StringJunky Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 Don't be so thin skinned StringJunky, it does interest me. But is it useful ? As another thread failed to resolve, what problem does it solve ? It's not about solving; it's about addressing what we mean by things. In this instance, is sound an objective phenomenon or is it observer-dependent? What do we mean by sound? It's useful in the sense that it makes one think about the way one thinks and forces us to look at our language and it's specificity.
MigL Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 But science already tells us that sound is an objective phenomenon, only the interpretation of that sound is observer dependent. Or else our world would have about 7 billion observer dependent realities.
StringJunky Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 But science already tells us that sound is an objective phenomenon, only the interpretation of that sound is observer dependent. Or else our world would have about 7 billion observer dependent realities. If your ears were wired up to your visual cortex would you still call the stimuli "sound" even though the sensation you perceive will be in some visual pattern?
MigL Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 Yes, they would still 'see' the longitudinal pressure pulses we define as sound.
Robittybob1 Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 (edited) A tree in my forest fell over and didn't make a sound. This was because it fell so slowly. So yes it can happen. Edited January 4, 2015 by Robittybob1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now