> > > agreed, but there has to be some correlation between sight and hearing >> because of the cognitive processes involved in perception. In sight and >> hearing, the mechanism of the cognitive processes will be identical. So >> what percentage of a perception is cognitive? 10%, 50%, 90%? >> > > in discussions like these, the only way to win is not to play :-D >
My apologies, I don't mean to bury the discussion. By questioning the role that cognitive processes play in perception I am really just continuing to challenge the assumption that we can approach 'reality-equivalence' through the (technological) physical modelling of sound informed by the scientific observation of the perception of stimuli. Actually, I thought of a test that could establish the role of the cognitive dimension. Here it is: Create a concert environment, with lots of speakers set up in a circle, 16, 32 ... whatever number is convincing of super-dooper technology. Blindfold all participants. Allow for a largish corridor straight through the centre of the listening area. Get a horse, a real horse. Walk the horse through the listening area. After the 'performance', ask the participants how realistic the sound of the horse was ... on a scale of 1-100%. My hypothesis is that there will be people who will score below 100%. And if they do (this is very un-scientific of me ... I should just do the experiment), then this demonstrates that even if technology can recreate the exact stimuli that is heard in real-life, it is not sufficient to create a successful illusion of reality... or to create reality-equivalence. Etienne -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120612/8f269f8d/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
