The Creatororientation

[Obvious Leo]

Vibrations in the air are not sound, just as molecules in the air are not smells. It requires an observer with an information processing network before such raw data can be said to have a meaning. This is not only mainstream philosophy but it is also mainstream neuroscience.

By your definition vibrations in the air require someone to perceive them to be a sound, by that definition we can extend that to say that only the vibrations that impinge on an ear are a sound and all the other vibrations that travel off in other directions are not sounds even though they all have the same source.

Correct. A sound is defined as a perception and a perception is a cognitive construct. That's why different people perceive different sounds differently and some animals can hear sounds that others can't.

[Hobbes' Choice]

creator orientation

Catholic or Protestant?

[thedoc]

Vibrations in the air are not sound, just as molecules in the air are not smells. It requires an observer with an information processing network before such raw data can be said to have a meaning. This is not only mainstream philosophy but it is also mainstream neuroscience.

By your definition vibrations in the air require someone to perceive them to be a sound, by that definition we can extend that to say that only the vibrations that impinge on an ear are a sound and all the other vibrations that travel off in other directions are not sounds even though they all have the same source.

Correct. A sound is defined as a perception and a perception is a cognitive construct. That's why different people perceive different sounds differently and some animals can hear sounds that others can't.

Then we disagree on the definition of a sound, I define a sound as the vibrations in the air or other substance whether someone or something is there to hear it or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

I prefer the physicist definition of sound over the psychologists. The psychologists definition is too limiting to me.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Then we disagree on the definition of a sound, I define a sound as the vibrations in the air or other substance whether someone or something is there to hear it or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

I prefer the physicist definition of sound over the psychologists. The psychologists definition is too limiting to me.

Objectively...
There is no such thing as "sound".
Air vibrates.
End of story.

Subjectively...
That vibration moves the parts of the ear which send signals to the brain that we call sounds.

The only question remains, if because we can agree on the nature and quality of sounds does this amount to a statement of objectivity.

But it is clear that we do not all hear the same stuff. And we can NEVER know is the qualia of sounds is experienced the same way.

It is true that, were there no humans, then "sound" would be meaningless.

I am disappointed in YOU Leo offering us all a COMPLETELY PLATONIC assessment of this question.
Shame on you.

[thedoc]

Then we disagree on the definition of a sound, I define a sound as the vibrations in the air or other substance whether someone or something is there to hear it or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

I prefer the physicist definition of sound over the psychologists. The psychologists definition is too limiting to me.

Objectively...
There is no such thing as "sound".
Air vibrates.
End of story.

Subjectively...
That vibration moves the parts of the ear which send signals to the brain that we call sounds.

The only question remains, if because we can agree on the nature and quality of sounds does this amount to a statement of objectivity.

But it is clear that we do not all hear the same stuff. And we can NEVER know is the qualia of sounds is experienced the same way.

It is true that, were there no humans, then "sound" would be meaningless.

I am disappointed in YOU Leo offering us all a COMPLETELY PLATONIC assessment of this question.
Shame on you.

You seem to have a deficiency in your attributions and quote tags, I posted that, not OL.

And I see that you ascribe to the psychological definition of sound, your loss.

[Obvious Leo]

I prefer the physicist definition of sound over the psychologists.

In that case you should understand what the physicist's definition of a sound actually is instead of talking through your hat.

A physicist does NOT claim that a sound is the vibration of air molecules. A physicist claims that a sound is PRODUCED BY the vibration of air molecules.

If you don't understand the difference between these two statements then you've got a hell of a lot to learn.

[Arising_uk]

There is no reason to expect that God or the Universe will conform to human logic.

Although there is every reason to expect any 'God' or 'Gods' to conform to Logic. I think people mean cause and effect rather than Logic, as Logic arises from being an existent, if a thing exists then Logic applies to it.

[Gary Childress]

I prefer the physicist definition of sound over the psychologists.

The two definitions do describe entirely different things, one the vibration of air molecules and the other the subjective qualia we experience in our minds. Personally when I use the word "sound" I'm usually referring to the "psychological" definition and not the physicist definition. The reason being is that I tend to suspect one is trying to smuggle eliminative materialism or perhaps even functionalism into the picture when one says that sound *is* the molecules of air vibrating. I don't believe in eliminative materialism nor functionalism so I prefer not to ascribe words traditionally used to describe subjective qualia to describe purely physical events. I suspect the words used to mean "sound" throughout history have longer been used by humans to describe their subjective experiences than the later usage attributable to physics.

[Obvious Leo]

I prefer the physicist definition of sound over the psychologists.

The two definitions do describe entirely different things, one the vibration of air molecules and the other the subjective qualia we experience in our minds. Personally when I use the word "sound" I'm usually referring to the "psychological" definition and not the physicist definition. The reason being is that I tend to suspect one is trying to smuggle eliminative materialism or perhaps even functionalism into the picture when one says that sound *is* the molecules of air vibrating. I don't believe in eliminative materialism nor functionalism so I prefer not to ascribe words traditionally used to describe subjective qualia to describe purely physical events. Also I suspect the words used to mean "sound" throughout history have longer been used by humans to describe their subjective experiences than the later usage attributable to physics.

Doc is simply misunderstanding what physics is actually able and not able to say about physical phenomena. For instance physics also does not claim that there is such a thing as the colour blue. All physics is able to say is that electro-magnetic radiation of a particular wavelength is decoded by our neural network and then presented to our consciousness as the colour blue. This is not a trivial distinction because different animals perceive the same wavelength of radiation as different colours from those perceived by humans. Even within the human population there is quite a wide variation in colour perception and there is also no guarantee that the colour blue you see today is the same colour blue that you saw yesterday. Every perception you experience is a unique act of cognition involving different neurons being activated by synapses firing according to different action potentials. As Heraclitus said, You cannot step in the same river twice.

[thedoc]

There is no reason to expect that God or the Universe will conform to human logic.

Although there is every reason to expect any 'God' or 'Gods' to conform to Logic. I think people mean cause and effect rather than Logic, as Logic arises from being an existent, if a thing exists then Logic applies to it.

If God is created by humans, then yes, God will conform to human logic, but if God is pre-existing and created humans, there is no reason to expect God to conform to human logic.

[manden]

The true God has given to the human beings human logic , of course ! His logic is unimaginable suprerior of course .

But you here are very weak in human logic !

[Hobbes' Choice]

Then we disagree on the definition of a sound, I define a sound as the vibrations in the air or other substance whether someone or something is there to hear it or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

I prefer the physicist definition of sound over the psychologists. The psychologists definition is too limiting to me.

Objectively...
There is no such thing as "sound".
Air vibrates.
End of story.

Subjectively...
That vibration moves the parts of the ear which send signals to the brain that we call sounds.

The only question remains, if because we can agree on the nature and quality of sounds does this amount to a statement of objectivity.

But it is clear that we do not all hear the same stuff. And we can NEVER know is the qualia of sounds is experienced the same way.

It is true that, were there no humans, then "sound" would be meaningless.

I am disappointed in YOU Leo offering us all a COMPLETELY PLATONIC assessment of this question.
Shame on you.

You seem to have a deficiency in your attributions and quote tags, I posted that, not OL.

And I see that you ascribe to the psychological definition of sound, your loss.

WHoooopsss
Did you know you were a Platonist?

[Hobbes' Choice]

The true God has given to the human beings human logic , of course ! His logic is unimaginable suprerior of course .

But you here are very weak in human logic !

Gracias tonto del pueblo. (Dorftrottel, dorpsgek, Idiot du village)

[thedoc]

The true God has given to the human beings human logic , of course ! His logic is unimaginable suprerior of course .

But you here are very weak in human logic !

There is no reason to believe that God gave humans logic any more than to believe that God gave man fire, or any of the other technology that man has developed. It is reasonable to believe that God gave man the ability to develop these technologies.

[thedoc]

You seem to have a deficiency in your attributions and quote tags, I posted that, not OL.

And I see that you ascribe to the psychological definition of sound, your loss.

WHoooopsss
Did you know you were a Platonist?

If you say so. I think Plato did OK for his time.