Subject: Re: CIMESP-Results Fwd:
From: Morgan Sutherland (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Nov 06 2005 - 16:25:57 EST
> >>>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.
"This also follows with references
to "shapes...analogues of other perceptions that relate to things in
the 'real world'""
Why can't the concept apply to non-musical "modules"?
When music recalls a module or connection in the brain not "recalled"
before, that is where the "surprise" occurs.
When music recalls a module or connection in the brain previously
recalled (recalled often, or once in a while) you experience, rather
than the feeling of wonder, surprise, confusion etc., the feeling of
nostalgia, comfort etc.
And note, this (would) occur(s) on a linear (or
exponential/logarithmic) scale, not a polar one.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:14 EST