# created ```dataview LIST WITHOUT ID file.link FROM -"windsurf" WHERE file.cday = date(this.file.name) AND !startswith(file.folder, "windsurf") SORT file.cday ASC ``` # modified ```dataview LIST WITHOUT ID file.link FROM -"windsurf" WHERE file.mday = date(this.file.name) AND !startswith(file.folder, "windsurf") SORT file.mday ASC ``` --- # [[diary and thoughts]] #thought #diary --- # review of hearing space - This is not a very good paper at all. Primary reason I think it should be rejected is the two components of its main arguments are not very well argued at all. As far as I can tell, the second point (that we hear spaced through timbre) is basically argued for in a single paragraph at the very end just before the conclusion. - The other half of the argument, that adaptation effects make it clear that space is auditorily experienced isn't really much or an argument at all: it describes Block's ideas about adaptation and mentions some research about humans' spatial hearing adapting in various studies. But this is it! I don't really consider this to be an argument, it's more just putting the work of block, next to some musicology experiments - Timbre itself is quite sloppily defined, seeming to rely on the wastebasket definition. But then because it's so ill-defined, [[the author]] tries to say spatial hearing can be accommodated for it as well. there is also some weirdness about whether - There seems to be some confusion over precisely what [[the relationship between]] hearing spatial location and hearing timbre is. consider: "I argue that auditory phenomenology is spatial because space is perceptually experienced, in part through timbre." Is [[the idea]] that by perceiving some aspect of timbre we thereby perceive spatial location of sources? Similar things Okay, so it's clearly not a very well thought out argument. The first component, which was just that, was it audition is, we can...