How much evidence does it take to believe or to know?

[Santini]

Your example of a tree falling in the forest does not prove that sound cannot exist outside subjective awareness, only that we don't know if a sound does actually exist there or not.

Actually modern technology (tape recorders, video recorders, etc.) has provided pretty convincing evidence that we not only can know but do know that sound (i.e., vibrations which travel through the air and are capable of being heard by humans) does exist when a tree falls in a forest even though no human is around.

[boagie]

Sound is the ears interpretation of frequency vibration, no ear, no sound. Perception is always biologically determined. To the individual perception is reality, to the group it is agreement.

[OTavern]

Your example of a tree falling in the forest does not prove that sound cannot exist outside subjective awareness, only that we don't know if a sound does actually exist there or not.

Actually modern technology (tape recorders, video recorders, etc.) has provided pretty convincing evidence that we not only can know but do know that sound (i.e., vibrations which travel through the air and are capable of being heard by humans) does exist when a tree falls in a forest even though no human is around.

I don't think you know enough about the physics of sound to make such a claim. Recorders capture vibrations and store those in forms that can be played in such a way that connected speakers can replicate the original vibrations. It is the vibrations that make waves of molecules which strike the eardrums, making vibrations that are translated into electrical impulses by the cochlea (organ of corti). Boagle is quite right that the sound you hear is a phenomena that is created by the brain. However, that does not prove that sound could not exist in the outer world as a natural phenomena. Same is true for light: just because your brain creates the colours you see does not mean colours are only mental phenomena - they may exist in the objective world. We can't just assume they don't.

[boagie]

Actually I believe science states that sound itself is a biological production. The nature of the elemental stuff of which is interpreted by biology is vibration, and vibrations are all over the placed, but, no biology, no sound, no colour. Think of it as effect, vibrations are affect, colour and sound are the resultant effect upon ones biology. A taperecorder records vibrations, you interpret thoughs vibrations as sound.

It is a dreamy moving not quite thing, only the illusion is the grasp of the ring. In systems thinking I believe it would be called an emergent quality, it is of a relational nature, and subjective experience.

[Santini]

Fellas, fellas. Please. This problem was a problem centuries ago. Today it is only a semantical problem that is simply solved by resolving the equivocal use of the word "sound" at its core.

If you define "sound" as . . .

a: "Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing" . . .

then of course a tree that falls in a forest in which no human is present makes a sound; that is, the air DOES vibrate from the tree's fall. In fact, such vibrations can be recorded with no human present.

OTOH . . .

If you define "sound" as . . .

b: "The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium" . . .

then of course no sound is made by a tree falling in a forest in which no organ of hearing is present. Why would anyone expect there to be one?

What's so difficult about understanding this?

[boagie]

Why do you believe you are stating something I have not already stated?

[Santini]

Why do you believe you are stating something I have not already stated?

It could be because I'm having a somewhat difficult time understanding you. For instance, what does this mean: "It is a dreamy moving not quite thing, only the illusion is the grasp of the ring."

???

By "it" I suppose you mean "sound" although there is no clear antecedent for "it" and really I'm only guessing. Also, in scientific terminology what is "not quite thing" supposed to mean? That could mean a number of things but it seems to mean nothing in particular.

Anyway, maybe I do agree with you, I'm not really sure.

In a nutshell what I am saying is that a tree which falls in a forest in which no human is present both creates a sound and doesn't create a sound depending upon which sense of the word "sound" one uses. Do you agree with that?

[boagie]

Sorry if that only served to utterly confuse you. I suppose a bit of poetic licence is not really helpful in these matters. My apologies!

No I do not agree, sounds like colours are biologically dependent, vibrations uninterpreted by biology remain vibrations, disturbances of the air nothing more.

[Santini]

No I do not agree, sounds like colours are biologically dependent, vibrations uninterpreted by biology remain vibrations, disturbances of the air nothing more.

But the definition of sound, in one sense, essentially IS "disturbances (or vibrations) in the air"!

So if the question is, does a tree that falls in the forest when no one is around make a sound (i.e., a disturbance (or vibration) in the air)?, the answer is yes.

If the question is, does a tree that falls in the forest when no one is around make a sound (i.e., a vibration in the air that is heard by a human)?, the answer is no.

. . . which one of the above do you disagree with?

[boagie]

No I do not agree, sounds like colours are biologically dependent, vibrations uninterpreted by biology remain vibrations, disturbances of the air nothing more.

But the definition of sound, in one sense, essentially IS "disturbances (or vibrations) in the air"!

So if the question is, does a tree that falls in the forest when no one is around make a sound (i.e., a disturbance (or vibration) in the air)?, the answer is yes.

If the question is, does a tree that falls in the forest when no one is around make a sound (i.e., a vibration in the air that is heard by a human)?, the answer is no.

. . . which one of the above do you disagree with?

Santini,

Actually I think you unnecessarily confuse the issue, the first one, the conclusion is not yes, a distrubance or vibration in the air is itself not sound, the key word here is ear, you do not have one in this example. The second one is necessarily no, as there is no ear to interpret the vibrations into sound. You are incorrect that the defination of sound is vibration. The defination of sound is the effect vibration has upon the eardrum and possiably the interpretation of that effect upon the eardrum through processes of the understanding and of course this to applies to frequencies of light to the eyes and thus colour.

[Santini]

Santini,

Actually I think you unnecessarily confuse the issue, the first one, the conclusion is not yes, a distrubance or vibration in the air is itself not sound, the key word here is ear, you do not have one in this example.

No, the key word is not "ear" unless you assume that the word "sound" refers to something like "vibrations in the air that are heard by an ear."

But that is not the only definition of the word "sound" as I have pointed out numerous times now.

It should be plain that if that is the definition of "sound" that you intend to use then the answer to the query, "Does a tree that falls in a forest in which there is no one present make a sound (i.e., vibrations in the air heard by an ear)?" The answer is an obvious no.

The question I have for you is that once the word "sound" is clarified to mean "vibrations in the air heard by an ear" why on earth would anyone expect the answer to be yes???

You are incorrect that the defination of sound is vibration. The defination of sound is the effect vibration has upon the eardrum and possiably the interpretation of that effect upon the eardrum through processes of the understanding and of course this to applies to frequencies of light to the eyes and thus colour.

You are clearly mistaken about that as a quick check of any mainstream dictionary will show. What you've suggested as THE definition of sound is actually only one among many.

BTW, I never said that the definition of "sound" was vibration. I said or implied that there are several senses in which the word "sound" can be used meaningfully. Two of these senses that are particularly relevant to this thread are:

a. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing

. . . and

b. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.

These definitions are from thefreedictionary.com but are pretty standard.

If you'll notice definition A says nothing about vibrations which are actually heard by a human ear. It only specifies vibrations that are capable of being heard by the human ear.

Clear up the equivocal use of the word "sound" and you've answered the question about the sound a falling tree in a human-less forest does or does not make.

[boagie]

"But that is not the only definition of the word "sound" as I have pointed out numerous times now.

It should be plain that if that is the definition of "sound" that you intend to use then the answer to the query, "Does a tree that falls in a forest in which there is no one present make a sound (i.e., vibrations in the air heard by an ear)?" The answer is an obvious no."

Santini,

Precisely, no ear no sound.

"The question I have for you is that once the word "sound" is clarified to mean "vibrations in the air heard by an ear" why on earth would anyone expect the answer to be yes???"

The ear creates sound out of vibrations. Vibrations in and of themseleves are not sound.

You are incorrect that the definition of sound is vibration. The definition of sound is the effect vibration has upon the eardrum and possibly the interpretation of that effect upon the eardrum through processes of the understanding and of course this to applies to frequencies of light to the eyes and thus colour.

"Your clearly wrong about that as a quick check of any mainstream dictionary will show. What you've suggested is THE definition of sound is actually only one among many.

BTW, I never said that the definition of "sound" was vibration. I said or implied that there are several senses in which the word "sound" can be used meaningfully. Two of these senses that are particularly relevant to this thread are:

a. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing."

Alright, this one above-A, CAPABLE of being detected by the human organs of hearing do not make is sound, until a vibration has affect the eardrum to have the desired effect which would be to vibrate that eardrum at certain frequencies, then it becomes sound.

. . . and

"b. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium."

This one-B, If the vibrations are effecting a vibration of the eardrum then yes, you have sound.

"These definitions are from thefreedictionary.com but are pretty standard.

If you'll notice definition A says nothing about vibrations which are actually heard by a human ear. It only specifies vibrations that are capable of being heard by the human ear."

If they are saying that vibrations in and of themselves are sound, then they are very wrong.

Clear up the equivocal use of the word "sound" and you've answered the question about the sound a falling tree in a human-less forest does or does not make.[/quote

I simply do not know how to make it clearer, no ear, no sound.

[Santini]

If they are saying that vibrations in and of themselves are sound, then they are very wrong.

"From the point of view of physics, sound is considered to be the waves of vibratory motion themselves, whether or not they are heard by the human ear." -- http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/sound.aspx

There is more than one definition for the word "sound." Frankly, I'm surprised you don't know that.

[boagie]

"The effect these waves produce upon the ear is perceived as sound. From the point of view of physics, sound is considered to be the waves of vibratory motion themselves, whether or not they are heard by the human ear."

Santini,

Well, all I can say is physics must be a special case in point, they must consider the stimulus sound for the practical purpose of observation. Think of the vibration wave as you would consider any object, in order to perceive an object it must excite the senses after which it is condition once more through the processes of the understanding.

This statement physics makes is indeed problematic if considered very seriously, but again they must have their reasons in labelling it such. For the reality is unless those vibrations excite the senses there can be no sound. This tree which falls in the forest is a very old riddle and the solution across the board is in the absence of a subject there is no sound. Perhaps this will help, Subject and object stand or fall together, the relation between these two is apparent reality. So, in other words in the absence of a subject there is no sound, there is indeed nothing, not even vibration as object.

[Meleagar]

If humans did not interpret these vibrations as sound, but rather as scent or smell or visuals, would physicists still call the vibrations "sound"? Of course not. It is because virtually all humans biologically translate these vibrations into sound that physicists can label the vibrations themselves as "sound"; the vibrations are called "sound" by physics because that is how humans translate the frequency of the vibration.

Without humans or some creature that uniformly translates the vibrations as "sound", they could not be called "sound" in any meaningful sense; if they were translated as something else, they would be called something else.

Therefore, without the organ that translates the vibration into sound, there is no sound, there is only a vibration that could be interpreted any number of ways.