"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in
message ...
In article
, Keith G
wrote:
"Serge Auckland"
wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

I think the nub of your response is that people
"believe" things sound different. It's the same
mental process that have people believing in God,
the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. They don't have a
shred of objective evidence that things sound
different, just their faith.


Let's say they *perceive* things to sound different.

OTOH lets *not* say they "perceive" things since that
then opens up all the
ambiguities and misundestandings where people use the
word 'perceive' in different ways and argue at
cross-purposes... :-)

What word would you prefer then? They have to perceive
to believe, do they not?

A little apparently much-needed Psychology 101:

There are two kinds of perceptions:

Illusory or unreliable
Veridical or reliable


Actually, four....

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perception

Different issues.


...none of them based on factual accuracy, as I perceive
it....

:-)

Obviously true for you, Keith.

Some of the rest of us are mostly interested in
veridical perceptions. Illusions are fun, but that's
about it for them.

I suspect (correct me, if I'm wrong) that, in your haste
to dash off yet another sniffy little snipe at me, you
have lost the plot somewhat..??

If you mean that I ignored your gratuitous detour into irrelevance Keith,
the answer would be yes.

Please re-read the thread above and note where I
responded to Serge to merely report that there is a group
of people 'not far from here' who have *perceptions* that
contradict what he had stated - I never said that I
shared those 'perceptions', I simply mentioned that I was
surprised he wasn't challenged on some of the points he
has made. Note also that my response to JL (also above)
was merely to ask what word he would prefer to
'perceive', as he doesn't like it - although I have to
say it is unambiguous to me. Then you will see that the,
er, veridiculous use of the word 'veridical' in this
context is irrelevant.*

Wordplay notwithstanding, it is you Keith that lost track of the context,
not I.

As to the rather vague "Some of the rest of us mostly" -
you would do better in my book if you had the balls to
speak only for yourself and not try to pad your
opinions/arguments with the implied support/agreement of
a group of invisible colleagues.

Let's see if you can get this, Keith:

Science and other attempts at reliable facts are about veridical
perceptions. Fiction, hype, and error is about giving too much credibility,
or the wrong kind of credibility to illusions.

As to 'illusions' and
'fun' - that's what the whole 'audio' game is about,
ain't it?

Pehaps for you, Keith - it may be all fun and games and who cares about
trying for accurate, lifelike reproduction.

There is only one person with the *best* audio
system (somewhere) in the world - everyone else is
deluding themselves to a greater or lesser degree, are
they not....??

Wrong. There are a certain number of very good systems, none of which should
pretend to be the best.

The concept of "best" is usually just an illusion. Reality is about many
things that approach but do not attain perfection.

*IOW, don't try to flannel your way into an UK newsgroup
with fancy English, me auld china - especially not when
this 'Englishman' went to an English Grammar School that
was older than your *country*...!! ;-)

Contrary to your ill-founded beliefs Keith, older is not necessarily better.
Attitudes like yours are one reason why the UK is no better than a
second-rate world power, and probably worse.