[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Difference between cognition and perception?
> 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
> > 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
> 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
> 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