Philosophy: Falling tree make a sound?
- Thread starter weavile#1
- Start date
ryanvergel
New Member
it only goes BOOM if there is something there to turn vibration into BOOM.
Kayle
Active Member
I guess you would agree that it's comparable to the idea of, "if an object sits in space and there are no other objects, does it still pull things towards it via gravity?" - in which case, it's not pulling anything towards it because there's nothing to pull.
vanderbilt_grad
New Member
The problem is that the great philosophers of the past are great starting points for logical reasoning, ethics, and many other things ... but both philosophy and the world have moved on. The vast majority of modern people aren't going to define sound only as something they experience. Sound is defined by modern science (the post-classical version of metaphysics) as vibrations in the air and that's how most people think of it. Even common sense "senory based" perception of sound for most people includes "feeling" sound with their bodies at events like concerts.
The OP question makes perfect sense from the world view in which it was asked. If you stay within that logical framework you can reach similar conclusions to that which the old philosophers got. However few people are really going to care about logical arguments based on things that don't match their worldview. Assumpitions matter and those in the OP render this tree falling thing into mere "world games" to most.
The OP question makes perfect sense from the world view in which it was asked. If you stay within that logical framework you can reach similar conclusions to that which the old philosophers got. However few people are really going to care about logical arguments based on things that don't match their worldview. Assumpitions matter and those in the OP render this tree falling thing into mere "world games" to most.
ryanvergel
New Member
The "word games" to most shows an unwillingness to grasp the concepts in their fullness.
Do you realize how ridiculous it would sound to ascribe to a wave the same properties we would ascribe to a sound?
That WAVE was loud!
That WAVE was harmonious!
That WAVE was similar to that of a cuckoo's cry!
It's as foolish as thinking the grass is actually green. It's how the waves of light are refracted and received, and the sensual experience of green is had. The GRASS does not PRODUCE a greenness, just as the falling tree produces no SOUND- it produces a WAVE/ripple in the air that a PERCEIVER translates into a SENSE PERCEPTION.
I don't see how this is semantics or a word game. If 95% of people are mistaken in their conception of how sound works, then this seems like a GREAT topic to shed some light and show people how mistaken they are.
The definition acknowledges two things- they must be at a level that can be heard, audibly. If there is no one around to hear the sound/vibration, it is not a sound- because it was not of a frequency or amplitude that would merit it being called a sound.
I ask where you get this limited definition you are using, V_G, saying that sound is merely a wave. Sound is most definitely the sensation/experience of having one's organs affected by the vibration.
Do you guys really think philosophers care if the vast majority of people dislike the pursuit of knowledge? It only shows badly on those with an aversion to the truth, not on the philosophers.
Do you realize how ridiculous it would sound to ascribe to a wave the same properties we would ascribe to a sound?
That WAVE was loud!
That WAVE was harmonious!
That WAVE was similar to that of a cuckoo's cry!
It's as foolish as thinking the grass is actually green. It's how the waves of light are refracted and received, and the sensual experience of green is had. The GRASS does not PRODUCE a greenness, just as the falling tree produces no SOUND- it produces a WAVE/ripple in the air that a PERCEIVER translates into a SENSE PERCEPTION.
I don't see how this is semantics or a word game. If 95% of people are mistaken in their conception of how sound works, then this seems like a GREAT topic to shed some light and show people how mistaken they are.
The definition acknowledges two things- they must be at a level that can be heard, audibly. If there is no one around to hear the sound/vibration, it is not a sound- because it was not of a frequency or amplitude that would merit it being called a sound.
I ask where you get this limited definition you are using, V_G, saying that sound is merely a wave. Sound is most definitely the sensation/experience of having one's organs affected by the vibration.
Do you guys really think philosophers care if the vast majority of people dislike the pursuit of knowledge? It only shows badly on those with an aversion to the truth, not on the philosophers.
vanderbilt_grad
New Member
As a physicist those WAVE statements "sound" find to me Ryan.
I should also note that I explicity did not say that it was just "word games" to ME. I said "to most" meaning to many people.
Sadly IMHO, persuit of truth isn't Philosophy strong suit these days.
I should also note that I explicity did not say that it was just "word games" to ME. I said "to most" meaning to many people.
Sadly IMHO, persuit of truth isn't Philosophy strong suit these days.
does this mean that if you turn on a tv and go 2 the bathroom while your gone the tv pictures have no color
or if you look at grass and leave and no-ones there is the grass still green duh
so yes a tree will make a sound
Last edited:
DarthPika
New Member
If you have to "hear" sound for it to be a "sound", then explain how a deaf person can experience a form of "hearing" something by feeling the vibrations of the sound waves? They may not be able to hear the actual sound, but they sure feel it. And if it's not a living thing that feels it, there will be SOMETHING around that will "feel" the sound and be affected by it.
So, yes, it would make a sound.
So, yes, it would make a sound.
ryanvergel
New Member
How can a wave have the property of loudness?
Loudness is ""that attribute of auditory sensation in terms of which sounds can be ordered on a scale extending from quiet to loud."
"Loudness is the quality of a sound that is the primary psychological correlate of physical strength (amplitude)"
Even these definitions would say that the loudness is distinct, and produced in accordance with some physical entity (the wave in a medium). The wave has no loudness- loudness is the quality of a sound, it is psychological and qualitative in nature, and it is a sensation.
Does associating "loudness" to the wave begin to sound a bit more ridiculous now? You are committing a huge error here. It's a category mistake. You are giving qualities to a thing that could never have such qualities! How can a wave have loudness!?
The wave is a material thing. It has spatial location and affects and is affected by other material objects. Would you intuit sound to having a spatial location, or being affected/affected by material objects? Maybe you would, but that is a first attack. If you would intuit sound has having these material-like properties, you would have to work both ways. The physical properties would also have to have the properties characteristic of sound.
Does the wave have a loudness? Can a wave be pleasant? It doesn't seem like this physical entity can possibly take on the kind of things you are giving it when you say it is identical to sound. Sounds can have cacophony, and loudness, and aesthetic value. I don't know if this invisible wave of energy traveling through a medium has those properties or ever could. I separate the two.
The sound is what I experience when a sound wave (what we call this vibration through a medium, etc) interacts with my sense organs.
Kayle: I would say that an object always has the disposition to act and pull on other objects, even if no other objects are around. The hypothetical particle would have a tendency towards pulling other objects towards it if it were in a specific situation- such as any involving the presence of other material objects any distance away. Just like the glass has a tendency to break if certain conditions are fulfilled, or if it is in a situation (such as being affected by a certain amount of energy which is displaced in a certain way), but is not breaking if it is sitting on my counter.
The tree exists, has the quality of producing sounds in perceivers if it falls, and also producing waves of energy through the medium of air/dirt/water/whatever any time it falls.
---------- Post added 05/18/2010 at 01:38 PM ----------
They had an auditory experience. Their ears are damaged in such a way that they experience the physical interaction on their organs (the ear) in a different way. Do you mean to say they feel the impact of the tree on their skin? Then there is still something there perceiving the tree acting on it- in this way it acts on the skin instead of the parts of the ear... and in both cases a perceiver has the experience of sound.
The deaf man perceives the falling tree differently than I do, but to say there is a sound when neither of us is there doesn't make sense.
How does the fact that the blind man still has an auditory experience necessitate that the tree produces sound? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
So, no, you need to try re-reading what you wrote.
CheeseEX- I'm sorry you don't understand this concept. Maybe you should try another time :thumb:
When I am not around, the grass still has the same materials/pigments/chlorophyll that can refract light back onto the cones and cylinders in my eyeball and transmit a signal through my cranial nerves and produce a visual experience. It still has those material parts, but it doesn't have it's greenness. The greenness is not in the object. When a fly looks at the grass, there is no greenness. That is because there is no greenness in the grass. Greenness is a sensational experience- it is not material in nature.
Yes, the grass is still there when I turn my back. It's still there in front of a blind man. It's still there when I'm gone. In all those cases, though, there is no greenness.
Without a perceiver, the tree falling in the woods makes only a vibration or wave of energy through various mediums that have the capacity to produce a sound in certain perceivers.
Loudness is ""that attribute of auditory sensation in terms of which sounds can be ordered on a scale extending from quiet to loud."
"Loudness is the quality of a sound that is the primary psychological correlate of physical strength (amplitude)"
Even these definitions would say that the loudness is distinct, and produced in accordance with some physical entity (the wave in a medium). The wave has no loudness- loudness is the quality of a sound, it is psychological and qualitative in nature, and it is a sensation.
Does associating "loudness" to the wave begin to sound a bit more ridiculous now? You are committing a huge error here. It's a category mistake. You are giving qualities to a thing that could never have such qualities! How can a wave have loudness!?
The wave is a material thing. It has spatial location and affects and is affected by other material objects. Would you intuit sound to having a spatial location, or being affected/affected by material objects? Maybe you would, but that is a first attack. If you would intuit sound has having these material-like properties, you would have to work both ways. The physical properties would also have to have the properties characteristic of sound.
Does the wave have a loudness? Can a wave be pleasant? It doesn't seem like this physical entity can possibly take on the kind of things you are giving it when you say it is identical to sound. Sounds can have cacophony, and loudness, and aesthetic value. I don't know if this invisible wave of energy traveling through a medium has those properties or ever could. I separate the two.
The sound is what I experience when a sound wave (what we call this vibration through a medium, etc) interacts with my sense organs.
Kayle: I would say that an object always has the disposition to act and pull on other objects, even if no other objects are around. The hypothetical particle would have a tendency towards pulling other objects towards it if it were in a specific situation- such as any involving the presence of other material objects any distance away. Just like the glass has a tendency to break if certain conditions are fulfilled, or if it is in a situation (such as being affected by a certain amount of energy which is displaced in a certain way), but is not breaking if it is sitting on my counter.
The tree exists, has the quality of producing sounds in perceivers if it falls, and also producing waves of energy through the medium of air/dirt/water/whatever any time it falls.
---------- Post added 05/18/2010 at 01:38 PM ----------
They had an auditory experience. Their ears are damaged in such a way that they experience the physical interaction on their organs (the ear) in a different way. Do you mean to say they feel the impact of the tree on their skin? Then there is still something there perceiving the tree acting on it- in this way it acts on the skin instead of the parts of the ear... and in both cases a perceiver has the experience of sound.
The deaf man perceives the falling tree differently than I do, but to say there is a sound when neither of us is there doesn't make sense.
How does the fact that the blind man still has an auditory experience necessitate that the tree produces sound? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
So, no, you need to try re-reading what you wrote.
CheeseEX- I'm sorry you don't understand this concept. Maybe you should try another time :thumb:
When I am not around, the grass still has the same materials/pigments/chlorophyll that can refract light back onto the cones and cylinders in my eyeball and transmit a signal through my cranial nerves and produce a visual experience. It still has those material parts, but it doesn't have it's greenness. The greenness is not in the object. When a fly looks at the grass, there is no greenness. That is because there is no greenness in the grass. Greenness is a sensational experience- it is not material in nature.
Yes, the grass is still there when I turn my back. It's still there in front of a blind man. It's still there when I'm gone. In all those cases, though, there is no greenness.
Without a perceiver, the tree falling in the woods makes only a vibration or wave of energy through various mediums that have the capacity to produce a sound in certain perceivers.
Last edited:
Kayle
Active Member
I just want to say that some of us prefer spending time and brainpower on things that might be productive in the short-ish term.
ryanvergel
New Member
"The unexamined life is not worth living." is all I can really say to that.
What's the point of being successful in short-term goals if you lack an understanding of what it is to even HAVE good goals. What is our function, what is it to be, what are morals and ethics- these are the AIMS, not the MEANS. To prioritize short-term goals, means to the end, over the end itself is foolish.
What's the point of being successful in short-term goals if you lack an understanding of what it is to even HAVE good goals. What is our function, what is it to be, what are morals and ethics- these are the AIMS, not the MEANS. To prioritize short-term goals, means to the end, over the end itself is foolish.
NoPoke
Active Member
lets leave the trees alone
Does my HiFi make a sound when there is no one in the room to hear it?
Can a deaf band make music when there is no audience?
Does a hifi make music?
I still believe that the restriction of using the term sound just for what is perceived is overly restrictive. It may be that the noun sound was once limited in this way but no more. So maybe a more modern puzzle might be...
Are an airplane's running jet engines loud when there is no one to hear them?
Does my HiFi make a sound when there is no one in the room to hear it?
Can a deaf band make music when there is no audience?
Does a hifi make music?
I still believe that the restriction of using the term sound just for what is perceived is overly restrictive. It may be that the noun sound was once limited in this way but no more. So maybe a more modern puzzle might be...
Are an airplane's running jet engines loud when there is no one to hear them?
Kayle
Active Member
I think you're just overthinking it. My goals are the means to the end, and the end I'm after is, have fun. Does it need to be any more complicated than that?
ryanvergel
New Member
No. Loudness is a sensation of strength in a soundwave, again, needing a perceiver to have such sensations.
Loudness is a method of our bodies to interpet and respond to stimuli. It's an adaptation, a way to experience things differently for an advantage. There is no sound without us, just as there is no color without us, just as there is no loudness without us.
---------- Post added 05/18/2010 at 02:43 PM ----------
I like to understand the things I do and why I do them.
Loudness is a method of our bodies to interpet and respond to stimuli. It's an adaptation, a way to experience things differently for an advantage. There is no sound without us, just as there is no color without us, just as there is no loudness without us.
---------- Post added 05/18/2010 at 02:43 PM ----------
That's a really bad question. It doesn't need to be at any form of complication. If your goals are merely to have fun, then I pity you and think you are rather ignorant.
I like to understand the things I do and why I do them.
sillypuddybuddy
New Member
philosophy was what the rejects of society did to provide themselves with a feeling of worth to their peers. those who were too weak to farm/ too slow to hunt/ too old etc. and has always been a hobby, not a science
/thread
/thread
ryanvergel
New Member
Except only people who were wealthy and successful and literate practiced philosophy. So they had no need to hunt or farm- that is what the slaves and ignorant (like you) were doing.
Aristotle was a reject? He was the teacher of Alexander the Great. Hardly a reject from society.
Plato? He more or less created society. He could hardly be it's reject.
Philosophy as a hobby, rather than a science- indeed, any pursuit outside of survival is a hobby. Practicing science is a hobby.
You're the worst troll ever.
---------- Post added 05/18/2010 at 03:08 PM ----------
They pick it up? They aren't aware of it- they have no experience of sound. Is a microphone able to be affected by the material sound wave? of course- it can detect slight vibrations and translate them digitally. That is not hearing a sound, however. That is representing the material wave in some other way. When it is represented as sound, it is done so through a perceiver having a sensual experience.
Aristotle was a reject? He was the teacher of Alexander the Great. Hardly a reject from society.
Plato? He more or less created society. He could hardly be it's reject.
Philosophy as a hobby, rather than a science- indeed, any pursuit outside of survival is a hobby. Practicing science is a hobby.
You're the worst troll ever.
---------- Post added 05/18/2010 at 03:08 PM ----------
They pick it up? They aren't aware of it- they have no experience of sound. Is a microphone able to be affected by the material sound wave? of course- it can detect slight vibrations and translate them digitally. That is not hearing a sound, however. That is representing the material wave in some other way. When it is represented as sound, it is done so through a perceiver having a sensual experience.
toxictaipan
New Member
No.
The microphone records the waves, and when you play them back, a speaker reproduces them... Which you then perceive as sound.
Try again.
Kayle
Active Member
And now you don't quite understand what I mean.
You like to understand the things you do and why you do them. You are debating this, and engaged in this conversation, because of this affinity for understanding, right? You enjoy the conversation and the thoughts it provokes (or at least, when matching wits and opinions with someone more philosophically minded).
You're doing it because it's fun, in short terms, or at least that's how I like to define it.
I don't so much enjoy this whole philosophy debate idea. I can see how it's fun for some people, and at times the ability to think abstractly like this is very useful in explaining ideas and feelings to other people. It's just not my cup of tea, if you will; I don't see how my preference qualifies me as 'ignorant' or 'shows badly' on me directly.
I like to create stories and characters and present them to people. A useful medium through which to do this is video games, so I have decided I want to design video games. For this, I need a degree and education and experience, so I go through school and work to achieve these things. Means to the end, and the end really is just to do something that I like.
Taking any human action or philosophy beyond that has always struck me as very odd, because I still am not quite sure why you would spend your life working towards something that doesn't make you happy/that you don't like, and trying to extrapolate any other meaning out of an action other than "because he wants to" or "because it helps him get what he wants" in the end seems equally bizarre. This is again just my own point of view.
I have trouble seeing actively how philosophy affects the world directly, though I cannot deny that it has had significant effect in the past. It seems like an amazing way to go about changing and viewing the world. I just get a little tired of thinking abstractly sometimes, because I'm a more logical and concrete person that likes to stick to a basic world view and a basic set of beliefs for everyday purposes. Does that make me any more ignorant or less intelligent than you?
Perhaps I'm just prideful, but I'd like to think not.
Last edited: