 (1) The premise is false since you cannot see a red cube without that there is something, a real thing, that is the bearer of the visual features that usually a red cube has. When it seems to you that you are seeing a red cube without that there actually is a red cube, it is because you are hallucinating it: there is nothing that instantiates the visual features of a real red cube. Can we apply the same reasoning to audition in order to claim that the premise is false concerning auditory appearances too? When hearing a sound in S2, you do not hallucinate the sound of a collision since you can perfectly hear a sound without that there is a collision, as when listening to music played by loudspeakers. Therefore, there is still something that is the bearer of auditory qualities that you hear in S2 which can be produced, for example, by loudspeakers and you are clearly not having a hallucination (Nudds 2018: 56). That is to say that while it seems that, in the visual case, we hallucinate, in the auditory case we are clearly hearing a sound, and we can conclude that the premise is true in audition. Nudds’ conclusion can be challenged by the event view since one can say that an environmental event is still present in S2, that is, the event involved in the mechanics responsible for the functioning of the loudspeaker. Therefore, the premise is false in the auditory case as well, but for a different reason: not because you are hallucinating a sound, but because the loudspeaker case does not show that you hear sound in the absence of an environmental event.