See you one and raise you two, was: harmonic vs. inharmonic sounds (one last time)

[Kevin Austin <kevin.austin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 Al Bregman <al.bregman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in part:

> Take the case of two voices on different pitches heard at the same 
> time. To create a separate representation for each one, the auditory 
> system would have to detect two fundamental frequencies (or 
> periodicities).

The physio-mechanics of this is far beyond me. I am intrigued that in 
listening to (say) a middle-Act Mozart opera finale with five people 
singing five different texts, and melodies, I am able to pick out all 
the fundamentals and spectral elements (formant structures), do a 
tonal-harmonic analysis, think and feel the emotional impact, do a 
very rough translation, evaluate the intonation of all of the singers 
and the orchestra, and listen to the general and specific quality of 
the orchestra and the conductor, either in "real" [sic] time or 
playing back from short-term or longer-term memory. These occur at 
different rates, which makes it easier, but (sometimes) means that 
they are also asynchronous, occuring 'at some point' inside the 
measurement window.


My practical thought on this (practical as in teaching ear-training) 
is that there are mental grids against which I can match and measure 
each of the (sets of) parameters. My approach is that the grids are 
not objects, but processes which my mind calls upon and implements on 
an "as-needed" basis. In writing a sight-reading and dictation 
curriculum (2 year university level), my focus was always on 
developing robust "process grid-building" skills.

I am enjoying the Nadine Gaab article linked by Branka, (Thank you), who wrote:
> ... (unless you have a definition of cognition as being restricted 
> to conscious mental operations).

Sorry, I'm not a great believer in consciousness.


Best

Kevin