Senseless Killings

You can't know that your interpretation is correct. You nothing with which to compare it.

 

I have conclusive proof am not there. I nipped out and buzzed my office from the door entry system. Nobody answered.

 

So, let us recap.

We cannot conclusively know that sound exists. What we do know is that we interpret molecules banging together at a certain oscilation as sound. So without the interpretation is there actual sound?

What about sight? Light itself is invisible yet we interpret it banging off objects as sight. How can we know our interpretation is in any way accurate? We can't.

 

Light and sound are forms of energy which can be measured so up ye.

 

But we cannot measure our interpretation of that energy, or even compare it to anything. We cannot know what it actually may or may not be. We are trapped by our interpretation of it.

 

No, we can measure it that's how we know that it exists and what it consists of.

 

Yes we can. But how can know that our interpration of it is true and real. We only have that interpetation to rely on.

Molecules banging together and getting excitable can be measured. If they bang about at a certain oscilation our brain will interpret it as sound. So, without the interpretation, is there sound? Or is it just molecules banging together?

 

Animals evolved to hear sound, ergo sound existed.

 

No they evolved to interpret a molecular behaviour as sound.

We cannot even know if other animals "hear" in the same way we do. We can observe that they react to it. But we cannot know how they interpret it.

 

Why would we evolve to interpret a sound if there was no sound? What would be the point?

 

I agree with Gambol on this.

Poncy twats like The Ayrshire **** think there is an answer for everything.

There isn't. Just deal with it.

 

Do crabs think we walk sideways?

 

This is the sort of ****e the Catholic church used to come out with during the Dark Ages to keep monumentally stupid people like you in line.

 

Corroborative evidence and the reliability of test results would inform the assumption that sound exists

 

That's the crux of the question. It's what the tree in the forest malarky is all about. Is there sound, or is there only the interpretation of a molecular behaviour.

Or put it another way. If nothing is there to interpret the molecular behaviour can it be called sound?

 

Im no boy buggerer.

 

Am guessing that they think they don't.

 

Assumption. Correct.

 

Assumption is not fact.

 

I've often wondered about flame too