A Perfect Fifth of Blue and Red: Enlightened Harmonies of the Senses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I use Louis-Bertrand Castel’s attempt to create a music of colours as a window into 18th-century debates on the inter-relationship between physics, physiology, and sense experience. In part one, I address Castel’s original 1725 proposition to build an “ocular harpsichord,” a musical instrument designed to play colour rather than sound. I argue that Castel’s idea relied in equal measure on contemporary music theory, optics, and neurophysiology. In part two, I examine Castel’s attempts to justify his new music experimentally. Though his purported demonstrations became more eclectic, the core theoretical principles behind his optical music remained the same. In part three, I turn to what should have been the triumph of Castel’s career: his creation of a partially functioning harpsichord in 1755, along with the publication of two proposals for other sensorial musics in 1753 and 1755. The ostensible failure of Castel’s idea points to the limitations — theoretical, experimental, aesthetic — of his original proposal. At the same time, their enduring power to inspire spoke to the appeal of music as an explanatory framework, encompassing both art and science, body and mind.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".