tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post7161139424796236226..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: The Shepard toneEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-59251530775332332502012-05-04T14:54:19.552+00:002012-05-04T14:54:19.552+00:00I agree that the Shepard tone is not an example of...I agree that the Shepard tone is not an example of a perceptual contradiction.<br /><br />We perceive the tone as continually ascending in pitch. We do not perceive it as staying the same in pitch. When we recall a previous pitch and compare it to the current pitch, we judge that they are the same, but this involves recall, so it is not perception.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-8470351599440051482012-05-04T13:01:03.406+00:002012-05-04T13:01:03.406+00:00I have an analysis here.I have an analysis <a href="http://tillyandlola.blogspot.com/2012/05/egregious-tone.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-44588625670338053782012-05-04T00:45:33.854+00:002012-05-04T00:45:33.854+00:00"It says (I paraphrase slightly) it is a tone..."It says (I paraphrase slightly) it is a tone that continually ascends in pitch, yet which ultimately seems to get no higher."<br /><br />You paraphrase horribly. The tone does not continually ascend in pitch. The tone creates the illusion that it continually ascends in pitch.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-84079602423266651512012-05-03T21:46:21.609+00:002012-05-03T21:46:21.609+00:00I can equally well say
Well ultimately (say 13 ho...I can equally well say<br /><br />Well ultimately (say 13 hours later) it is in a different place.<br /><br />But that would equally abuse 'ultimately', which, for me, presumes a final steady state. There is no such state in the Shepard tone or in the rotating clock hand.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-9555536395899217562012-05-03T21:03:59.663+00:002012-05-03T21:03:59.663+00:00>>As to the clock metaphor, how does the han...>>As to the clock metaphor, how does the hand 'ultimately not change place'? Surely it's changing place all the time even though it perennially returns to places it has visited before.<br /><<<br /><br />Well ultimately (say 12 hours later) it is in the same place. If you are in the same place, you haven't changed places. So, ultimately you haven't changed place.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-52526008052741009282012-05-03T20:28:45.907+00:002012-05-03T20:28:45.907+00:00I'm utterly baffled by your last two paragraph...I'm utterly baffled by your last two paragraphs :-(<br /><br />Is it that 'ultimately ascending in pitch' does not imply 'ascending in pitch'? I don't understand how you see 'ultimately' qualifying 'ascending'.<br /><br />As to the clock metaphor, how does the hand 'ultimately not change place'? Surely it's changing place all the time even though it perennially returns to places it has visited before.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-82876965896455794562012-05-03T18:47:32.665+00:002012-05-03T18:47:32.665+00:00Surely it's another interpretation of "&l...Surely it's another interpretation of "<"? Think of rotation, or a clock. It's 1 o'clock. The movement from 1 to 2 is plus 1 hour. And likewise 2 to 3, 3 to 4 etc. Then 12 to 1, gets us back to 1, yet we have still added an hour.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-25939859852404500952012-05-03T14:31:01.863+00:002012-05-03T14:31:01.863+00:00The problem with (3), I think, is that if we inter...The problem with (3), I think, is that if we interpret 'ascends in pitch' as p1<p2 & p2<p3 & p3<p4 &..., or in other words, ∀n. p(n)<p(n+1), and we interpret 'does not ultimately ascend in pitch' as ∃n. ~p(n)<p(n+1), then we do indeed have a contradiction. Or is there another interpretation of 'ultimately'?David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.com