From: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation®grnail.corn> To: Ed Boyden Subject: Re: Thanks Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 12:33:45 +0000 agreed, . On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Ed Boyden < wrote: I agree we need to analyze the music -- for the brain, that would be the behavior, I guess? -- but I would also argue that focusing on the music has been the traditional way people have done things, yielding the very successful field of psychology. Right now we can delve into the mechanisms by which the music is generated, however -- and almost certainly that will require far better descriptors and understandings of the music itself! So in summary, to advance psychology beyond the current state, we need radically new tools to map the brain, and then we will have such detailed mechanism that we can push the description of the music forward too. Ed On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Jeffrey Epstein [email protected]> wrote: > agreed.. but i also need to understand the music and well as the musician, > . can we recognize music from the signals. probably. ? regularities , > coherence.. is there a program that can say this signal is a music as > opposed to conversation.? you are doing great work and i will follow > closely > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Ed Boyden > wrote: >> I certainly hope that nobody is proposing absurd reductionism! >> Certainly we are not. We do value *precision* however -- we need to >> measure the system at the correct level of abstraction, to find the >> building blocks that we know are important, if we ever want to be >> constructive and build up again. >> The problem with analogies that are very simple and >> physics-oriented, is that while they can display complexity to be >> sure, they rarely compute anything particularly profound -- even >> things like lightning or self-organized criticality or even chaos. >> They look cool, but they don't generate intelligence, right? >> For the brain: there's complexity of structure tha