Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CSflim
Why on earth would anyone want to define 'sound' as 'the perception of (what is normally considered) sound'. Unless of course that person wanted to do violence to the language just to win an argument.
If you are abusive enough to your langauge, you can "win" just about any philosophical argument.
|
It is not abusing the language; it is a very important difference in paradigm between groups of people. Philosophical discussions are quite useless without good communication. A physicist would likely agree with you, but I'll bet a lot of biologists would state the "abusive", as you call it, definition.
If you are abusive enough to the concept, you can "win" just about any philosophical argument as well. If you do not allow creativity and difference between definitions, then I shall not allow you creativity with the consideration of the question: the question is supposed to be unanswerable since no one can witness it; therefore that is the only way it may be considered.
d*d: I wouldn't worry about threadjacking. The original topic is long dead.