Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DejaWiz" data-source="post: 4649748" data-attributes="member: 569941">1.&nbsp; I&#039;m not arguing whatsoever....&nbsp; and how is that retarded?&nbsp; We as humans have the capability to develop and refine the necessary observation tools to detect things that are out of our raw physical limitations.2.&nbsp; Yes I do fully understand it, but apparently you&#039;re not getting what I&#039;m trying to state.&nbsp; Sound is classically defined as a frequency that is human audible/detectable when only associated to humans.&nbsp; But sound is sound, regardless if the frequency is higher or lower than what a human is able to observe with the eardrum alone, since we have technologically evolved to the point to where we can now utilize tools to interpret sound frequencies outside the realm of normal human hearing and put them in a human observable format.&nbsp; An inaudible sound is just as much a sound as an audible one, especially since each human has a different audible detection range.... if your eardrums are able to observe a 19,000 Hz frequency, but my upper limit is 18,200 Hz, does that sound exist or not?&nbsp; How should it be classified?3.&nbsp; I hope I was able to explain enough above to refute your belief that I&#039;m contradicting myself, as I&#039;m just trying to get you to understand what I mean by thinking what we, as humans, are now able to observe in this day and age with the help of human created tools.4.&nbsp; If the &quot;artificial ears&quot; isn&#039;t good enough for you, then how about an electron microscope?&nbsp; We can&#039;t see microscopic matter with our ***** eyes, yet we can when they&#039;re magnified by 200,000 times or more.&nbsp; So, since we can&#039;t see such small things without observatory tools to put them into an observable format, does that mean it&#039;s not physical matter?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DejaWiz, post: 4649748, member: 569941"] 1. I'm not arguing whatsoever.... and how is that retarded? We as humans have the capability to develop and refine the necessary observation tools to detect things that are out of our raw physical limitations. 2. Yes I do fully understand it, but apparently you're not getting what I'm trying to state. Sound is [I]classically[/I] defined as a frequency that is human audible/detectable when only associated to humans. But sound is sound, regardless if the frequency is higher or lower than what a human is able to observe with the eardrum alone, since we have technologically evolved to the point to where we can now utilize tools to interpret sound frequencies outside the realm of normal human hearing and put them in a human observable format. An inaudible sound is just as much a sound as an audible one, especially since each human has a different audible detection range.... if your eardrums are able to observe a 19,000 Hz frequency, but my upper limit is 18,200 Hz, does that sound exist or not? How should it be classified? 3. I hope I was able to explain enough above to refute your belief that I'm contradicting myself, as I'm just trying to get you to understand what I mean by thinking what we, as humans, are now able to observe in this day and age with the help of human created tools. 4. If the "artificial ears" isn't good enough for you, then how about an electron microscope? We can't see microscopic matter with our ***** eyes, yet we can when they're magnified by 200,000 times or more. So, since we can't see such small things without observatory tools to put them into an observable format, does that mean it's not physical matter? [/QUOTE]

Verification