4 ms·

A microphone + ADC is hearing though, that's the whole reason we even produce microphones. So that our electronics can hear sound.

by gkbrk 8mo ago

qsera 8mo ago
So according to you when can you qualify something as capable of hearing 1. Vibrate according input to the sound, is that hearing? 2. Generate electrical signals according to the sound, is that hearing? 3. Amplify electrical signal, does we cross the hearing mark? 4. Record the signal to a cassete tape (or use an ADC -> mp3), are we hearing yet? 5. Play it back through a speaker. Sure, we should be hearing now! At which point exactly would you say the thing is definitely hearing?
- fc417fc802 8mo ago
  You can reduce the human auditory process to a similar mechanical list. At which specific point would you say a human is hearing? You've fallen into the trap of human exceptionalism but you don't seem to be aware of that fact. Are you a substance dualist or not?
  - qsera 8mo ago
    >You can reduce the human auditory process to a similar mechanical list. You can't. Because we don't know at which point sound gets registered in consciousness.
    - fc417fc802 8mo ago
      Because you can't even define what consciousness is, let alone objectively test for it. You are entirely wrong though. You most certainly _can_ reduce the human auditory process to a (bio)mechanical list. You have unilaterally, arbitrarily, and without justification added consciousness to that list.
      - qsera 8mo ago
        >Because you can't even define what consciousness is, let alone objectively test for it. Exactly. So if we understand "hearing" as something registered by consciousness, then implicitly things that are not conscious cannot "hear". >reduce the human auditory process Yes, human auditory process, yes. "Hearing" no. I see that you cleverly switched to the "auditory process" instead of "hearing". moving goal posts, are we?
- joquarky 8mo ago
  Alan Watts talks about this. If a tree falls, does it make a sound? It depends on whether there is somebody to ultimately perceive the vibrations that the falling tree made (either directly or via recording).
  - qsera 8mo ago
    It is easy to answer this if we define sound as the sensation. If there is no sensor then there is no sensation. If we define sound as the vibration of air. Then yes, it will make a sound. Most of these questions feels perplexing because some of the underlying terms are loosely defined. If we strictly define those terms, then the question answers itself.

A microphone + ADC is hearing though, that's the whole reason we even produce microphones. So that our electronics can hear sound.

by gkbrk 8mo ago

A microphone + ADC is hearing though, that's the whole reason we even produce microphones. So that our electronics can hear sound.

qsera 8mo ago

So according to you when can you qualify something as capable of hearing 1. Vibrate according input to the sound, is that hearing? 2. Generate electrical signals according to the sound, is that hearing? 3. Amplify electrical signal, does we cross the hearing mark? 4. Record the signal to a cassete tape (or use an ADC -> mp3), are we hearing yet? 5. Play it back through a speaker. Sure, we should be hearing now! At which point exactly would you say the thing is definitely hearing?

fc417fc802 8mo ago
You can reduce the human auditory process to a similar mechanical list. At which specific point would you say a human is hearing? You've fallen into the trap of human exceptionalism but you don't seem to be aware of that fact. Are you a substance dualist or not?
- qsera 8mo ago
  >You can reduce the human auditory process to a similar mechanical list. You can't. Because we don't know at which point sound gets registered in consciousness.
  - fc417fc802 8mo ago
    Because you can't even define what consciousness is, let alone objectively test for it. You are entirely wrong though. You most certainly _can_ reduce the human auditory process to a (bio)mechanical list. You have unilaterally, arbitrarily, and without justification added consciousness to that list.
    - qsera 8mo ago
      >Because you can't even define what consciousness is, let alone objectively test for it. Exactly. So if we understand "hearing" as something registered by consciousness, then implicitly things that are not conscious cannot "hear". >reduce the human auditory process Yes, human auditory process, yes. "Hearing" no. I see that you cleverly switched to the "auditory process" instead of "hearing". moving goal posts, are we?
joquarky 8mo ago
Alan Watts talks about this. If a tree falls, does it make a sound? It depends on whether there is somebody to ultimately perceive the vibrations that the falling tree made (either directly or via recording).
- qsera 8mo ago
  It is easy to answer this if we define sound as the sensation. If there is no sensor then there is no sensation. If we define sound as the vibration of air. Then yes, it will make a sound. Most of these questions feels perplexing because some of the underlying terms are loosely defined. If we strictly define those terms, then the question answers itself.