Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The analogy between sound localization and earthquake loc... — Carmelics
    Home/Perception
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The analogy between sound localization and earthquake localization fails at a crucial point

    Perception
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Earthquake localization is inference from wave-arrival time differences to a spatial origin, a process entirely external to perceptual phenomenology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Auditory localization is constituted by interaural time and level differences yielding direct phenomenal presence, not post-hoc triangulation to a wave-source center.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.O'Callaghan's work on auditory perception shows the auditory system encodes source direction and distance, not wavefront geometry, making the center-of-expansion model phenomenologically inert.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Casati and Dokic's distal theory holds sounds are events at their sources, but this requires the perceptual system to genuinely track source location as a structured spatial object.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Earthquake hypocenters are identifiable as centers only because seismologists model the full rupture geometry, a representational resource unavailable to naive auditory perception.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without equivalent geometric representation of expanding wavefronts in auditory experience, the analogy imports explanatory structure that the auditory case simply lacks.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Earthquakes can be localized at their hypocenter only when we have at least a rough representation of their full extension in space, making the center identification meaningful
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The auditory system does not identify the sounding object's location as the center of expanding sound waves
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The auditory system does not identify the sounding object's location as the center of anything at all
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Perception

    Related

    Auditory localization is constituted by interaural time and level differences yi...Casati and Dokic's distal theory holds sounds are events at their sources, but t...Earthquake hypocenters are identifiable as centers only because seismologists mo...Earthquake localization is inference from wave-arrival time differences to a spa...
    +5 moreShow less
    Earthquakes can be localized at their hypocenter only when we have at least a ro...O'Callaghan's work on auditory perception shows the auditory system encodes sour...The auditory system does not identify the sounding object's location as the cent...The auditory system does not identify the sounding object's location as the cent...Without equivalent geometric representation of expanding wavefronts in auditory ...

    Similar

    Facts about the apparent location of sounds do not justify the Wave Th...78%If sounds only had directionality (weak locatedness), distance informa...78%It is possible for auditory perception to lack intrinsic spatiality ev...77%Claim (i) — that sounds are not intrinsically spatial — implies claim ...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: sounds
    View source passageHide passage
    An important dialectical limitation of Sorensen’s suggestion is that it does not provide us with an independent argument in favor of the Wave Theory. The identification of sounds with sound waves is of course compatible with the fact that we locate sounds at a point (the sounding object’s location) which happens to be the center of expanding sound waves. However, the analogy with the localization of earthquakes breaks down at a crucial point. Of course, we can usefully identify a certain region
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit