Search • Philosophy Discussion Forums

March 15th, 2011, 3:11 am

The OP is not a trick question.
This thought experiment is confined to sound only and not to vibrations or soundwaves.
The main principle of the OP is solely, can any of the effects (sound, taste, smell, touch, vision) of the senses exist without humans.

If you bring in soundwaves or vibration, then the question is, do soundwaves (vibrations) exist without humans to detect and measure it.
The answer is still, No.
The scientific theory, the whole set up of detecting, measuring and interpretating the soundwaves (vibrations) is still human dependent.
Note observers' effect.

Amen to that. If one believes in an external world beyond any and all consciousness that (for some reason) mimics the content of consciousness, one may discover, on reflection, that such a world (if it exists) mimics only the content of visual perception. There is no external world counterpart for non-visual perceptions (experiences).

Thus no, there is no experience of sound in the absence of experience itself. Thus there is no sound in a tree, falling in a forest, with no one around to hear it.

In the absence of experience, what, if anything, exists?

Phenomenal graffiti

March 16th, 2011, 2:24 am

Spectrum:

Within ordinary common sense, there is no doubts that there is an external world outside and independent of each human being.
If you throw a stone at me, I will side step to avoid it. I will not be insisting that it is due to the perception in my mind and that I can avoid it by thinking.
At present, I am typing in front of a monitor that is external to my body and self.

"Common sense" is a pseudo-telescope into the world outside the simulated reality or simulation that is subjective experience.

Consciousness, if it is believed to come from the brain (more magic, there), implies that there are neurons pre-existing in the brain that, somehow, can tell us what lies beyond any and all experience.

Go figure. The fact is, you only believe there is a keyboard and monitor external to yourself. What is the keyboard and monitor made of, in the absence of any and all subjective experience of the monitor and keyboard? What is there in the absence of any and all minds? What is non-experience even like, and how can we, being nothing but the subjective experiences of particular persons, even know the nature of that which anyone's experience is not?

Even in the mythology that the brain is responsible for the existence of consciousness, consciousness itself, given that it is believed to join the same boat as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny if the brain should cease to function, is nothing more than a "Matrix" or simulation of the external world.

But there is no logical connection between non-experience and experience, and there is certainly no epistemological connection. The external world, if it is not just more mind, is that which mind is not: we are only mind (in terms of subjective experience), thus we have no logical basis to state what exists "out there" or not. Any attempt to do so without invoking faith...is nothing more than make-believe.

Just a thought,

J.

March 18th, 2011, 2:10 am

Spectrum:

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
Any attempt to do so without invoking faith...is nothing more than make-believe.

I agree with this.

Note this quote from Kant,

....it still remains a scandal to philosophy and to human reason in general that the existence of things outside us (from which we derive the whole material of knowledge, even for our inner sense) must be accepted merely on faith,
and that if anyone thinks good to doubt their existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof.

Kant in Preface to Critique of Pure Reason.

God, it's good to see real, intelligent thinkers. Most would rant about how it does not require faith to believe in things beyond the "Matrix" that is human consciousness, little realizing that anything beyond mind, if not more mind, is the opposite of mind...and we are and know nothing save mind, given that everything exists within and is comprised of a particular person's personal, private, first-person experience.

And I'm swiping that quote (with your permission).

Puddy:

If I were to through a stone at you and you were to step aside, there are many forces at work which make it common sense that there is an external reality which causes things to exist and happen the way they do.

If external reality is not more mind, there is no logic to the supposition that a type of existence (i.e. "the physical", "the material", or non-experience, that which is not in any way comprised of conscious experience) "causes", "creates", or "instructs the form and shape of" a totally different existence (experience). The physical and consciousness are two wholly distinct existences, and we only know of consciousness, as it is everything we are (everything, to us, is nothing but first-person experience). There is no logical, transparent way that they relate to each other, and no logical way that the physical (non-experience) drags into existence something that it is not.

My two cents, again.

J.

March 23rd, 2011, 11:38 am

Uh...I think the question about the tree falling in the forest assumes that no human or animal was in the vicinity when the tree fell. If one believes the brain creates conscious experience, given that the "sound" is a subjective experience, in the absence of brains in the vicinity of the falling tree, the subjective experience of the sound of the tree falling does not exist. Thus, there is no sound when a tree falls in a forest if no one is there to hear it.

PG

Search found 4 matches

Can't find what you are looking for? Try our custom Google search of this website.