Trance Forum | Stats | Register | Search | Parties | Advertise | Login

There are 0 trance users currently browsing this page
Trance Forum » » Forum  Production & Music Making - How neuroscience can help us understand music
← Prev Page
1 2 3 4 5 Next Page →
First Page Last Page
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on StumbleUpon
Author

How neuroscience can help us understand music

Boobytrip
IsraTrance Junior Member

Started Topics :  39
Posts :  988
Posted : May 4, 2007 14:30
Pfff... Can neuroscience help us understand music ? I think only a little bit, and certainly not at all levels of description (electro-chemical, genetic, cellular, network, brain, subjective experience, etc.) . A neuroscientific study of music may reveal some aspects that were not known, but it will never tell the complete story, such as how it is for you to enjoy a really fat track that gives you goosbumps. It may explain the physical reaction of goosebumps maybe, but not how this particular track is experienced by you. I think understanding music is best approached from your own experience, because that's where the magic happens. Science is a powerful method, but it isn't suited for a lot of things, expecially things that are not objective and not repeatable, like for instance the experience of music or anecdotal evidence of telepathy. Can mathematics help us understand sex, maybe, but it won't be a lot of help.
bukboy
Hyperboreans

Started Topics :  40
Posts :  803
Posted : May 4, 2007 14:45
Heh heh heh

Dudes check out
David Temperleys - The cognition of basic musical structures. Its pretty interesting, and informative in an uncontrovertial way.
Its in the books section on www.magesy.net
Seppa


Started Topics :  8
Posts :  485
Posted : May 4, 2007 16:10
Quote:
TO say that it "always" come from irrational minds or from accident is simply true.



I meant not true
Seppa


Started Topics :  8
Posts :  485
Posted : May 4, 2007 16:27
Quote:
What I want to say is, that people who follow science blindly or only accept what enters the self announced holy circle of academics (or argue based on such a fact) close too many doors of traces and intuition which could lead to new revelations.

A person who leaves it all open, is much more likely to reveal something new, scientisticaly.



Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that even the most open minded will be rigourous in its research. but that does not stop you from being intuitive. No on e has the answer to all problems therefore often you will have to follow your intuition at some point.

I'm not an expert in enstein findings and such but it is hard for me to beleive that he did not act with rigor during his findings.

Seppa


Started Topics :  8
Posts :  485
Posted : May 4, 2007 16:34
Quote:
How neuroscience can help us understand music



Like I said earlier in the thread, I doubt that any findings will affect directly the way we make music at present....

there is a few reason for that:

1. none of these findings are being brought to the public in an easy understandable and usable fashion.

2. this finding aren't really conclusive...

3.it will take some more findings on the same subject to get something we can use...

4. the medium we use and the equipment does not allow us to work within the frequency range the study is refering to
subconsciousmind
SCM

Started Topics :  37
Posts :  1033
Posted : May 4, 2007 17:22
Quote:

On 2007-05-04 16:27, Seppa wrote:
Quote:
What I want to say is, that people who follow science blindly or only accept what enters the self announced holy circle of academics (or argue based on such a fact) close too many doors of traces and intuition which could lead to new revelations.

A person who leaves it all open, is much more likely to reveal something new, scientisticaly.



Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that even the most open minded will be rigourous in its research. but that does not stop you from being intuitive. No on e has the answer to all problems therefore often you will have to follow your intuition at some point.

I'm not an expert in enstein findings and such but it is hard for me to beleive that he did not act with rigor during his findings.



Sorry, I don't get what you want to say. Did you understand what I mean?

          Most of my music for you to download at:
http://www.subconsciousmind.ch
shamantrixx


Started Topics :  7
Posts :  549
Posted : May 4, 2007 17:45
Quote:

On 2007-05-04 16:10, Seppa wrote:
Quote:
TO say that it "always" come from irrational minds or from accident is simply true.



I meant not true



So as soon as you let your subconscious type the very next moment your conscious mind has an urge to correct earlier statement Interesting           "It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"

Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity
shamantrixx


Started Topics :  7
Posts :  549
Posted : May 4, 2007 17:48
Quote:

On 2007-05-04 14:45, bukboy wrote:
Heh heh heh

Dudes check out
David Temperleys - The cognition of basic musical structures. Its pretty interesting, and informative in an uncontrovertial way.
Its in the books section on http://www.magesy.net



Interesting stuff. Tnx for the tip           "It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"

Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity
Seppa


Started Topics :  8
Posts :  485
Posted : May 4, 2007 19:56
Quote:
So as soon as you let your subconscious type the very next moment your conscious mind has an urge to correct earlier statement Interesting



you are a very deep person aren't you !

adding a smiley to make it look like a joke does not hide the message if you know I mean

simply unbelievable!

mate i find your comments absurd in general. you are systematicaly preaching with very little real knowledge if you would ask me.



Seppa


Started Topics :  8
Posts :  485
Posted : May 4, 2007 20:08
subconscious :

Sorry I should have included this in the quote:
Quote:
Einstein only scientisticly revealed what he revealed, because he just "dreamed" and "believed" it at first.



I'm just not too sure how much he dreamed, if by dreaming you mean passion than we agree.
Seppa


Started Topics :  8
Posts :  485
Posted : May 4, 2007 20:23
Sorry but i just cannot stay quite about what will follow.

Shamantrix you sometime seem to have a point if it wasn't for all the crap you are feeding us with this total disinformation: irrelevant links, cheap talk that often covers the very first good argument you put in play.

There is nothing wrong with having a point of view but
you often put your personal opinion as a fact , and i'm not talking about this thread only.

by doing this you look like a fool in front of experienced people and you risk to mislead younger less experienced user.

so mate nothing wrong with your ideas and vision but try to put as it is : a point of view !!!
to this i add :
shamantrixx


Started Topics :  7
Posts :  549
Posted : May 5, 2007 04:10
@seppa: I'm sorry. If I had known that my statement will hurt you so much I would not write it

As for the rest of your post I can only repeat once again - PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!!!
- there are no facts on this world beside the fact that I (and everyone reading this post) am conscious. This is the ONLY fact each one of us knows.
- however, science is not able to prove consciousness or to record it in any way nor it can explain how does it work or comes into being. So the only fact in the world has no valid scientific proof.
- there is no way to prove that the world you see with your eyes exists anywhere except in your head. In fact, all the research seems to point in this direction. There is no matter in the universe. We make it real in our head by observing. Since you're so scientific I'm sure that you're aware of that.

So since we can not prove that what we see is real nor we can describe how we perceive that what can not be proven to be real... Is there a SINGLE fact in the entire scientific world or is it just "hi-tech fancy language religion"?

Now here's one more crap link with lecture from John Searle (UC Berkeley). View carefully and if you have any "scientific" disagreement or fact I would love to hear it.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3295448672203577230&q=beyond+dualism

There is no proof for anything. It's just a bunch of interlocking ideas, calculations, models, interpretations and believes. Science is nothing more than parallel religion. Often it is useful as a tool but when it comes to essence - science is blind.

And another crap link from Freeman Dyson. Professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=350379535220823176

Feel free to inform both professors that they risk to look like fools in front of experienced people           "It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"

Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity
Psycosmo
IsraTrance Junior Member

Started Topics :  42
Posts :  787
Posted : May 5, 2007 04:24
Quote:

On 2007-05-04 14:30, Boobytrip wrote:
Pfff... Can neuroscience help us understand music ? I think only a little bit, and certainly not at all levels of description (electro-chemical, genetic, cellular, network, brain, subjective experience, etc.) . A neuroscientific study of music may reveal some aspects that were not known, but it will never tell the complete story, such as how it is for you to enjoy a really fat track that gives you goosbumps. It may explain the physical reaction of goosebumps maybe, but not how this particular track is experienced by you. I think understanding music is best approached from your own experience, because that's where the magic happens. Science is a powerful method, but it isn't suited for a lot of things, expecially things that are not objective and not repeatable, like for instance the experience of music or anecdotal evidence of telepathy. Can mathematics help us understand sex, maybe, but it won't be a lot of help.




You are quite right, I did not pick the best title for this topic. A better title for it would have been "ethnomusicological neuroscience". The purpose of the study was clearly not "understand music" but rather to demonstrate the nervous systems ability to detect high-frequency air vibrations that are not directly "hearable" yet can in some way modulate brain activity and the perception of sounds that are audible. I guess I was came up with that title because I was thinking of this as one example of the many ways in which the scientific examination of how the body processes sensory information. Such knowledge could perhaps lead to new musical and artistic techniques.
The title I decided on did not convey those thoughts very well.

Anyway, I should have said all this to begin with instead of just posting that link under a not very well thought out title.
Thanks for bringin' it back on topic Boobytrip!
Seppa


Started Topics :  8
Posts :  485
Posted : May 5, 2007 04:55
Quote:
seppa: I'm sorry. If I had known that my statement will hurt you so much I would not write it


no worries you did not hurt my feelings.

Quote:
Feel free to inform both professors that they risk to look like fools in front of experienced people



Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I was talking about you, not about any professor. Are you a professor ? what is the name of your last study or research?

when you make a point you need to make sense mate , bombarding people with links does not proove your point especially when it doesn't make much sense.

the people related to the link are not concerned by any of the word i wrote to you.

truth is you are not even bothering explaining what's in the links

Why send a link just like that?
a smart way to convince people if your thoughts are based on info you collected , would be to give a detailed explanation of a subject in a coherant fashion and then back your well explained theorie or fact by a link where a good reference is mentioned.

here the latest example of what you do:

Quote:
Now here's one more crap link with lecture from John Searle (UC Berkeley). View carefully and if you have any "scientific" disagreement or fact I would love to hear it.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3295448672203577230&q=beyond+dualism



hence again
Quote:
irrelevant links, cheap talk that often covers the very first good argument you put in play.

shamantrixx


Started Topics :  7
Posts :  549
Posted : May 5, 2007 06:14
If you don't make sense from the reasoning about the only fact in our world and the nonsense about believe in proof... than I can't help you. It's fairly simple once you dare to look at it.           "It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"

Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity
Trance Forum » » Forum  Production & Music Making - How neuroscience can help us understand music
← Prev Page
1 2 3 4 5 Next Page →
First Page Last Page
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on StumbleUpon


Copyright © 1997-2025 IsraTrance