An interesting demonstration
...analyzing vs. listening...the opposite ends of the spectrum.I wish i would have written your post with so much well said with so much few words.... My deepest respect |
rudyb, thanks a bunch for that. I did and came up with this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k8fHR9jKVM This is even better than my original link. All of you tweak people need to watch this. Close your eyes and listen to the sound all the way through. It never changes with your eyes closed. The other tie-in here is the habit some of us have of closing our eyes when we listen. Visual input conflicts with what we hear. It is easier to hear accurately with your eyes closed. Imaging is particularly sensitive to this. This proves how badly visual input can screw around with what you hear. This also explains why nicer looking equipment seems to sound better and why manufacturers go to great length to make extraordinary looking gear when in reality they are doing nothing about sound quality. |
Visual input conflicts with what we hear. It is easier to hear accurately with your eyes closed. Imaging is particularly sensitive to this. This proves how badly visual input can screw around with what you hear. First thanks rudyb for this enlightening example..... But the McGurk effect is related to something way more complex than what you just said mijostyn... What you just said is not false, it is only a half truth.... It is common place for everybody that if a sellers of cars convince you that what you see is good and costly you will perveive it ADDING the new "cues" pointed to by the sellers to your first "perception" and they will mask reality or create a new one... But The McGurk effect POINTED to something way more deeper than what you just alleged it is... This effect manifested in 2 modes: COMBINATION or FUSION of sounds and images and COMPLEMENTARITY of the auditory brain with the visual visual brain confronted with a sound and an image interferential stimuli... Here is an example that illustrates the phenomenon of combination: Seen: "ba" (bilabial) Understood: /ga/ (velar) Perceived /bga/ (Result of the combination) Fusion: Seen: "ga" (velar consonant) Heard: /ba/ (biabial consonant) Perceived: ⁄da ⁄ (result = fusion phenomenon) Here for example the "da" is a new potential motivation for and or in this new syllable "da", reflecting also perhaps a past motivation for the sound "da" in the language, by association of the 2 interferential stimuli... The general motivation of the word or of the "root syllable" by new interferential "meaning" created by association participate of speech creative mechanism and history... MOTIVATION of sounds has his own genesis and history in speech history....From Plato to Saussure... In acoustic we create the world by translating it in "visual cues" which are informed takes on the world at large or of a room in speech perception or music listening... Then to allege that this effect point ONLY to non creative mistakes is a complete misunderstanding of this process for your " debunker politic".... Now this effect and his complementary double possible results, combination OR fusion, illustrate the way the brain of man work with integrating all aspect of Visual and Hearing half of the brain so to speak and is ablew to enlisten them in the motivation of sounds and images, MOTIVATION of one by the other, which is one of the deepest root of creative act of perception and of the creative gesture of speech production or of sounds or visual perception ... Not an effect related then ONLY AND MAINLY to misperception, illusion, negative biases...Not an effect that exist to illustrate only misperception This is not EVEN WRONG.... This is half truth.... By the way Science is not a debunker business first.....James Randi dont know what science is because he used it for his OWN AGENDA... Also ... we hear what we see.i will add that we see also what we hear.... Thanks rudyb.... |
