> > > The only reason it seems to me that the "hypothesis" has any meaning is > that (one presumes) the environment being represented is one that is > captivating but variously impossible, inaccessible or unaffordable; in > which case neither the condition nor the assertion is testable. Chances > are, 99.9% of people using a flight simulator will ~never~ experience the > real thing, so they really have no basis on which to evaluate its > authenticity, beyond the ~sense~ that it is in some way convincing, and is > in some to-be-defined cognitive sense transparent. So perhaps that > hypothesis is really trying to propose that an artificial environment in > which one ~forgets~ one is in an artificial environment, is equal to the > real environment it imitates.
this is the kind of argument argued in Gombrich's text on the visual arts "Art and Illusion". There is evidence supporting this in the audition as well. (I argue all this in my thesis). the argument essentially says that for something to appear real it has to fit people's *pre-conception* of what is real, rather than fit what actually is real. In other words, throw out veridicality (coincidence with reality), instead try to satisfy people's belief of reality. This is an other argument for questioning the extent to which physical modelling has the capacity to create illusions of reality in sound. It is perfectly possible that a more accurate illusion is actually perceived as less real than a less accurate one. Etienne -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120601/e589e92b/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
