The origin of arts according to Harvard

[NorthStar]

---This is a philosophical thread about the Sound, the Vision, our Perceptions, our ART origins ...

We are free to respectfully discuss the subject(s), in any aspect we desire.

Nature in itself is pure (like ART should be, IMO); and men, women, and children are part of that nature (the human race), as all species of animals on Earth.

BUT! Man is good at manipulating nature: oil leaks, air pollution, ground pollution, spoiled soils, noises from factories, noisy machinery, visual pollution from skyscrapers that are truly ugly, space pollution from spaceship's debris in the higher atmosphere, water contamination, wars, etc., etc., etc.

This thread ain't 'bout room's treatments, but it could be too. It ain't 'bout sound travelling into space and time, but it could be too. It certainly ain't 'bout particular individuals, and it shouldn't.

Here, you got my piece of peace.
...The one that search for a higher plane, a better space, and smart answers from smart questions.

:b

 

[jkeny]

Tim,
The point that you seem to be missing is that we cannot wire the sound waves directly into the brain (as yet) - we are at the mercy of our PERCEPTION of hearing. Hearing is not just a microphone stuck on each side of our head - it is an active instrument under the control of the brain. The whole ball of ear wax (pardon the pun) is referred to as psychoacoustics, as you & Ethan well know. So the point is that sound is NOT acoustic waves, sound is a phenomena of psychoacoustics -to use the term "sound" in the loose way that Ethan does & then go on to try & defend it, is confusing for someone who has written a book called "The Audio Expert"

Let's use one of Ethan's often quoted psychoacoustic term - masking. So if an explosion causes the tree to fall & this also occurs at the same time as the tree hits the ground, is there a sound of the tree falling?

I recently watched a BBC Horizon program called BLINK in which the McGurk effect was shown but an even more interesting one is sight - there are separate parts of the brain that deal with just one aspect of the visual spectrum that we perceive - simplistically, one part deals with movement, a separate part deals with depth & another part deals with colour. These separate parts are amalgamated into an image plus other ancillary information.

Is sight just a waveform with wavelengths from about 390 to 750 nm? Is sound just a waveform from 20Hz to 20KHz?

 

[Ethan Winer]

So the point is that sound is NOT acoustic waves, sound is a phenomena of psychoacoustics -to use the term "sound" in the loose way that Ethan does & then go on to try & defend it, is confusing for someone who has written a book called "The Audio Expert"

You are very confused. I suggest you bow out now before you embarrass yourself further. And for gosh sakes, stop with the criticism and attacks already. That makes you look even more ridiculous and petty.

--Ethan

 

[jkeny]

You are very confused. I suggest you bow out now before you embarrass yourself further. And for gosh sakes, stop with the criticism and attacks already. That makes you look even more ridiculous and petty.

--Ethan

Please enlighten me & banish my confusion.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,
The point that you seem to be missing is that we cannot wire the sound waves directly into the brain (as yet) - we are at the mercy of our PERCEPTION of hearing.

I'm not missing that point, John, I just think it's rather pointless. The physical sound is there, whether you and your perceptions are or not. Do your perceptions alter the experience of that sound? Sure. So do mine. They proably perceive it differently. So if I'm there and you're not, are those vibrations "sound" for me but just uninterpreted data for you? Is nothing real until you, personally, perceive it? Small world eh?

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Accepting all the dangers of quoting just one sentence out of a brilliant text about the definition of sound I will quote F. Toole in Sound Reproduction about the famous falling tree (page 4) :

The inclusion of sound as both a physical event and a perceptual event is notable. It answers the popular riddle “If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make sound?” The answer is both yes and no. When the tree falls, it creates sound—the physical energy—propagating away in all directions. However, with no ears in the vicinity, there can be no perception of the physical event.

Toole considers that sound embraces creation , propagation and perception.

 

[Ron Party]

Notice of the ongoing personal attacks is, indeed, being taken. There will be no further personal attacks tolerated. None.

 

[Steve Williams]

Gentlemen

I have been informed of this thread and personal attacks on members. As Ron states, these will not be tolerated under any circumstances. Warnings have been issued and should they occur again, a temporary ban will be issued. If they still recur a permanent ban will result

 

[opus111]

I'm not missing that point, John, I just think it's rather pointless. The physical sound is there, whether you and your perceptions are or not.

There's your error - there is no 'physical sound'. What's physical are vibrations. Have you gone to YouTube and watched the video I suggested?

Do your perceptions alter the experience of that sound?

Your perception of sound is your experience of it. Or are you talking about other sensory input - like what you see or have eaten recently? In which case yes, all sensory input goes into the perception of sound. The video deals with visual input.

 

[JackD201]

If we are to take the definition of sound literally (Webster) where by definition vibration is sound when it can be heard by man or animal, it suggests a bandwidth and not actually require presence at the event by man or animal. Odds are there was at least one bug in the vicinity when that tree fell.

Why are we discussing this? Talk about missing the forest for the trees!

The main point of the article is that everything that makes its way to our brains is filtered by perceptional limits including data collected from technological "extensions" of our senses. For example, a generated chart or a graph is a visual representation that aids in comprehension. What's interesting to me is the appreciation of art and how much of it is instinctive and how much of it is learned or acquired.

 

[NorthStar]

--- Thy who can 'feel' the Earth's rotation and with all the world's vibrations is becoming closer to man's awereness and understanding. And only then he can fine-tune his environment in a balanced and harmonious tomorrow.

Let the rivers run clean and pure so that our future children can enjoy fishing in them.

And that, is what we forget to protect in the name of monetary profit & pollution of our environment (oil pipelines and all). We don't create art, we destroy it by not respecting it; and act for all the wrong reasons.

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? ...Ha!
It sure has an 'impact'.

 

[flez007]

The main point of the article is that everything that makes its way to our brains is filtered by perceptional limits including data collected from technological "extensions" of our senses. For example, a generated chart or a graph is a visual representation that aids in comprehension. What's interesting to me is the appreciation of art and how much of it is instinctive and how much of it is learned or acquired.

Thanks Jack!

 

[NorthStar]

---Eureka!? :b

 

[jkeny]

-snip-
The main point of the article is that everything that makes its way to our brains is filtered by perceptional limits including data collected from technological "extensions" of our senses. For example, a generated chart or a graph is a visual representation that aids in comprehension. What's interesting to me is the appreciation of art and how much of it is instinctive and how much of it is learned or acquired.

Yes, jack, I agree & would go further to state that the filtering is not a passive elimination of some part of the data but rather we interpret what we see hear & anticipate what's coming next - we form patterns, we predict, we make a whole which is more than the sum of it's parts. So a lot of what we perceive actually originates in the brain itself & not outside of it. In other words "reality" is just the stimulus for what we call "perception" & perception is very much our interpretation of those stimuli.

This is why we can "recognise" familiar objects from rudimentary sensory information - like a very pixelated image of the Mona Lisa is instantly recognised or we can sense the mood of someone we know on the telephone. We often use a restricted data set & generate the whole perception from this. It's also explains optical & auditory illusions http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13355-music-special-five-great-auditory-illusions.html

As is stated in the O/P article - a quote by Picasso "Art is the lie that helps us see the truth" - we could say the same about perception!

 

[JackD201]

Indeed!

 

[opus111]

If anyone's interested in digging deeper into the science of perception as it relates to our visual reality, I can't recommend this book highly enough. Its by a prof at UC, Irvine just so as y'all get some balance http://www.amazon.com/Visual-Intelligence-How-Create-What/dp/0393319679/

 

[flez007]

Art apreciation is the path to touch one's soul...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

There's your error - there is no 'physical sound'. What's physical are vibrations. Have you gone to YouTube and watched the video I suggested?

"Sound waves." We're talking semantics, not error vs accuracy. And we're not really even discussing the nature of sound. We're beating the dead horse of the most cliched zen thought puzzle ever created. Alan Watts must be giggling in his grave.

Tim

 

[opus111]

I take it that's a 'no' then.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I take it that's a 'no' then.

Take it as a "no need." There is no right answer here. Not in an article from Harvard. Not on youtube. It is a goofy puzzle reduced to goofier semantics.

Tim