Qualia8,
There is a vast array of specializations among the neurons in the brain. Some, as you pointed out, detect differences, others sameness; yet others, change or motion or timing, etc. Ignoring that complexity, may lead both sides of this discussion to over-simplification at best and to closed-mindedness at worst.
With that in mind, let me add the flip side to my previous post to you. The after-effects may not only smear differences, but they may also distort sameness. Take for example the two abstract amorphous paintings containing a rich array of colors in my living room. Everyone who looks at either one, reports the same phenomena. The colors change, the amorphous shapes change and those shapes move. Now, we know the painting remains the same. The changes are the result of the brain's processing. It appears the after-images of the various colors "combine" with the direct stimuli to produce a change in the perception, which in turn forms it's after-images which "combine" with the subsequent direct stimuli, etc. What follows is a sequence of illusory changes which create a dynamic that is not there.
This perceptual phenomena of after-images has been studied but it has not been eliminated. The temptation to reduce it's effect by taking micro-second intervals of music, automatically prejudices the methodology against percieving differences that require longer intervals; for example, decay and rhythm.
The debate with probably go on. In the meantime, it's good to have a discussion that produces more illumination than heat.
Enjoy the Music,
John
There is a vast array of specializations among the neurons in the brain. Some, as you pointed out, detect differences, others sameness; yet others, change or motion or timing, etc. Ignoring that complexity, may lead both sides of this discussion to over-simplification at best and to closed-mindedness at worst.
With that in mind, let me add the flip side to my previous post to you. The after-effects may not only smear differences, but they may also distort sameness. Take for example the two abstract amorphous paintings containing a rich array of colors in my living room. Everyone who looks at either one, reports the same phenomena. The colors change, the amorphous shapes change and those shapes move. Now, we know the painting remains the same. The changes are the result of the brain's processing. It appears the after-images of the various colors "combine" with the direct stimuli to produce a change in the perception, which in turn forms it's after-images which "combine" with the subsequent direct stimuli, etc. What follows is a sequence of illusory changes which create a dynamic that is not there.
This perceptual phenomena of after-images has been studied but it has not been eliminated. The temptation to reduce it's effect by taking micro-second intervals of music, automatically prejudices the methodology against percieving differences that require longer intervals; for example, decay and rhythm.
The debate with probably go on. In the meantime, it's good to have a discussion that produces more illumination than heat.
Enjoy the Music,
John