If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it,

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[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?

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. For example I'd say the proposition love is an overwhelming surge of emotion and feelings for something or someone, is common sense. I'd also say that this is what love fundamentally is and in that context it is as deep, real and philosophical as any other proposition you might find about love.

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. Here a some questions we can ask ourselves.... How and why did you comprehend a level of severity in connection to the threat of being hurt. What caused you to respond, was it instinct or waqs it your judgement. Would it be against your better judgement if you did nothing and let the stone hit and injure you? Do laws exist which proclaim stone throwing to be barbaric, wrong and immoral? Why does pain occur when something hard impacts on soft human flesh? What does mind over matter mean?

All these show there is room to be philosophical about the same reality as the one which makes common sense. Everything which exists in our external reality plays its own role and has its own purpose in the order of things. The question you should be asking yourself is are we really that important (those who are conscious of things) that everything which exists externally does so because it exists in our minds. The humble reply would be no.... A forest which exists does so for reasons which are not greater than I can comprehend but also not for the reason I comprehend them alone. 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.

puddy

...
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.

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.

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.

.

Its common sense that when you put 1 and 1 together you get 2. It is still mathematics. Its common sense what a man and a woman do together to make babies. Its still biology. Its common sense that a leader should in some way be wise. Its still philosophic. Its common sense that art is expressive. Expression, still is artistic.

Specialized subjects exist only because people have studied different parts of our universe in a way which is both articulate and achedemic, more fundamentally, because of learning. These subjects apply to real parts of our universe which can be learnt not the other way around. That is where we get our subjects from....the real world! Sometimes what we learn about the real world is common sense and what is learnt as common sense could still belong to a specialized subject! We can learn, be articulate, be achedemic, be specific and go into detail about things which are general, things which are common sense and things which go beyond whats general and whats common sense... importantly whats general and whats common sense still applies to and still plays a role in specialized subjects.

There is no doubt in my mind that these specialized subjects are clearly different from each other however they exist in the same universe and at times I think they overlap each other.... in the same way I think common sense overlaps what is special and unique and in these time common sense can be said to be special and unique.

I certainly would not think myself to conduct myself on a level above or beyond those who are content to stick to what is common sense (or those who are only able to understand what is common sense) if I am able to articulate myself better, be more achedemic and learn more of the details and specifics. I would call that person an ass. Philosophy is not beyond common sense because it is not beyond respect, morals, compassion, equality and most certainly not beyond the common man....everybody is philosophic from time to time and its not hard, in fact it is easy because it is part of what we are and its easy to be yourself.

puddy

Specialized subjects exist only because people have studied different parts of our universe in a way which is both articulate and achedemic, more fundamentally, because of learning. These subjects apply to real parts of our universe which can be learnt not the other way around. We can learn, be articulate, be achedemic, be specific and go into detail about things which are general, things which are common sense and things which go beyond whats general and whats common sense... importantly whats general and whats common sense still applies to and still plays a role in specialized subjects.

It is common sense that what is common sense is common sense, and what is specialized is specialized. That is the general understanding.

However, I agree with you that common sense is still applicable and sometimes very necessary in specialized knowledge.

In philosophy, the term 'common sense' is understood with a certain meaning and context which is necessary for effective communication between philosophers. Note, from Berkeley,

Yet so it is, we see the illiterate bulk of mankind that walk the high-road of plain common sense, and are governed by the dictates of nature, for the most part easy and undisturbed. To them nothing that is familiar appears unaccountable or difficult to comprehend. They complain not of any want of evidence in their senses, and are out of all danger of becoming Sceptics.

But no sooner do we depart from sense and instinct to follow the light of a superior principle, to reason, meditate, and reflect on the nature of things, but a thousand scruples spring up in our minds concerning those things which before we seemed fully to comprehend.

And from Bertrand Russell;

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.

Btw, I do not want to waste time discussion this 'common sense' issue. It is not significant.

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

Do you mean the concept of vibrations? How could vibrations exist, without vibrations-in-themselves? And what do you mean by 'vibrations-in-themselves'?

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

Do you mean the concept of vibrations? How could vibrations exist, without vibrations-in-themselves? And what do you mean by 'vibrations-in-themselves'?

To understand 'vibrations-in-themselves' you would need to explore the concept of the thing-in-itself, the noumenon.

By Kant's view, humans can make sense out of phenomena in these various ways, but can never directly know the noumena, the "things-in-themselves", the actual objects and dynamics of the natural world.
In other words, by Kant's Critique, our minds may attempt to correlate in useful ways, perhaps even closely accurate ways, with the structure and order of the various aspects of the universe, but cannot know these "things-in-themselves" (noumena) directly.
Rather, we must infer the extent to which thoughts correspond with things-in-themselves by our observations of the manifestations of those things that can be sensed, that is, of phenomena
-wiki

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

Do you mean the concept of vibrations? How could vibrations exist, without vibrations-in-themselves? And what do you mean by 'vibrations-in-themselves'?

To understand 'vibrations-in-themselves' you would need to explore the concept of the thing-in-itself, the noumenon.

By Kant's view, humans can make sense out of phenomena in these various ways, but can never directly know the noumena, the "things-in-themselves", the actual objects and dynamics of the natural world.
In other words, by Kant's Critique, our minds may attempt to correlate in useful ways, perhaps even closely accurate ways, with the structure and order of the various aspects of the universe, but cannot know these "things-in-themselves" (noumena) directly.
Rather, we must infer the extent to which thoughts correspond with things-in-themselves by our observations of the manifestations of those things that can be sensed, that is, of phenomena
-wiki

This makes sense. We only have knowledge of these things from our own senses and though-processing. But the things-in-themselves, such as vibrations, still exist. We simply do not directly know what they are.

This makes sense. We only have knowledge of these things from our own senses and though-processing. But the things-in-themselves, such as vibrations, still exist. We simply do not directly know what they are.

There is a need to put the above in its proper perspective.

1. 'Our own senses' include those that we inherited from our ancestors since 4 billions years ago as programmed in our DNA and genes.

2. Vibrations still exists, but they are qualified to our common senses, verifiable scientific evidence, etc.
They cannot be standalone things-in-themselves.

3. Vibrations-in-themselves or things-in-themselves, thing-in-itself, i.e. without any reference to human beings, can be speculated out of pure reason, but we cannot relate them to the empirical positively in anyway.

For example, solid objects are made of materials, molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles, and these are verifiable by scientific experiments.
However we cannot go beyond the above empirical and insist,
based solely on pure reason, that objects are made of
some absolute ultimate particle (thing-in-itself).

This makes sense. We only have knowledge of these things from our own senses and though-processing. But the things-in-themselves, such as vibrations, still exist. We simply do not directly know what they are.

There is a need to put the above in its proper perspective.

1. 'Our own senses' include those that we inherited from our ancestors since 4 billions years ago as programmed in our DNA and genes.

2. Vibrations still exists, but they are qualified to our common senses, verifiable scientific evidence, etc.
They cannot be standalone things-in-themselves.

3. Vibrations-in-themselves or things-in-themselves, thing-in-itself, i.e. without any reference to human beings, can be speculated out of pure reason, but we cannot relate them to the empirical positively in anyway.

For example, solid objects are made of materials, molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles, and these are verifiable by scientific experiments.
However we cannot go beyond the above empirical and insist,
based solely on pure reason, that objects are made of
some absolute ultimate particle (thing-in-itself).

What do you mean by 'they cannot be standalone things-in-themselves'? Even without human understanding of them, why would they not still exist-in-themselves?

What do you mean by 'they cannot be standalone things-in-themselves'? Even without human understanding of them, why would they not still exist-in-themselves?

That is what the whole issue boils down to, things cannot exist-in-themselves without any reference to human beings.
That conclusion had been argued by Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason.
Read up Kant's CPR to get an idea of what he is talking about. Btw, I am not going into the details of this, as it is too tedious.

The phrase, without any reference to human beings, is not merely confined to human understandings, concepts and thinking,
but cover a complex set of variables of the human self interacting interdependently with the 'external' environment.