Hey Erin,
Insomnia's got the better of me tonight... While I was up, I thought I'd add
one more thing...
BOEREE
...It is similar to Spinoza's idea of double-aspectism: Sure, we can
measure wave lengths -- but it is the quality of the sound (or light) that
is fundamental, that defines the sound. The measured wavelength is an extra
characteristic of the sound.
RICK
I agree with the notion that the wavelength is 'worn' by the quality (so
to speak--- or an extra characteristic as he puts it). But this doesn't
really get us anywhere with respect to the tree in the woods. When the tree
falls, a quality is there for sure... but the issue is whether it's properly
called 'sound quality' before it's sampled by an observer that interprets it
as sound.
For lack of a better example of my point... Imagine walking through the
infamous forest when a bat sweeps down from the trees and screeches at you.
The quality to you will be 'sound quality' because you interpret it as such.
However, to the bat, it's more like 'sonar/radar quality'. The quality that
we perceive as sound is perceived by the bat as distance. Same air wave,
totally different significance.
it's all good,
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:47 BST