There would be no concepts if there were no people, since it is people who produce concepts. But that has nothing particularly to do with the concept of sound. There would be no concept of tree or water either.
[SIZE="3"]I am not talking about the ability to conceive, I am talking about the basis of some particular concept. [/SIZE]
But, there need not be a concept of sound for there to be sound . . .
[SIZE="3"]Lol, exactly! There need not be a concept, but there does need to be the ability to hear for there to be a sound.[/SIZE]
The question of whether if a tree falls but no one observes it, did it fall, is obviously yes, since you already said the tree fell. To say that the tree fell, and that then, there is a question of whether the tree fell, is to contradict yourself. How can you both assert the tree fell, and then question whether the tree fell? And what has whether anyone observed the tree fall to do with whether the tree fell? What it has to do with is whether anyone is aware that the tree fell, not with whether the tree fell. I may be that if no one saw the tree fall, then no one would be aware that the tree fell, but not that the tree did not fall. And, of course, the same is true of sound. If no one hears the sound, then it may be that no one will be aware that there was a sound. But, how could it follow that there was no sound because no one was aware of it?
[SIZE="3"]You are missing my point either because you don't understand what the term "sound" means, or you are projecting a trait of human consciousness onto external reality, or you are not carefully following my point (which, by the way, has been made zillions of times in philosophy discussions around the world). Try one more time to get what I am saying, and you will see I agree with most of what you say, but I am pointing out that throwing "sound" into the question unnecessarily complicates the answer.
Sound is a function of hearing, so how could there be sound if there is no hearing? If we had absolutely no sense of taste, do you think we'd have a term called "flavor"? The basis of the term flavor is our ability to taste. If there were no such thing as the ability to taste, there would be no flavor . . . it literally would not exist. However, food would still possess the chemistry that the sense of taste (when it exists) responds to, so we could say there are such and such chemicals whether or not they result in a "flavor" experience.
Sound likewise would not exist if there were no hearing experience. There would be vibration of air, but there would be no process that vibrates an ear drum and stimulates the brain in a particular place for us to perceive what we label "sound." So when someone asks this very old, traditional question and adds "sound" to the mix, it opens the door to a completely different issue than what the question was intended to ask.
What was the question intended to ask? Just what you said: "whether if a tree falls but no one observes it" . . . did it really occur? This question was raised in order to bring out the ideas of philosophical idealism, and so was asking the greater question of if there is existence outside of mind. As you and others point out, of course reality is not dependent on our perceptions, only our knowing
reality is dependent on perception. That is why radical philosophical idealism is considered nonsense.
But when you ask if a sound occurs if no consciousness is present to hear, then the answer has to be no because a sound requires a conscious hearer. Sound only
happens within consciousness, not in external reality.