What about the gap between what we KNOW we hear or sense and what we DON’T know we sense?
A simple example would be “oh, I never noticed that until you pointed it out”.
OR
What “some” people/animals/plants sense that the rest of us do not.
We do NOT all have the same sensory abilities, let alone the equipment in our brains that filter or decode them. I’m not trying to sell cornflakes here but we are only beginning to understand and document our abilities so how do we know that we cannot sense beyond an instrument?
Serious scientific studies to measure our true abilities are still wearing baby booties.
Like so many things, if we don’t know that we can so why might we even try?
I just think that we as humans sell ourselves short. We always say “listen for yourself and draw a conclusion”. Then someone throws a “science” curve at us and we digress.
Science will NEVER catch up and there are 2 very good reasons for that but I can’t tell you yet.
Well I could but then “I’de have to kill ya”. [-X 
Gordon said: What about the gap between what we KNOW we hear or sense and what we DON'T know we sense?
This is very different from stating we can sense something that we are unable to measure. Rather, this only means we do not even know it is there. Thus, have no reason to even try and measure it. :)
Gordon said: [H]ow do we know that we cannot sense beyond an instrument?
We cannot definitively say this is the case. There is the possibility, however small, we can sense something a measuring instrument cannot currently detect. I have no idea what this might be, nor does anyone else, but it could be out there.
We do know that we can easily detect sounds, light, vibrations, touch, chemical composition (taste), PPM in air (smell), etc. at far lower levels than our senses can pick up. There is also the tremendous range of phenomena we can detect with instruments of which we have absolutely no ability to sense.
This does not prove we can measure everything we can sense, but it sure goes a long way in this direction.
What physical phenomena do you believe we can sense but cannot measure?
Gordon said: Science will NEVER catch up . . .
With what? :)
Science is always driven by answering questions. In this sense, it is always behind; if there is no question to answer or observation to explain there is nothing for the scientific method to explore. Science is always second, trailing a hypothesis.
Right now we cannot accurately predict earthquakes. Science is thus "behind" our desire to understand. This is not a failing of the scientific method, but a reflection of the complexity of the world.
Hopefully, there will always be more questions to explore. It would be quite dull if we knew everything.
Elk said: Rather, this only means we do not even know it is there. Thus, have no reason to even try and measure it. :)
Maybe it's a good thing some of us are. Probably more of a curse than a boon.
Data has really never interested me much. Perhaps because everyone knows it already?
I haven't signed up for the Mars trip yet though.
http://www.mars-one.com/en/faq-en/21-faq-selection/251-do-i-qualify-to-apply
Gordon said:
Maybe it's a good thing some of us are.
Are what?
If no one knows it is there, there is nothing to try and measure. We have no reason to look.
If it is a real phenomena, we can start to look for a way to quantify it.
If, on the other hand, one is looking for objective proof of an object of faith - which appears where you are headed - one will fail. This is simply not a question of science, but of metaphysics (as an aside, there is no metaphysical proof of any object of faith, much less a scientific foundation.) Faith is faith; you believe or you do not. Proof is an irrelevant construct in this realm.
To claim science is "behind" in explaining faith objects is like arguing dance fails to adequately explain architecture. Or how Zen Buddhism fails to explain orbital regression. Neither is "behind" or "fails," but each is grounded on fundamentally different precepts.
MMMMmmm
Just remember, EVERYTHING begins with a twinkle in the eyes.
I am all for proof but since abstract thinking is responsible for many NEW truths…
There is nothing proven that will not be disproven somehow since NOTHING is 100% correct. Even once proven.
There is much I must teach you, Grasshopper.
Boy has this discussion lost any meaningful focus. In an attempt to rein you back toward reality:
The discussion was of “harmonics in the early overload condition [which] might very well be causing the difference in sound coloration between tubes and transistors.”
Do you have anything to support your apparent assertion one can hear such harmonics, or any other sound, but which cannot be accurately measured?
I have no dispute that you may well “sense” all sorts of things for which there is no meaningful explanation. Besides, being convinced that glitter is made from unicorn droppings has a certain poetic quality. 
Gordon said: There is much I must teach you, Grasshopper.
With all respect, unlikely. A couple of years living and working with a master of Japanese pottery and an advanced degree in philosophy indicates otherwise. Been there. Done that. Tasted the Kool-Aid. Have the T-shirt . . . er . . . kimono.
On the other hand, I do not dispute any individual’s subjective experiences. They are his/her’s alone. What one believes is what one believes.
"On the other hand, I do not dispute any individual’s subjective experiences. They are his/her’s alone. What one believes is what one believes."
Elk-dude, you might get to keep the kimono but your advanced degree is in jeopardy! Subjective experience and beliefs are related but aren’t the same thing. I think you got a bit carried away after the glitter remark 
(PS - I didn’t know where glitter comes from!)
Anyway, I think you guys are talking past each other. Gordon’s general take on science portrays it in institutional light whereby he sees it as having socio-cultural hegemony over other belief systems. I think the cervid position is that science is a process for dealing with knowledge claims in a fairly well-developed set of routines. Both are plausible stances to maintain, but they do involve vastly different root conceptions of ‘what science is.’
Ahhh Soooo Gaijin.
Actually my “grasshopper” was meant tongue in cheek but it did actually serve a purpose in example.
EGO.
Whether we admit it to ourselves or not, our “views” are often dictated by the image of who we believe we are and form part of our persona or EGO. This indeed can make us somewhat rigid.
Before we get back to the “point” of the discussion, let’s look at the response to “There is much I must teach you, Grasshopper”.
Now this is simply in good fun so don"t throw a piece of pottery at my head. 
The retort was unlikely, -I have valid credentials and "experiences- On the other hand, I do not dispute any individual’s subjective experiences. They are his/her’s alone. What one believes is what one believes.
The sarcasm of cool-aid, t-shirt and been there- done that, infer that you have had enough experiences to develop a judgement that, for you, is complete, impenetrable and to be “protected” at all cost.
Now we know this is not necessarily your real position but as a master of Phsy an Pot it will be obvious that this is a textbook EGO-101 response and to be considered quite normal, actually, given the “grasshopper” stimulation.
Harmonics…
With an open mind and a pure heart…
I do believe that we hear, smell, feel, sense or whatever terms you wish to use, more that we presently acknowledge or are able to measure.
These “senses” are hugely affected by mood, conditions, and even our “views”.
This would account for different levels of enjoyment at different times and under the exact same conditions. When we are somehow distracted or otherwise affected, then we simply hear/feel less.
This also goes for our level of daily “awareness” of how much we are affected by habit, ego, fear etc.
By allowing our minds to get past the socially imprinted obstacles we ARE able to get back some of the “right brain” abilities that EVOLUTION has robbed us of.
Only then, grasshopper, might the overload of harmonics enhance our enjoyment, OR maybe not.
I think it would be fun to find out though.
:x :x
The problem with academic papers, for me, is that they are usually…uhm…how shall I say…academic.
Academia is fine and extremely important. I also like the nuts they make.
Another favorite quote:
, “Your rear view mirror is important. If used properly, it affords you opportunities to not only see the past, but to learn from it too. However, it’s small for a reason. It deserves some attention, but it shouldn’t be your focus. Why is your windshield larger than your rear view mirror? You need a wide field of view to clearly see all of today’s challenges and opportunities, and our leaders’ vision for tomorrow. If you’re to be a great Leader you’ll need to keep your eyes in front on what’s most important glancing into your rear view mirror just enough to ensure you shape your future with help from your past.