Blesser, B., & Salter, L.-R. (2007).
Spaces speak, are you listening? Experiencing aural architecture. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Added by: sirfragalot 12 Feb 2014 16:37:10 Europe/Copenhagen
Summarizing Nicholas Humphrey's (2000) view "that evolution progressively shifted sensory awareness of external stimuli from publicly observable reactions to private experiences."
The authors begin a chapter on auditory spatial awareness as evolutionary artefact with "the premise that the aural experience of space contributed, at least indirectly, to the reproductive success of our species. From a narrow perspective, our brain evolved specialized auditory substrates that could incorporate spatial attributes into awareness. But, from a broader perspective, auditory spatial awareness also contributes to our ability to thrive in socially complex groups."
Hermann, T., & Ritter, H. (2004). Sound and meaning in auditory data display.
Proceedings of the IEEE, 92(4), 730–741.
Last edited by: sirfragalot 25 Jun 2013 12:29:07 Europe/Copenhagen
"...the laws of physics themselves can be viewed as a kind of context information for extracting meaning from sound events. Compared to other contexts, the context given by physical laws was stable all the time, so that evolution had ample time to adapt our brains extremely well to the ways how physics links sounds and their causes."
Humphrey, N. (2000). The privatization of sensation. In C. Hayes & L. Huber (Eds),
The Evolution of Cognition (pp. 241–252). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Added by: sirfragalot 02 Mar 2014 17:37:19 Europe/Copenhagen
How is it that there are subjective qualities to conscious sensory experiences, the "privatization of sensation", yet it appears, if evolutionary theory is to be believed, that biological survival "operates in the public domain" (p.251)? Humphrey says that the answer is that the "primitive activity of sensing slowly became "privatized"–that is to say, removed from the domain of overt public behavior and transformed into a mental activity that is now, in humans, largely if not exclusively internal to the subject's mind." (p.251)
This, of course, is not an explanation of why this might have occurred.