You check the crash logs

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s an ontological argument. OP is creating a categorical distinction where “sound” is the cognitive process by which pressure waves are perceived, eg as information. I think it’s a fairly common distinction to make, but it is also kind of unsatisfying is the sense that it feels a bit like linguistic nihilism.

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is tinnitus a sound?

      Is bone conduction sound?

      Are the signals a cochlear implant produce sound?

      Sound is a perception. Sound waves are what can generate that perception. But sound doesn’t always require soundwaves, so there is a difference.

      It’s very much a “dancing on the head of a pin” distinction, but the baseline joke also requires it.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes, those all are sounds.

        From Wikipedia:

        Tinnitus is a variety of sound that is heard when no corresponding external sound is present.

        Should have been more distinct. Sounds are just vibration, they don’t need to go through air.

        • cynar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But neither tinnitus or cochlear implants have any vibration associated. If they are sounds then sounds are more than just vibrations. At the same time, not all vibrations are sounds.

          The argument is that sound is part of our internal processing of sensations. If there is no brain to perceive it, is it a sound, or just a vibration in the air?