 (2) Nudds (2018: 56) adds that the falsity of the existence premise in the visual case can be showed also by imagining to see a hologram in S4. If what you see when it seems to you that you see a red cube is a hologram of a red cube—that is, you have the experience of seeing something that is indistinguishable from seeing a real red cube—you don’t literally see the object, but you do not hallucinate it as well. When seeing a hologram of a red cube, you see something which is the bearer of visual qualities without that the actual object having these visual features is present. Starting from Martin’s (2012) discussion of visual images, according to which a hologram is the appearance of an object “in the absence of any object which might possess it” (2012: 339), Nudds concludes that a hologram presents the appearance of something that it does not instantiate. Therefore, the existence premise is false not because you literally see nothing in S4, as usually happens in hallucinations, but because what you see is not the bearer of visual features; and yet it is indistinguishable from a real red cube. Is there a similar case in audition which can be used in order to show that the existence premise is false? Given that auditory holograms do not seem to exist, namely, “something that presents the acoustic appearance of a sound-producing event, an appearance it does not itself instantiate” (2018: 58), it is difficult to claim that the existence premise is false in audition for the same reasons for which it is false in vision; therefore, Nudds concludes that the existence premise is true: environmental events are not the bearers of acoustic features. This conclusion is based on the debatable notions of auditory hologram and auditory “image”. Is it really legitimate to look for analogous auditory concepts for notions that are authentically visual? Important questions that are triggered by Nudds’ argument are: how far we can go with the analogy between vision and audition, and how admissible is to ground our reasoning on the analogy between the two sensory modalities especially when dealing with items so intrinsically visual, such as holograms and images?