Fons Adriaensen <fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 08:48:36AM +0100, Will Godfrey wrote: > >> Fascinating study - well worth reading. > > I'd disagree. To me it's just word-play, starting with a > completely fuzzy definition of 'hearing'. > >> Philosophers have long debated whether silence is something >> we can literally perceive > > As they have wasted their time debating if zero is a valid > number or something the devil created to mislead us. Well, the philosophical question might possibly be phrased as "if no tree falls down in a forest and there is someone around to hear it, does it make a sound?" But this makes more sense as a neurophysiological question, namely how the hearing adapts to total silence, similarly to how vision adaption in total darkness is a neurophysiological question. If you ask "what is total darkness" of a camera film, its answer from a month in darkness will pretty much be "nothing". If you ask the same of a digital camera sensor, the answer will be "noise". This tells you more about the sensor than about darkness. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list -- linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to linux-audio-user-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
