The author here is describing how the human mind processes information. The emphasis of this was to describe the complexity of human hearing. Using aural patterns helps humans describe an environment in ways that visual perception cannot.
The concept of sound to describe the environment in concert with other senses or even as its own isn't new. The author uses hummingbirds as a metaphor to explain the concept of aural stimulation amongst animals compared to humans and quickly outlines an exciting point.
Animals don't discriminate between "good" and "bad " sounds, and instead, they accept sound as a form of communication or interest wholistically.
The Patterns in sound describe a varied mix of ideas in humans, intelligence being one. This is an exciting take on the concept of "real" and not "real" about meaningful and nonmeaningful sounds.
Do humans value sound in a different way than other species? Is that a mark of "intelligence" vs. mimicry? Or are sounds only what they are, and humans ascribe meanings onto them in ways that other Inman's don't need to interact with the world.
Is the human mind more of a "mind" because it can generate and understand sound differently? Are artist expressions a sign of a more remarkable ability to enhance the world or not.
Humans also may perceive sound differently and give that meaning based on preconceived notions: think back to the YANNY/ LAUREL argument; people can hear both, but if primed, hear a specific one over the other
(It's two sound files in opposition, YAMMY and LAUREL, are both stated but and different frequencies, so if appropriately tuned, you hear the correct work always and never the other. ) This is a human trick, but also only would likely work on humans due to the nature of how a human wants to process sound.
That is the kind of artwork itself; that humans perceive based on other aspects of our lives.
YANNY / LAUREL (EXTERNAL LINK!)
—— Interestingly enough: This is a break down of that
Are birds less equipped to handle comple sounds? They dont seem to care about the idea of what or whom, just (is).
Pythagoras And Plato; both saw (haha get it?) sound and helped them visualize the concept of math in ways they may not have if not for hearing the ideas. This (visual) is something that helps connect aspects of sound to “site” — in the minds eye
The ear is a gateway to the brain, with a higher nerve count that eyes; though personally I find that to be a lacking answer; as human ears have such limited range: I personally suspect the ear is less sensitive and more robust than the eye
The minds eye isnt real; yet is. It helped the ancients understand things in ways I dont think modern humans could. This is what I feel led many to being the great schoalrs they were: forced into imaginative processes, sounds, sites, touch, taste, and smells are required a strong mental idea of what was, and what wasn’t. Because of this the way the ancients and now even today we uses these senses to generate mental images: say CAT, anyone who listens will almost immediate visualize a cat (or the word cat or however they process visual information) meaning is auditory illusion stronger than visual? Maybe who knows buts its cool to think about.
Comments