b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 8935654 (Thread)

# Oh Noes!
(, Thu 13 Nov 2008, 22:55, archived)
# TJ: my 2 pence on the tree business down there vvvv
i don't think sound is merely the vibration of molecules though.it doesn't aquire "sound"ness until something percieves it
(, Thu 13 Nov 2008, 22:59, archived)
# I was thinking something similar,
but then I thought, fuck it I'll be here all night if I start philosophising.
(, Thu 13 Nov 2008, 23:01, archived)
# I've been sitting in the library since 4 o'clock reading about legal philosophy
this is child's play compared to sentences like: "common official practice cannot constitute a legal reason for accepting and treating as binding the rule of recognition itself, because the rule of recognition is an ultimate legal rule to which questions regarding what make it legally valid, or questions regarding what further legal reasons there are for accepting it, do not apply"
(, Thu 13 Nov 2008, 23:08, archived)
#
(, Thu 13 Nov 2008, 23:10, archived)
# Well obviously cats and badgers.
(, Thu 13 Nov 2008, 23:10, archived)
# I'm not going to bother with that at this time of night.
Anyway, fancy going for a pie this weekend?
(, Thu 13 Nov 2008, 23:10, archived)
# maybe next weekend?
I've got two heinous essays in for wednesday and very little hope of actually making the deadline. I could do with a pie though
(, Thu 13 Nov 2008, 23:13, archived)
# Chances are I'll be in Birmingham that weekend.
Should be around all this weekend though, so let me know if you change your mind.
(, Thu 13 Nov 2008, 23:17, archived)
# That may be the case,
but there are plenty of animals out there who can't here, or see, but they can feel things.
(, Thu 13 Nov 2008, 23:03, archived)
# here? where?
(, Thu 13 Nov 2008, 23:05, archived)
# sure but they would have their own criteria for sensory perception
(, Thu 13 Nov 2008, 23:08, archived)
# I think that was my point
we can subjectify 'sound' as being the oscillation of our ear drums - but it's more complex than that. If sound was subjective in this way then it would not exist - sound waves (the oscillation of air molecules) is an ambient part of our environment and the way we recieve this informative is not sound itself - but our interpretation of sound.

Therefore insects and such without ears will recieve this information in a different way to humans - but that does not exclude the fact that sound exists regardless of whether it is being recieved or not in the same way that if you don't own a radio does that mean Radio Waves aren't all about us?
(, Thu 13 Nov 2008, 23:21, archived)
#
(, Thu 13 Nov 2008, 23:23, archived)
# yes
(, Thu 13 Nov 2008, 23:04, archived)
# go team
(, Thu 13 Nov 2008, 23:06, archived)
# Why do you want to divide events semantically into perceived and unperceived ones?
I don't see what difficulty this distinction is trying to overcome.
(, Thu 13 Nov 2008, 23:11, archived)
# In order to divide between physical and mental events?
So, oscillations of air particles vs hearing music.
(, Thu 13 Nov 2008, 23:14, archived)
# Why classify the unpercieved ones as "not noises"?
I might as well say that when we hear soft and gentle sounds, those aren't really noises. Or that when we detect a noise visually as a sound wave on a screen, that's not really a noise, or that noises that happen in Switzerland don't count because it's a quiet sort of place.
(, Thu 13 Nov 2008, 23:18, archived)
# To be honest, I'd happily use the word 'sound' or 'noise' to describe either.
But there is a distinction between a physical description of what's happening and the mental perception of it.
(, Thu 13 Nov 2008, 23:21, archived)
# because "sound" is the description of quality of perception
vibration of molecules isn't.
(, Thu 13 Nov 2008, 23:16, archived)
# because that is the purpose of the question
(, Thu 13 Nov 2008, 23:19, archived)