To be clear, are you saying it wouldn't be silent in the same way a feather wouldn't be silent? — Shamshir

A feather in what conditions/what context?

Does a falling feather produce noise - is it silent?

Yes, it produces sound. Sound is just pressure waves caused by vibrations in a medium, which any falling item (not in a vacuum) would produce.

I think we share a hymn sheet.

It produces sound, but the sound is inaudible.
So, is it silent?

It produces sound, but the sound is inaudible. — Shamshir

Inaudible to us? And the feather you mean? Sure, unless we manipulate it to be able to hear it (for example, we could mic it and change the frequency). But why would we be focusing on our sensory experience in questions like this?

If we want to focus on our sensory experiences, someone could say, "Everything is silent to me. I'm deaf."

Because sound is relative to the observer - otherwise it's just vibrations.

Because sound is relative to the observer - otherwise it's just vibrations. — Shamshir

Again, sound is just pressure waves caused by vibrations in a medium. Loosely, though, we could say it's "just vibrations," yes. That's what sound is.

That's the thing though. That's not sound. That's what you interpret as sound. Just like how you interpret a bunch of pixels as a picture.

That's the thing though. That's not sound. That's what you interpret as sound. Just like how you interpret a bunch of pixels as a picture. — Shamshir

No, that is sound. Your subjective experience of sound is your subjective experience of those pressure waves by vibrations in a medium. It's important not to conflate your subjective experience and what your subjective experience is of.

No, that is sound. — Terrapin Station

Based on what else, other than a consolidation through interpretation?

Based on what else, other than a consolidation through interpretation? — Shamshir

Again, that's what we're subjectively responding to. Those pressure waves in a medium. They reach our ears and as long as our ears work--we're not deaf, and as long as they're in a frequency range that our ears can respond to, our ears respond to the pressure waves, they send information to our brains, and we have the subjective sound experiences that we do.

Your subjective experience is sound. Plain and simple.

No, it's your subjective experience of sound.

Do you think that your subjective experience of Mount Everest is identical to Mount Everest?

Do you think that your subjective experience of Mount Everest is identical to Mount Everest? — Terrapin Station

Obviously. Otherwise, on your terms, it's just a bunch of atoms.

So this is just turning into you saying that you're not a realist?

Rather than rushing to respond, think it through for once.

You just said that "obviously" you think that your subjective experience of Mount Everest is identical to Mount Everest.

I leave all absolutes, particularly 'truth', in the hands of religionists. — fresco

What are the implications of no absolutes on our notions of God, free will, meaning, and more?

thats fair. Medieval people very often believed things that weren't true but would be proven wrong 100s of years later.

The implictations for religion are negative in that they are limited by contrived 'absolutes'.
For 'free will', 'meaning' etc they do not apply since there are no limits to the contexts in which they occur.

Relative and absolute?

Can that dichotomy take proper account of that which is existentially dependent upon and consists in/of both, and is thus... neither?

To exist is to have an affect/effect. It is to interact. All things thought, believed, spoken, and/or otherwise uttered are relative, in a common-sense-sort-of-way.

Existence is always marked by interaction.

...not quite....to 'exist' is to 'matter to us'.

...to 'exist' is to 'matter to us. — fresco

And yet things exist prior to us.

:brow:

Yes, it produces sound. Sound is just pressure waves caused by vibrations in a medium, which any falling item (not in a vacuum) would produce. — Terrapin Station

Yup.

Only on the hasis that 'time' is a psychological construct that matters to us.

The word, or what the word denotes?

Things exist prior to us. That much is undeniable. Our notion of time is existentially dependent upon us. Things exist prior to our notion of 'time'.

Either existence is not existentially dependent upon our notion of 'time' or we've gotten something horribly wrong in our notion of 'time'.

I take the nonrepresentationalist view. Words construct what we contextually accept as 'reality' and contexts are transient.
(Your logic above appears faulty...' That much is undeniable.'.....No, that doesn't make sense from the relativistic pov....Things require thingers)

Back later.