mind and gaining the freedom from illusion?

[AnotherSpin]

39 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

[..]

Again-- I am not making a strong assertion, only it SEEMS to be true.

[..]

 

 

 

No reason to worry, every-thing in apparent world only seems to be true. How can an object be true if it does not remain stable and changes endlessly every millisecond, morphing from one state to another, being born and disappearing infinitely? The unchanging eternal and limitless knowing subject is the only truth.

[AnotherSpin]

1 hour ago, Summit said:

 

Present objective proof that God does exist instead, and try to say what’s black and white in total darkness 💣

 

 

 

Exactly. The mind adapts objects according to pre-embedded concepts and habits. This is called an illusion.

[AnotherSpin]

59 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

At least attempt to struggle to free yourself from the chains. You may be able to see the light. Of course, if you’ve already given up, there is no chance, you’ll see everything as shadows.

 

You can give any characteristics you want, no problem. Am I correct in assuming that you can not demonstrate how objects can exist without you knowing about it?

[AnotherSpin]

19 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

Some of those that pretend to be objective already know everything that exists, their affect and how to measure them 🤣.

 

Yes, every thing is in everyone's knowing. 

[AnotherSpin]

4 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Stick your finger in a flame and tell me it's an illusion that it is painful. The smoke from your burning flesh you do not smell. The flame is NOT approximately 3000 degrees. Jab your eye with the imaginary screwdriver, the results are not real. Stick your tongue on the bare 120 volt wire. Subjectively,what's going to happen? Off to church on this imaginary Fathers Day. 

 

Nobody is telling pain does not exist. Of course it exist -- in your knowing. Altogether with any other combination of thoughts, or feelings. Also, pain is not wrong, it is right, because it is. What is can not be wrong, it is right. Another thing, the mental perception of pain is an illusion in the sense that the mind assigns a quality to pain. What might be a severe pain for one person is merely light disturbance to another. Also, pain ceases to be pain when the mind is switched off, in deep sleep.

[AnotherSpin]

28 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Ive demonstrated it perfectly to myself. Since you only exist in my imagination, I have no inclination to demonstrate it to you ;)

 

You have not, it is not possible. But, no worry, I've stopped arguing within my head, and I care even less about arguing with anyone else. Have a nice day.

[AnotherSpin]

46 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

How do you know it’s not possible? Have you been to my mind? Anything’s possible here, I think on the scale of infinitely many universes and can see all reality as it really is. Prove that this is not true. You can’t do it, because you gave up too early.

 

You know about these many universes? They are in your knowing? Do you know about all reality you see?

[AnotherSpin]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

Your posts to this thread and others is strong evidence that this isn't true.

 

I'm not arguing, just suggesting to see for yourselves what's actual. It doesn't matter what I know, it matters what you know. If anyone knows an example of an object that exists without the knowing subject, please share, it would be very interesting 🙃

[AnotherSpin]

8 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I'm sure there are an almost infinite number of objects that exist without my knowledge of their existence.

 

Asking someone to identify an object that they know nothing about though is similar to asking questions like "Did you forget something?" or "Are you asleep?"

 

By the way, how do we "see for ourselves what's actual"?

 

 

 

Do you know they exist without your knowledge?

 

[AnotherSpin]

Just now, kumakuma said:

 

Yes, because I am constantly discovering new things that I never existed before.

 

If you know an object, it exists for you. If you don't know the object yet, it does not exist for you. You, as knowing subject exist before, during and after you know any object, old or new.

 

If that's hard to understand, ok, no problem, you win! And I'll go back to watching Netflix.

[AnotherSpin]

9 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

No, you win.

 

You've succeeded in derailing yet another thread with your metaphysical musings.

 

There is no metaphysics here. I am only saying that all and any objects are in our subjective knowing. That is, what we hear in audio cannot be wrong, it is right. So we can trust our ears, there is no other valid option, imk. You can think otherwise, I am not asking for consent.

[AnotherSpin]

31 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

If you are not asking for consent or for approval, why are you commenting on any subject matter. I doubt many want to read about your bullshit in a audio forum, or whether something exists or not. 

 

You can ignore, no problem.

[AnotherSpin]

52 minutes ago, opus101 said:

[...]

Not saying that all of what @AnotherSpin is saying is relevant to the thread, it isn't. 

[...]

 

It seems to me that what I have said is relevant. I believe that we can trust our ears and I justify my opinion by saying that all so-called objective data is within our subjective knowing. I can say it again, I don't demand to agree with me. Everyone has the right to think as he or she chooses and to express his or her opinion freely. Given, of course, freedom still means something.