Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by noraa at 4:41 am on Oct. 30, 2008 ...does it make a sound? Back up your argument with actual evidence. I think that it produces sound waves, however with no hearing device to intercept those waves, nothing happens to them and they fade off. -- Posted by blufindr at 4:43 am on Oct. 30, 2008 I agree with you, in that it does produce sound waves which are unperceived. However, if a tree falls in a forest and no-one is there to perceive it, who is to say that the tree fell at all? Perhaps a race of giants just replaced the tree with a broken one. -- Posted by MaryLin at 4:47 am on Oct. 30, 2008 If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, nobody can tell that the tree actually fell or made a sound. -- Posted by Periwinkle at 4:48 am on Oct. 30, 2008 Physics says it'll produce sound waves. So yes, there is a sound, but nobody is there to hear it. -- Posted by marshmellowman at 4:50 am on Oct. 30, 2008 I hate this question, because it's complete utter bollocks. Of course it makes a sound. Sound is defined as the production of sound waves, and when a tree falls, it will definitely make sound waves, there will just be no-one there to receive those sound waves in the ear canal. -- Posted by Charolastra at 4:56 am on Oct. 30, 2008 yes you guys, but isn't part of sound the reception of it and interpretation within the ears? granted one half is it will produce some sort of sound wave that will penetrate the air but without a set of ears around to receive those waves it's useless and you're missing part of the equation. -- Posted by Aero360 at 5:01 am on Oct. 30, 2008 It still produces a sound.  Even if no people are there, I'm sure a bunch of tiny little woodland critters can vouch for me. -- Posted by gronk at 5:10 am on Oct. 30, 2008 Quote: from MaryLin at 10:47 pm on Oct. 30, 2008 If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, nobody can tell that the tree actually fell or made a sound. A hunter could be in the forest one day and see a tree, and the next day come back and see it fallen over -- Posted by MadFishBomb at 5:37 am on Oct. 30, 2008 What if the tree happened to be on Mars? There aren't any woodland creatures there. Sound is vibrations moving through the air as waves. A falling tree would most certainly make those waves of vibration if it fell in a gaseous atmosphere. However, until those vibrations were received by the ears and processed by the brain of a living being, those vibrations do NOT get turned into sound. Conclusion: If a tree falls in the forest and there really is no living soul around to hear it, it doesn't make a sound! -- Posted by Radon at 6:18 am on Oct. 30, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 4:50 am on Oct. 30, 2008 Of course it makes a sound. Sound is defined as the production of sound waves, and when a tree falls, it will definitely make sound waves, there will just be no-one there to receive those sound waves in the ear canal. No, it doesn't seem like you understand the problem. The "If a tree falls [...]"question is not concerned with the physics of sound waves. The question is: can you prove the existence of anything outside your consciousness, without first bringing it into your consciousness? If not, doesn't it follow that your consciousness is reality itself? In fact, is there any basis whatsoever on which we should assume an objective, material universe? Does consciousness arise out of the universe, or vice versa? You haven't answered any of these questions. If the answer was as simple as you're trying to make it, philosophy would have scrapped it. -- Posted by Charolastra at 8:13 am on Oct. 30, 2008 Quote: from Radon at 9:18 am on Oct. 30, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 4:50 am on Oct. 30, 2008 Of course it makes a sound. Sound is defined as the production of sound waves, and when a tree falls, it will definitely make sound waves, there will just be no-one there to receive those sound waves in the ear canal. No, it doesn't seem like you understand the problem. The "If a tree falls [...]"question is not concerned with the physics of sound waves.   The question is: can you prove the existence of anything outside your consciousness, without first bringing it into your consciousness? If not, doesn't it follow that your consciousness is reality itself? In fact, is there any basis whatsoever on which we should assume an objective, material universe?   Does consciousness arise out of the universe, or vice versa? You haven't answered any of these questions. If the answer was as simple as you're trying to make it, philosophy would have scrapped it. winrar -- Posted by MaryLin at 10:06 am on Oct. 30, 2008 Quote: from gronk at 2:10 pm on Oct. 30, 2008 Quote: from MaryLin at 10:47 pm on Oct. 30, 2008 If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, nobody can tell that the tree actually fell or made a sound. A hunter could be in the forest one day and see a tree, and the next day come back and see it fallen over But he never heard the sound of the tree falling down   -- Posted by Event Horizon at 10:46 am on Oct. 30, 2008 Quote: from blufindr at 7:43 am on Oct. 30, 2008 I agree with you, in that it does produce sound waves which are unperceived. However, if a tree falls in a forest and no-one is there to perceive it, who is to say that the tree fell at all? Perhaps a race of giants just replaced the tree with a broken one. 1) Well, the question is not "if a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is there to hear it, does someone hear it?" It is "...does it make a sound". If we define "sound" by its physical nature, then sound is a longitudinal wave propagated, in this case, by the wave created by the force of snapping wood. In this way, yes, it makes a sound, and if nothing --NOTHING-- is there to perceive the sound, then that is their problem. 2) come on...If i put a pencil on my desk and turn the lights out, does it cease to exist? hardly, to assert that it only exists upon direct visual or sensory contact is silly indeed --especially if you are proposing that a HUMAN presence is needed. I would say also that the effects of the event of "falling" would effect the tree's environment, which, then being altered, effects the environment surrounding that, etc etc. So that any action can be seen to be "perceived" in the sense that "it's effects become noticed by something or some agent of perception". -- Posted by gronk at 5:11 pm on Oct. 30, 2008 Quote: from MaryLin at 4:06 am on Oct. 31, 2008 Quote: from gronk at 2:10 pm on Oct. 30, 2008 Quote: from MaryLin at 10:47 pm on Oct. 30, 2008 If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, nobody can tell that the tree actually fell or made a sound.    A hunter could be in the forest one day and see a tree, and the next day come back and see it fallen over But he never heard the sound of the tree falling down of course but he could tell if tell over, abductively at least -- Posted by locket08 at 6:27 pm on Oct. 30, 2008 Yes, it makes a noise. It's like asking if a deaf person turns on the radio, but no one else is around to hear the music, is the radio actually making noise? Of course. -- Posted by telomere13 at 7:00 pm on Oct. 30, 2008 If we had sensory organs that responded to, say, large waves underwater, and our brains interprepeted these as sound, they would be sound.  Likewise, if a "sound wave" is not interpreted as sound by anyone, ever, it's still a physical phenomenon, but is it necessarily "sound"? -- Posted by noraa at 8:12 pm on Oct. 30, 2008 Quote: from Aero360 at 5:01 am on Oct. 30, 2008 It still produces a sound. Even if no people are there, I'm sure a bunch of tiny little woodland critters can vouch for me. No, because the whole point is that NOBODY is there to hear it. Not tiny woodland creatures, not maggots, not mitochondria who have hearing abilities. NOBODY. ZIP. NADA. -- Posted by blufindr at 8:26 pm on Oct. 30, 2008 1) Well, the question is not "if a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is there to hear it, does someone hear it?" It is "...does it make a sound". If we define "sound" by its physical nature, then sound is a longitudinal wave propagated, in this case, by the wave created by the force of snapping wood. In this way, yes, it makes a sound, and if nothing --NOTHING-- is there to perceive the sound, then that is their problem. How do you know that sound is made at all? You are not there to perceive the sound. 2) come on...If i put a pencil on my desk and turn the lights out, does it cease to exist? hardly, to assert that it only exists upon direct visual or sensory contact is silly indeed --especially if you are proposing that a HUMAN presence is needed.   I'm not saying that a human presence is required. However, who's to say that in that period of time that it is not perceived, that it still exists? It could very well vanish and be replaced with an identical object, and you would not know the difference. I would say also that the effects of the event of "falling" would effect the tree's environment, which, then being altered, effects the environment surrounding that, etc etc. So that any action can be seen to be "perceived" in the sense that "it's effects become noticed by something or some agent of perception". Say that a tree falls in the middle of 'nowhere'. It affects nothing besides the ground it fell on. Can it still be said to be perceived as falling? -- Posted by SpM at 8:30 pm on Oct. 30, 2008 Whether or not a vibration at a potentially audible frequency constitutes a sound is relevant to nothing but a dictionary; semantic bickering is both boring and pointless. As for the more traditional understanding of the question, subjectivism is not nearly as recondite or profound as you think it is, and discussion of such generally boils down to the subjectivist dancing in pedantic glee at everyone's inability to conclusively prove we aren't living in the Matrix. -- Posted by mountain hare at 1:09 am on Oct. 31, 2008 SpM: Whether or not a vibration at a potentially audible frequency constitutes a sound is relevant to nothing but a dictionary; semantic bickering is both boring and pointless. Word. Why does this thread even exist, I couldn't think of a more boring or meaningless thing to debate. At least those inane 'Does God exist' threads have some sort of serious implication. -- Posted by Radon at 2:24 am on Oct. 31, 2008 Quote: from SpM at 8:30 pm on Oct. 30, 2008 As for the more traditional understanding of the question, subjectivism is not nearly as recondite or profound as you think it is, and discussion of such generally boils down to the subjectivist dancing in pedantic glee at everyone's inability to conclusively prove we aren't living in the Matrix. Sure, we can easily ridicule those kind of people. But the problem remains. Subjectivism is something most people (emotionally) would like to falsify, and it is done almost invariably by assuming a material universe a priori. This is circular. Of course we "act as if" we were operating within a perfectly objective universe because it's a useful paradigm. But we have to admit it's just a giant assumption, until we falsify it. So now, without succumbing to existentialist angst: Can you prove the existence of anything outside your consciousness, without first bringing it into your consciousness? If not, doesn't it follow that your consciousness is reality itself? -- Posted by obvious child at 2:34 am on Oct. 31, 2008 Sound is independent of our existence. Sound is merely the vibrations of a medium. If a tree fell in a vacuum, there would be no sound. This question is utter bullocks. -- Posted by Radon at 3:37 am on Oct. 31, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 2:34 am on Oct. 31, 2008 Sound is independent of our existence. No, sound is a part of our existence. Sound is something we hear, something we feel as senstation, something we see as numbers on a decibel measuring device, or something we detect with laser. In short, "sound" is a label for a series of perceptions. In order for it to exist, it must be contained within our consciousness. -- Posted by SpM at 5:01 am on Oct. 31, 2008 Quote: from Radon at 9:24 am on Oct. 31, 2008 Sure, we can easily ridicule those kind of people. But the problem remains. Subjectivism is something most people (emotionally) would like to falsify, and it is done almost invariably by assuming a material universe a priori. This is circular. It is not circular to declare something axiomatic. Of course we "act as if" we were operating within a perfectly objective universe because it's a useful paradigm. But we have to admit it's just a giant assumption, until we falsify it. To quote your signature, pragmatism is all. I'd rather think about what I'm having for lunch. So now, without succumbing to existentialist angst: Can you prove the existence of anything outside your consciousness, without first bringing it into your consciousness? No more than my calculator can process a sum I do not input. If not, doesn't it follow that your consciousness is reality itself? I fail to see your reasoning here. -- Posted by telomere13 at 10:14 am on Oct. 31, 2008 As for the more traditional understanding of the question, subjectivism is not nearly as recondite or profound as you think it is, and discussion of such generally boils down to the subjectivist dancing in pedantic glee at everyone's inability to conclusively prove we aren't living in the Matrix. Going by what you seem to endorse as the definition of "sound," then the matrix would have little to no relevance; if we were in the matrix, the sound would still exist independently of our own existence. It is not circular to declare something axiomatic. Well, it's either circular or completely unsupported. -- Posted by obvious child at 1:00 pm on Oct. 31, 2008 Quote: from Radon at 12:37 am on Oct. 31, 2008 No, sound is a part of our existence. Sound is something we hear, something we feel as senstation, something we see as numbers on a decibel measuring device, or something we detect with laser. In short, "sound" is a label for a series of perceptions. In order for it to exist, it must be contained within our consciousness. Come again? Sound exists whether or not we exist. -- Posted by SpM at 4:16 am on Nov. 1, 2008 Quote: from telomere13 at 5:14 pm on Oct. 31, 2008 Going by what you seem to endorse as the definition of "sound," then the matrix would have little to no relevance; if we were in the matrix, the sound would still exist independently of our own existence. I had moved on from the "sound" debate, and was acknowledging the impossibility of conclusively proving objective external reality exists. Personally, I find this no more significant than my inability to conclusively prove invisible unicorns are not prancing around my head. Well, it's either circular or completely unsupported. My chair is as comfortable and perfectly molded to my behind as ever; the walls are not caving in; my computer is ticking along merrily. Reality is doing just fine, and, in my humble opinion, is about as self-evident as it gets. -- Posted by Radon at 7:47 am on Nov. 1, 2008 Quote: from SpM at 4:16 am on Nov. 1, 2008 I had moved on from the "sound" debate, and was acknowledging the impossibility of conclusively proving objective external reality exists. Personally, I find this no more significant than my inability to conclusively prove invisible unicorns are not prancing around my head. Yet it is more significant. We operate every day on the assumption of an objective universe. We "act as if". Very seldom do we act as if unicorns existed. The assumption of materialism is just something we keep because it's turned to be useful. I fail to see your reasoning here. Let's break this down differently. Start with the present moment. You're sitting at your computer, staring at your monitor. You see avatars, graphics and text, and behind all this visual data you assume there are other people sitting in front of computers. Using the axiom of an objective universe, you construct a mental picture. Now shift your attention to the sounds in your environment. Maybe you weren't paying attention to them a second ago, but suddenly they're loud and clear. You may hear some distracting noise from next door. Then you focus on the text again, and your mental picture. There appears to be a constant shift in consciousness. but you can't access anything outside your consciousness. Simply because there's no such thing as "outside". By definition, consciousness is reality itself. -- Posted by SpM at 7:59 am on Nov. 1, 2008 Quote: from Radon at 2:47 pm on Nov. 1, 2008 Yet it is more significant. We operate every day on the assumption of an objective universe. We "act as if". Very seldom do we act as if unicorns existed. The assumption of materialism is just something we keep because it's turned to be useful. An assumption is only significant if the antithetical assumption is viable. I am absolutely a determinist, but it bothers me not a jot that we all go through life as though we had free will. Similarly, if external reality is illusory or shaped by our perception, it is an illusion too persistent to break away from. Let's break this down differently. Start with the present moment. You're sitting at your computer, staring at your monitor. You see avatars, graphics and text, and behind all this visual data you assume there are other people sitting in front of computers. Using the axiom of an objective universe, you construct a mental picture. Maybe you imagine Radon as some blond haired, blue eyed boy sitting in his apartment in Stockholm. Now shift your attention to the sounds in your environment. Maybe you weren't paying attention to them a second ago, but suddenly they're crisp. You may hear some distracting noise from next door. Then you focus on the text again, and your mental picture. There appears to be a constant shift in consciousness. but you can't access anything outside your consciousness. Simply because there's no such thing as "outside". By definition, consciousness is reality itself. Of course I cannot be aware of anything that is outside my awareness. I do not see how it logically follows that there is nothing outside of my awareness. -- Posted by Radon at 8:28 am on Nov. 1, 2008 Quote: from SpM at 7:59 am on Nov. 1, 2008 An assumption is only significant if the antithetical assumption is viable. I am absolutely a determinist, but it bothers me not a jot that we all go through life as though we had free will. ... then the assumption of free will is very significant indeed. Similarly, if external reality is illusory or shaped by our perception, it is an illusion too persistent to break away from. Yes, until we actually become aware of the axioms we take for granted. I am not one of them, but there are some people who act as if they themselves are the conscious creators of their reality. Of course I cannot be aware of anything that is outside my awareness. I do not see how it logically follows that there is nothing outside of my awareness. It doesn't, which is why it requires a certain leap of faith in either direction. However, most people are socially conditioned with the assumption of a material universe, to the point where they will never question it. Pages: 1 2  Next