Archive: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/XuAaf | Excerpts:
According to the Ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras, 'consonance'—a pleasant-sounding combination of notes—is produced by special relationships between simple numbers such as 3 and 4. More recently, scholars have tried to find psychological explanations, but these 'integer ratios' are still credited with making a chord sound beautiful, and deviation from them is thought to make music 'dissonant,' unpleasant sounding.
But researchers from the University of Cambridge, Princeton and the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, have now discovered two key ways in which Pythagoras was wrong.
First: "We prefer slight amounts of deviation. We like a little imperfection because this gives life to the sounds, and that is attractive to us."
Second:
"Western research has focused so much on familiar orchestral instruments, but other musical cultures use instruments that, because of their shape and physics, are what we would call 'inharmonic.'"
"Our findings suggest that if you use different instruments, you can unlock a whole new harmonic language that people intuitively appreciate, they don't need to study it to appreciate it. A lot of experimental music in the last 100 years of Western classical music has been quite hard for listeners because it involves highly abstract structures that are hard to enjoy. In contrast, psychological findings like ours can help stimulate new music that listeners intuitively enjoy."
You might want to think about your broken logic here a bit.
While they may have said it in a confrontational way, flora is right. Humans are prone to pattern recognition, but we are often bad at getting it right. Evolutionary we don't need it to be precise. There is little functional difference between 10 predators in the bushes and 15 predators in the bushes. The problem is that we very often see patterns where there are none. Pareidolia, Type I & II errors, and the Gambler's Fallacy are all great, very common, examples of that.
Oh OK, so you're trolling, right? I thought that kind of behavior was not welcome on beehaw?
The guy is literally named after Bill Hicks and you think he's trolling when he implies that human pattern recognition might be something profound?
Like, come on.
We're not obligated to be hard-line skeptics as a species. The vast majority of us are not.
I've never heard of Bill Hicks... So are they trolling or not? Still cannot say. Seeing it as trolling seemed a more favorable interpretation of their tangled word salad.