IMO, generally, I think we need to qualify the OP question with the following perspectives;
1] Common sense
2] Scientific
3] Philosophical (specific)

We need to differentiate perspective and knowledge with reference to the OP.
Otherwise conflating both will cause all sort of misunderstandings and confusions.
Each of the perspective above has its own specific framework with explicit and implicit assumptions, rules , laws, principles, methods, tools, etc.

For example, if one had identified the issue as a scientific one, then the issue must be resolved within the scientific framework comprising the scientific method, repeatability, falsifiable, peer reviews, consensus amongst peers, and whatever it takes to qualify as ‘scientific’.
As such, a scientist cannot conclude a scientific theory from the common sense or philosophical perspective or framework.
However, a scientist may borrow knowledge from common sense and philosophy to assist in his research, but ultimately the conclusion must comply with the imperative requirement of the scientific framework.

When one talks or seeks consensus within the common sense perspective, one is not expected to enforce scientific or philosophical (e.g. no fallacies, etc.) compliance.

IMO, philosophy encompasses everything in life, but generally, in a philosophical discussion, there are some sort of implied ‘philosophical’ framework with implicit and explicit rules and compliances.

So (sorry for the detour) the answer to the OP:
Common sense: The answer can be’ yes’, ‘no’, or ‘who cares’ depending on the situation.

Scientific: Depending on the definition of ‘what is sound’, if in term of waves (sound), then ‘YES’.
If interaction with human ears is necessary, then ‘NO’. The answers with its qualifications can be repeatedly tested and verified with scientific theories, video and sound recording machines in compliance with the relevant scientific requirements.

Philosophy: Since this is a philosophical forum, it is obvious this question must be dealt in the philosophical perspective.
One can bring in common sense or scientific knowledge to support one’s philosophical conclusion, but then it must be qualified accordingly.
As such, one cannot merely insist, because Science says so, therefore, there must be sound.

Philosophically, the OP is dealt in relation to secondary qualities of the senses, i.e. sound, taste, feeling, sight, taste of matter. See: (wiki/Secondary_qualities)
Locke and Berkeley had shown in their theories that secondary qualities do not inhere in the object and they are subjective. Thus if there are no humans, there are no secondary qualities.
Berkeley: Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous
(/wiki/Three_Dialogues_between_Hylas_and_Philonous)

I agree with Berkeley, philosophically there is no sound to the OP question, but do not agree with his theistic explanation to finalize his argument.
From what I read of Berkeley’s books, he could have answered ‘YES’ from the common sense and scientific perspective to the above question, but ‘NO’ in the philosophical perspective.
(btw, Berkeley is not a scientifically ignorant Bishop, he is touted as one the pioneers of neuroscience in the field of sight and perception)

Any counters to the ‘NO’ view of the OP will need to be philosophical.
IOM, scientific objectivity with its underlying relative and inter-subjective (wiki/Intersubjective_verifiability) element will not help significantly and common sense is too crude for this issue.

I agree, ‘is there a falling tree?’ would be more interesting.

Mark wrote:Can a fourth be a moral approach, or is it still the three you mention that we can use, or rather, only the philosophical one, in order to refute the "no"?

Moral is a subset of philosophy, thus it would be philosophical.

If applied to my first example, your proposal would fail, because you'd be dealing with a psychopathic idea: If someone is abused, but I cannot see them, are they then abused?

If statement A says that there is a falling tree, is seems weird to ask if it does, since the question is not about proving the action, but whether the effect is there or not, assuming that the action did take place, while no one saw it happen.

Many times, common sense wouldn't hurt

You presumed I will be asking the question in your context and perspective.
I was only agreeing to raise the question "is there a falling tree" for exploration in the spirit of philosophy along the line of Russell's view, (Problems of Philosophy), i.e.,

Russell wrote:It has appeared that, if we take any common object of the sort that is supposed to be known by the senses, what the senses immediately tell us is not the truth about the object as it is apart from us, but only the truth about certain sense-data which, so far as we can see, depend upon the relations between us and the object. Thus what we directly see and feel is merely 'appearance', which we believe to be a sign of some 'reality' behind. But if the reality is not what appears, have we any means of knowing whether there is any reality at all? And if so, have we any means of finding out what it is like?

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities. The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all. Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life.

And he added:

Russell wrote:The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected.
As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find, as we saw in our opening chapters, that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given.
Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.

Existence wrote:If the action of a tree falling creates the air movement necessary to produce sound. And that this air movement would enable a human to hear the tree fall. Than what is being posited is that all the elements were there for the tree to have made a sound, but because a human wasn't present to hear it, no sound was made. That lacks logic. If all the elements were in place and occurred in the sequence needed to produce sound than sound was produced.

I think that is logical from the following perspective.

Sound = human + hearing sense + (sound)waves

Therefore if the 'human' variable is absent from the equation, then there is no sound.

You only infers there is sound due to your ability to use pure reason to make ASSUMPTIONS and inferences.
At best it is only a scientific or common sense inference.

Even if you put a tape-recorder there, the formula for 'sound' is still,

Sound = human + hearing sense + (sound)waves

A human is still needed to hear the sound from the tape-recorder.

What if an oscilloscope is used to view the wavelengths on screen. This is merely a representation of the sound and not the actual sound.
Using an oscilloscope is not a 'sound' issue but has converted the issue from sound to sight.

In terms of sight, the human variable is still need to complete the equation for sight.

The "tree falling in the forest, no human to hear it..." is merely a thought experiment to demonstrate that reality cannot be actualize without the human factor.
It would be the same issue if the thought experiment were to be rephrase as;

"tree falling in the forest, no human to hear, see, feel, taste, or smell it..."

Existence wrote:I think your point of view is some what egocentric. To state that sound does not exist because a human is not present is a very narrow world view and a huge assumption.
There is no definitive proof that a sound is or is not made when a tree falls in the woods. The question is an intellectual exercise. It offers us an opportunity to think beyond what we believe we already know.

Note #79
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... &start=75#.

In the common sense and scientific perspective, I agree that there is 'sound' when a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it.

However, from a philosophical perspective, which is a more refined one, there is no sound as Berkeley had argued with reference to primary and secondary qualities.
If you think Berkeley is wrong, present a counter philosophical argument to disprove his point. I would be very interested if you can prove him wrong.

Btw, Berkeley is also a scientist besides being a bishop and philosopher, and he would have understood the difference between the common sense, scientific and philosophical perspectives.

Gen66 wrote:

Belinda wrote:Air disturbance requires no perceptual receiver.

I think that's false, it requires one, just as sound does, air disturbance is just going to use a different set of perceptual insturments.

on topic:
Even if there is no reciever I can prove that there still will be sound if the tree falls.
How do I know that, well...we are biologically alike, when you die, I don't disappear, this means that if I die, the world will still exists, this means that the world is not dependant on my existence or presence. This means that things happen no matter if I exist or not. This means that if a tree falls, there will be the full set of physical interaction with the environment, no matter how many of them we can percieve and no matter if we are there to percieve that.
Somebody prove me wrong...

Note this post,

Let say, if human beings are to be extinct from the Earth and universe, would there still be sound or anything?

Theorectically, based on your present existence and projecting that onto the future, yes, there is still sound and things, but in reality then, i.e. at that real moment and that specific present (not from this present), there will be no sound nor any-thing.

Gen66 wrote:Why would you say that interaction with human ears is necessary for the definition of sound?

That is the default definition of sound, i.e.

sound:
1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sound

then we have the scientific definition,
2. mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet (331 meters) per second at sea level.

The above are the two basic definitions and I don't think you can come up with 100 definitions which are not reducible to the above.

As I had stated, from the scientific perspective, I agree there is 'sound' (definition 2) in the forest when the tree fall if no one is present.

However from the philosophical perspective of seeking truth of more refined reality, there is no sound if no one is present when the tree fall in a forest.

From definition 1,

sound = human + hearing set up + concepts + waves (audio)

It is simple logic, there will be no sound if the human variable is not in the above equation.
That is applicable in a forest with no human in it or when humans are extinct on Earth and the universe.

If I die, there is no sound as far as "I" am concern, but there is sound for you because it satisfy the above equation.
If everybody died, there will be no sound, because the equation is not effective due to the absence of the human variable.

If everybody died, there will not even be scientific 'sound' as in definition 2, because science is a human activity and dependent on humans to fulfil all the scientific requirements.


sound = human + hearing set up + concepts + waves (audio)

There is no sound if the human variables are absent in the above equation under all unqualified circumstances.

Gen66 wrote:Hmmm, I wouldn't exactly call that a seeking truth of a more refined reality, It's generally a false view and valid only when a certain definition of sound is taken, which is very limiting in my opinion and not applicable in our case(the definition), to claim that sound is there only when humans ears are there, is simple false, this definition is far from immaculate and that's the whole problem with it.

What other definitions do you have other than the ones I had presented.
You are only hand-waving that the truth I had presented is false.
I will reaffirm my point, i.e.,

sound = human + hearing set up + concepts + waves (audio)
There is no sound if the human variables are absent in the above equation under all unqualified circumstances.

In addition, the above principle is applicable for color, touch, taste and smell.
Berkeley main theory provide justifications for the above principles.

'Ball theory'
A 'ball' is bit more complex, but we can apply a combination of the above with other principles to show that, there is no 'ball' if there is no humans to see or feel it.

ball = human [individual] + humans [collectively] + vision set up+ waves[visual]+ touch set up + waves[sensation] + concept of ball + rules of language games + a priori & a posteriori ideas of shape [figure], soliditiy, extension + others [ to be discussed].

From the above one will note that 'what-is-ball' is conditioned by the presence of human [individually] and humans [collectively].
If these human elements are not present in the equation, there is no actualization of any 'ball'.

The actual explanation is more complex, but I think the above explanation is quite sufficient to give you an idea of my point.

The justifications for the 'ball theory' is covered by Berkeley, Kant, Wittgenstein, et. al.

Belinda,
Yes, no human(s) then no concepts and thus no trees, or anything.
The concepts or knowledge are of two types, i.e. a priori and a posteriori.

The usual counter to the above is, the concept-of-X is not X itself.
However when we include a priori and a posteriori into the concept, then concepts-of-X is X-itself and with a correlation to humans. (individually and collectively]

Belinda wrote:I am sure that there is a philosophical term for people who don't believe in things in themselves.I think these heathens are called 'perspectivists'.

I think they are called philosophical anti-realists.
Both realists and anti-realist can be perpectivists (not necessary Nietzsche's) depending on the perspective.

Puddy wrote:I think it would be a shame if nobody was ever able to witness a majestic redwood standing upright in all its glory before it fell but that doesnt take anything, meaning included, away from what did exist and what was real.

I think in the above case, one had succumbed to the habit and custom of common sense.
In philosophy, one at times has to be like Copernicus, i.e., break away from custom & habit, and view reality from a totally contrasting angle.

The seemingly obvious question 'is there sound when no human is around to hear a falling tree in the forest?' was not raised with the expectation of common-sense answers, rather, it was a thought experiment for the exploration some specific philosophical principles.

Gen66 wrote:I will write no more on this topic, I've said enough, anything else would be waste of time and energy

I suggest you do more indepth philosophical exploration into this issue. It will be worth the effort.

Puddy wrote:maybe im missing the point, i might not be being philosophical enough, common sense or not, I simply dont believe that if I fall asleep or am knocked unconscious, I temporarily cease to exist. Is that not implied if the answer is no? puddy

Note the "I" or 'self' is a complex thingy.

Primarily there is the physical and mental self.
The physical and mental self can be broken down to
many (hundreds) layers and aspects.

When one is asleep (depending on what type of sleep) or coma, the conscious self is dead, in way, one is 'half-dead'. As such a certain aspects of the "I" or "self" cease to exist.

The person is supported by the physical self and the other leyers of the mental self.
If the mental self is dead, one is still supported by the physical self and if the remaining physical self is gone, then one is dead.

Belinda wrote:It is hard to say what the thing is in itself, or even if the thing in itself exists apart from perceptions of it.

From what I gathered,
Kant understood that human beings naturally look towards the thing-in-itself, the noumenon.
But he killed their expectations by showing
convincingly that the thing-in-itself is an impossibility and there is no such thing as a thing-in-itself.
The appropriate approach to speak of the existence of the thing-in-itself, the noumenon,is via the negative.
e.g. the thing-in-itself is not this or that and is an empirical impossibility.
The only mean to speak of the thing-in-itself positively is from the theorectical and conceptual perspective.

The concept of a noumenon is thus a merely limiting concept, the function of which is to curb the pretensions of sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.
Kant - Critique of Pure Reason

It doesn't matter wrote:This is a trick question, if you actually think about it. Yes and no. Yes, the sound waves are still created, as I'm sure detailed study could prove. No, the sensation of sound is never present, as sound is a sensation. Sound, as a sense, only exists in the mind. Without a mind, there is no sensation. But the same goes for sight, smell, or anything else. But the vibrations that our ears pick-up, and interpret as sound still occurs.

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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics

Belinda wrote:Spectrum, thanks again for an apt quote, this time from Kant. I think it was Nietzsche who was undecided about whether a ding an sich existed or not? If the thing in itself is believed to exist the thinker is a naturalist, but if the thing in itself is believed not to exist the thinker is a nihilist. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Kant did not believe in the positive existence of the thing-in-itself, but he was not a nihilist. I am not very sure of how to the linkage of thing-in-itself to naturalist or nihilist.

I am not a hardcore fan of Kant and his theory on the thing-it-itself, but I believe he has a point on it relative to a range of reality. This is similar to Newtonian physics which is applicable to a specific range of reality but not in aspect that needed to be dealt by QM.

Schopenhauer condemned Kant on his take on the thing-in-itself and Schop had his point from his perspective. Nietzsche may have commented on Kant's thing-in-itself, but I am not an expert with Neitzsche (yet), so I cannot comment much on his views.

Philosophical theories cannot be absolute or eternal, thus we need to view them in their proper context and perspectives to justify their validity.

Puddy wrote:Please if there was no external world outside of what we are concious of, there would be nothing to live inside other than yourself and that would be like living in a studio apartment with no windows. If freedom means anything it is being able to move about the world without any inhibitions, it is being able to release your inner being into the world around you, It is the reality that there will always be things which are real that have not yet come to be controlled, believed in or known.

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.

However at the philosophical and a more realistical level of reality, the question is;
while we acknowledge an external world, is there an externalness that is independent of me and all other human beings?

Essentially, can human beings be independent and external to the common-sense-externalness that they are in or experience.
Note there are two levels of externalness in consideration here.

The question as raised by Hilary Putnam is,
can human beings has a god eye's view of externalness or reality?

You will need to shift into this philosophical perspective and not be stuck in the common sense perspective and panic over the absence of an external world.

It doesn't matter wrote:However, even branched out, the vibrations still exist.
Evidence of this can be seen, because our species as evolved to convert vibrations and waves into the sense of sound, for the sake of survival. If A causes and existed before B, then it would seem A must exist.

"The vibration still exist" because you thought and reasoned it.

The question you need to ask are;
Why are you thinking in such a manner and arriving at such a conclusion?
What is going in one's head, brain, mind and body in such a situation?
There are many more questions to the above.
Don't jump to the first answer that appear to your mind.

If A causes and existed before B, then it would seem A must exist.

David Hume had countered that.
Try and get serious with Hume and a pandora box will be opened.

It doesn't matter wrote:

It doesn't matter wrote:However, even branched out, the vibrations still exist.
Evidence of this can be seen, because our species as evolved to convert vibrations and waves into the sense of sound, for the sake of survival. If A causes and existed before B, then it would seem A must exist.

You never countered how my reasoning was flawed, though. You just spoke about the first sentence.

I agree with your reasoning in one aspect, i.e.
'our species as evolved to convert vibrations and waves into the sense of sound, for the sake of survival'.

but our species also evolved to form and actualize the concept of 'vibrations' and 'waves'.
In reality, there is no vibration-in-itself and waves-in-itself without any human correlation with it.

In other words, yes, vibrations still exist, but not vibrations-in-themselves.

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.

Puddy wrote:

Spectrum wrote:...
However at the philosophical and a more realistical level of reality, the question is;
while we acknowledge an external world, is there an externalness that is independent of me and all other human beings?

Common sense is what most people get, understand, believe and so on, quite easily without doing to much in the area of enquiries. This does not mean common sense is any less philosophical, real or deep than things which are not common sense.
...
All these show there is room to be philosophical about the same reality as the one which makes common sense. What I am trying to say is a forest does not exist purely and for the sake of being comprehended...they are more meaningful and far greater than that.

The common sense perspective should be confined within what is understood as 'common sense'.

When we get into the details and specific beyond common sense, what we get are specialized subjects, like mathematics, sciences, arts, PHILOSOPHY and others. We drop the common sense label from there on.

Up one level, philosophy deals with what is beyond (meta) the specialized subjects. That is why we have philosophy of science, mathematics, religion, philosophy itself and anything else.

Thus if you want to explore beyond common sense 'love' or what is in the forest, you can go into the specifics which could be science, psychology, philosophy or whatever.

When I mentioned, 'at the philosophical and a more realistical level of reality', I was specific to the topic of this OP, i.e. from common sense sound to the specialized philosophy and ontology of sound.

In the above sense, one should not conflate (unless necessary and the exception) the common sense with other specialized perspectives, like philosophy, science or others.