[Smt-talk] digression: pulse & Pieces with improvisatory openings

[JAY RAHN]

I wouldn't equate imagining with generating, if generating is meant to refer to something like 'free will.' In a classic behavioural account, the imagining in the experiment by Nozaradan et al. would be construed as a response to a stimulus, where the stimulus consisted of the instructions given to the participants (e.g., imagine accents on every 3rd tone) and the tones they actually heard.

Jay Rahn, York University (Toronto)


>________________________________
>From: Michael Morse <mwmorse at bell.net>
>To: jayrahn at rogers.com; smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
>Sent: Monday, November 7, 2011 10:17:25 PM
>Subject: RE: [Smt-talk] digression: pulse & Pieces with improvisatory openings
>
>
> 
>Thanks, Jay, for this interesting and germane citation. If I understand the data correctly, it supports my contention that pulse is not a quintessentially matter of perception. Rather, the data suggest the more cautious thesis that perceived impulse and imagined pulse transpire in different regions of the brain--which is of course enough prima facie to make the point that the pulse phenomenon is not (necessarily) primarily rooted in the perception of external stimuli.
>
>I think this study also suggests that pulse may not be so much a neurological or even psychological matter, but an epistemological question. At the very least, the generative capacity and socially shared & shareable quality are its core; arguably, these are not neurological concepts, although neurological patterning is involved. Metaphysics has been getting a bad rap for more than a century, mostly with good reason. It's rather nostalgic to find an issue where it may be of some use!
>
>MW Morse
>Trent University
>Peterborough, Oshawa
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20111109/8e55f80d/attachment-0003.htm>