Perception of structure in novel music

Two experiments demonstrated the way in which musicians and nonmusicians process realistic music encountered for the first time. A set of tunes whose members were related to each other by a number of specific musical relationships was constructed. In Experiment 1, subjects gave similarity judgments of all pairs of tunes, which were analyzed by the ADDTREE clustering program. Musicians and nonmusicians gave essentially equivalent results: Tunes with different rhythms were rated as being very dissimilar, whereas tunes identical except for being in a major versus a minor mode were rated as being highly similar. In Experiment 2, subjects learned to identify the tunes, and their errors formed a confusion matrix. The matrix was submitted to a clustering analysis. Results from the two experiments corresponded better for the nonmusicians than for the musicians. Musicians presumably exceed nonmusicians in the ability to categorize music in multiple ways, but even nonmusicians extract considerable information from newly heard music.     

Mental extrapolation in patterns constructed from memory

Finke and Pinker (1982, 1983) showed subjects an array of dots followed by an arrow in a blank field, and asked them to determine whether the arrow pointed to any of the previously seen dots. Response times were linearly related to the distance between the arrow and the nearest dot, suggesting that subjects spontaneously used an internal scanning or extrapolation process to perform the task. We replicate and extend this finding by varying the retention interval, and by employing a paradigm in which subjects’ eyes are closed and the arrows are described to them using a coordinate scheme. We also show that subjects are unable to predict the form of the data when the task simply is described to them. Results suggest that mental scanning along a straight path can be performed on images reconstructed from memory, and that it does not depend on the ongoing perception of a continuous surface, on physical eye movements, or on demand characteristics.     

A demonstration of the costs and benefits of expertise in recognition memory

In their area of expertise experts know more potentially interfering facts than nonexperts do, yet their memory IS superior to that of nonexperts. This has been termed the “paradox of interference.” We proposed that the ability of experts to go beyond the information given allows them to infer the presence of items that might not otherwise be remembered. However, such inferences can also be detrimental to accurate recognition memory in that such inferences might become confused with actual targets. We examined the benefits and costs of expertise in two recognition memory experiments In which experts and nonexperts participated. Experts in Ex-penment 1 were knowledgeable about baseball; those in Experiment 2 were knowledgeable about Ohio geography. Distractors in both studies bore a synonymous, an inferential, or no special relation to the targets. In the last instance, experts had recognition memory superior to that of the nonexperts. When the distractors were related to the targets, however, the non-experts were superior. We proposed that experts' inferential behavior is a contributor to their generally superior memory, but that task demands can convert this asset into a liability.     

Take care of egotism,and redemption will take care of itself: Comments on Tracy Llanera's Richard Rorty: Outgrowing modern nihilism

This commentary critically examines two facets of Tracy Llanera's recent book Richard Rorty: Outgrowing Modern Nihilism. First, it considers her interpretation of Richard Rorty's redemptive project. It argues that, while Llanera succeeds in resolving tensions in Rorty's public-private distinction, her account downplays the role of abnormal discourse within projects of self-creation. Second, it raises several questions about Llanera's strategy for situating this redemptive project within debates concerning existential nihilism. On her view, one ought to follow Rorty in addressing the problem of egotism instead of the problem of nihilism, since the former is prior to the latter. But it is not clear who counts as an egotist, or why egotists are especially prone to becoming nihilists. Moreover, there are reasons to think that egotism and nihilism are fundamentally different kinds of problems.     

Humean nomic essentialism

Humeanism – the idea that there are no necessary connections between distinct existences – and Nomic Essentialism – the idea that properties essentially play the nomic roles that they do – are two of the most important and influential positions in the metaphysics of science. Traditionally, it has been thought that these positions were incompatible competitors. We disagree. We argue that there is an attractive version of Humeanism that captures the idea that, for example, mass essentially plays the role that it actually does in the laws of nature. In this paper we consider the arguments that have lead many to conclude that Humeanism cannot be combined with Nomic Essentialism; we identify the weaknesses in these arguments; and we argue in detail that a version of Humeanism based on a variant of the Best System account of laws captures the key intuitions behind nomic essentialism.