In Reply to: Re: Try it and hear (yes, but...) posted by wgeiger on July 3, 2001 at 03:02:00:
I certainly wasn't trying to intimidate you, Bill. I was trying to explain that Paul has a great deal of faith in and experience with the modeling procedures that you were implying he didn't understand, and I felt your post was a rather tangential argument to the point Paul was making. Ironically Pauls' background is in math, and mine is in physics. So you're preachin' to the choir.I hope Paul will correct me here, I think he was saying that expression of an experience from one individual to another individual is limited by the language used from ever approaching the data resolution received from the actual experience. If you want to know what a speaker will do, modeling is a great tool. Yet all the modeling in the world, will not match the experience gained by connecting the sucker to a source and listening to it and measuring it. You in fact seem to agree with this conclusion, and I admit I don't grasp why you have taken this corrective approach. You seem to express disdain at his mention that his passion for theoretical modeling allows him to see it as an art form.
Paul is one my best friends and someone whose balanced perspective of science and art I respect greatly. He has a firm grasp of the notion that we are dealing not only with the concept of attempting to create absolute fidelity in the narrowest sense, but that in a larger sense we must embrace that we are dealing with the use of this tool of absolute fidelity in the reproduction of an interpretive art form. I apologize if I have overreacted in his defense.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I apologize if you felt that was meant to intimidate - Doc B. 14:00:52 07/03/01 (1)
- Sorry - Somtimes I am too quick and miss the finer points. (NT) - wgeiger 14:32:44 07/03/01 (0)