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 BiMale73Nowadays we tend to interpret audible a bit wider than perceivable by the human ear. Being audible to a technical device is sometimes enough. We invented terms like ultrasound for those inaudibly high frequencies and infrasound for frequencies that are too low for us to hear. Not entirely unjust, because we ARE able to perceive them, albeit with the help of technology.
If we'd record the sound of the falling tree and replay it while running it through a pitch shifter, changing its frequencies to a range that no known creature can hear. Are the resulting inaudible vibrations sound?
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by TheAngryishLoverIf you read back you'll find, that I never ignored that definition. It is however not THE definition of sound, but a definition of one aspect of sound, namely, that we can perceive its existence by hearing. This definition is always preceded by another one, one you persistently leave out of your replies, but which defines "these waves" and labels them with the name sound. You can ignore, that we chose to call these waves sound, but every dictionary I've seen so far, including the ones you quoted, says we did.
Sound is the perception of these 'waves'. That's the definition.
Quote by TheAngryishLoverThough the question posed in this thread was not if there was a sound, but if there was noise, the original question was indeed about sound. If it was indeed Berkeley who posed it is uncertain, but it certainly was inspired by his questioning the existence of an unperceived reality.
Hence one of the greatest minds in the world posed the question.
Does the moon exist, if nobody looks at it? Do those waves we call sound exist, if nobody hears them. Does the sun still shine, once the earth has been consumed by it and all life has disappeared? Basically they all ask the same thing: does anything exist, if it is not perceived. Your view to that obviously is, that it does not. Your bathroom only exists as long as someone sees it. Common sense however says, that your bathroom does in fact exist when nobody's there. And as far as I'm concerned so does sound. If that tree falls, it produces sound. We may not hear it, but we would, if we were there.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by TheAngryishLoverThere are four things that are defined as sound. Numbers three and four have nothing to do with this subject, but one and two do.
However, that physical reaction isn't sound unless someone perceives it to be sound. Without that, it's just a wave
It's a very easy concept to understand
The primary definition almost invariably states, that sound is waves, that can be heard, traveling through a medium. In other words, if those waves exist, sound exists. No way around that.
The second definition mostly states, sound also is how our brains interpret the signals our sensory and nervous systems generate upon reception of those waves. This definition does in no way undermine the primary definition of sound, on the contrary, it depends on it.
So, that physical reaction, as you call it, IS what we call sound.
And yes, we also call the interpretation of it by our brains sound. But saying noise and sound are the same thing is like saying cows and animals are the same thing. Noise is just one of the many ways we classify sound. And that will not happen when a sound is not heard, so noise does not exist, when no one is there to hear and classify the sound. And that is the answer to the original question in this thread.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by TheAngryishLoverFirst of all, this thread originally was not about sound, but about noise. If I recall correctly, you were the one changing the subject from noise to sound. Second, I included the sensory aspect of sound in many of my posts in this thread. It is you who chooses persistantly to ignore the fact that there a is a physical phenomenon we chose to call sound. Whether it was heard or not, that phenomenon occurred when the tree fell. And the reception of such waves (the ones we named sound) cannot take place if, as you claim, they don't exist.
What the hell? Can you re read it then, please?
I can't see how you can't read that and not see it as supporting my points exactly? Especially the bit that says 'In physiology and psychology, sound is the reception of such waves and their perception by the brain'
Oh, and I agree with you about the definition of the word audible. Well done for changing the argument, though, as we are actually talking about sound
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by trinketThe question was, if that tree made a noise. Assuming it wasn't in a vacuum, the event did make a sound, it created the waves we decided to call sound. Whether that sound was beautiful or noise, is something subjective. It could only be determined by someone who actually heard the sound. So, with no one to hear it, there was sound, but no noise.
I see your point Patokl however that isn't the question. It's not about what is sound and what is noise. What some might think is noise, others might think is a beautiful sound. A big tree falling for example.
