Why do humans perceive sound from 20-20khz?
Why do you think you can see so many shades of green? You think that perhaps we've evolved this way so we discriminate between what's edible & what's not?
Green has a wavelength of around 510nm, which places it dead center on the visible portion of the EMS, & thus it is the most sensitive to the naked eye.
(This is where I went wrong. Keep reading)
So why 20-20khz? You already know. You had two of them. A baby's cry has a frequency of around 10khz, which just happens to fall dead center on our hearing spectrum, & thus it is the most sensitive to our ears.
Well that statement is false. Why though? Green falls dead center on the EMS, & thus we are most sensitive to this color. I get that. If we are most sensitive to the frequency of a baby's cry, then why doesn't it fall dead center (10khz) on the hearing spectrum?
Um, what if I were to cut your ruler in half & define 1 foot as 6 inches? Am I being fair? Yeah, as long as I change every other unit to make it work.
I need to get across the idea that it isn't the individual numbers that are important, rather the relations. I know this is pretty sloppy, but I think you get the idea. I was so confident that a baby's cry fell @ 10khz. It doesn't & I do not understand.
Just thought I'd include this,
increase freq = increase in distress. This why sound is more directional as freq increases? So a mother can find her child?
Now I'm addressed with another question,
Why did we evolve in such a way where we cry when we're in distress? To signal for help? Relief of pain?
Why do you think sound is logarithmic? We don't see mountains move or trees grow. Perhaps nature has built this into our senses because it can't take in that much information, so it breaks it up into pieces.
I understand this is more philosophy than physics. It's still fun to think about though.
Thanks
Why do you think you can see so many shades of green? You think that perhaps we've evolved this way so we discriminate between what's edible & what's not?
Green has a wavelength of around 510nm, which places it dead center on the visible portion of the EMS, & thus it is the most sensitive to the naked eye.
(This is where I went wrong. Keep reading)
So why 20-20khz? You already know. You had two of them. A baby's cry has a frequency of around 10khz, which just happens to fall dead center on our hearing spectrum, & thus it is the most sensitive to our ears.
Well that statement is false. Why though? Green falls dead center on the EMS, & thus we are most sensitive to this color. I get that. If we are most sensitive to the frequency of a baby's cry, then why doesn't it fall dead center (10khz) on the hearing spectrum?
Um, what if I were to cut your ruler in half & define 1 foot as 6 inches? Am I being fair? Yeah, as long as I change every other unit to make it work.
I need to get across the idea that it isn't the individual numbers that are important, rather the relations. I know this is pretty sloppy, but I think you get the idea. I was so confident that a baby's cry fell @ 10khz. It doesn't & I do not understand.
Just thought I'd include this,
increase freq = increase in distress. This why sound is more directional as freq increases? So a mother can find her child?
Now I'm addressed with another question,
Why did we evolve in such a way where we cry when we're in distress? To signal for help? Relief of pain?
Why do you think sound is logarithmic? We don't see mountains move or trees grow. Perhaps nature has built this into our senses because it can't take in that much information, so it breaks it up into pieces.
I understand this is more philosophy than physics. It's still fun to think about though.
Thanks
Last edited:
Seeing as you invited philosophers, I'll just point out what appears to me a fundamental error in your paradigm. Frequency (whether in light or in sound) does not correspond to pitch/colour directly. Frequency is an element of the 'objective' world and the process of perception translates these elements into pitch and colour. This oversight may or may not help to explain your mistake.
Another error I've just noticed - you're assuming 'dead centre' is the algebraic mean of the extremes. But why not the harmonic mean? For sound I'd say dead centre was 632Hz being the square root of the product of the two extremes, because sound pitch is perceived in ratiometric terms.
Another error I've just noticed - you're assuming 'dead centre' is the algebraic mean of the extremes. But why not the harmonic mean? For sound I'd say dead centre was 632Hz being the square root of the product of the two extremes, because sound pitch is perceived in ratiometric terms.
Before it will get rough in this thread I only wanted to say:
"I like your point and different kind of thinking about this for us really important issue"
@abraxalito I think I agree with your idea of a dead-centre!
"I like your point and different kind of thinking about this for us really important issue"
@abraxalito I think I agree with your idea of a dead-centre!
Thank you abraxalito
I thought frequency corresponded EXACTLY to pitch or color.
What do you mean by objective world? You mean, you can generate a 15khz tone, but there is no such thing as perceiving 15khz ...because it varies from person to person.
But there is consistency. I've never met you & yet we perceive sound from 20-20khz. Okay, not exactly but it's pretty close. Again, it's pretty consistent.
I think I understand what you mean by extremes, but I'll ask anyways.
I do not understand what you mean by harmonic mean.
I thought frequency corresponded EXACTLY to pitch or color.
What do you mean by objective world? You mean, you can generate a 15khz tone, but there is no such thing as perceiving 15khz ...because it varies from person to person.
But there is consistency. I've never met you & yet we perceive sound from 20-20khz. Okay, not exactly but it's pretty close. Again, it's pretty consistent.
I think I understand what you mean by extremes, but I'll ask anyways.
I do not understand what you mean by harmonic mean.
You can easily verify for yourself that pitch does not correspond exactly to frequency. Play a sinewave (say around 400Hz) quietly at first and gradually turn up the volume. As it gets louder you'll notice it gets very slightly flatter in pitch terms. I believe that's a consistent effect between different people.
By 'objective world' I mean the world as described by science and measurements. Yes, nobody perceives '15kHz' as a frequency, rather they perceive pitch (loosely for frequency) loudness (correlated broadly with amplitude) etc. Same with colour - since light is generally a mix of different frequencies.
Harmonic mean - you are right, I got that wrong and actually meant geometric mean. Harmonic mean being a mean calculated by taking reciprocals - Harmonic mean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By 'objective world' I mean the world as described by science and measurements. Yes, nobody perceives '15kHz' as a frequency, rather they perceive pitch (loosely for frequency) loudness (correlated broadly with amplitude) etc. Same with colour - since light is generally a mix of different frequencies.
Harmonic mean - you are right, I got that wrong and actually meant geometric mean. Harmonic mean being a mean calculated by taking reciprocals - Harmonic mean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Okay, I understand the difference between frequency (absolulte) & pitch (relative).
I understand the idea of "if you don't allow something to be true, you're perpetually asking why," but may I ask why? Why freq & pitch aren't the same? What variables play a role here? The environment (temp, volume, etc)?
I understand the idea of "if you don't allow something to be true, you're perpetually asking why," but may I ask why? Why freq & pitch aren't the same? What variables play a role here? The environment (temp, volume, etc)?
Well as a philosopher I have to disagree that frequency is absolute. We just happen to choose cycles per second - cycles are absolute but seconds are nowadays defined relative to a certain number of transitions in a caesium atom.
I'd turn your question around and ask 'why should frequency and pitch be the same?' 'They're qualitatively different - one's a sensation (construction of our subjective perceptual processes) and the other's an idea, a construction of science.
I'd turn your question around and ask 'why should frequency and pitch be the same?' 'They're qualitatively different - one's a sensation (construction of our subjective perceptual processes) and the other's an idea, a construction of science.
Campus is closing in 2 minutes. I want to point out something before I leave.
Truths are based on invariants, & invariants are based on symmetries. When you look out into the world, you're observing mathematical relationships (symmetries)
What is the nature of truth? Is there?
Truths are based on invariants, & invariants are based on symmetries. When you look out into the world, you're observing mathematical relationships (symmetries)
What is the nature of truth? Is there?
My word, you want to discuss such questions as the nature of truth on an DIY audio forum? 😀 I'm not really sure that your first premise holds up to scrutiny - that 'truths are based on invariants' but I like your comments about symmetries and feel that would be a more fruitful avenue of pontification than 'truth'.
Not always. Some things can be true part of the time. A traffic light is not always green, but sometimes it is.
Noether's theorem IIRC.
Is there what? Truth is things which are true. As a fundamental concept I don't think you can break it down any further. You can talk around it (as some do) or try to deny it (as others do).
1+1=2 (decimal), 1+1=10 (binary). Are these telling us something true about numbers, or merely playing with symbols? I would say the former.
Actually, being a student in philosophy right now, I don't see why you have to bring philosophy into the debate at all. Most of your questions are rather a matter of evolutionary biology, with a fair dose of neurosciences thrown in. What we hear is what our organs allow us to hear, on a physical basis (the biology part), but heavily filtered and enhanced by our brain protocols (same goes for all our senses).
If there's a need for philosophy here, it's mostly epistemology, knowing in which field(s) your various questions are best asked.
This should be a good reading.
Last edited:
I agree. Most of the issues raised here are matters for the special sciences. Philosophy can offer a critical perspective on the claims being made as well as provide suggestive speculations of its own, but the actual study of this kind of empirical phenomena falls primarily upon the special sciences to investigate and address.
If I were to add one comment on the question of the relation between hearing and the human voice (e.g. the baby's cry), it would be that your comments seem to presume that the voice is a constant to which hearing must adjust and adapt. A more plausible response might be that the human voice and hearing co-evolved both in response to each other and their broader environment. The co-evolution of our hearing to the human voice would likely have been influenced by the importance of spoken language and aural communication in human life. While language and communication are certainly not limited to aural conditions (e.g. think of the importance of facial expressions, gestures, writing, and so on), it likely would have been a vital component in the social life and survival of early humans (hence the importance of the mid-range in audio).
As for the question of truth, this is as old as philosophy itself. There are such a wide variety of accounts that it is difficult to summarize them in a short space. Some say truth is a function of propositions, others that it is a relation between propositions and the world, others again that it is the way in which propositions and beliefs cohere together. Then you have notions of truth that don't seem to be propositional in any strong sense such as being a true friend, or being true to some idea or ideal as an act of emulation, approximation, or instantiation. There's a library of literature on this.
Good fun.
++ Ben.
Philosophy: " Why is their air?" "Every PE major knows, it is blow up volley balls with" B. Cosby.
Philosophy: " Why is their air?" "Every PE major knows, it is blow up volley balls with" B. Cosby.
+++Ben
Why do we 20 to 20kHz? Only because we survived with that range of frequency recognition, or more importantly, we didn't die because of it.
Why do we 20 to 20kHz? Only because we survived with that range of frequency recognition, or more importantly, we didn't die because of it.
A baby cries at about 300 ~ 400 Hz, it's the harmonics that we respond too, similar to screaming.
Green is not "dead center" when you look at the bigger picture. It's not even in the middle when you consider the energy contained in the "visible spectrum".
Why can we see green so well? Ancestors who could not differentiate greens as well could not compete. Darwin.
I suppose this is also evident in the eye colour of our Nordic or European ancestors.
Could this perhaps be an evolutionary change in the turbid structure of the human eye due to such a lack of green in snow covered surroundings?
Green is not "dead center" when you look at the bigger picture. It's not even in the middle when you consider the energy contained in the "visible spectrum".
Why can we see green so well? Ancestors who could not differentiate greens as well could not compete. Darwin.
I suppose this is also evident in the eye colour of our Nordic or European ancestors.
Could this perhaps be an evolutionary change in the turbid structure of the human eye due to such a lack of green in snow covered surroundings?
So you're disregarding the whole co-evolution idea & think its just a matter of probability? I think theres more to it than that. Why? Because things have & are evolving. Now if you think this is also just a matter of probability, then youre basically giving way to a predetermined universe.
If all we observe are relations, then what do we really know? Do singularities not exist or are the singularities what we define as truths.
If singularities do not exist, then do you think people are wasting their time with a unified theory?
I just finished the universe & the teacup. Noertherms theorem was the last chapter🙂
Last edited:
Have I turned into a sock-puppet? Saying things that I didn't ever say?
If you want to pretend to be very clever, I'm sure there are forums where such ideas are discussed, and where DIYAudio isn't.
I don't think he's trying to be clever. He's just raising some questions that he finds both interesting and puzzling. Since this is the Lounge, there's nothing wrong with that, is there?
As for the claim about singulars, this is indeed an interesting question. Historically the usual way of characterizing singulars is to characterize them either as substances or subjects (e.g. the subject of a predicate). These are, however, notoriously difficult and problematic notions, at least from an epistemic point of view. If knowledge is indeed relational, for example, then the epistemic status of singulars does indeed become a problem. One way of responding to this is to say that not all knowledge is relational, but that some forms of knowledge are more intuitive (where the thing known is given to mind immediately and all-at-once--William of Ockham or Descartes were proponents of this sort of claim). There are all kinds of problems with this kind of claim, however (e.g. the Myth of the Given), leading many to conclude that knowledge can only be relational. If you still want to insist on the reality of singulars, then one is left claiming, for example, that they cannot be connoted but only denoted, or that they are only 'known' at the level of pure feeling (where feeling is not, strictly speaking, a cognitive condition but something more like a precognitive state, one that nevertheless bears a striking resemblance to what was earlier referred to as intuition).
Just a few thoughts.
Thing is... once we start thinking in terms of natural sciences, it's awfully hard not to give way to a predetermined universe (even taking into account probabilistic theories). Kant's third antinomy is a fiendishly hard nut to crack.
But we can fully answer your questions (the original ones about human hearing) in that framework, since we are only trying to describe what actually happened through "a genealogy of causes", a single (but overly complex) causal chain.
Unless you want to return to some kind of teleology ?
I might be a bit dense, but I still don't see why we have to bring a debate on the singulars in here. If someone could enlighten me ? 😕
sunt certi denique fines quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum
Pardon my French moderator 🙂
Cheers ,
Rens
- Status
- Not open for further replies.