> Rick has brought up that psychoacoustics is physiology rather than psycho-
> logy: it is the study of how perception of sound is affected equally among
> all humans by our ears and brains rather than individually by our minds, so
> thinking one MD brand sounds better than another is not psychoacoustic at all
> by that definition.
Rick's definition of psychoacoustic, may not be correct or may be partially
correct. If you were to look at it as purely physiological then any suffix with
the prefix psycho in front of it would also apply as long as the effect is not
limited to a single individual.
If you really want to get a scientific discussion of the term psycho, it could be
argued that anything affecting the mind (and therefore the brain) is
physiological.
This is really an area that people have tended to mistakenly take for granted.
"Psycho is not real" so to speak. But that isn't necessarily true.
When you start to get into parapsychology the waters become even more muddy. And
para normal. Does that term really make any sense?
What is para normal? Just because something hasn't been proven or is not
commonly accepted, doesn't necessarily make it less then normal. or the term
quasi?
There is no real answers here because we are dealing in semantics and man made
definitions.
Larry
>
> David
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
> "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
