Define "sound."

Great video, thanks!

The sensation that we identify as a sound is entirely imaginary and is only symbolic of ultimate reality, which is beyond our ken. Whatever a squirrel or bird makes of it I have no idea, but whatever it is, their model is different than ours. I have no way of knowing if your model is anything like mine for that matter. So the answer is no.

In the video it is stated that there’s no such thing as a thing, which I’ve said before. For efficiency and survival purposes we assign the status of “thing” to repeated and similar bursts of sensations. We are so lost in our imaginary world of things that we have lost sight of consciousness, our true Self.

Isaac Newton himself said that particles of matter are not things, yet people insist on a rote belief in a mechanistic and materialistic philosophy, spawned by a misunderstanding of Newton’s physics.

Max Planck said in 1944, "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter".

"In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave, through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid. In human physiology and psychology, sound is the reception of such waves and their perception by the brain." (Wikipedia)

So, which definition of "sound" are we using? If the former, then yes; if the latter, then no. Personally, I favor the former definition.