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

If no one is around to hear it fall does it make a sound. Bets gentlemen please. The answer is yes it does, no ifs or buts. There is no human to hear it but I am certain the little mouse that got crushed heard it.

Naughty, naughty. You just rigged the betting by introducing the mouse. For of course a mouse has auditory sensory equipment, so of course the air compression caused by the falling tree creates a sound. How could there not be? Sound is exactly what happens when the auditory sense encounters air compression. Remove the mouse and I'm happy to place my bet on there being no sound.

I will object to the idea that the cat is relevant to this question. The said cat in the box is only indicating we are ignorant of the cats condition because we can not determine the quantum universe. This question is not doubting the condition of the tree it is simply asking what I consider is a rather naive and silly question. If no one is around to hear it fall does it make a sound. Bets gentlemen please. The answer is yes it does, no ifs or buts. There is no human to hear it but I am certain the little mouse that got crushed heard it.

Xris,

You are absolutely correct, the little mouse would hear it, likewise, the little bird, and perhaps insects would also sense something in their own way.

That is not the issue at hand.

The question at its most fundamental level must be asked after every point of sentient awareness (including the mouse, bird, insect, etc) have all been removed from the scenario.

Again (according to quantum theory), without the presence of consciousness (in whatever form) to "decode" the waveform attributes that describe the multi-sensory aspects of reality, then reality itself will remain in its informational format.

It's kind of like considering whether or not the characters in your favorite video game (still running in the hard drive of your computer), are still blasting each other with animated weaponry without the monitor and speakers turned on to display the action and sound.

Do the informational patterns encoded in the hard drive resemble what is happening on the monitor? No!

Something must translate the information in the hard drive into what is referred to as being "reality" up on the monitor.

And that appears to parallel the functional relationship that living consciousness has to the quantum underpinning ("hard drive") of universal reality.

seeds

If no one is around to hear it fall does it make a sound. Bets gentlemen please. The answer is yes it does, no ifs or buts. There is no human to hear it but I am certain the little mouse that got crushed heard it.

Naughty, naughty. You just rigged the betting by introducing the mouse. For of course a mouse has auditory sensory equipment, so of course the air compression caused by the falling tree creates a sound. How could there not be? Sound is exactly what happens when the auditory sense encounters air compression. Remove the mouse and I'm happy to place my bet on there being no sound.

Be careful I have a time machine and a tape recorder. Now do you want to bet? So now we are actually saying the air will not be compressed by the effect of a tree falling. An amazing bit of scientific logic here. My farts are not smelly if my wife does not smell them. Now that is logical.

I have just noticed that Seed wants every form of life eliminated before we can question the logic of the question. Trying to introduce the cat into the box is too late Seed. It's dead of boredom. Shut your eyes for second and believe nothing exists and you will discover the stupidity of this question. The same illogical consequence of this sugestion is just the same as imagining a lone tree in the wilderness. It just sounds, sorry for the silly pun, more feasible.

Be careful I have a time machine and a tape recorder. Now do you want to bet?

Time machines don't exist so I'll ignore that reference (not that I see your point in introducing it anyway). But the tape recorder is fine. Now lets ask the question: If the tree falls and there is no one (or animal with auditory senses like mice) to hear it, did the tree make a sound?

No. It caused compression waves in the surrounding air.

Did the tape recorder record a sound? No. Its microphone generated electrical signals in response to the air compression which the tape head converted into specific magnetic signatures in the molecules coating the tape surface.

But isn't that sound recorded on the tape? It certainly has the potential to be, but it isn't sound yet. First we need loudspeakers which are capable of interpreting the tape's magnetic signatures into patterns of specific electrical voltage variations that can force a speaker membrane to vibrate, reproducing a facsimile of the original compressed airwaves from the falling tree.

Almost there...now all we need is an ear, just like we needed one in the forest without a tape recorder, to convert the airwaves into biochemical neural impulses interpretable by a mind. Voila: sound. So you see, the tape recorder alone isn't gonna do the trick. My bet is still on no sound in the uninhabited forest complete with tape recorder.

So now we are actually saying the air will not be compressed by the effect of a tree falling. An amazing bit of scientific logic here.

I think by now most everyone in these fora are aware of your penchant for non sequiturs, Xris. But if you actually wish to explain how you arrive at such an erroneous conclusion I'll bother to read your reasoning, if you like.

My farts are not smelly if my wife does not smell them. Now that is logical.

Not quite. It's only logical if there is no other nose nearby capable of converting the airborne feces molecules into olfactory neural signals for a mind to interpret as smelly farts.

A deaf person who talks is making noise even if they themselves cannot perceive it.

If one turns on the television or radio before they leave the home for the day does it continue to make noise while no one is at home? What if a deaf person enters that home - does the television or radio cease to make noise or does it continue to play?

This is an age old question. Maybe we should reword the question..... If a tree falls in an urban area, does it make a sound? One thing everyone could identify with, would be, being startled or suprised by a noise. If our mind isn't expecting a loud noise, why then can we still hear it? Or, while engaging in a group debate, if you are speaking to one person in particular and another person speaks out of turn; if you do not hear their voice, does this mean that they never made a sound? Trees have been falling and making noise since they have been growing, the words "sound" and "noise" are only our interpretation of the cause and effect.

If our mind isn't expecting a loud noise, why then can we still hear it?

The auditory nerve is under the control of that part of the nervous system called the "autonomic" or involuntary nervous system. It cannot be turned off. If, however, the mind is unconscious such as in deep sleep, the mind may still fail to recognize the nervous impulse. In that case, you still don't have sound, just unprocessed neural energy that quickly dissipates.

So when I close my eyes there is no light? There is no world, no universe?

Twelve pages, and people still think it might not make any noise?

Please, people. Let's not be stupid here. There is more to noise than our subjective experience of it, obviously.

Put a recorder in the home where a tv or radio is playing while no one is home, and you can prove there is sound while no one is there to hear it. Why are people told to listen to hear a tornado on it's way if sound does not precede hearing? Again a common sense answer to an absurd question. Just because one claims to be a scientist does not mean every- thing they say makes any sense. There are many more theories than answers.

The issue of the OP is a matter of perspective again (Nietzsche), games of truth (Michel Foucault) and language game (Wittgenstein).

1. Common Sense and ordinary perspective. In this perspective and based on common reasoning, it is taken for granted, there will be a sound when a tree falls in a forest, regardless of whether there is any there to hear it. This position is imperative for basic survival.

2. Empirical and Scientific perspective. A scientist may question perspective (1), i.e. how can anyone be sure there is a sound. From the scientific perspective or game of truth, this question can be tested using reliable caliberated scientific instruments. I think we can be sure, scientifically, there will be a sound when a tree falls in a forest, when there is no person to hear it.

3. Philosophical Perspective Note is this philosophical game of truth, one should not conflate with perspective (1) and (2) as they play with different set of rules. In the philosophical perspective, it will depend on which sub-perspective one adopts, i.e. realist or non-realist.

Generally a realist will insist there is a sound when a tree fall in a forest regardless if there is no one to hear it. A non-realist will state, there is no sound with reference to the OP.

IMO, the realist insist there is a sound because they are not stepping out of the boxes of (1) and (2) when they are playing the game of (3). It is like insisting the rules of tennis is applicable for football in their respective official games. They are forcing the common sense and scientific perspective onto the philosophical perspective.

Meanwhile the non-realists is philosophizing solely within the philosophical perspective and applying Locke's principles that secondary properties re the senses are interdependent between objects and subjects. Sound = objects(s) + events, sound waves + subject + sound processor. If any of the variable are absent in this sound equation, there will be no sound. In the OP case, the subject is absent.

I am with the non-realists, i.e. in the philosophical perspective (NOT common sense or scientific) there is no sound when a tree fall in a forest and there is no person to hear it.

Btw, the philosophical perspective is not in vain. The questioning and answers in the philosophical perspectives are not necessary intellectual games. They do have utility values in contributing to living life optimally for the individual, humanity and the specie. Note the OP, 'Is philosophy pointless/useless?' or useful. [url]http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=82785#p82785[/url]

And yet a glass window (without any of the latter attributes) can shatter with the right sound frequency. Where are its ears to hear such sounds? Surly there are levels of sound leading up to its breaking point, but upon reaching the correct level of sound it shatters. Perhaps if a glass can interpret sound then could the forest not hear the tree falling as well?

Spectrum, I like your style. You can not confront the question so you put some kind of philosophical red line under it. As if it has authority to over ride any argument based on logical dialogue. I think we all understand the question and the consequences but you can not give it value without making it statement of faith. I think it is dangerous concept to believe something has to be observed each and every time even though you are totally convinced by evidence of previous observations.

To the non-realists ------------- Your spouses or significant others have it made, because they can cheat on you and if you don't SEE it with your own eyes - well - it didn't happen!!

To the non-realists ------------- Your spouses or significant others have it made, because they can cheat on you and if you don't SEE it with your own eyes - well - it didn't happen!!

This non-realist recommends that when you get to college, don't pursue a career in analysis.