Funny, I always assumed the basis of rhythm preference related to the
resting heart rate which is about 60 beats per minute plus or minus 6.
There is nothing more comforting than a nice steady heart beat all night
long, lub dub, lub dub, lub dub.
I suppose this could be tested since infant heart rates are much higher and
therefore the infant might favor a different rhythm. Then again, the
infant preference might have been entrained in utero to mom's 60 beats per
Then again, my perspective may be simplistic since it ignores quantum theory.
>engelking at earthlink.net enunciated:
>>>Have researchers identified how music and the brain work? Why is it that
>>music just makes us immediately feel some kind of emotional response, and
>>isn't like a book or movie in which we have to see and understand
>>something to make us feel something?
>>The point about brain that escapes most is the differential in
>processing speeds from input to memory in three levels. Music is the
>most interesting way to evaluate those differences. If you examine the
>tribal beat of ancient people you will notice a similar universal.
>Beats around 120 beats per minute are universal. The reason for this
>is that the subconscious speed of processing is around 60 cycles per
>second for the current evolutionary condition. This translates to a
>steady 2 musical beats per second.
>>The reason emotional response is indicative of musical material is
>pattern effect. Regularity of beat near the 120 BMP level will elicit
>comfort as it nearly matches the internal clock's subconscious speed.
>Speeds less than that ( in proportion to the amount of 'less') will
>induce less than comfort. Since the brain seeks regularity, less than
>regular will slightly depress, while more than regular will excite.
>>Movies and books are loosely connected conceptual material that induce
>no pattern and require a deeper search to establish relativity to our
>own reinforced memory . Memory content is unique to the individual
>while processing speeds in ratio to input is mostly universal in
>mentally healthy individuals.
>>>Also, do scientists understand how basic units of information are stored
>>in the brain yet? I guess this cognitive science (?).
>>The preponderance of binary mentality has kept most intelligent
>researchers from observing variables. The interest is so strong in the
>'normal', which has become digital, that anything remotely different
>from digital is considered to be the antithesis of computationality.
>>As far as how the brain stores information: Consider this: Read
>Correlational Oppositional Processing by Professor Ron Blue, (1996)
>available at http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/papers.htm.>The brain is a wavelet process within static, passive components
>(neurons) that is transmitted via synapse connections that insure a
>single direction of signal passage. Wavelets are computed in an
>equation detailed in 'Wave-Computation, A Quantum-Relativity
>Perspective, (Hempfling, 1996) available at
>>I can assure you that any other theory of brain function is simply not
>correct. This combination theory resulting in CORE TECHNOLOGY
>(Correlational Opposite Ratio Enhanced) Processing is the only
>examination of brain function that is not based in the observance of
>the outcomes of brain.
>>For a little more detail you may access the home page of LA Weekly
>this week where the feature article is about the above technology.
Comparative Animal Physiologist
Division of Sciences and Mathematics
University of the Virgin Islands
St. Thomas, USVI 00802
rhall at uvi.edu