…speaking of the speed of light, also watch this: vimeo.com/117815404/de...

Stop wasting my time with your childish nonsense.

I specifically defined sound as that which is heard. That is not the only definition, but it is a perfectly acceptable one and not at all contentious. You are losing yourself in semantics and your determination to resist that as a viable definition is nonsensical and bordering on trolling.

And I used it for a reason, because it is the nature of the interface between what is outside our heads and what is inside that is the point of interest I have been discussing here.

Nothing in that contradicts my post and comments. I clearly defined "sound" as that which we hear, not as the vibrations that give rise to it. If you and others wish to define sound as the vibrations themselves, that's perfectly fine, but I made it clear that it is the proximal definition I used.

Electromagnetic radiation and vibrations are simply data. Without hardware and software to interpret them, they remain invisible and inaudible. That is basic physics and biology. But I can see that you don't get it, so I won't waste any more time on trying to enlighten you (pun intended).

No, it's the fact that they are true that makes them true. If the universe were devoid of life, it would be dark and silent, but full of vibrations and electromagnetic radiation. We make things visible in the same way that a telescope makes the infra red observable.

Just as we can ignore, on a day to day basis, the fact that light and colour is an internal construct built from invisible electromagnetism. You can ignore it and get on with the business of using it, but that doesn't stop it being the basic fact behind it.

If you are a philosopher of perception, I'm surprised you are unaware that sound is an internal artefact and the rest is an illusion. The fact that it is so good effective means it can be ignored in favour of the convenient shorthand you use. But that is clearly not the point of this post.

The vibrating guitar string doesn't create a sound. It creates a vibration in the air, and the amplifier creates a more significant vibration in the air. Neither makes a sound. Our ear-brain combo converts the vibration at our ear drum into something that our brain electrically turns into sound.

I fundamentally disagree. Sound does not exist until it is heard. An amplifier received signals from a vibrating guitar string and produces a more powerful, representative vibration of the air at the speaker interface. It is not sound until an ear-brain system interprets it as such

It isn't a sound event. It's a vibration event.

You can see a dog barking using your eye-brain system, but that is not sound. To hear sound you need an ear-brain system. I don't know of anyone that defines sound as the visible physical consequences of a vibration event (like a shock wave from a sonic boom). Unless you hear it, it isn't sound.

What would you define as "objects of auditory experience"?

I don't think it's contentious to define sound as something we "hear" rather than something we feel. What we hear is derived from vibrations which are silent if we don't have an ear-brain system. Ask someone whose ear-brain system isn't functioning.

I would argue that shape is different, as it exists independently of us, though the ability to feel shapes is dependent on us having a nervous system that can supply the necessary data. Of course, it can be argued that nothing exists in any meaningful sense if nothing is able to perceive it

The same does indeed apply to colour - and light in general. Electromagnetic waves are intrinsically invisible. Our ability to interpret them as light and colour is a product of our eye-brain system and exists only in the heads of those creatures that have evolved such a system.