Hi there Sarah. Sarah Fox wrote: >Hi Ric, > >OK, my friend, STALEMATE!! STALEMATE!! ;-) > > Grin... moving a few pawns sideways and trying to use a rook diagonaly is hardly a stalemate my dear :) >In parting, and I suppose by way of apology to you and/or the list, please >understand that my comments are from the standpoint of a neurobiologist. I >was not trying to diminish what a pianist or a human being is -- or suggest >for even a moment that a pianist is a biological PianoDisk system! > But you just do... right below... like it or not :) but no apology seems needed as far as I can see.... > I was >simply trying to explain how these complex sorts of movements are made -- >that indeed there are complex motor programs that our brains execute. When >someone throws a ball to you, and you reach your hand out and catch it, >rather automatically, it's really an honest-to-goddess motor program that is >responsible, and most of it is done with your cerebellum. That doesn't mean >you don't have control! > You know... I understand science folks tend to get offended when you challange them on their own grounds.. (for reasons that will forever baffle me) But really... like it or not you all know precious little about how things really work inside there... Oh I know you want to think all this poking around with electrodes has given you deep insights... but the amount of unknowns and uncertains is so overwhelmingly huge in comparison. It kind of limits the degree of conclusions you can make from what you think you know already. The motory functions alone, could they indeed be even remotly isolated from the rest of the human <<system>> (to use terminology you seem confined too), are interdependent with so many other <<functions>> to thee degree as to preclude any such simplistic definition of them as <<simple biological programs>>. Not to mention the host of totally unknowns, unexplained, and all to often just plain written off issues such as "creativity", "intuition", and whatever other "sixth sense order" attributes human kind posess. You can no more reduce the motory functions involved in the finger setting the key in motion to a simple set of biological programs then you can define sentience as a more complicated one. But by all means... keep on trying. >Your cerebellum is really quite good (amazingly >good) at what it does. Like it or not, the big blobs of tissue inside our >skulls are beautiful, highly sophisticated biological computers. > > Ah... you reveal yourself at last. I would submit that that particular perspective is highly debatable at its very very best. >Unfortunately I am too quick to forget that people are offended by this >thought, for reasons that will forever baffle me. > > You misunderstand. I am not offended... quite amuzed is more like it. You've used all kinds of ploys to try and avoid the obvious conclusion that simply must be made. That a reduction of friction reduces ones ability to control the mechanism. Sit on the AB-Blaster my dear. Your argumentation has boiled essentially down to two points. On the one hand you try and negate the brakeing affect that friction has in the first place by trying to show that said control is impossible to begin with.. due to time constrictions. You are then forced to refute that same by asserting that indeed there is control... but only control of the fingers themselves... which essentially means they dont even indirectly have any control over the piano itself... essentially the same arguement that states the hammer is in free flight as soon as the jack leaves contact with the knuckle, and the pianist has no more control over its destiny. You would have it that as soon as the finger touches the key its all over but the crying. You will forgive me of course if I cannot subscribe to that view :) When that didnt really play out for you... you then try a kind of reductionist line..... in this case defining motory functions as mere programs abundant with simplistic inference. Course if we really could define any human behaviour at all in this sense... then we could define is all thus... all behaviour is simply and nothing more then the result of programming. Of all the people in the world you should be one of the more keenly aware of the dangers of walking down that road. >Peace, >Sarah > > > Last but not least.. because the subject matter does deal with some interesting touch concerns.... this matter of inertia taking over frictions breaking role. First off... I have to say....wait a minute.. I thought you just stated the whole concept was moot from the get go... so why and how can this role be taken over by inertia ??!! But really, I'd like to point out that again... inertia can only go so far in this effort... and I would submit that again the statistical history of user preferences has shown just about where those parameters are. Somewhere around and very close to Stanwood 3/4 mediums. Remember David Loves commentary of about a year and a half ago ??? Where do you think this kind of thing comes from ? Tradition alone ??? Grin..... To mention a few of the factors involved... heavier hammers indeed increase hammer inertia... but they also increase touch weight in general... friction weight distrubted elsewhere in the action, action compliance problems, general wear and tear and much more. In addition... if you use same friction levels for hammer shank centers you will have to live with just that much more instablity relative to hammer travle. That same inertia will further stress center pin bushings in any off path direction. The point being you cant go very far in replacing frictions breaking role with inertia in the first place, a role you deny exists in the second place.... :) Once again... by all means tastes vary. But lets not try to use science to justify preferences as being correct or not. Rather...lets observe what the majority of people actually end up deciding feels best and accept the truth of the matter for what it is. (thanks to Standwood we actually have a rather huge chunk of real data available on that mark) Science can help us describe why those decisions are made... but it can only help in that endeavor.... and only then in so far as we are able to keep enough of the relavant points in their proper perspectives and balance any equation back and forth for each and every alteration we attempt to make. Cheers RicB
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC