Tree Falls in the Forest...

[Insipidipity]

and nothing with hearing is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

I don't think this has been done(searched for "tree" in titles) but anyways, I think the answer is indeed very philosophical.

My first impression was yes, it generates sound, sound waves are created.

Then I thought about it more deeply and I think the answer actually is more deeply rooted in the nature of Sound and in fact all 5 senses.

Heres my conclusion: no, sound waves aren't sound. Sound is an interpretation of the frequencies in the change in air pressure. But it occurs in the brain.

So it begs a few more questions:
If you hear someone in a dream, is that making a sound? And I think yes. Someone saying something in a dream is in fact, transferring the same interpretation of sound as any sound waves.

If someone blows a dog whistle but no dogs are around, does it make a sound? According to my interpretation of sound, it would be no.

Sound waves are a medium for information, but they aren't the information in of themselves. It is only the imprint that it leaves on our minds that should be considered sound.

I could expand the question to another medium, light. If the sun shines on a picture, and noone is there to see it, is it an image? Well theres obviously the light that reflects in our eyes there, but theres no image. It'd be the same as if infrared light or xrays shined off it. It'd be technically invisible so there can't be an image, yet when its developed using something else, then we say its an image, yet its more of a replica of an image because the real image isn't something we can see, so theres no real image at all

This crosses into 2 fields I believe: existentialism and quantum theory.
For us to have sound independent of sound waves, we have to assume we actually exist, and in fact, are capable of creating something mental from a physical construct.

Secondly, it says that information doesn't exist until we hear it. This is somewhat akin to Schroedinger's cat and the separation between information and reality.

What do you all think? I dont think I've said something never thought of before, but I don't know what its called.

[funjat]

[under some influence]It is still sound/light but like you said the information derived from the waves isn't recorded or interpreted so its as if it didn't occur.[/under some influence]

[kapsi]

THe information never is completly lost therefore the sound occurs

[Sho]

So basically reality is everything percieved and experienced through one's senses. That would mean everything is subjective and that there are no established truths beyond what our senses allow us.

I guess the real defintion of sanity and insanity is how many more people who confirm your own views compared to the other.

[rimpelcut]

The sound is made. but because it consists of other things, it doesn't. It's just a word hehehe.The cup being empty means that it is devoid of inherent existence. What is meant with non-inherent existence? Is this to say that the cup does not ultimately exist? - Not quite. - The cup exists, but like everything in this world, its existence depends on other phenomena. There is nothing in a cup that is inherent to that specific cup or to cups in general. Properties such as being hollow, spherical, cylindrical, or leak-proof are not intrinsic to cups. Other objects which are not cups have similar properties, as for example vases and glasses. The cup's properties and components are neither cups themselves nor do they imply cupness on their own. The material is not the cup. The shape is not the cup. The function is not the cup. Only all these aspects together make up the cup. Hence, we can say that for an object to be a cup we require a collection of specific conditions to exist. It depends on the combination of function, use, shape, base material, and the cup's other aspects. Only if all these conditions exist simultaneously does the mind impute cupness to the object. If one condition ceases to exist, for instance, if the cup's shape is altered by breaking it, the cup forfeits some or all of its cupness, because the object's function, its shape, as well as the imputation of cupness through perception is disrupted. The cup's existence thus depends on external circumstances. Its physical essence remains elusive.

[rimpelcut]

So basically reality is everything percieved and experienced through one's senses. That would mean everything is subjective and that there are no established truths beyond what our senses allow us.

I guess the real defintion of sanity and insanity is how many more people who confirm your own views compared to the other.

nah, the only thing that truly exists are the connections. If your crazy you do not look at reality, you make connections between emotions and memories in the mind but they are not connections they are choice. In reality a crazy person is just stressing his body, choking himself, tripping on his body basically. But thats another topic.

[Tougoozi]

there is always a sound... always

[rimpelcut]

depends on what and when you call something sound.

[tu_sense]

I think that sound would occur even without a living thing hearing the sound. If you repute this by saying that sound is perceived, then I would point out comets.

A comet exists out in the universe and is moving. It is in a part of the universe that is uninhabited. There is nothing around to perceive it. Suddenly, it comes close to earth. Now living things see it.

Was this comet not moving the entire time? Even before coming near earth? If living things perceived it as moving, and we can accept that as proof that it was moving, then can we not also accept that as proof that it had been moving in some distant past?

I don't think tangible perception is proof of sound. I think that perception can be stretched beyond that limit.

We have perceived sound. Therefore, we can conclude that a falling tree makes a sound. Therefore, I think it is also logical to conclude that a falling tree that no living thing hears/sees/etc. can be expected to make a sound.

[Divinity]

Its a freaking tree of course it makes a sound. It has mass does it not. I mean even a speck of dust makes a sound when it lands its just that the sound is to small for are ears to register.

[tu_sense]

Haha. Well said.

[TGC]

It all depends on how you define sound....

[Insipidipity]

I think that sound would occur even without a living thing hearing the sound. If you repute this by saying that sound is perceived, then I would point out comets.

A comet exists out in the universe and is moving. It is in a part of the universe that is uninhabited. There is nothing around to perceive it. Suddenly, it comes close to earth. Now living things see it.

Was this comet not moving the entire time? Even before coming near earth? If living things perceived it as moving, and we can accept that as proof that it was moving, then can we not also accept that as proof that it had been moving in some distant past?

I don't think tangible perception is proof of sound. I think that perception can be stretched beyond that limit.

We have perceived sound. Therefore, we can conclude that a falling tree makes a sound. Therefore, I think it is also logical to conclude that a falling tree that no living thing hears/sees/etc. can be expected to make a sound.
Yes the comet exists once we see it. However, do we really know it existed before? What if the comet was an illusion/hypnosis ingrained in our minds so much that we could not discern its reality. We would be making an assumption of its preexistence. We make conjectures about its existence beforehand and trace what it is from memories of its previous movements or records of such. Such things can be fabricated. Thus we could invent something that does not exist. Therefore its not necessary for the comet to have existed, so can we really know if it was truly there beforehand?

Ok, how about my question about something outside of perception? A soundwave of such a frequency that it cannot be heard by the human ear. It is physically impossible hear, so we have no perception of its sound. Even if we did something to make it so we could hear it(alter the frequency), it would not be the orignal sound, only an interpretation of such. We do not and cannot perceive the sound of something that doesn't make a sound within our threshhold, so how can we claim its truly making a sound?

And furthermore something within our perception but no physical basis such as a dream or imagination. Do those make sounds?

Yes it is based on our definition of sound. But sound has its fundamental basis in understanding it from our perception of it. While we can determine the medium by which it travels by, sound is in essence, what we've heard. Image, sound, texture, smell, taste, these are all based on experiences. Can we really try to detect something beyond our experiences of those 5 senses? We create methods of detecting smells by tracing it back to chemicals so we say those chemicals have smells, we create methods of determining how we hear by tracing it to sound waves, so we say those have sounds, but what if something existed that was neither visible, audible, tangible, or chemically fragrant? Would we be able to perceive it at all? Simply take away one of the senses and see how this would work. We cannot see light and could not feel its heat, could we perceive it? We base things on qualitative measures before we grant them quantitative ones.

[princesstaco]

I am inclined to think of 'sound waves' as sound and the act of interpreting these waves as 'hearing.'

The process is straightforeward; an object vibrates with a specific frequency which creates a 'sound wave' that propogates through whichever medium it happens to be in. These waves either travel off into empty space and do nothing, or enter an organism's ear. If an organism 'hears' the sound, information from the wave is interpreted by the brain and the organism acts accordingly. How you view sound is all a matter of semantics, really.

If you hear someone in a dream, is that making a sound? And I think yes. Someone saying something in a dream is in fact, transferring the same interpretation of sound as any sound waves.

Say you close your eyes and imagine a picture. The same portions of your brain are utilized as if you had actually seen the picture- with at least one prominent exception that I have momentarily forgotten. (heh, that doesn't help my reasoning...if anyone is curious I could look it up) That portion of the brain does something to diferentiate between real and imaginary images. I don't think you really see anything when you close your eyes and use your imagination. I think that one needs to have contact with some kind of stimulus before they can say that they actually saw or heard anything.

[Zang3tsu]

No.

Ears are biological instruments that convert vibration into sound. Without the ear, there is only vibration.

[dale2]

If there is a tree growing in a place with nothing that can hear living within a certain distance then I believe that it will not create a sound.

What the tree will create is vibrations which can only become sound when they are heard by a creature.

But this brings up the question of whether anything can create sound other than a creatures ears/hearing organs.

[Beren]

The sound (propagation of energy) waves occur when the tree fell... so there is definitely sound made. I think ur reading too much into the "Schrodinger Cat" model... ppl must not apply stuff like that, theory of relativity, heisenberg uncertainty principle, etc to philosophy

[Raikoh]

No. There is no spoon- er sound. You know why? Running existance takes up 90% of my hard-drive for you fuckers; I've got to cut corners in places like that. It doesn't effect you either way, so stop whining before I give you an afro between the legs.

[rimpelcut]

it's very simple, if sound is something that is heard then there is no sound. If sound has the criteria that it must be heard then there was no sound. Do you call the vibration of atoms sound? I think not.

[tu_sense]

Yes the comet exists once we see it. However, do we really know it existed before? What if the comet was an illusion/hypnosis ingrained in our minds so much that we could not discern its reality. We would be making an assumption of its preexistence. We make conjectures about its existence beforehand and trace what it is from memories of its previous movements or records of such. Such things can be fabricated. Thus we could invent something that does not exist. Therefore its not necessary for the comet to have existed, so can we really know if it was truly there beforehand?

Ok, how about my question about something outside of perception? A soundwave of such a frequency that it cannot be heard by the human ear. It is physically impossible hear, so we have no perception of its sound. Even if we did something to make it so we could hear it(alter the frequency), it would not be the orignal sound, only an interpretation of such. We do not and cannot perceive the sound of something that doesn't make a sound within our threshhold, so how can we claim its truly making a sound?

And furthermore something within our perception but no physical basis such as a dream or imagination. Do those make sounds?

Yes it is based on our definition of sound. But sound has its fundamental basis in understanding it from our perception of it. While we can determine the medium by which it travels by, sound is in essence, what we've heard. Image, sound, texture, smell, taste, these are all based on experiences. Can we really try to detect something beyond our experiences of those 5 senses? We create methods of detecting smells by tracing it back to chemicals so we say those chemicals have smells, we create methods of determining how we hear by tracing it to sound waves, so we say those have sounds, but what if something existed that was neither visible, audible, tangible, or chemically fragrant? Would we be able to perceive it at all? Simply take away one of the senses and see how this would work. We cannot see light and could not feel its heat, could we perceive it? We base things on qualitative measures before we grant them quantitative ones.



I see your point. I think the main difference we have is in the role of the human in this whole affair.

Correct me if I am wrong. I don't mean to misinterpret you. I think what you're hinting at is that the organism doing the hearing is the most important factor and that without something to perceive it, sound is meaningless.

Understandable. But I disagree. I think that the organism doing the hearing is close to insignificant. To me, sound, sight, etc. are just information. Whether or not there is something to perceive and use that information is, to me, meaningless.

This touches on deeper beliefs of mine. I don't have a god or anything. I think that humans are more or less an accident, the right things coming together at the right time. But that's not what we're debating and I really don't want to get into that.

The point I'm trying to make is that I think that the world/universe/etc. would go on just fine if there wasn't a single living thing in it. I see it as indifferent. Therefore, whether there is something to perceive the information of sound or not, it happens.

Like I said though, I understand your opinion. It's a fundamental difference and one that doesn't provide much of a middle ground. How important are humans and what is the nature of reality? Can it exist without us? I say yes.

[rimpelcut]

Lets take a song for example. You name a part of it banana and another part you name apple. Does this mean that apple exists?

[tu_sense]

Language has very little to do with reality. Language is completely arbitrary, with the exception of onomatopoeias. The word "apple" has nothing to do with the actual object. The sounds that make the word "apple" don't describe the object in any way. It's simply a convenient label that humans have created.

[Beren]

hmmm... platonic Forms and language? I'd suggest reading about Plato and Chomsky (famous linguistics expert at MIT)

[rimpelcut]

ok so you are saying that the song and the apple and banana still just exist and words don't matter the song will stay in reality. Now lets look at the word sound. Could you name every moving thing in the universe sound?

[tu_sense]

I've heard of Chomsky, but don't put much faith in him. He doesn't support his claims well, in my opinion.

ok so you are saying that the song and the apple and banana still just exist and words don't matter. the song will stay in reality. Now lets look at the word sound. Could you name every moving thing in the universe sound?

Theoretically, yes. It doesn't matter. You could call every single moving obeject in the entire universe sound. You could call them all apples. You could call them all snack attack mothafuckers. It doesn't matter. Words are human inventions and therefore only have meaning to humans.

[Keramachi]

No sound. Only vibrations. Sound is our brains' interpretation of those vibrations.

[Beren]

Chomsky doesn't support his claims very well? He has written countless books on linguistics (syntax, words, etc) and is considered the second most quoted person (after Shakespeare) in college papers in this past decade... :P

[Raikoh]

Chomsky doesn't support his claims very well? He has written countless books on linguistics (syntax, words, etc) and is considered the second most quoted person (after Shakespeare) in college papers in this past decade... :P

Now why in GOD'S NAME would you ever need to know statistics like that? XD.

[tu_sense]

Chomsky doesn't support his claims very well? He has written countless books on linguistics (syntax, words, etc) and is considered the second most quoted person (after Shakespeare) in college papers in this past decade... :P

"Chomsky does not believe that human language evolved from any previous animal communication system, but sprang into being from nowhere."

http://www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages/LangTeach/CounterChomsky.htm

That's the main point which I disagree with him about. And, yes, I do not think he adequately supports such a claim. It is known that specific areas of the brain are designed for speach and that these probably developed over time. None of the more complex functions of the brain simply happened. They took time. This is a point often made in opposition to Chomsky.

However, I will admit that the opposite has not been proved either (human language came from animal language). I think it's fair to come to a middle ground and say that language was probably a developing process however.

[Beren]

icic :amuse , but in this argument the pertinent argument made by chomsky would be what is the true value of the word... whether it is a "true" ideational representation or an artificial one for abstract concepts.

plenty of other philosophers and linguists have explored this stuff; I am also quite fond of Kant, who wrote on objective vs. subjective knowledge, which I feel is quite relevant in considering words and syntax in the "tree paradox".

[tu_sense]

Ah, I understand (I think... Honestly, I am only familiar with Kant in regard to psychology).

As far as perception and reality and all that is concerned, I mentioned above that I don't put much faith in the human in the whole ordeal. While Kant would say that the tree makes no sound (I presume?) because it is not perceived by anything, I think that the human, animal, etc. isn't as important as that. I think that a sound can still be created, the wind can still blow, the earth can still spin, the sun can still shine, even without a person there to perceive and label it. True, it wouldn’t mean anything, but I don’t see that as important. The sound still is.

[wiggely]

I didn't read every reply because the kept on just saying yes sound waves are produced and not thinking about the question in a philophical way (in this situation existentialism).

There really isn't a question about sound waves, as a previous post pointed out if it has mass it will produce sound waves. Its a question about perception, its trying to point out the idea that reality is only what one percieves (pretty convincing in my mind but i'm not trying to argue it hear because it would take a 300 page book). It does this by trying to show that the reason we (humans/anyone) knows that something happens is by precieving it, whether by any of the five senses. This includes being told by someone else, ie if one person was there and heard the sound and told everyone we would know. But in this situation no one is there so no one can observe so no one (everyone) can really know if the sound is made - the idea progresses.

This starts to get a little confusing so I'm going to do something that my Master of Philosophy roomate would kill me for, and relate the question of perception and reality to the movie the Matrix (an existential movie if there ever was one). Neo and Morpeous have a conversation about what is real (reality) and if it comes down to percepion (the 5 senses) there is no ultimate reality or truth observable to us because perceptions are just electrical signals in the brain and can be wrong and are subjective in nature.

Anyways since the question is try to raise the question of whether or not reality (at least the one we experience) is just our perception and because no one percieved the sound then the sound does not exist (or was never created). The argument against this of course is scientific in nature saying the matter will produce sound waves when it hits something. This is true but the whole point I'm trying to illustrate here, with the Matrix question "What is real?", is that so called facts like matter causing sound waves when hitting something else come from our perception of reality, which we can never know is really true. If this is true, then the only thing that is real is our perception, and since no one percieved the sound - there was no sound.

[Chamcham Trigger]

Bah people think it doesn't make a sound because there are no humans around to hear it. If the tree falls and lands on the dirt ground, then it makes a sound. Sound isn't relative to the people or objects that hear it, it's just a wave. It's like asking, if a human is in a reigon and there's no one there for him to interact with, does he exist?

[wiggely]

The point is how do you know that sound isn't relative to the people and objects that hear it? The only way that your statement is right (actually both the answers: yes and no) is for us to be told by someone or something that was there, which is impossible because the question states that there is no one there. The question is a paradox, meant to stimulate thought, there is no right answer because each answer deeply conlficts with the other.

[rimpelcut]

animals and humans hear sound in a different volume than It is in reality. So even if you hear sound...you don't hear real sound hehe

[wiggely]

Had a great discussion with a friend when I mistakenly said infra-red man (a comic character we created right then) should be dressed in red, shoot red rays out, and see in just red, and he reminded me that infra-red wasn't red. i was thinking about animals that can see in the infra-red spectrum of light and how that would be red, but my roomate stated that colors refer to what the human eye can pick up and that animals such as that see in different ways than we do (they each have there own set of colors, we could apply our color system to theirs but that would be our colors and not how they see the world). what it came down to is that different colors such as red and blue, and different sounds such as bass and treble, are just words we use to descibe our experiences and sensations in this world.

[rimpelcut]

yes thats what this paradox is about. for one that you put sound into a group even though everything can be sound. Plus what you said.