Subject: Re: Difference between cognition and perception? From: Andrew Milne <andymilne(at)DIAL.PIPEX.COM> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:20:54 +0100> Martin Braun wrote: > > > > > Most in speech remains on a perceptional level. > > Only a small part can possibly reach the level of cognition. > > And only a small part of the small part that can reach cognition actually > > does so. > > And even smaller part can become aware to a listener. > > > > > Musically, I've come to think of this just in opposite terms: > > at the lowest level is awareness, (I know something is out there, but > not much more). > and then cognition, ( I attempt to grasp the thing through familiar > categories) > and finally perception. (I grasp the thing, it speaks to me, I > experience it). > > These are just words, and the other permutations are probably > also arguable. In the case of music, perception seems to me much > more complex than cognition, though obviously in part > driven by cognition: but this is because, as in all of the arts, we > don't throw away the percept once we've extracted its meaning. > > Consider here the diifference in force between "I had a perception" > and "I had a thought". One is a forceful insight to which you > were suddenly awakened -- the other is something about which > you probably feel much less certain. > > "Perception" seems to involve an integrated experience, whereas :cognition" > seems to refer to the analysis (or analytical components) > of such experience. > -- eliot > ------ > eliot handelman phd > music & ai > montreal, qc If the definitions of these two words really are as flexible as many of the responses so far indicate, then I think they are very dangerous words to use -- not because they don't have the potential to denote meaningful concepts, but because they don't have a consensual denotation. I like these words and it would be a shame to lose them. This is probably not the appropriate place, but could we try to approach a consensus on a meaningful definition here? Andy Milne