General Asylum

RE: As has been said before, let me kick you in the rear end.

205.170.13.125

slapshot

In Reply to: RE: As has been said before, let me kick you in the rear end. posted by tinear on September 12, 2014 at 08:00:57

Two people would perceive that kick in different ways. A masochist would perceive it differently than do I.

Follow Ups:

You're a masochist if you continue down the "objective-subjective" ancient philosophical trail. - tinear 10:09:41 09/12/14 (6)
A kick in the ass is just that. If you like it or not is another question.
As Samuel Johnson said a few centuries ago, you can argue about a salt-shaker upon a table, whether or not it really is there, but there it is. And also, (paraphrasing, again): all argument against it, all belief for it.
I don't know the point of separating phenomena from experience. How else can it exist to a person? It resembles the "angels on the head of a pin" thing.

Edits: 09/12/14
- the ancient philosophical trail - slapshot 10:13:56 09/12/14 (5)
  Philosophers, traditionally, had no access into the nervous system that provides us our perception of reality. The neural perspective fundamentally changes the argument about objective vs. subjective. This isn't an argument about whether an object exists; it's an argument about the interpretation of sensory signals from said object.
  - The problem with generalities is they can lead anywhere. What specifically are you talking about? A concrete - tinear 12:28:00 09/12/14 (4)
    example, though you might argue we'd disagree about "concrete?"
    - RE: The problem with generalities is they can lead anywhere. What specifically are you talking about? A concrete - slapshot 14:44:50 09/12/14 (3)
      If you look at the processing of any sensory information in the nervous system, you see that the brain is sending fibers to the earlier processing stages, modifying that information before it even gets up to the cortex. In the auditory system, there are fibers from the brainstem, for example, that project out to both the middle (auditory ossicles) and the inner ear (Organ of Corti), shaping the information at the point of transduction. In auditory processing, there are half a dozen relay nuclei throughout the brainstem (e.g., cochlear nuclei, superior olivary nuclei, nucleus of the lateral lemniscus, inferior colliculi), each of which receives descending information from the cerebral cortex or other more rostral structures. As such, before auditory information even makes it to the cortex for processing, the cortex has influenced that auditory information. The auditory information we thus perceive "consciously" has already been shaped (and colored) by our brain before we even process it.
      
      Our internal state (including emotional factors) and our expectations thus affect what we hear--and that issue seems to have been brought up several times in response to the original post.
      - elegantly expressed and maximally true :-) - wazoo 06:02:31 09/13/14 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: The problem with generalities is they can lead anywhere. What specifically are you talking about? A concrete posted by slapshot on September 12, 2014 at 14:44:50
        
        I wish I had been tuned into this discussion as it developed, but as I read through the exchanges, I realized that there was nothing* I needed to add. Knowing how you 'earn your keep', that came as no surprise, but it still would have been fun to join the argument from the neurological perspective. Your final (thus far) post in this discussion shovels the last load of dirt on top of the notion of objective perception.
        If anyone is interested in learning more about how they perceive the world, I still think one of the best launching points is Donald Hoffman's Visual Intelligence .
        *Edit: Actually, I do have something to add. There is also the chemistry of the brain to consider, and dopamine ramps up in anticipation of reward. Ergo, simply expecting something to be more pleasurable can make it so, in a very real sense.
        
        Edits: 09/13/14
        
        RE: elegantly expressed and maximally true :-) - slapshot 07:07:50 09/13/14 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: elegantly expressed and maximally true :-) posted by wazoo on September 13, 2014 at 06:02:31
        
        Ah yes, without dopamine, music is rather worthless! This is what makes Maggies the best: you can hang an IV L-dopa drop from them because they are so tall! :)
        
        RE: elegantly expressed and maximally true :-) - Old nuff 2 no better 07:21:55 09/14/14 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: elegantly expressed and maximally true :-) posted by slapshot on September 13, 2014 at 07:07:50
        
        Any worthwhile music will have me in a different emotional state at the end compared to the beginning. Audio memory is notoriously unreliable, so those two things together make it impossible for me to play something, make a change, then play it again to evaluate the difference. Unless of course, the difference is huge, i.e., something's broken!
        
        Unfortunately, that's the highly flawed method just about everybody uses.
RE: kick in the rear end. - genungo 09:49:45 09/12/14 (0)
Some would hardly perceive the kick at all, judging by the size of their buttocks.

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Crux Audio