If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Discuss...

Of course, if you fart with head phones on and cant hear it does it make a sound? Indeed it does, everyone else can still hear it.

Hmm I don't think that has anything to do with it but oh well. It has been said.

Well...If a deaf person was around at the time when the tree fell, then no, because their auditory system would not pick up the vibrations that make sound. They may feel the lower vibrations in their body, but not the sound.

Scientifically no it doesn't make a sound it makes a shock wave. We can't hear shock waves we feel them so therefore the answer again is no.

One definition of sound is: a special sensation, produced by stimulation of the auditory nerve; the stimulus (waves of sound) acting not directly on the nerve, but through the medium of the endolymph on the delicate epithelium cells, constituting the peripheral terminations of the nerve. The sound we hear is the interpretation of the stimulus we receive, which can only be made by some cognition, i.e.- Information processing which must be linked in some way with a stored memory.

If the tree fell and was in a vacuum environment it would make no sound either.

There is also the comparison of this to the dog whistle. If you blow a dog whistle, does it make a sound? Not to a human, but a hearing dog close by can hear it. Technically the dog whistle, like the tree in the forest with nobody around, does make a sound.

Then you can aks yourself a logical question, how do I know the tree fell down, it may grown in that position or fallen long before I was beamed down.

It's a commonly known philosophical questions where no answers are the correct answer, as the variable are both vast as they are contradictory.


Discussed it.

I thought I'd get more responses from a cliche - It's only meant as a starting point anyway. I also thought about asking, "what is the sound of one hand?" but I think this one is more well known...?

Some would argue that the wave itself is sound, not the perception of it and some, as you've said, would argue that sound is dependant on observation.

Following the latter, if sound doesn't "exist" in the noumenal realm (or doesn't "exist" as "sound") then isn't it fair to question if anything does?




Before you ask, yes, I will stop putting words in quotes.

.tUrniP wrote:

I thought I'd get more responses from a cliche - It's only meant as a starting point anyway. I also thought about asking, "what is the sound of one hand?" but I think this one is more well known...?

Some would argue that the wave itself is sound, not the perception of it and some, as you've said, would argue that sound is dependant on observation.

Following the latter, if sound doesn't "exist" in the noumenal realm (or doesn't "exist" as "sound") then isn't it fair to question if anything does?




Before you ask, yes, I will stop putting words in quotes.

That's philosphy for you not always about the answer more about the question. See not a yes mentioned.

More shockwaves are felt than heard and more than that shockwaves are seen and not felt or heard. More than that more shockwaves go passed unnoticed, unheard, and unfelt.No one answer fits the critera and all apply. Which goes back to the question. No one answer fits it, all are correct one way or another even for a cliche.

?

There again what is sound but a brief instance on the time line . The sound which has been made is no longer heard and the one to be made is still silent . Sound cannot be captured as can be the written word . OK, cd's exist and contain sound . But the sound your cd player produces is still an infime point in time .
nothing exists except for a collection of atoms and the image which our eyes give of that amas to our brain . Theoretically we should be able to walk through walls . But we cannot . Why ? very simply due to the fact that the atoms making up what we call a wall are more compact than those making up our bodies .

Differnt species can hear, feel or see what others cannot. A dog hears sound we can not, so therefore a tree falling can be heard by animals, bugs etc but not the human who wasn't stood there.

Again we suppose that for the falling tree and the noise it makes is heard by humans and not the wildlife present in the area . Often mankind forgets that other lifeforms exist on the planet besides him .

Exactly.

I guess through common usage 'no one' means no person but I've always ( wrongly it seems ) thought of it literally as no one, no individual, no conciousness. Another example of human arrogance or am I also wrong to ascribe conciousness to animals?

Anyway, I've also always taken the question less literally; to me it is more 'is existence reliant on observation?'...

There are always elements that are not thought of, or presumpted/assumed. No question is absolute as is the answers too.

Humans don't do absolute. Emotions see to that.

So is existence dependent on observation?

Is there an objective world that ( obviously by definition ) we are not aware of?

If existence was dependant of observations. The blind would refute that with quantifiable evidence.

Observation includes but isn't exclusively sight; It's reception of data through any/all the senses...

buttercup wrote:

Observation includes but isn't exclusively sight; It's reception of data through any/all the senses...

Therefore you have shot your own question down. As you did not incite the references to state observations covers all the senses. Observation is attributed to sight. Awareness covers all the senses.

You observe a tree, is just that. you see a tree.
You are aware of a tree is just that, you are aware via any sensory attributes of its presence.

Well no, actually that's just what the word means... We may often attribute observation to sight in general usage because sight is our most prominent sense but that doesn't make it all it is.

Awareness is ability to observe.

P.S - What references am I supposed to have incited?

Sight is not the prominant sense. Touch is as it has complex multi stimuli and uses the largest part of the body to attain its sense of its surroundings.

Sight is only mentioned first as it written down in order of the body from top to bottom.

We have more than 5 senses. olfacoception gustaoception, kinesthesioception, tactioception, thermoception, proprioception, audioceptionnociception equilibrioception and dophthalmoception.

I have skin above my eyes, don't you?

I meant prominent in our conciousness but that's probably not that easy to back up and I'd be easily swayed. I suppose one example that supports that premise ( although weak ) is that we tend to describe meeting an old friend as 'seeing' them regardless of whether we have spoken, shaken hands or fallen out of a pub drunk together.

Either way, to 'observe' is more than to see.

A blind person says I've seen an old friend. Even See you later. The word 'see' does not necessarily mean seen via the eyes.

No but I believe that's where it comes from. My point was that it's reflected in our language which, at least to me, carries a bit of weight.

I don't know, I suppose one could make a case for each sense being the most prominent but really it's the combination that matters...

However, to observe is still more than to see.

exactly.

Exactly what?

Your belief in a word, clouds your judgement. See to you means eyes adn therefore restiricts your causations for making arguments valid.

Wheras, see to me is a unviersal word encompassing many area and does not hinder me in validation.

Wait, what?

a) We are not talking about my use of the word but of it's history and origin.

Language, as the communal effort that it is, develops and evolves but that process is important. Obviously words must be adopted by a significant number of people to be of value and as such it is fair to assume acceptance of it's meaning along with it ( after all, the word itself is only a vessel for meaning and intent ).

By that same token, whether actively or passively accepted, the evolution of the word 'see' from literal sight to the inclusion of imagination and understanding via perception as if by sight ( which is still a dictionary definition of the word ) implies a certain attachment to vision.

b) There is a difference between validity and accuracy. For example, the existence of a god is a valid hypothesis ( not necessarily for all the reasons given by some people ) but that doesn't make it true. Bertrand Russel's teapot and your friend the FSM are intended to show exactly that in a reductio ad absurdum. Taking that into consideration, which bit of my argument is invalid?

c) Please expand on your definition of 'see'.