3 ms·
I'd argue that the orignal sentence was using 'sounds' a bit symbolically, so the clearer interpretations would be closer to "there are no communications I can
by zentiggr 7y ago
I'd argue that the orignal sentence was using 'sounds' a bit symbolically, so the clearer interpretations would be closer to "there are no communications I can utter that are dangerous".
His point being about the critical thinking on the part of the listener, not about the physics of making actual sounds.
- mlthoughts2018 7y agoA communication costs energy to transmit. It cannot be decoupled from physical circumstance. But it’s beside the point. The communication is still embedded in a context of the situation it’s in. If you utter a communication to an insane person, the side effect might be that you are stabbed. You as the person uttering it must take responsibility for what neurophysical response in the mind of the listener might result. If you emit communications, there can be consequences which are causal. Not strictly the volitional responsibility of the listener.