Pigeon

Describing subjective art with numbers means it’s objectively good now! No. >.<

Math, and even merely counting, as applied to the real world always has a human element intangled with it, even though people like to pretend otherwise. Like, you can’t count apples without first deciding what an apple is, where the boundaries of that category are, and declaring them all to be equivalent for your purposes (e.g. one fresh apple = one barely still edible apple). The abstraction of it adds subjectivity.

Anyway the relationship of math with music is interesting nonetheless. It just doesn’t have to be about making art objective somehow.

The article does say that, but the source paper the article links to says this in the Abstract:

Thus, we set out to mechanically render cerebral hemodynamics fully regulable to replicate or modify native pig brain perfusion. To this end, blood flow to the head was surgically separated from the systemic circulation and full extracorporeal pulsatile circulatory control (EPCC) was delivered via a modified aorta or brachiocephalic artery. This control relied on a computerized algorithm that maintained, for several hours, blood pressure, flow and pulsatility at near-native values individually measured before EPCC. Continuous electrocorticography and brain depth electrode recordings were used to evaluate brain activity relative to the standard offered by awake human electrocorticography. Under EPCC, this activity remained unaltered or minimally perturbed compared to the native circulation state, as did cerebral oxygenation, pressure, temperature and microscopic structure. Thus, our approach enables the study of neural activity and its circulatory manipulation in independence of most of the rest of the organism.

And nothing whatsoever about physically removing the brain from the body. It’s teeechnically separated from the body’s circulatory system - with the experimental, artificial connection replacing the natural one between tthe body’s circulatory system and the brain’s blood flow - but that really seems to be it.

The article is extremely misleading and only barely connected to the actual study, in short.

I’m personally gonna add Popular Mechanics to my internal list of pop sci rags that can’t be trusted.

You read about her because that’s a heck of a lot rarer and more interesting as a headline than “woman dies in car crash” or “woman dies of heart attack”.

Also sometimes trees fall on cars or houses when people are in them, too.

Edit: I am probably taking your comment far too seriously, admittedly.