24 Jan 2009, 6:16 am
24 Jan 2009, 6:33 am
TallyMan wrote:
LOL! if it wasn't for the beard and the horns this is exactly what I look like right now
24 Jan 2009, 7:11 am
anna-banana wrote:
LOL! if it wasn't for the beard and the horns this is exactly what I look like right now
<knock at the door> Good morning madame, and what a wonderful morning God has brought us today. Why do you think there is so much misery in the world?
<notices man is in smart suit and reaching into a briefcase for a brochure>
<SLAM!>
Hello? Hello? Hello?
24 Jan 2009, 2:07 pm
24 Jan 2009, 8:13 pm
24 Jan 2009, 9:22 pm
Saerain wrote:
I found it interesting, though, that they had no problem with understanding that sight is light, yet seemed thrown by the notion that sound is vibration. There was something counterintuitive about it for them. I don't know if they thought their ears were picking up telepathic signals or what.
There are different definitions of sound. I mean, hearing is the analog of sight in most people's minds, so the question they seem to have is more analogous to whether or not there can be unseen light, yet, because sound is considered less constant than light is, it is more puzzling, as hearing is the only sense that seems defined by unusual stimulus, while smells, touch, taste, and seeing seem to be more matters of perceiving an always existent trait of objects. This fact is why people find it odd that color is a reflection rather than a trait of an object, that tastes can be distorted by smells, and that cold sensations are relative to other temperature sensations.
At least, that is all my speculation on this. Perhaps I am being too kind to the people you used to know.
24 Jan 2009, 9:36 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
This fact is why people find it odd that color is a reflection rather than a trait of an object, that tastes can be distorted by smells, and that cold sensations are relative to other temperature sensations.
That they do, but I would figure that a moment's thought would snap them out of it.
25 Jan 2009, 1:56 am
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Saerain wrote:
I found it interesting, though, that they had no problem with understanding that sight is light, yet seemed thrown by the notion that sound is vibration. There was something counterintuitive about it for them. I don't know if they thought their ears were picking up telepathic signals or what.
There are different definitions of sound. I mean, hearing is the analog of sight in most people's minds, so the question they seem to have is more analogous to whether or not there can be unseen light, yet, because sound is considered less constant than light is, it is more puzzling, as hearing is the only sense that seems defined by unusual stimulus, while smells, touch, taste, and seeing seem to be more matters of perceiving an always existent trait of objects. This fact is why people find it odd that color is a reflection rather than a trait of an object, that tastes can be distorted by smells, and that cold sensations are relative to other temperature sensations.
At least, that is all my speculation on this. Perhaps I am being too kind to the people you used to know.
But there is a wide spectrum of electromagnetic radiation which is unseen. What we label "light" is an extremely narrow band of the radiation spectrum and other living things are aware of other parts of the radiation that is invisible to humans. The sound spectrum is likewise wider than we perceive and available to elephants on the low end and bats and dolphins on the high end. Taste is a combination of smell and what hits our tongues and is not distorted by these variations but requires both to be an identifiable sensation. The reflective capability of a solid is an identifiable trait of the object and cannot be dismissed irrelevant.
The problem boils down to what is defined as existence. If you cannot detect a phenomenon you may declare it either non-detectable or non-existent but if its presence is detected through mechanisms that can be translated into detectable phenomena such as radio waves translated into music by a radio it seems sensible to acknowledge their existence. And if sound is defined as air vibrations whether the human ear is defeated by either non-presence at the site or inability of the ear to respond to parts of the sound spectrum then that sound must be accepted as existing, just as a radio not tuned to the full broadcast array cannot deny the fact that that array does exist.
25 Jan 2009, 4:54 am
25 Jan 2009, 5:22 am
25 Jan 2009, 5:35 am
25 Jan 2009, 5:48 am
LostInEmulation
Veteran
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,047
Location: Ireland, dreaming of Germany
25 Jan 2009, 6:06 am
25 Jan 2009, 6:08 am
25 Jan 2009, 6:13 am
25 Jan 2009, 6:37 am
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Science Videos |
13 Jul 2025, 8:07 pm |
| In the name of Science, guess what this is? |
30 May 2025, 7:18 pm |
| North Carolina House Party Mass Shooting |
02 Jun 2025, 12:07 am |
