Philosophy: Falling tree make a sound?
- Thread starter weavile#1
- Start date
If there are no observers around a tree will not produce sound if it falls. Sight, sound and the like are not produceable they are perceivable.
The 'sensible-world' is a world that is an unfoldment of the senses. What the 'essential-world' is we do not and cannot know. Our world is presumably a hypokeimenon.
The 'sensible-world' is a world that is an unfoldment of the senses. What the 'essential-world' is we do not and cannot know. Our world is presumably a hypokeimenon.
ryanvergel
New Member
vanderbilt_grad
New Member
It simply isn't usually useful to think in those terms.
There is a busy street that I need to cross. I look. I listen. At some point I have to make a choice based on my senses to cross or not. The evidence of our senses is useful for daily life. Spending time thinking about the reality behind the street and the existence of the cars does me no good in that situation.
Similarly to ignore answers to the OP that rely on science simply mean that one is constructing an internal order of debate that may or may not have any relevance at all to the real world & is similarly non useful in daily life.
Is examining life and underlying reality worthwhile? Sure. But you can't frame the debate only in terms of the ancients and have a meaningful exercise or discussion.
There is a busy street that I need to cross. I look. I listen. At some point I have to make a choice based on my senses to cross or not. The evidence of our senses is useful for daily life. Spending time thinking about the reality behind the street and the existence of the cars does me no good in that situation.
Similarly to ignore answers to the OP that rely on science simply mean that one is constructing an internal order of debate that may or may not have any relevance at all to the real world & is similarly non useful in daily life.
Is examining life and underlying reality worthwhile? Sure. But you can't frame the debate only in terms of the ancients and have a meaningful exercise or discussion.
ryanvergel
New Member
If there are individuals here more out of line with reason, it is that party which identifies sound with the waves a falling tree generates. That doesn't make any sense, and rejects both the definition of sound, and makes a logical error (the category mistake).
I think it's impractical to use logical errors and ignore definitions. You think it's practical to have a flawed definition of sound? I don't think so.
My having a proper understanding of sound in no way inhibits my ability to function in the world. If anything, it allows me to function better. By having a greater understanding of what it is to be a sound, what it is to have a sensual experience, etc. I can function better and more practically than those without such an understanding.
Basically, you're wrong like 10 times over.
vanderbilt_grad
New Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound
THAT'S generally what people mean when they define sound. Waves are sound. Our ears are things that hear waves. Waves get made when trees fall. It's still sound regarless of if ears are there to hear it or not.
To insist on sound as being dependant on ears is classical thinking, not modern.
That perfectly explains why you posted later in this thread >.<
I think we need to be on the same page with the definition of sound. Thanks for posting the definition Vanderbilt.
sillypuddybubby- why did you even bother posting in our "reject" thread then?
there is a yes and a no to this question.
if you say yes: well no duh. almost everything makes a sound if there is someone there to hear it or not. and chances are a bird or a chipmunk will be there to hear it.
if you say no: it does not make a sound because there is no one there to hear it.
this question is made to help people cleanse their mind or make them think harder.
if you say yes: well no duh. almost everything makes a sound if there is someone there to hear it or not. and chances are a bird or a chipmunk will be there to hear it.
if you say no: it does not make a sound because there is no one there to hear it.
this question is made to help people cleanse their mind or make them think harder.
pat460
New Member
This thread is ridiculous, it makes a sound. Sound waves are not only sound because someone or something receives them as sound waves, they are sound waves because they are sound waves. Sound is not the perception of a wave, the wave is the sound. When the tree hits the ground, it creates a sound wave. I don't understand what is so hard to get here.
tl;dr Sound is not only sound when it is perceived, its always sound, so yes.
tl;dr Sound is not only sound when it is perceived, its always sound, so yes.
Kayle
Active Member
The problem you guys are having here is that you are confusing sound waves and sound. A sound wave is, in terms of physics, a longitudinal(?) wave that causes compression in patterns that our ears can perceive as sound.
There are three mediums through which longitudinal waves can be commonly observed.
- Air. Sound waves that we perceive as sound, are most often made by compressing the air with some sort of vibration.
- Water. The same idea here, it's just a different medium. The waves travel faster in water than they do in air.
- Earth. There are actually longitudinal waves in the ground, too!
What these waves "are" depends on how you perceive them. You cannot perceive them in air with anything except your ears; thus they are perceived as sound. You can perceive them in water with your ears (if you're under the water), or under some circumstances they appear along the surface as latitudinal waves that we call... 'waves', since we perceive them with our eyes.
You can't perceive them appropriately with your ears when they are passing through earth, though. When they are sufficiently strong, we can perceive them visually, however. This is a phenomenon known as an earthquake.
Sound waves are the same thing as the waves that produce earthquakes - just in a different medium.
But earthquakes are definitely not sound.
Therefore you can't simply equate sound and sound waves. Something has to turn those waves into sound. That something is your ear, and if it's not there, there is no sound.
sillypuddybuddy
New Member
this question, and everything else in philosophy is arbitrary and meaningless. Questions like this and other philosophical questions are meaningless in peoples everyday life and have little to no impact in the "grand scheme" of things. Philosophy is a hobby, and the fact that it gets taught in schools blows my mind, as i put it below stamp collecting and other hobbies of that nature because at least with those other miniscule hobbies, you have a collection, or skill, or craft to show for it, but with philosophy, you earn the right to say at the end of the day "i am really good at overthinking the miniscule".
@ ryanvergel
plato and aristotle wouldnt waste their time on arbitrary questions like this and most of modern philosophy. Modern philosophy is a dying hobby as science is pushing it further and furter out of the light, leaving only the obscure and meaningless left for the philosophers to overthink.
vanderbilt_grad
New Member
IDK, I agree that it’s largely meaningless in a MODERN context. However I see it as entirely likely that the ancient philosophers could have used and example like this as a teaching moment. The question is a thought exercise. It’s like Mind Candy. You make your mind work around the question given the logical constraints your worldview entailed and come up with an answer … and those guys would make you back it up with logic too. Even today it’s somewhat useful as a way to put your mind in a particular … what’s the word? Paradigm? … and work out an answer using artificial rules. That’s not a bad thing, unless, like real candy that’s all you gave your mind.
The problem is that modern thinking pretty much renders this particular question moot for most people. We know what sound is and define it in an entirely different way than the ancients would have. The question about God was much more meaningful to modern thinkers in that respect.
Not all modern philosophy is useless either. Logic for instance is very valuable. However there is a movement to separate that out from Philosophy too. If that happens then IDK what’s really going to be left that’s of practical value. The history of Philosophy is still important and will remain so. I see this as a nice area to study, especially for self growth. Not everything in life has to be practical.
It just irks me when someone asks a question … and then insists that some obscure classical way of thinking is the only way to approach things and that anyone using a more modern understanding is wrong.
The problem is that modern thinking pretty much renders this particular question moot for most people. We know what sound is and define it in an entirely different way than the ancients would have. The question about God was much more meaningful to modern thinkers in that respect.
Not all modern philosophy is useless either. Logic for instance is very valuable. However there is a movement to separate that out from Philosophy too. If that happens then IDK what’s really going to be left that’s of practical value. The history of Philosophy is still important and will remain so. I see this as a nice area to study, especially for self growth. Not everything in life has to be practical.
It just irks me when someone asks a question … and then insists that some obscure classical way of thinking is the only way to approach things and that anyone using a more modern understanding is wrong.
Kayle
Active Member
Kayle
Active Member
Obviously, it doesn't 'matter' whether or not the tree makes a sound, if no one is there.
The point of the discussion is simply to provide something to talk about - an idea that we cannot actually describe discretely, and can only reasonably determine through our own perception and logic. It's a test of our own ability to think, basically.
The point of the discussion is simply to provide something to talk about - an idea that we cannot actually describe discretely, and can only reasonably determine through our own perception and logic. It's a test of our own ability to think, basically.
vanderbilt grad is on point. Someone can take this issue of perception and reduce everything to created meaning, everything we experience is through our perceptions, so we could get critical about every experience, term, and meaning of terms until we are blue in the face.
It is interesting to discuss how everything is created meaning and we do not have true knowledge of nature, but being a philosophy graduate myself, being condescending about how you think you know more because you understand that sound is through our perception is just pretentious banter.
Everything is perceived, so the big point that is being made my ryan mainly is not that profound.
It is interesting to discuss how everything is created meaning and we do not have true knowledge of nature, but being a philosophy graduate myself, being condescending about how you think you know more because you understand that sound is through our perception is just pretentious banter.
Everything is perceived, so the big point that is being made my ryan mainly is not that profound.
ryanvergel
New Member
Great post.
171717
Of course it isn't a profound point. It's not my point either- I quoted Epicurus in the very first response.
Pretentious banter? It's just irritating seeing people slip from trying to argue against the stance of the OP, and then reduce their argument to saying it isn't practical, and still further, eventually merely discounting philosophical pursuits, or merely saying that an ancient view is not applicable, even if it is right.
People say sound when it's short for sound wave. This thought exercise is merely trying to get everyone to recognize that. The tree makes no sound, and to think it does is to hold an illogical thought. It's not pretentious banter to consistently re-iterate a point and become baffled and annoyed when people's arguments devolve and eventually downgrade into insults about the material (hi sillypuddybuddy).
Was I being condescending? Probably- I think I am better than others because of my drive for knowledge and understanding. I think it's both a good and an important attribute to have, and those who lack it lack something that would otherwise make them better. I have that better quality, and so forth. I look down on anyone who dismisses philosophy. I think they are ignorant or stupid, or both. As for thinking I know more than other people because I know the fact that the tree makes no sound is ridiculous. I don't think that, but maybe you think you know more than me and can make that assumption about how I compare myself to others in that respect.
This topic is important because it provides an insight into what our natural world is, how we understand what the world is, how we interact with it, what our limitations with our understanding are, and I think it gives us a kind of empowerment. Just recognizing that I have a special adaptation which allows me to translate certain vibrations in my ear into something integrated with my conscious experience is an amazing thing and makes one appreciate the senses more.
---------- Post added 05/19/2010 at 04:48 AM ----------
Well, it is wrong. It's a category mistake. Ascribing properties to a thing which can't possibly have such qualities. There's no other way to say it or get around it. You bite the bullet and admit that many people use the term sound when they should say sound wave/wave/whatever. Is this distinction supposed to be groundbreaking? No- but it is a separation, and that is a new way of understanding. It's important to have that.
I can function perfectly well saying sound, which can be short for sound wave. My having knowledge of what I am actually referring to is a good thing, though, and something worth pressing in this thread.
Last edited: