matrixmushroom.bsky.social
117 posts
55 followers
44 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Sorry if this is a stale question but what software do you use : >
comment in response to
post
Small question: what is your issue
comment in response to
post
I love how he said the exact opposite of what he meant lol
comment in response to
post
I'm glad your day was great regardless <33
comment in response to
post
Minor typo, I'm gonna go join the circus.
comment in response to
post
Hehe. That uh- (hehe) that game is pretty supe-
(Gets chloroformed)
comment in response to
post
Starlok
comment in response to
post
Risk of Rain posting
comment in response to
post
Omg moot lore :0
comment in response to
post
Eyebuprofen
comment in response to
post
I mean, 𝘐 wasn't gonna say it
comment in response to
post
My favorite bird
comment in response to
post
I adore this
comment in response to
post
I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but do you... Not know what a photon is?
comment in response to
post
But this is how they've been using the word "sound" for centuries, why should it change based on your perception of reality?
comment in response to
post
But our perception doesn't get made or bounce off the walls of a cave, so it must also mean the vibrations themselves.
comment in response to
post
Yeah but I have a separate account for debating people lol
comment in response to
post
There is a car.
And it is going to hit- me-
AAAUGHGSGDH
comment in response to
post
the joke was implying that he's sexy xD
comment in response to
post
*muffled nondescript sounds of continued debate*
comment in response to
post
The distinction invalidates the common usage of the word sound. Most people use the word sound to describe the physical vibrations as well as the mental phenom, so both definitions are valid, and if both definitions are valid then a tree does make a sound.
comment in response to
post
But subjective perception is what decides the meaning of sound, because language is not objective.
comment in response to
post
They are just moving sir, but that's another way to say sound. So it is making a sound, because it's making moving air. Sound is moving air. It is just moving air, because it is sound. And that's what sound is.
comment in response to
post
We are arguing about language and language alone, because the differences between using the word "vibrations" or the word "sound" is purely linguistic. You're the one mistaking reality for language, not the other way around.
comment in response to
post
The very first thing the article says is that "sound waves" enter the ear. Sound waves are waves of sound. Sound is vibrations in the air. I dont know where you're trying to go with this angle.
comment in response to
post
Again, you're using an obscure definition of sound, which the vocabulary of most people, as well as the most popular dictionaries, do not agree with.
comment in response to
post
It depends if he'd rather see a bear than her.
comment in response to
post
But the average person does say that things "make sound", which means that the average person does not subscribe to your definition of sound, making it useless as language is driven by the will of people.
comment in response to
post
If you're going to say that the ear "turns it into sound" then another way to say that would be that the ear "makes sound out of vibrations".
With that definition of sound, nothing would ever "make" sound other than ears, so either "makes sound" is incorrect, or your definition of sound is obscure.
comment in response to
post
this hurts me so deeply
comment in response to
post
It's true, we always wait for everyone to get their plate. It's only basic table manners.
comment in response to
post
What if we assume that this is some sort of eternal speaker that never loses power or breaks? Does it stop making sound when we get out of earshot?
comment in response to
post
Color is subjective, light is not. Sound can describe both something physical and something subjective, but when you describe "making" a sound, you are using the physical definition.
comment in response to
post
hoping that at least one normal person unfollows me for this bizzarre attempt at humor
comment in response to
post
Why would something have to be recieved to exist? Light doesn't, radiation doesn't, so why would sound, a word used to describe physical vibrations, be any different? What about intentional sound? If you put a speaker in these empty woods then walked away, would it stop making sound at some point?
comment in response to
post
I used that to point out the flaw in his logic, but I think he actually agreed with it nullifying that point. A smell is the particles in the air, not the thought in our head : >
comment in response to
post
:3
comment in response to
post
Again, "echo" "block" and "make" examples, blah blah blah
comment in response to
post
It absolutely is, however, I believe that most people hold the word "sound" in the physical definition, and the will of the populous drives language
comment in response to
post
The word "sound" describes the vibrations, (see: my "echo" example).
comment in response to
post
I love how based you are <3
comment in response to
post
The blending on this is fantastic. Love it
comment in response to
post
You're ignoring the fact that language does actually have meaning, regardless of if the physical world does. We use language to *give* the world meaning, and the most commonly used dictionaries have definitions of sound that describe the physical vibration, not the impression we get from it.