← Back to context

Comment by PascLeRasc

7 years ago

Yes, that's what I think. I don't believe that hearing is completely understood scientifically. You're welcome to disagree.

3 comments

PascLeRasc

Reply
vortico  7 years ago

Yeah, this is what I can't fathom. We can detect exoplanets with telescopes with 0.01 arcsecond accuracy, hear whale calls 100 miles away with an array of low frequency transducers, and model the shape of structures by forcing seismic vibration and measuring the response to 1 part in 100 million. We can image the HIV virus and detect DNA changes due to cancer. It's unlikely that we don't understand everything we need to know (or even 1000x more than we need to know regarding this debate) about cochlea, a macroscope object that undergraduates can study with a primitive microscope.

  • PascLeRasc  7 years ago

    I don't mean to shift the goalposts, but neuroscience isn't completely understood, and that's what I mean by hearing and how music makes you feel.

    • vortico  7 years ago

      Completely true, but the auditory nerve only "knows" what the mechanical part can respond to. If we don't understand how sound information is interpreted by the nervous system, we can still answer the question "is any neural/electrical/chemical signal whatsoever produced by a stimulation of a frequency or amplitude?"