Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login
patokl
Over 90 days ago
Straight Cis Male
0 miles · Germany
Forum
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by BiMale73
You use ( a ) in your arguments, while TheAngryishLover uses ( b ). And in everyday speech most people will probably use them interchangeably.
I disagree. TheAngryishLover does indeed use ( b ), but refuses to acknowledge that ( a ) is true. I believe I have never said ( b ) was not true, I have pretty consistently used the word ALSO when I referred to those two definitions, regardless of how they were worded.
The definition you've just quoted btw, happens to be the internationally accepted standard definition. If you read ( a ) carefully, it does not even mention that it can be heard. Sound simply is that oscillation it describes.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by BiMale73It only depends on which "can" you use. Do you have the skills to swim? Is there an opportunity to use the skills? For both questions "can you swim" is a valid synonym.
Well, it MUST be able to be heard, because that's part of the definition. If there's no agent available that's able to hear it then there's no ability to be heard. Hearing is not a property of sound, it's a property of the hearer. So the definition of sound has a dependency on a property of a hearing agent. That assumes that sound has a dependency on a hearing agent and that no hearer means no sound.
To have the ability to hit a sensory system, there must exist a sensory system to hit.
I can swim, but I can not swim when there's nothing to swim in. So, can I swim? Well, depends ;)
And for the possibility to hit a sensory system, that system does not actually have to exist. Its existence only has to be possible.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by TheAngryishLover
You do know that your ear isn't just a hole in your head that funnels 'sound' straight to the brain?
There is this thing inside of your ear that takes vibrations, and converts them into sound.
Hence, no conversion, no sound
Do you know, dictionaries aren't just random collections of words? What you say, may be true about the sensation of sound, but not about the physical phenomenon, that mankind decided to call sound. A phenomenon btw, that has to exist to enable the sensation. We can hear A sound.
But all of this is off-topic actually. The question that started this thread originally was not about whether we should CALL it a sound if we did not hear it, it was about whether the physical phenomenon actually existed, if it was not heard. Einstein once asked Niels Bohr, if he actually believed that the moon did not exist, as long as nobody was looking at it. That is basically the same question. Does an unperceived reality actually exist?
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by BiMale73In simple terms? No! CAN be isn't the same as MUST be. We're talking about a physical phenomenon, that CAN cause a sensation, if it hits a sensory system. To have the ability to hit anything, it must exist.
If the capability to be heard is one of the defining features of sound, doesn't that imply that it's not sound if there's no agent (whether that's a being or a technology) capable of hearing it?
Unless we're back at the question, if there is a reality, if there is no one to perceive it. Because that was, what the original question about that tree, posed in eighteen-eighty-something, was about, not about the semantics or the definition of the word sound, or noise.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by BiMale73
But would it still be considered sound then, even when it can't be detected anymore?
No. Every definition of sound as a physical phenomenon states that it can be heard. If that, even with the help of technology, is not possible, it is no longer sound.