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.

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.

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?

Yes, they would still 'see' the longitudinal pressure pulses we define as sound.

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, 201510 yr by Robittybob1