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

@xris,

xris;62169 wrote:

You dont exist,your figment of my imagination so your opinion is not valid,sorry.

Do you value your own imagination so little as to think that the opinions that you have your imagined me opining are invalid? What 'self' reveals to 'self' you find invalid? Really? Denial? Psycho-emotional problems?
Do you consider the rest of the produce of your mind as, also, invalid?

I see nothing as inherently invalid. What is, is, is a feature of Reality. Invalidity is in the eye of the beholder, contextual.

And, of course, everything exists!

@nameless,

Once again I think this question is silly. I know it originates from a zen koan but the purpose is not to answer it at all but to see into why it is asked.

For me it is absurd because couldn't you place a microphone near the falling tree and it would record the sound onto some medium?

So everything that has recorded sound on it could be said to be no sound at all unless it has an ear to hear it? No... sound is vibration not interpretation.

The koan is trying to reveal the element of self importance. According to avolakitesvara bodhisattva hearing never ceases. Even when you plug your ears you still continue to hear. So hearing is not based upon the ear or the brain but a nature of the working of all the elements all together. To put it another way let me use the example of a car engine.

The car motor has many parts that if you took some of them off the motor it will either not work at all or work in a rather low quality way. So here is my koan for you all...

If there is no fuel reaching the cilinders will the engine run?

@Krumple,

Krumple;62243 wrote:

For me it is absurd because couldn't you place a microphone near the falling tree and it would record the sound onto some medium?

No. Perhaps you missed my little educational post? Eventually it must be perceived by a conscious perceiver, whether directly, or indirectly.
It is simple science. It might have been 'mysticism' once, when science was unavailable, but is easily answered now by anyone even slightly educated in science.
The Zen can find another 'mystical' koan.

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

Do you value your own imagination so little as to think that the opinions that you have your imagined me opining are invalid? What 'self' reveals to 'self' you find invalid? Really? Denial? Psycho-emotional problems?
Do you consider the rest of the produce of your mind as, also, invalid?

I see nothing as inherently invalid. What is, is, is a feature of Reality. Invalidity is in the eye of the beholder, contextual.

And, of course, everything exists!

You fail to see my reasoning, it was not personal it was an observation of the futility of saying because you where not there to witness the tree falling, it did not make a sound.If im not here to listen to your opinion, is your view valid? Can you prove to me or i to you that we are not illusions?We have to take certain things in life as proven or ponder on the most stupid of events.

@xris,

xris;62406 wrote:

You fail to see my reasoning, it was not personal it was an observation of the futility of saying because you where not there to witness the tree falling, it did not make a sound.

Of course it wasn't personal, neither was my 'dramatic' response.
Certainly not futile from a scientifico-philosophical Perspective.
Of course you might perceive science as 'futile'. I can accept that.

Quote:

If im not here to listen to your opinion, is your view valid?

There is nothing but what is perceived.

Quote:

Can you prove to me

No! I can provide evidence and attempt to offer my reasonings based on that evidence, from 'this' Perspective, as 'food for thought'. I have no agenda to 'convince' you of anything. All i offer here is food for thought, and attempt to 'jump-start' some minds by thus displaying critical thought processes.

Quote:

or i to you that we are not illusions?

What you might call an 'illusion' from 'that'Perspective, another might well see as 'reality'. I say that the distinction between 'illusion'/'delusion' and 'reality' is in the eye of the beholder, Perspective based, ego based. When we accuse someone of harboring 'illusions', is the finger ever not pointing at someone else? If someone sees something differently than I, we can't both be 'right' (obsolete notion), so his must be an illusion/delusion.
Reality is the sum-total of all Perspectives.

Quote:

We have to take certain things in life as proven or ponder on the most stupid of events.

We? Some of us, perhaps. Nothing is 'certain', other than as a 'belief' or feeling. (ref; QM)
Nothing needs be 'proven' to me. (Probabilities are sufficient) Every moment exists, complete and exactly as perceived!
"Everything exists!"
There are, however, many Perspectives.

@nameless,

"No. Perhaps you missed my little educational post? Eventually it must be perceived by a conscious perceiver, whether directly, or indirectly."

That is absurd, because then you WOULD hear in space because if the hearer is present then there would be sound heard but no sound in space. So obviously there is more required than a hearer. If you TRY to imply that there is still a requirement of air molecules for the sound wave to travel then you have completely ignored your first reasoning. Otherwise your claim would be, you have to have molecules AND a hearer. That is ridiculous because it assumes that both would ALWAYS have to be present for sound to be heard. You could then surmise that there never is a sound even when sound is heard.

"easily answered now by anyone even slightly educated in science."

Okay professional...

@Krumple,

Sound is for a ear to hear
No ear, no sound.
There is no ear to hear.
So the answer is no...There needs to be an ear for there to be the sense called sound yet there still will be a shock wave, but no sound will be made FROM that shock wave.
(*Note Sound is created from are ears and brains from a shock wave in an atmosphere.)
(*Note The shock wave is not sound untill are ear and brain convert it into the sense called sound)

@No0ne,

"Sound is for a ear to hear
No ear, no sound.
There is no ear to hear.
So the answer is no...There needs to be an ear for there to be the sense called sound yet there still will be a shock wave, but no sound will be made FROM that shock wave.
(*Note Sound is created from are ears and brains from a shock wave in an atmosphere.)
(*Note The shock wave is not sound untill are ear and brain convert it into the sense called sound)"

I'm sorry but this is silly...

Because you can take that same argument for the eye with light. You can say light only exists when there is an eye and brain around to see it.

This is unless you are solely arguing the definition of sound. Which is nothing more than creating a definition for fate. You can't disprove fate because you can't step outside fate to see if it exists. Fate can always be said to be in effect then no matter what you do. The definition is self defeating.

In other words, saying sound only exists when the ear exists completely cancels out the word sound. So if you want to say, "Well the word sound still has a function in language." Then your whole point in pointing it out is self defeating.

You can make this argument about all senses then.

@Krumple,

Krumple;62523 wrote:

nameless wrote:
"No. Perhaps you missed my little educational post? Eventually it must be perceived by a conscious perceiver, whether directly, or indirectly."

That is absurd,

Fine, show me some evidence to refute what i have stated.

Quote:

because then you WOULD hear in space because if the hearer is present then there would be sound heard but no sound in space.

Answered below.

Quote:

So obviously there is more required than a hearer.

The 'hearer' (Conscious Perspective) and 'Mind' are all that is necessary for existence. Is all that is.

Quote:

If you TRY to imply that there is still a requirement of air molecules for the sound wave to travel then you have completely ignored your first reasoning. Otherwise your claim would be, you have to have molecules AND a hearer.

All 'sound' is in your head. No 'air' necessary. 'Mind' necessary and Perspective necessary. There is nothing else.

Quote:

That is ridiculous because it assumes that both would ALWAYS have to be present for sound to be heard. You could then surmise that there never is a sound even when sound is heard.

We call the noise in our mind that we imagine comes from some mystical 'out there', 'sound'. All that is necessary for there to exist 'sound', is a perceiver (Conscious Perspective) and Mind. Period.
Perceiver and perceived are one.

Quote:

Because you can take that same argument for the eye with light. You can say light only exists when there is an eye and brain around to see it.

Yes, dems de facts! 'Photons' are absolutely dark.
And, as per the sensory dep tank illustration, you'll see plenty with your eyes 'closed'! There need not be any 'photons'. You see well enough, bright enough, in a 'dream' at night, no? And with your eyes closed!
Nope, in 'front of your nose' there is absolute darkness along with the absolute silence!
Go ahead, pick another sense...
This is fun.
"The best hamburger comes from sacred cows!"

@nameless,

You cannot experience the sense called "feeling", if you have no body, due to the fact that you would lack the tool to create the experience and the other tool that collects the information needed for the creation of the experience.

The human sense called "see" creates the experience called "light"
The human sense called "hear" creates the experience called "sound"
The human sense called "taste" creates the experience called "taste"
The human sense called "smell" creates the experience called "smell"

The human eye...
The human ear...
The human tounge...
The human nose...

They are tools that are needed for collection of information for the brain to create the sensations/experiences.

(*note I have run out of time for today)

@Zacrates,

Quote:

They are tools that are needed for collection of information for the brain to create the sensations/experiences.

I can't tell if you are in favor or not.

The very fact that you use the terminology "collection of information" implies that the date is retrieved and processed. Thus some "other" than one's own doing. If the brain or the mind were the actual cause then why is it we don't hear trees falling when there are no trees around?

This is why Nameless is stuck inside the void of emptiness with his attached belief that the mind is the creator of the noise not the data from the field of consciousness. I would put a little cash down that he is a buddhist but has not transcended the misinterpretation of selflessness. I could be wrong with that assumption.

@Zacrates,

Trick question.

It would make a "sound wave" but not a "sound", and therefore the answer is NO.

Secondly here is the proof that it takes a brain to make sound.
JUST TALK TO YOUR SELF IN YOUR HEAD, and you will be making sound.

A tree can only make sound waves and not both, due to it lacks what we have to use "sound waves" to create "sound".

@No0ne,

No0ne;65340 wrote:

Trick question.

It would make a "sound wave" but not a "sound", and therefore the answer is NO.

Secondly here is the proof that it takes a brain to make sound.
JUST TALK TO YOUR SELF IN YOUR HEAD, and you will be making sound.

A tree can only make sound waves and not both, due to it lacks what we have to use "sound waves" to create "sound".

Are there no unheard sounds?

@kennethamy,

There is planet far far away and the humanoids who eat sleep live and die there are in denial of our existance..we dont exist..we are non existent, because they believe if they dont know of its existance, it cant exist..So all of you disappear now..A tree falls, a tree grows..does it exist only when this perfect creature called man has the opportunity to observe? What a load of philosophical hum bug..If you believe it does not make a sound ,does it exists ,did it fall.Did that flower smell, did that snow flake fall, its our relationship to existance, its you thats in question not the tree.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;65675 wrote:

Are there no unheard sounds?

Nicely said, Im glad someone finaly said it Smile

@Zacrates,

If there is a soda can on a tree stump, in the middle of the forest, and noone knows about it is it still a soda can?

@Zacrates,

Erm, well light is actually the thing that enables us to see. I get what you were saying, but you might wanna check up on your grammar.

-Skullz

@7skullz,

I get what you are saying, but it is still a soda can because we defined it as a soda, therefore that object is a soda can. Even if there is no light, there is still the object. Basically you are saying that if you were in the dark, and you stubbed your toe, it is impossible because there is no light which means there is not an object to stub it on.

@Zacrates,

No, I do not mean that at all. Darkness is the absence of light, so we simply cannot see the object, which is made up of particles and quarks and so on, therefore it has PHYSICAL PRESENCE. Sound waves are simply ripples and distortions on the air, or water, or wood, etc as the case may be, but sound really has no physical form.

@Zacrates,

It says "ow."
16char

Philosophy Forum

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

Quick Links

My Account

able2know