Re:Before you all jump on the hate-them bandwagon.
on
lowercase music
·
· Score: 1
It was actually meant as a bit of a sarcastic comment, since, after all, they have to listen to their own creations. Merit doesn't grow out of snobbery.
Good music is "hard to listen to", which means that on the first listening, you won't pick up all the subtle details in the rythm, undertones or even the lyrics.
Very true. Much in the same way that a fine piece of literature will not expose itself in the first [or first several] reads, quality music requires attention, on the parts of both the listener and the composer, to be fully appreciated.
Before you all jump on the hate-them bandwagon. .
on
lowercase music
·
· Score: 3, Funny
. . . you should consider that an artist deserves some respect for being consistently unlistenable. How many of you out there like Aphex Twin? You have to admit that, though brilliant, tracks like "Bucephalus Bouncing Ball" probably wouldn't go over well with the average listener.
Electronic music is the new outlet for kids who ten years ago would have sat in a garage with a bunch of friends and a guitar. It offers a sometimes cheap and always flexible way to release your musical boognish.
That being said, these people probably shouldn't have been written up anywhere outside of their best friends' websites. Any movement for which "there may be 10,000. . . fans around the world" probably isn't worth paying much attention to. The article seems to be more focused on the fact that the musicians use Macs. Surprise, nobody!
I'm not making a "you don't know what the next big thing is" speech, because, quite frankly, this is far from it. People still prefer 4/4 beats and sound samples with the word "booty" in them. But I wonder how many of those out there ridiculing these guys now are going to be the same ones that whine to their friends two years down the road when their favorite minimalist techno band sells a song for a car commercial.
I don't see why caffeine won't do the same damn thing -- or typing, or tapping your foot, or twirling your pen, for that matter.
Hello, my name is wild speculation.
on
Pilot of My Soul
·
· Score: 3, Informative
It has long been known that the brain reacts to out-of-the-ordinary or meaningful stimuli more than others, and this is further support for that.[If you're really adventurous, check out material on the P300 event-related potential.] However, their claims about it's responsibility are a bit overzealous.
While it was obvious that rats and monkeys really liked having their reward centers stimulated, it's been unclear whether the dopamine reward system is sufficient for learning or is just one method by which it occurs.
Correlation between external reward and internal excitation does point to the possibility that dopamine does something important, but to make the leap and say that a specific tract is responsible for unconscious decision-making is like saying "well, the power cables connect to everything in my machine, so the power supply must be where all the processing is done."
Yes, axons from the midbrain ennervate much of the cortex, but so do axons from most any other brain structure. This is the big problem with neurophysiology: just because an area of the brain looks to be a part of one structure [either by location or by transmitter type] doesn't mean it is.
I do agree, however, that most everything that goes on up there [points to head] goes on outside the realm of consciousness. That comment, however, belongs to a debate far older than me.
Re:Integrating protheses in the neural loop
on
Think And Click
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Indeed. Prosthetics are the most plausible useful application of this technology for the near future. I still puzzle at the claim that several neurons were identified in the initiation and control of volutary movement, though. Every voluntary muscle command channel contains several feedback loops that essentially dampen and modify the signal to ensure that the movement doesn't overshoot or fall short of the target. These signals come from cells within muslces that inform the brain of the amount of current tension in the muscle and from specialized neurons within the joints that report flexion angle with one-degree accuracy.
People without the most important of these channels basically have Parkinsons. They can initiate action, but the action is delayed because they have a difficult time ending their previous action. Similarly, they shake violently the entire time, because of the grossly overestimated signals coming from their motor cortex. This makes me wonder how fine the mouse movement control could have been on the part of the monkey. People with parkinsons are severaly disabled, but might still be able to complete such a large-scale task with 90% accuracy, too.
To really use this for prosthetics, you'd have to not only detect the impulse to commit the action, but you'd also probably have to send signals back up via the remaining somatic nerves [in the case of amputation] or directly into the brain [in the case of degenerative disease.] Mental signals are not a matter of On or Off, they are on a sliding scale from strongly inhibitory to strongly excitatory. Signal regulation is the golden egg.
If these are the few neurons responsible for initiation of reaching action, how can the rest of the system determine when the monkey means to reach normally or reach virtually? I'd like to know whether there was any twitch in the arm when the mental cursor was moving.
There is a fantastic difference between "up, down, left & right" and "reach for and grasp object 3 feet from here." It's nice to see enthusiasm, but it's a little premature.
Slashdot Mirror
It was actually meant as a bit of a sarcastic comment, since, after all, they have to listen to their own creations. Merit doesn't grow out of snobbery.
Good music is "hard to listen to", which means that on the first listening, you won't pick up all the subtle details in the rythm, undertones or even the lyrics.
Very true. Much in the same way that a fine piece of literature will not expose itself in the first [or first several] reads, quality music requires attention, on the parts of both the listener and the composer, to be fully appreciated.
. . . you should consider that an artist deserves some respect for being consistently unlistenable. How many of you out there like Aphex Twin? You have to admit that, though brilliant, tracks like "Bucephalus Bouncing Ball" probably wouldn't go over well with the average listener.
Electronic music is the new outlet for kids who ten years ago would have sat in a garage with a bunch of friends and a guitar. It offers a sometimes cheap and always flexible way to release your musical boognish.
That being said, these people probably shouldn't have been written up anywhere outside of their best friends' websites. Any movement for which "there may be 10,000. . . fans around the world" probably isn't worth paying much attention to. The article seems to be more focused on the fact that the musicians use Macs. Surprise, nobody!
I'm not making a "you don't know what the next big thing is" speech, because, quite frankly, this is far from it. People still prefer 4/4 beats and sound samples with the word "booty" in them. But I wonder how many of those out there ridiculing these guys now are going to be the same ones that whine to their friends two years down the road when their favorite minimalist techno band sells a song for a car commercial.
I don't see why caffeine won't do the same damn thing -- or typing, or tapping your foot, or twirling your pen, for that matter.
It has long been known that the brain reacts to out-of-the-ordinary or meaningful stimuli more than others, and this is further support for that.[If you're really adventurous, check out material on the P300 event-related potential.] However, their claims about it's responsibility are a bit overzealous.
While it was obvious that rats and monkeys really liked having their reward centers stimulated, it's been unclear whether the dopamine reward system is sufficient for learning or is just one method by which it occurs.
Correlation between external reward and internal excitation does point to the possibility that dopamine does something important, but to make the leap and say that a specific tract is responsible for unconscious decision-making is like saying "well, the power cables connect to everything in my machine, so the power supply must be where all the processing is done."
Yes, axons from the midbrain ennervate much of the cortex, but so do axons from most any other brain structure. This is the big problem with neurophysiology: just because an area of the brain looks to be a part of one structure [either by location or by transmitter type] doesn't mean it is.
I do agree, however, that most everything that goes on up there [points to head] goes on outside the realm of consciousness. That comment, however, belongs to a debate far older than me.
Indeed. Prosthetics are the most plausible useful application of this technology for the near future. I still puzzle at the claim that several neurons were identified in the initiation and control of volutary movement, though. Every voluntary muscle command channel contains several feedback loops that essentially dampen and modify the signal to ensure that the movement doesn't overshoot or fall short of the target. These signals come from cells within muslces that inform the brain of the amount of current tension in the muscle and from specialized neurons within the joints that report flexion angle with one-degree accuracy.
People without the most important of these channels basically have Parkinsons. They can initiate action, but the action is delayed because they have a difficult time ending their previous action. Similarly, they shake violently the entire time, because of the grossly overestimated signals coming from their motor cortex. This makes me wonder how fine the mouse movement control could have been on the part of the monkey. People with parkinsons are severaly disabled, but might still be able to complete such a large-scale task with 90% accuracy, too.
To really use this for prosthetics, you'd have to not only detect the impulse to commit the action, but you'd also probably have to send signals back up via the remaining somatic nerves [in the case of amputation] or directly into the brain [in the case of degenerative disease.] Mental signals are not a matter of On or Off, they are on a sliding scale from strongly inhibitory to strongly excitatory. Signal regulation is the golden egg.
If these are the few neurons responsible for initiation of reaching action, how can the rest of the system determine when the monkey means to reach normally or reach virtually? I'd like to know whether there was any twitch in the arm when the mental cursor was moving.
There is a fantastic difference between "up, down, left & right" and "reach for and grasp object 3 feet from here." It's nice to see enthusiasm, but it's a little premature.