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

I so did not read through the last 15 pages.

I just wanted to assert my opinion on the matter, yes it does.

Noted the whole chunk of your presentation is reduced ultimately and merely to semantics to support your above conclusion.

Your final conclusion is, yes it does make a sound depending on how I define (semantics) sound. Note the following definition of 'sound'.

Sound:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sound?s=t
1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.
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.
3. the particular auditory effect produced by a given cause: the sound of music.
4. any auditory effect; any audible vibrational disturbance: all kinds of sounds.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sound
1.A sensation perceived by the ear caused by the vibration of air or some other medium. Nobody made a sound. He turned when he heard the sound of footsteps behind him.
2.A vibration capable of causing this.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sound
refer to the list provided by you.

The above dictionaries and presumably others will provide two different meanings of sound, i.e.
a. human-based or
b. independent waves within a certain range.

What you simply did was to be bias to one meaning, i.e. (b) and assert there is sound. I don't see your philosophical justifications for that.

Re Phenomenology, you got it wrong when you stated there is sound. There is 'no sound' from this perspective, note (wiki),

Stephen Hicks[1] writes that to understand phenomenology, one must identify its roots in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant distinguished between "phenomena" (objects as interpreted by human sensibility and understanding), and "noumena" (objects as things-in-themselves, which humans cannot directly experience).

Sound is " "phenomena" (objects as interpreted by human sensibility and understanding)" thus if there is no one, there is no sound.

In the case of neuroscience, 'sound' is very specific to the neural circuits in the human brain that support what is ultimately sound. In the case of synesthesia, when waves (sound) hit the eardrum and the auditory neural circuit, any damage to the circuit may not produce the sensation of sound, but it instead it could produced sensations of colors, taste, feelings, visuals, instead. If not sure check out SYNESTHESIA in google or wiki.

Re Science, while Physics may focus primarily on sound as wave, neuroscience focus on primarily on human-based sound and sound as wave is secondary.

The wiki article re this 'falling tree-no_one-sound?' scenario had a lot of clues to the philosophical perspective of the issue, wonder how you missed them?

Spectrum why are you becoming abusive? Why should I be considered narrow minded simply because I disagree with your view? You are now changing your argument from a philosophical perspective to a point of defining sound as if has any significance. Sound is a transmission of waves through the medium by a vibrating source. If someone was listening to that sound as it fell we would have no argument to debate. It was self evident it did make a noise. Take that person away and no one can say for absolute purposes it did make a noise. BUT by any logical reasoning we can be reasonably certain it most certainly did make a noise. I think we all can accept the question is worthy of asking but in this particular case it is not worth more than casual consideration before it is dismissed. We have to draw a philosophical line between subjects of worth and insignificant musing.

Actually, if you go back to Hegel, (rather than Kant, who is existentialist and not a phenomenologist), you can see that all things predicate the truth of their antithesis just by there mere existence, and that silence is sound in a different form, just like light and dark or any other "dichotomy" through the basic dialectical movement of consciousness, self-consciousness, Reason, Spirit, etc.. Actually, Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit" pretty much ends with the self being all things as the ultimate absolute truth. Even then, just by its mere existence, the tree predicates ALL the truth of the world, because it is what it is and it is its own negation. It is not an animal therefore it predicates the truth of animals. It is silent (when not falling), therefore it predicates the truth of noise. At first it gets taken to be that these are antitheses of each other, which later become revealed to be one-in-the-same or self-same "objects" of sense-perception.

Again, if you're going to make a rebuttal, refute ALL of my points, not just a handful.

From the etymological perspective, if you take that sound has to be heard for it to exist, you must do away with hearing (as it is a redundant and unnecessary condition inherent to sound), and then you must re-define everything that would be "sound" when it goes unheard by human ears (or even any sentient life form).

Sound does not HAVE to be heard to be sound, it just has to be able to be heard.

Also, you must examine the definition of "sound" for all languages and not just the English language (as I stated before, that the modern English language is formulated by the most common usage of it, even if highly incorrect - see "irregardless is now a word" and the "mispronunciation of forte (a person's strong points".

Also, the Wikipedia article stated, as I said before (only my statement a lot more simplified):

Philosopher George Berkeley, in his work, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710), proposes, "But, say you, surely there is nothing easier than for me to imagine trees, for instance, in a park [...] and nobody by to perceive them. [...] The objects of sense exist only when they are perceived; the trees therefore are in the garden [...] no longer than while there is somebody by to perceive them."[1] Nevertheless, Berkeley never actually wrote about the question.

The original idea was simply a metaphorically posed question to throw human experience, or knowledge/learning/epistemology into a sort of sceptical view. That the view is that nothing exists unless "I" experience it. His statement was that, upon leaving the garden, the trees that once were there cease to exist for that person because that person can no longer perceive them. Yet Hegel destroys this whole notion by providing evidence that indeed, they are still there and are preserved within our memory.

Berkeley's example is referred to by William Fossett twenty years later in a consideration of the emergence of meaning: "[T]ease apart the threads [of the natural world] and the pattern vanishes. The design is in how the cloth-maker arranges the threads: this way and that, as fashion dictates. [...] To say something is meaningful is to say that that is how we arrange it so; how we comprehend it to be, and what is comprehended by you or I may not be by a cat, for example. If a tree falls in a park and there is no-one to hand, it is silent and invisible and nameless. And if we were to vanish, there would be no tree at all; any meaning would vanish along with us. Other than what the cats make of it all, of course."[2]

Here, the question is properly restated from the original context which still remains a philosophical thought process of a critique in a way of human experiential knowledge, evident by the end being that with no humans, the meaning of the world would vanish "other than what the cats make of it all, of course".

Thus-far, in the original context, the question is not one of etymology or ontology. It is simply a philosophical musing over where knowledge comes from.

Some years later, a similar question is posed. It is unknown whether the source of this question is Berkeley or not. In June 1883 in the magazine The Chautauquan, the question was put, "If a tree were to fall on an island where there were no human beings would there be any sound?" They then went on to answer the query with, "No. Sound is the sensation excited in the ear when the air or other medium is set in motion."[3] This seems to imply that the question is posed not from a philosophical viewpoint, but from a purely scientific one. The magazine Scientific American corroborated the technical aspect of this question, while leaving out the philosophic side, a year later when they asked the question slightly reworded, "If a tree were to fall on an uninhabited island, would there be any sound?" And gave a more technical answer, "Sound is vibration, transmitted to our senses through the mechanism of the ear, and recognized as sound only at our nerve centers. The falling of the tree or any other disturbance will produce vibration of the air. If there be no ears to hear, there will be no sound."[4]

The current phrasing appears to have originated in the 1910 book Physics by Charles Riborg Mann and George Ransom Twiss. The question "When a tree falls in a lonely forest, and no animal is near by to hear it, does it make a sound? Why?" is posed along with many other questions to quiz readers on the contents of the chapter, and as such, is posed from a purely physical point of view.

See, the question (as asked on this forum) is stated from a scientific perspective and not at all a philosophical one and strictly/literally addresses it as such to which they claim no, there is no sound. Later, and quite obviously, scientists said "forget that" and agreed that indeed, there is sound.

The Wikipedia article I mentioned leaves you with nothing because by the end of it all, it gives tons of yes and no answers to the question from different perspectives. Also, it even blatantly states that the question (as posed here) was NEVER posed from a philosophical perspective, that it originated from a scientific one which was a de-contextualized philosophical idea that had nothing to do with etymology, ontology or any sort of a suggestion that it did not make sound or was even to be pondered seriously.

Again, if hearing is the perception of sound, then hearing or anything it is of itself cannot be sound, because sound is a temporal "thing" or other and hearing is a perception. If it must be heard to be sound, then what is that thing that is "sound" when it goes unheard? This I've yet to see anyone attempt to answer. I've also as yet never seen anyone look into other languages at how they define sound.

You can't make the logical fallacy of a straw man as a proper refute in a debate or end that straw man with an ad hominem attack.

By reading of only the first and both last posts in here I am still thinking about the voting on top. My first feeling is like Spectrum talked about - sound must be clear defined in this question.

For me, this question is not answerable without a small talk with the guys who asked it by them self (obviously, Turtlespeaks, the owner of this post, was asking for the sense of this question).

By reading of only the first and both last posts in here I am still thinking about the voting on top. My first feeling is like Spectrum talked about - sound must be clear defined in this question.

For me, this question is not answerable without a small talk with the guys who asked it by them self (obviously, Turtlespeaks, the owner of this post, was asking for the sense of this question).

The very origin of this goes back to the 1700's, in its unadulterated form. To speak with them is impossible, though it was in a writing that it was stated.

The question, thrown back into its original context, DOES contain philosophical merit, the question as posed above is only one of etymological significance.

With no unification of definitions, and especially with the English language in general, the question is inherently unanswerable because it depends on the subjective definitions each gives to a thing that actually exists in a particular way.

I must again reiterate the stance of this and to point out that, unless one abandons hearing as a definition, one must define what those "sounds" are when they are not heard, they are there, there is NO doubt about that, they don't cease to exist, they just cease to be known for us, so if they exist but not as sound (because nobody heard it), then what exactly is it?

This question, I am reiterating again, because I honestly would like to know what it would be if not sound and I don't like how every time this particular debate comes up, it goes unanswered.

Since common-language definitions are based in common-sense observation and interpretation, not in philosophical musing, it is disapointing to me when common-sense conclusions are defended as though they represent philosophy. The tree falling in the forest, to me, is a worthy example of the interconnectedness of phenomena since every conceptual component along the path to hearing is required for the sound to exist. Of what philosophical relevance is it that the common definition of sound includes unheard airwaves in the forest? I'm perfectly able to appreciate that the use of the word sound in common usage does cover unheard airwaves but so what? This is a philosophy forum, not an anti-philosophy forum.

Again, if you're going to make a rebuttal, refute ALL of my points, not just a handful.

You have to be fair and reasonable in this case. You openly and glaringly declared you had not read the previous 15 pages. Btw, others can be very busy as well. At least I had read you full messy post and did my best to summarize.


Note the OP, 'If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it,' and in this case 'hearing' related sound is very relevant.

Your insistence that the OP is a scientific question and discussed in the scientific context (sound waves) is out of point if you understand clearly this is within "Main Philosophy Forums » Epistemology and Metaphysics"

Note my post #175 viewtopic.php?p=82796#p82796. I don't want to discuss or debate the details (tedious and besides I am busy as well) of the issue but merely to point out, that this OP is more relevant as a philosophical discussion than a scientific or common sense one.

From the philosophical perspective, the main issue (ontological-metaphysics) of this OP is related to philosophical materialism and substance theory. The fundamental question; does matter (philosophical, not science nor layman) or an ultimate substance exists independent of human conception or any inter-relation. From Kant perspective, the issue is, is there a sound-by-itself that exists independently. There are other perspectives to the issue from Locke, Berkeley and others.

Well, I have yet, and must reiterate my main argument, to hear somebody say what sound is when it goes unheard, even though is does NOT change form at all and is exactly the same.

Even then, everyone hears the same sound differently. Hearing requires sound to hear, sound does not require hearing to be sound, just the ability to be heard by something.

If you read my "messy" posts as so claimed, you'd have seen that the whole time I STUCK to a philosophical perspective.

Even then, why is it that the whole world practically agrees that even if unheard, sound is still sound, and then in philosophy 2/3's of them agree it is as well (based on the pole results on this).

Now, when I posted my comment, I was not posting in response or as a rebuttal to anyone, only justifying my reasoning for agreeing that it does indeed make a sound even if nobody hears. You on the other hand, responded with a rebuttal to my post.

I would also like to mention something else. For sound to even be heard, it must be in existence before it is heard, otherwise it could never be heard. If sound is issued before it is heard, what is it then until it gets heard?

This is what I've been asking the whole time.

This thing of "sound" exists in the same general form every time it is made, regardless of who hears it or how they hear it or if nobody hears it. How is it then a different thing if NOT heard?

To go back to the grammatical perspective.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it,' and in this case 'hearing' related sound is very relevant.

This is a logical fallacy, and a syllogistic one, but I am not sure which exactly as there are a million of them with different names, but definitely of logical fallacies, a non sequitur of some kind.

If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

None of that means that hearing is inherently relevant to what SOUND is. It is a question of perception. If unperceived, is something real or actual or existent, or does it not exist? If not a question of this, it is a question of your perspective of what "sound" is, in which case only viewing it in English (as I said before is a very bastardised language) does a HUGE disservice to philosophical investigation.

These are very key points that, regardless of philosophical perspective, I have YET to see anyone even attempt. At this point, I am very much beginning to think they can't answer those questions and are avoiding them outright.

So, again I'm going to keep pushing these questions until they are answered:

• What is "sound" when it is unheard, as we know SOMETHING exists when the tree falls, and that this something is exactly the same when unheard, how is it, aside from 1 out of 4 definitions of sound being based on that it must be heard by humans?
• If it must be heard by humans, than what is it when animals hear this unknown, undefined thing?
• Why exactly does sound have to be heard for it to be sound, aside from its English definition?

Or are we just going to insinuate baseless ad hominem attacks the whole time?

Hi again, Misty,

The following “thought experiment” is going to be a little long (broken up into several posts over several days).

However, if you can persevere through it, I believe that it not only offers-up a truly logical way of visualizing the thread OP, but also a plausible approach to the question of what "God" is (while staying "on-topic," of course).

Seeds,

I think I understand what you are saying. The experiment is not about common sense or what normal thought would surmise as reality. The experiment is about what may or may not be outside of our experience in relation to objects when we cannot see, hear, smell, touch. We don't know if something is or is not there, or if it makes a noise or not, etc., because the senses, and the experience of the senses is the way man knows something is or not?

Yes, that sounds about right.

For the sake of what I am about to present, imagine that our five “senses” are merely extensions of our “inner consciousness” reaching out into the universe through the five sensory “windows” of our bodies (I will clarify that later).

With that in mind, a perhaps "loose," but very good analogy for visualizing some of the concepts being debated in this thread can be seen in the laser hologram.

A laser hologram is created by shinning a laser at an object (or objects) and a mirror.

The light reflecting off of the setup combines to create an interference pattern that is captured in a holographic (photographic-like) emulsion or film.

To the naked eye, the image on the holographic film looks like a meaningless pattern of circular ripples and waves.

However, when you shine the laser directly at the film itself, the ripples turn out to be correlated patterns of information that, when combined with the laser light, creates a three-dimensional optical replication (a "hologram") of the original objects.

Therefore, it is the “combined relationship” between the laser light and the patterns of information on the holographic film that creates the “reality” of the three-dimensional image.

Now, Misty, let’s make this interesting (and fun).

Let’s pretend that the "original objects" in the hologram are you and me sitting across from each other at a dinner table with items of food and drink on top of it.

Furthermore, just behind you is a small bed with a night stand that's supporting an old turntable that's playing Led Zeppelin’s, "Stairway to Heaven," coming from a pair of speakers sitting on the floor.

All of which takes place in a small room that’s completely isolated from all other life forms.

So, as the laser shines into the holographic film, a static - three dimensional hologram of everything described above (everything “visible” from a particular angle), springs-forth out of the patterns of information.

Turn the laser off and everything reverts back into unrecognizable ripples and waves on the film. Turn it back on, and there we are again.

Now, let's pretend that the hologram of you and me is magically transformed into the "real" you and me having dinner together in the setting described above, with all of the "dynamic" and "moving" multi-sensory phenomena implied in such a circumstance.

What I am "suggesting" is that is basically how you should imagine the universe (objective reality) to be.

The only change that must be made is that instead of a laser shining in and explicating us into reality from a "static" pattern of information stored on a holographic film, it is the presence of our own consciousness that does the explicating.

According to certain interpretations of quantum theory, our living consciousness, in combination with the dynamic and moving informational patterns forming the quantum realm, is what produces (more at "reveals") the three-dimensional reality of our bodies and the rest of our dinner scene -- similar to the laser shining into the holographic film.

In other words, the five senses of our consciousness are like five uniquely tuned "sensory lasers" (metaphorically speaking, of course) that “shine-out” from our minds to “merge” with the patterns of information in the quantum realm.

That, in turn, “explicates into reality” every detail of the universe pertaining to each sense itself (shape/colour, feel, sound, smell, taste) as delineated by the varying waveform structures of our subatomic underpinning.

Physicist David Bohm calls the fully-materialized three-dimensional reality of the universe the "explicate order"(a coherent configuration of interrelated and moving “holograms” –- my interpretation).

Whereas, on the other hand, he refers to the quantum realm (the equivalent of the patterns of information in the holographic film) as being the "implicate order" of reality.

We humans (as far as our awareness is concerned) operate "exclusively" up at the explicate level of the “super-hologram” (via our bodies) completely oblivious of the implicate level.

Indeed, we have no choice in the matter.

Because the very moment our consciousness comes in contact with any aspect of the informational field, then whatever is encoded in the information (the structure of our bodies, for instance) is instantly transformed into what we call "reality" (an explicated holographic-like manifestation of something pertaining to one or more of our five senses).

Therefore, the very process of being conscious and aware of the "reality" of the universe itself (seeing, touching, hearing, smelling, or tasting it) automatically "hides" the informational underpinning upon which said "reality" is founded.

(Obviously, quantum physics seeks to access that hidden domain).

Now, just add to that the fact that the explicate level of this "super-hologram" is so exquisitely perfect in its details and presentation, and you will understand why so many brilliant humans (as witnessed in this very forum) are so utterly convinced of its "solidity and reality" when, in fact, it is merely a "projection" (so to speak) from a deeper level of information working in tandem with our consciousness.

(Continued in my next post)

seeds

-- Updated May 13th, 2012, 3:28 pm to add the following --

(Continued from my prior post - #234)

If you remove the "laser of consciousness" from the dinner scene...

...(say we both, simultaneously experience a fatal brain aneurysm that "instantly" kills us as we are raising our wine glasses in toast)...

...then just like turning off the laser relative to the holographic film, the three-dimensional reality of the multi-sensory phenomena occurring within the room (including our bodies and the room itself), reverts back into the unrecognizable (invisible) "ripples and waves" of the quantum realm.

In other words, without the "laser of consciousness," there is no "objectified reality" (at least no "reality" as we understand reality to be).

There is no sound or light or three-dimensional objects of any sort -- just ripples and waves of (moving) information analogous to the (static) ripples on the holographic film.

However, just like in the film of the hologram, the patterns of information that delineate every detail of the scene are still fixed and intact (suspended in a "medium" we will discuss later) and are still corresponding to what is happening in the un-explicated room...

...(meaning the spectacle, noise, and movement of our wine glasses and lifeless bodies crashing to the floor, along with the spinning of the turntable with the sound of Led Zeppelin blaring through the speakers, etc.)...

...it is all still transpiring, but only at Bohm's "implicate" level of reality.

Bohm calls this dynamic motion of the quantum underpinning - the "holomovement."

(To simplify that, just picture in your mind the interference pattern on the holographic film "moving" and re-adjusting its waveform attributes in relation to what "would be displayed" at the explicate level of reality if the “laser” of our consciousness was still present to merge with the information.)

And that is precisely how you should visualize the condition of the "tree falling in the forest.”

It, along with its accompanying noise, “still exists,” but only as something akin to the correlated patterns of information in the film of the hologram when the laser is turned off.

If you are picturing the tree falling in full explicated glory in the absence of consciousness, then you are merely creating a "subjective vision" in your mind of what you “imagine” is happening, not necessarily what is really happening.

Now, what about that darn bed?

Stay your randy thoughts you heathens......and I will explain its purpose.

This is where we'll go even deeper in attempting to resolve this "falling tree" business (from a more metaphysical perspective) which will also include (as stated earlier) a way for us to visualize a "possibility" of what "God" is.

Furthermore, so as not to overload the thread with too much of my long-winded blathering on one day, I will continue this in a few days from now and pick-up where I just left off (humbly assuming, of course, that anyone is even interested ).

(By the way, thank you Misty for letting me use you as my partner in this -- I hope it is okay.)

seeds

If you hear the tree falling and I do not, can you assure me it makes a noise?

If you hear the tree falling and I do not, can you assure me it makes a noise?

To take that stance creates a solipsism that's so deep that nothing is real unless you experience it yourself, in which case nothing occurs to you to even exist except what is just before your eyes.

Like if somebody were to say, "oh well I have an audio recording of it".

"How can I be assured that you didn't record some OTHER tree or fake the recording"?

It's an endless cycle of nihilism and death...

So the tree does not make a noise even when someone else hears it? The question is void of any real meaning except as an example of solipsism. The question in itself is slightly loaded, it would carry less weight if thousands listened to an atom bomb and we could deny its sound. How much evidence should we consider to accept an other's witness? A lonely tree miles from human habitation appears to make the question more feasible and distorts the true nature of the question.

We can't see gravity so it must not exist, we can't see or really feel the earth spinning on it's axis so I guess that doesn't exist either - enough with this freaking tree!!!

So the tree does not make a noise even when someone else hears it? The question is void of any real meaning except as an example of solipsism. The question in itself is slightly loaded, it would carry less weight if thousands listened to an atom bomb and we could deny its sound. How much evidence should we consider to accept an other's witness? A lonely tree miles from human habitation appears to make the question more feasible and distorts the true nature of the question.

Well, the original context of the question (which is far different than the title of the tread) had nothing to do with that, it was meant to throw into question the certainty of human perception, not whether or not a thing exists if a person is there to see/hear/smell/touch/taste it. "But, say you, surely there is nothing easier than for me to imagine trees, for instance, in a park [...] and nobody by to perceive them. [...] The objects of sense exist only when they are perceived; the trees therefore are in the garden [...] no longer than while there is somebody by to perceive them." - George Berkeley, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. The whole work is a counter to John Locke in which Berkeley suggests that the world we perceive is solely what we think we perceive, but these thoughts were influenced by the world which actually does exist.

This basic principal is how optical illusions work, it's been proven that our vision is only about 10% of what the eyes see and that the brain fills in the blanks.

The question as stated in the topic was posed by a pseudo philosopher trying to sound deep.

Seeds,

I enjoyed your post #234 immensely and I am looking forward to the next segment! Thank you for taking so much time to answer me. My last comment was made before I read your post.