If A Tree Fell And Nobody Was There To Hear It Does It Make A Sound?

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;143614 wrote:

Him whom laughs last, gets fell with a tree.

I didn't say that. I said the last two examples were a more formal case than the first two examples. If you can't understand such a simple statement then what right do you have to scold others?

I think the term "proper" is more appropriate
I'm trying not to laugh, trees are heavy

@HexHammer,

[CENTER]:bigsmile:
Like No~Body has ears to hear in the first place. Secondly :brickwall:other Mammals can hear fine. Except doves. But that's a bird.
[/CENTER]

@kennethamy,

If i died and left no body, did i ever die?

@sometime sun,

[CENTER]:bigsmile:
According to Dutch Law you would be declared dead 7 years after y'r last public appearance.

English law might be different, not Napoleon Code.

[/CENTER]

sometime sun;143704 wrote:

If i died and left no body, did i ever die?

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;143704 wrote:

If i died and left no body, did i ever die?

- you jumped in the meat grinder for doggy food
- you got eaten by wild animals
- your body got burned

@HexHammer,

HexHammer;143713 wrote:

- you jumped in the meat grinder for doggy food
- you got eaten by wild animals
- your body got burned

- hungry Mickey Mouse
- spontaneous selfcombusting
- cannibalic neighbour

But why so morbid ?
- amphibious piranha's

@Zacrates,

I think it does.

Even if no one is at the site when the tree falls, the energy has to dissipate, and that dissipation is what we consider sound, vibration, and everything under the sun.

@Purplesawdust,

Purplesawdust;144680 wrote:

I think it does.

Even if no one is at the site when the tree falls, the energy has to dissipate, and that dissipation is what we consider sound, vibration, and everything under the sun.

That is, what someone who was there would hear.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;144700 wrote:

That is, what someone who was there would hear.

And regardless of whether someone was there or not, would still occur. Because if you are implying that it would make a sound when someone is there then you are also implying that the sound would not occur if no one was there.

@Purplesawdust,

Purplesawdust;144680 wrote:

I think it does.

Even if no one is at the site when the tree falls, the energy has to dissipate, and that dissipation is what we consider sound, vibration, and everything under the sun.

@kennethamy,

Quote:

Even if no one is at the site when the tree falls, the energy has to dissipate, and that dissipation is what we consider sound, vibration, and everything under the sun.

It is our perception of the vibration that gives us what we consider a sound. The vibration alone does not qualify as sound, it is only a vibration.

If we didn't allow for that distinction, then any vibration, inaudible or not, would be a sound.

I try to defend the less intuitive side of this argument only because as a philosophy major, at every damn family holiday some buzzed relative thinks they can make conversation with me by asking this question.

I find the best response is "If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is there to hear it, should I give a rats ass?"

@Rwa001,

I was just thinking of energy saved in a mute wrld.

@Purplesawdust,

Purplesawdust;144711 wrote:

And regardless of whether someone was there or not, would still occur. Because if you are implying that it would make a sound when someone is there then you are also implying that the sound would not occur if no one was there.

No I am not implying the second. What makes you think I am? It would be fallacious to argue that since, if P then Q, therefore, if not-P then not-Q. That fallacy has a name. It is called, "the fallacy of denying the antecedent".

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;144731 wrote:

No I am not implying the second. What makes you think I am? It would be fallacious to argue that since, if P then Q, therefore, if not-P then not-Q. That fallacy has a name. It is called, "the fallacy of denying the antecedent".

I feel stupid for saying that... But to stay on topic, aren't both answers right when it comes to the tree since two of the many definitions of "sound", "the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.", and "mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level." support both sides?

@Purplesawdust,

Purplesawdust;144742 wrote:

I feel stupid for saying that... But to stay on topic, aren't both answers right when it comes to the tree since two of the many definitions of "sound", "the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.", and "mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level." support both sides?

I don't think I know what you mean by "both answers".

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;144744 wrote:

I don't think I know what you mean by "both answers".

1. The tree does not make a sound because no one is there to hear it. "the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing.

2. It does make a sound even if no one is there because the vibrations make a sound. "mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air"

@Purplesawdust,

Purplesawdust;144746 wrote:

1. The tree does not make a sound because no one is there to hear it. "the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing.

2. It does make a sound even if no one is there because the vibrations make a sound. "mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air"

But isn't 1 false? I thought that is what you said. Isn't it true that someone would have had that sensation if he had been present (whether or not he was present)?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;144769 wrote:

But isn't 1 false? I thought that is what you said. Isn't it true that someone would have had that sensation if he had been present (whether or not he was present)?

I was basing my ideas on the definition of sound that involved mechanical vibrations and based on that definition, someone would have that sensation which again, by definition, is sound. But, the other definition is the sensation which involves the ears and if no being that has the sensory perception is there to process the waves, no sound is created.
Just because i said 1 is true, doesn't automatically mean that i think that 2 is false. I think that different circumstances arise which can prove both of them true and that no one of the two answers is more right.

I know i am contradicting what i said earlier...

@Zacrates,

I'm not ok with number 2. The vibrations don't make a sound. We perceive the vibrations AS the phenomena we know as sound. There are people with synesthesia who would perceive the vibrations as colors. Without the perception, we are only left with the stimulus.

If the laws of physics are true, and a tree falls in the woods, then the tree falling does produce vibrations. But without someone to perceive it, there is no interpretation, and there is no sound.

@Purplesawdust,

Purplesawdust;144779 wrote:

I was basing my ideas on the definition of sound that involved mechanical vibrations and based on that definition, someone would have that sensation which again, by definition, is sound. But, the other definition is the sensation which involves the ears and if no being that has the sensory perception is there to process the waves, no sound is created.
Just because i said 1 is true, doesn't automatically mean that i think that 2 is false. I think that different circumstances arise which can prove both of them true and that no one of the two answers is more right.

I know i am contradicting what i said earlier...

1 and 2 appear to contradict each other. So, unless you can say why they don't, how can both be true? You are saying that "sound" has two different meanings. One in which the proposition is true, and the other in which it is false. This is, I suppose, the accepted solution of the problem (or, better, it is supposed to show that the problem really does not exist) but I am dubious. I don't think it is true that "sound" does have those two different meanings. I think it has one meaning: what people hear.

Philosophy Forum

If A Tree Fell And Nobody Was There To Hear It Does It Make A Sound?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know