At this point, two thirds of your post are simply repeating what you have already said.
If it sounds like catching a ball engages the mathematical part of your brain more than that, I’ll just assume you’re an expert on these things and take your word for it.
I’m not an expert on either ball-catching or on music, but that’s not terribly relevant. You seem to be repeatedly arguing as if this is really about personal experience but no one in this thread has made a personal experience argument except as a response to you. The central point about ball throwing is the argument that it involves implicitly approximating the solutions to differential equations. The point is that if you believe one of these “takes math” in any substantial fashion you have to believe that the other does about at least as much. And you still haven’t responded to this point, or to the many other points raised as objections to your position (such as the empirical existence of people who are very skilled musicians and who are completely incapable of doing any substantial amount of math).
The central point about ball throwing is the argument that it involves implicitly approximating the solutions to differential equations.
That’s a fact, eh?
So, when a mathematician is approximating solutions to differential equations, their brain is functioning the same as if they were catching a ball?
To catch a ball in midair, requires the same hand eye coordination as moving a drumstick to hit a drum at the right time.
But what I’m talking about, is not how the hand moves to catch the ball or hit the drum or find the right fret.
To catch a ball, the hand moves to catch a ball. The ball is the input, the catch the result.
What I’m talking about happens before hand-eye coordination ever begins.
To play music, you are mentally throwing multiple balls all the time, and then catching them at the right time. The part of music that engages in the brain is not catching the ball, it is mentally placing the ball on a discrete grid.
Again, if you disagree, I’ll take your word for it.
At this point, two thirds of your post are simply repeating what you have already said.
I’m not an expert on either ball-catching or on music, but that’s not terribly relevant. You seem to be repeatedly arguing as if this is really about personal experience but no one in this thread has made a personal experience argument except as a response to you. The central point about ball throwing is the argument that it involves implicitly approximating the solutions to differential equations. The point is that if you believe one of these “takes math” in any substantial fashion you have to believe that the other does about at least as much. And you still haven’t responded to this point, or to the many other points raised as objections to your position (such as the empirical existence of people who are very skilled musicians and who are completely incapable of doing any substantial amount of math).
That’s a fact, eh?
So, when a mathematician is approximating solutions to differential equations, their brain is functioning the same as if they were catching a ball?
To catch a ball in midair, requires the same hand eye coordination as moving a drumstick to hit a drum at the right time.
But what I’m talking about, is not how the hand moves to catch the ball or hit the drum or find the right fret.
To catch a ball, the hand moves to catch a ball. The ball is the input, the catch the result.
What I’m talking about happens before hand-eye coordination ever begins.
To play music, you are mentally throwing multiple balls all the time, and then catching them at the right time. The part of music that engages in the brain is not catching the ball, it is mentally placing the ball on a discrete grid.
Again, if you disagree, I’ll take your word for it.