9 ms·

That depends on whether you define sound as air waves/vibration or the sensation of hearing. Definitions vary [1,2,3], which is why this philosophical question

That depends on whether you define sound as air waves/vibration or the sensation of hearing. Definitions vary [1,2,3], which is why this philosophical question manages to get people talking past each other. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sound https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sound [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound [3] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sound https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sound (note that "can be heard" != "is heard")

sidlls 4y ago
Then it's not a philosophical question so much as about the meaning of "sound". And "debates" about semantics are about as uninteresting as it gets.
- Sebb767 4y ago
  A lot of "philosophical" questions boil down to semantic debates, see the sleeping beauty problem for another one [1]. So we can get into a philosophical (or semantic?) debate about that, for a funny instance of recursion :-) But I agree with that those debates are quite uninteresting, so let's not do that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Beauty_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Beauty_problem
- mistermann 4y ago
  > And "debates" about semantics are about as uninteresting as it gets. A 'fact' that is relative to the frame of reference of the observer.
  - sidlls 4y ago
    Nah, there’s nothing less interesting and more irritating than bikeshedding of that sort. Nobody cares about some blowhard’s attempt to generate pointless “debate” over hypotheticals and semantics.
    - mistermann 4y ago
      > Nah, there’s nothing less interesting and more irritating than bikeshedding of that sort. When you say "there’s nothing less interesting and more irritating than", are you speaking universally, or of your own personal experience? > Nobody cares about some blowhard’s attempt to generate pointless “debate” over hypotheticals and semantics. How do you people have knowledge of each others thoughts? Serious question.
ctoth 4y ago
Did... Did this actually just happen for real? https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/a7n8GdKiAZRX86T5A/making-beliefs-pay-rent-in-anticipated-experiences https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/a7n8GdKiAZRX86T5A/making-bel...
- Sebb767 4y ago
  Well, I guess there's always https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  I don't get why you're posting this in a surprised manner. Yes, these philosophical debates have been happening for many, many years (and when they do happen they often happen with famous philosophical questions such as the tree-forest-sound one). Yudkowsky wasn't making a novel philosophical discovery, he was just putting particular philosophical debates and meta-debates together into an essay.
- astrange 4y ago
  I'm sorry you accidentally joined an internet cult, but Yud did not invent philosophy, especially not Wittgenstein.

sidlls 4y ago

Then it's not a philosophical question so much as about the meaning of "sound". And "debates" about semantics are about as uninteresting as it gets.

Sebb767 4y ago
A lot of "philosophical" questions boil down to semantic debates, see the sleeping beauty problem for another one [1]. So we can get into a philosophical (or semantic?) debate about that, for a funny instance of recursion :-) But I agree with that those debates are quite uninteresting, so let's not do that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Beauty_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Beauty_problem
mistermann 4y ago
> And "debates" about semantics are about as uninteresting as it gets. A 'fact' that is relative to the frame of reference of the observer.
- sidlls 4y ago
  Nah, there’s nothing less interesting and more irritating than bikeshedding of that sort. Nobody cares about some blowhard’s attempt to generate pointless “debate” over hypotheticals and semantics.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > Nah, there’s nothing less interesting and more irritating than bikeshedding of that sort. When you say "there’s nothing less interesting and more irritating than", are you speaking universally, or of your own personal experience? > Nobody cares about some blowhard’s attempt to generate pointless “debate” over hypotheticals and semantics. How do you people have knowledge of each others thoughts? Serious question.

ctoth 4y ago

Did... Did this actually just happen for real? https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/a7n8GdKiAZRX86T5A/making-beliefs-pay-rent-in-anticipated-experiences https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/a7n8GdKiAZRX86T5A/making-bel...

Sebb767 4y ago
Well, I guess there's always https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
anonymouskimmer 4y ago
I don't get why you're posting this in a surprised manner. Yes, these philosophical debates have been happening for many, many years (and when they do happen they often happen with famous philosophical questions such as the tree-forest-sound one). Yudkowsky wasn't making a novel philosophical discovery, he was just putting particular philosophical debates and meta-debates together into an essay.
astrange 4y ago
I'm sorry you accidentally joined an internet cult, but Yud did not invent philosophy, especially not Wittgenstein.