> Turning sound into images necessarily involves some design, and so there's > no basis for calling any particular rendering the "actual" appearance of a s

> Turning sound into images necessarily involves some design, and so there's > no basis for calling any particular rendering the "actual" appearance of a sound. Turning light into images necessarily invokes a design, too: an eye. And depending on whether this eye is that of a human, a fish, or a fly, a different image will be experienced. So here, too, there is no basis for calling any particular image, that you experience from the light that an object reflects, the actual appearance of that object. It's just one instance of an appearance of an object in your field of experience at one particular point in time. Not even you will ever experience that object in exactly the same way again. Furthermore, we have no way of knowing if there, some place on earth or elsewhere, exists a life form that experiences sound exactly as these two-dimensional images. If there has been an evolutionary advantage to doing so, I see nothing preventing a sensory organ from picking up these vibrations and creating this experience out of it.