Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1866-05-18
For the Bellows Balls Times.
More About the Bell.
APEw REPLIES ron THE NoIsYs PHILOSOPHERS

Anew REPLIES RoR THE NoIsY' PHlLosopnERs.n
Having only just recovered from conclusion
caused by the priagiag criticism of the Chester "
Belle, the writer will not but say that Web
sters first definition OF sound reads thus y
An impression, or the effect of an impression,
made on the organs of hearing
Why "Those who argue against noise, fail to
make any distinction between sound and hearing,
is. because no such distinction should be made
according to the definition above quoted" there.
is not soethig that the ear, ifperfect perceives,
which can exist independently Of il, and which
can properly be called sound or noise; !" since
sound seems TO be incorporeal, And furthermore
there seems TO be no ungrammatical propriety -
IN saying, heard a noise = for in the PROPOSE.
ton there is the subject, predicate and correct,
object, logically arranged. 1t is also thought
that my fellow pupils, at least, will sustain me
similarly in saying the say, al saw sight"
Admitting "again, if sound is sensation on
ly, :" the bel" will not "make Just as many
noises as there are ears to hear, although struck
only once" Ifan individual is set for ferreotype
pictures, sixteen impressions, or more, can he
one. And speaker may convey one idea to
thousand hearers; yet it is open to observation,
that there is no reason of there being conveyed a
thousand ideas. So one sound or noise is suscep-
tble ct being taken by as many minds or ears as
are capable of apprehending it, 1t is prudent,
too, to add in favor of there being noise where
no ear is, thasa sound is Away acknowledged to
be 'ehere the edT is, and not somewhere else
The writer does not now recollect having seen
among the Answers to the Bell Question: the
quotation, in the same way, if there were no
mouths there would be no eating !" but endorses
the gratuitons expression, 81 if there were no ear
there would be no hearing even so for the
sentiment Of the sentence, is the object establish
ed with the negative of the original question. viz
" If bell goes through the ordinary motion Of
ringing and there be no ear to hear, will there be
noise !" In relation to the question, does it
follow that If organs did not exist that all those
things that effect organs would cease to exist y
1t is remarked That if organs did not exist"
doubtless, man would cease to exist, so far as his
corporal system is concerned still a state ofl
things might be conceived, in which, all those |
shlhSs that aheet organs would not cease to eX-
ist" " If there were no mouth" there could be |
no occasion for food and certainly no taste.
And yet, the Creator might have formed all
those things for bis pleasure and purpose How
ever, to conhne the question to sensations; then
1t would not follow as logically, that if there /
was no human eye to see there could be no /
light" The Altseeing eye was there to see. /
Nevertheless, sound is not, like light, body hay.
ing distinct existence; we give the name Of
sound to sensation which we experience when.
ever the vibrations of an elastic body strike our
ears All bodies are capable of producing ii, pro
Yided their atoms are susceptible of a certain de
gree OF reaction and resistance And the sono-
rous rays are merely series of particles along
which the vibration is transmitted from the souo-
rous body, to the ear which perceives the noise
occasioned by its percussion Therefore the pos.
ltve proofs are as yet unpresentable that sound
exists without an ear to hear for there is con-
slant analogy between the object and the power
that apprehends it.
In conclusion that the affirmative Of this cues.
ton will no longer take the course of the Seepsics
who formed no systems Of their own, but endeav-
ored to weaken the foundations of those of all |
other, is solicited by SIMPLE.