Subject: Re: CIMESP-Results Fwd:
From: Eliot Handelman (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Nov 06 2005 - 19:00:36 EST
Morgan Sutherland wrote:
>>>So it's hard to see how the theory is wrong - although it's also hard
>>>to argue that it's complete.
>>It's also hard to see what the theory is trying to explain. In my
>>thinking, the shapes of music are
>>analogues of other perceptions that relate to things in the real world.
>I think it makes sense when those "perceptions" are not "in the real
>world", but are of other music.
Oh, I'm totally against that idea. Music comes from the brain. But it's
likely that we use modules other
than those specialized for music. For instance, the overall sense of
motion in a piece of music
could come from our spatial motion modules. Rather than "recognizing"
"oh yes, it's this," we
get the more visceral feel of energetic motion. To get this you have to
engage "real world" motion
sensing. You can evaluate this without referring to other music.
>When music is recalling bits and ideas from other pieces, if you
>recognize them, that's where the "reward" occurs.
What do you mean by reward?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:14 EST