Exactly--which is what I argued--that it shapes the attention in such a way as to allow a preternatural focus on sound. That is extremely difficult to do under more ordinary circumstances. Anyhow this entire discussion like so many before it will change no ones mind.
That's hyperbole.
Which means controlled subjective testing, and a focus on statistical empirical evaluations, when doing the science part.
I worship at the alter of mathematics, studied psychiatry and biophysics, and see them all as meaningful realms of inquiry. The questions in social science are more often intractable (such as what is consciousness), but every so often new questions lead to new insights. Who really gives a shit whether you need a calculator and pocket protector--science is about method, negative feedback, and an ever more refined model of the universe. This is true whether studying tribes in Papua New Guinea or working at the LHC. The elitism that unfortunately still lingers as the old joke about the psychologist who defers to the biologist who defers to the chemist who in turn defers to the physicist who in turn defers to the mathematician who in turn defers only to God.
I think that is what I said. That's it is interdisciplinary, and ultimately concerned with peoples satisfaction--in the case of psychoacoustics, I would suspect a pleasant mix of venue and stage, FR, intelligibility, standing waves and the like. That you see yourself functioning in a more technical manner is fine--it's much like the difference between science and engineering. So perhaps we describe it as applied physics using psychological principles. Either way, I have no dog in this hunt except insofar as we are having a discussion in a thread about whether perceived psychological events have a measureable underpinning, and to remove psychology seems a bit of a stretch, even if one views acoustics purely in terms of applied physics. But physics uninformed by psychological experiments will only get you so far. They are complimentary, not antagonistic.
Perhaps and I confess to being an old school academic myself, and likely more of a lumper than splitter--so neurobiology (which is what I studied at the membrane level)--I suspect at this point neuroscience is it's own discipline--part biology, part psychology with contributions from computer science, physics, math, etc. There are an awful lot of neuroscientists running around these days, and I wonder what is you do? No quibbles with your opening statement whatsoever. So anyhow...I made a somewhat serious proposal hear earlier and will e calling for volunteers sometime in the future, should my preliminary research bear fruit.
I beg to differ [now ostentatiously listening to Svaitoslav Richter pounding out Bach's Great 48].IMMHO the only effect psychedelics has on hearing is making one believe the mediocre crap to which they are listening is transcendentally high art. Hence the relationship between the Grateful Dead and psychedelics.
Well, there is a point when the distortion of the tympanic mem-brain comes into play, that along with the contraction of the tensor tympani and stapedius muscles, and enhanced bone conduction all add and can obscure the finer points of music reproduction. So I suspect that old saw about set and setting (particularly of the volume) comes into play. I'm also assuming that the visual overload of everything melting into kaleidoscopic symphonies of transcendent brilliance are also not a distraction. So this will have to be carefully controlled. I have tried this by myself, but it turns out that changing several sets of cables can be a greater challenge than even deciding what to play next.
That's not at all true.
