Re: human versus spectral resolution ("Beerends, J.G. (John)" )

Subject: Re: human versus spectral resolution
From:    "Beerends, J.G. (John)"  <john.beerends@xxxxxxxx>
Date:    Thu, 3 Apr 2008 07:49:35 +0200

A good theory is never wrong, it only has a limited context in which it is valid. Newton was not violated by Einstein, we still use the laws of Newton, but in a limited context. Heisenberg is not violated by humans. Humans use a priori knowledge which is outside the scope of physics. Erik is right, we can build a machine that outperforms human observers using the same a priori knowledge. John Beerends -----Original Message----- From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception [mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Richard F. Lyon Sent: donderdag 3 april 2008 6:02 To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: human versus spectral resolution At 9:24 PM -0400 4/2/08, Erik Larsen wrote: >if you don't set constraints on digital analysis, it can always >outperform a human on any task (assuming you can come up with a smart >enough algorithm). And a human shouldn't be able to do better than >theory predicts - unless the theory is wrong... But the theory is often wrong, so it's a useful question to ask. Dick This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at

This message came from the mail archive
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University