An Interesting Take on the Sounds of Falling Trees.

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » An Interesting Take on the Sounds of Falling Trees.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 10:46 am
I find the question, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?", to be very interesting. The reason why no one hears any sound of the tree, for example, is because no one has any knowledge of the tree falling.

This strikes me as peculiar. Isn't it true that by making the very statement, "If a tree falls in the woods--" we are imparting knowledge of a tree falling in the woods to anyone who hears the statement? It's no guess that anyone hearing that statement can imagine themselves next to a falling tree in the woods, and imagine themselves hearing a loud "CRAAACK!".

But the trick is the second part of the statement, which says, "and if no one is around to hear it." This always struck me as strange. Why? Because, technically, there is somone who is around to hear it: The two people discussing the question. It is already established that a tree has fallen in the woods among the speakers discussing the question. Knowledge of a tree falling has reached human minds. How can you then possibly follow up with, "And no one is around to hear it?"?

It may be the truth that for the question to be valid, it can not be brought up into the minds of humans. That would be the only way we can insure that no knowledge of a tree falling in the woods has reached human "ears", so to speak. And of course, do we then hear the sounds of the tree falling? The answer, surprisingly, is that we don't hear the sound of the tree falling.

It would seem that there are an infinite number of things that we could experience but are not able to at this moment, and as a result, do we consistently try to imagine or see if we experience all those possible things at once? We would be here till the heat death of the universe to try and do that. And while it makes sense that if a tree did just fall int he forest, it would make a sound, It is much more practical to assume that because we have not heard the sound of a tree falling, no tree has actually fallen.

After all, if we went about our business trying to pin down all the things that are happening when we aren't around to experience them, we'd go insane, I think. Laughing

What do you guys think? :detective:

(p.s. I love that smiley.)
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 02:08 pm
@DasTrnegras,
DasTränegras;76362 wrote:
I find the question, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?", to be very interesting. The reason why no one hears any sound of the tree, for example, is because no one has any knowledge of the tree falling.


What do you guys think? :detective:

(p.s. I love that smiley.)


But why cannot I know that the tree is falling without hearing the sound of its falling. I can know it is falling in a number of ways. A friend can tell me it has fallen: I can position a sound recorder so that it catches the sound and hear it later. I can get a video camera without sound, and know it is falling.
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2009 03:28 pm
@kennethamy,
The reality is that millions of trees are falling to feed our greed and we dont want to hear them fall as it reminds us our fragile earth is being destroyed.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 12:27 am
@xris,
xris;76423 wrote:
The reality is that millions of trees are falling to feed our greed and we dont want to hear them fall as it reminds us our fragile earth is being destroyed.


Most of those trees would not exist in the first place if they were not intended to be cut down. And for each one cut down, another is supposed to be planted.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 04:01 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;76559 wrote:
Most of those trees would not exist in the first place if they were not intended to be cut down. And for each one cut down, another is supposed to be planted.
Of course the worlds rain forest has not been destroyed by us ,has it?How can you say that?
 
Caroline
 
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 05:54 am
@DasTrnegras,
They cut down oaks that are hundreds of years old and replace them with firs! They may replant but they dont replace so it is not justified. They are not there to be cut down, (where did you get that from?), they are the planets/our lungs!!!!!! Yes some trees are meant to be cut down for various healthy reasons but that is not the same as cutting down acres a minute for industry to the point there are not enough trees to produce the chemicals to enable life.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 09:33 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;76599 wrote:
They cut down oaks that are hundreds of years old and replace them with firs! They may replant but they dont replace so it is not justified. They are not there to be cut down, (where did you get that from?), they are the planets/our lungs!!!!!! Yes some trees are meant to be cut down for various healthy reasons but that is not the same as cutting down acres a minute for industry to the point there are not enough trees to produce the chemicals to enable life.


Most of the trees cut down for industrial purposes were planted for that very purpose. I mean in the United States that has laws for that purpose. I don't know that they are replace by different trees, but why would that make a difference? (It is a little like saying that we should not pick corn).
 
Caroline
 
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 09:46 am
@DasTrnegras,
We dont rely on corn to breath for the planet.
They're cutting down and have cut acres of rainforest which isn't being replanted.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 10:03 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;76620 wrote:
We dont rely on corn to breath for the planet.
They're cutting down and have cut acres of rainforest which isn't being replanted.


Not in the United States.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 10:05 am
@DasTrnegras,
Xris was talking about the rainforest.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 10:14 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;76626 wrote:
Xris was talking about the rainforest.


Right. I was talking about the United States. I have no say about what is done in other places. But a lot worse than cutting down trees in done elsewhere.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 10:26 am
@DasTrnegras,
How do you mean?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 10:34 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;76632 wrote:
How do you mean?


How do I mean what? There is murder and mayhem. Starvation and medical neglect. Woeful ignorance.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 10:36 am
@DasTrnegras,
I dont understand the point you're trying to make.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 11:29 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;76635 wrote:
I dont understand the point you're trying to make.


I am concerned a lot more about other stuff than cutting down trees in rainforests. Aren't you?
 
Caroline
 
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 11:36 am
@DasTrnegras,
Im concerned about all of it considering all of them have a negative impact on society.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 11:42 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;76646 wrote:
Im concerned about all of it considering all of them have a negative impact on society.


I suppose so. But I think there are priorities, and I think that worries about the environment are overblown with some, and money-making schemes with others.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 11:46 am
@DasTrnegras,
I think that the rate of trees/rainforest being cut down warrants enough concern to give it attention, it's pratically suicidal as we're cutting off our own lungs. I think that all of the bad things happening are all at the top of the list and all need to be addressed, I dont see why all of these problems cant be addressed, I think if you leave one off the list then it's likely to be the one that destroys us, I dont see why you have to prioritise, they're all pretty urgent.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 12:23 pm
@Caroline,
Caroline;76649 wrote:
I think that the rate of trees/rainforest being cut down warrants enough concern to give it attention, it's pratically suicidal as we're cutting off our own lungs. I think that all of the bad things happening are all at the top of the list and all need to be addressed, I dont see why all of these problems cant be addressed, I think if you leave one off the list then it's likely to be the one that destroys us, I dont see why you have to prioritise, they're all pretty urgent.


Because we don't have the time, or the money, or the patience, to address all of them at once.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 12:27 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;76653 wrote:
Because we don't have the time, or the money, or the patience, to address all of them at once.

Yes I knew you were going to say that, then we must make the time etc or obviously things will go wrong.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » An Interesting Take on the Sounds of Falling Trees.
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 09:14:56