Kayle
Active Member
You could actually say that there is no sound because our ears aren't capable of processing the waves the whistle creates.
Philosophy: Falling tree make a sound?
- Thread starter weavile#1
- Start date
You could actually say that there is no sound because our ears aren't capable of processing the waves the whistle creates.
ryanvergel
New Member
it produces sound for dogs, if dogs are in audible distance. it makes no sound for us, though.
There is still something there, and most people refer to it as sound. Your perception is dependent on perceiving something. Being a philosophy grad myself, I still side with a more scientific/epistemic background on this issue. There is something that is produced from a tree falling, as there is with a dog whistle, and the dog whistle is good as we can not perceive it yet we know it exists.
There is truth to what we call sound existing without us perceiving it, and like I said earlier, WE ARE ALWAYS LIMITED BY OUR PERCEPTIONS. So even describing how we are limited by our perceptions is a perception, this is true if you want to get into semantics and abusive logic, aka politics.
There is truth to the ______ created by the tree falling, call it sound, vibration, whatever, there is a truth to it regardless of perception, and that truth allows us to correctly observe and understand that when we are not by a falling tree it will still make what we call sound.
There is truth to what we call sound existing without us perceiving it, and like I said earlier, WE ARE ALWAYS LIMITED BY OUR PERCEPTIONS. So even describing how we are limited by our perceptions is a perception, this is true if you want to get into semantics and abusive logic, aka politics.
There is truth to the ______ created by the tree falling, call it sound, vibration, whatever, there is a truth to it regardless of perception, and that truth allows us to correctly observe and understand that when we are not by a falling tree it will still make what we call sound.
Kayle
Active Member
...Yeah, just because they agreed with your point. You really need to just stop posting here.
smpratte just equates sound and sound waves, which you can't do. Though, the idea of knowing something exists even though you can't perceive it adds an interesting dimension to the debate.
Yes but that points out how the perception process is something that always existed and that is how we acquired knowledge. We are constantly revising our understanding of nature, or at least should be, but even if sound is dependent on perception, that does not prove either way that the tree does not make sound, sound waves, noise, whatever term floats your battleship.
And yes the point about knowing without perceiving is exactly the other side of the argument, and in this case the truth, not capital T truth but truth of the situation. The tree still creates sound waves, and debating if it is called sound because of someone being there perceiving it is SEMANTICS not philosophy. Philosophy is understanding the world around you through investigation, not making petty jabs and attacks at people through condescension and pretentious banter.
And yes the point about knowing without perceiving is exactly the other side of the argument, and in this case the truth, not capital T truth but truth of the situation. The tree still creates sound waves, and debating if it is called sound because of someone being there perceiving it is SEMANTICS not philosophy. Philosophy is understanding the world around you through investigation, not making petty jabs and attacks at people through condescension and pretentious banter.
Semantics is part of philosophy itself. 'Philosophy' has no telos it is not a science it is a pursuit of thinking for thinking.
Semantics when used in philosophy is used in order to circumscribe the statements made in question to guide and promote the answer/s.
Scott, Philosophy has never been defined or even declared as defined in the way you have declared it though science has. You my friend have fallen within the snare of semantics!
Semantics when used in philosophy is used in order to circumscribe the statements made in question to guide and promote the answer/s.
Scott, Philosophy has never been defined or even declared as defined in the way you have declared it though science has. You my friend have fallen within the snare of semantics!
haha no semantics meaning focusing on a word rather than the truth of the situation. Philosophy is finding truth before anything, and semantics is a linguistics perspective of how words have different or similar meaning in different regions, something along those lines.
I know what you are saying but the discussion on here is focusing too much on the word sound and perception instead of disproving that the tree does not make a sound, which would fall under a scientific perspective today.
I know what you are saying but the discussion on here is focusing too much on the word sound and perception instead of disproving that the tree does not make a sound, which would fall under a scientific perspective today.
Philosophy as defined as a pursuit of truth is an unwarranted presumption based on popular consent of the meaning of what Philosophy connotes. I find it sad that today Philosophy has been mostly snuffed of its thinking and questioning attributes and has been relegated to be basically a 'facts-finder' aspect.
Trees when falling make only one thing, falling trees! The fact of 'sound' 'vibration/waves' comes after the falling and with a perceiver in the vicinity of such a happening when it happens. Even vibrations are perceptions and without a perceiver can only be presumed to have had existed if there were in fact a perceiver.
Someone 'stumbling' upon a fallen tree will think and think correctly from what we know of the world and its laws that 'This fallen tree once grew from the ground, it is now a fallen tree, something caused this falling.' The person will presumably think that it produced a loud sound or even a vibration if no such effects are observable from the fallen tree's surrounding.
Trees when falling make only one thing, falling trees! The fact of 'sound' 'vibration/waves' comes after the falling and with a perceiver in the vicinity of such a happening when it happens. Even vibrations are perceptions and without a perceiver can only be presumed to have had existed if there were in fact a perceiver.
Someone 'stumbling' upon a fallen tree will think and think correctly from what we know of the world and its laws that 'This fallen tree once grew from the ground, it is now a fallen tree, something caused this falling.' The person will presumably think that it produced a loud sound or even a vibration if no such effects are observable from the fallen tree's surrounding.
Yes it is good to question, but the observed truths of the world are how we survive, progress and develop meaning, which is what this question is exploiting. Of course it is perception of the sound of the falling tree, but philosophy in this case is to just CLARIFY rather than investigate.
The tree still makes a sound through the assumptions we use to survive and progress, just as there will be oxygen tomorrow and the sun will rise, I don't know as a fact that they will (possibly through science) but I understand the sun rising through perception, reflection, comprehension and Id put a trophy card on the sun rising and oxygen existing tomorrow :wink:
But really it is difficult to define philosophy. It has always existed, and will never disappear, and is the foundation for all science, math, language, and almost anything pertaining to humans. At Oxford University the Physics department is labeled Philosophy of the physical world, as that is its foundation. Critical discussion, questioning, understanding logic are just windows into the massive broad definition that is philosophy.
The tree still makes a sound through the assumptions we use to survive and progress, just as there will be oxygen tomorrow and the sun will rise, I don't know as a fact that they will (possibly through science) but I understand the sun rising through perception, reflection, comprehension and Id put a trophy card on the sun rising and oxygen existing tomorrow :wink:
But really it is difficult to define philosophy. It has always existed, and will never disappear, and is the foundation for all science, math, language, and almost anything pertaining to humans. At Oxford University the Physics department is labeled Philosophy of the physical world, as that is its foundation. Critical discussion, questioning, understanding logic are just windows into the massive broad definition that is philosophy.
IMO Philosophy has no definition no pointing to, no 'this is it'. It's an essential attribute of thinking things, that which thinks philosophizes no matter how simple or rudimentary.
Though it is more than mere 'thinking' thinking for thinkers is a mode or vehicle for survival while philosophy is the power of thought for thriving going beyond mere preservation of observable thought to abstract-thought that paves the way for the way yet shown.
Though it is more than mere 'thinking' thinking for thinkers is a mode or vehicle for survival while philosophy is the power of thought for thriving going beyond mere preservation of observable thought to abstract-thought that paves the way for the way yet shown.
Using conscious is in "the grand scheme of things" It could have something to do with TOE. The idea of when no one is looking at the moon, the moon doesn't exist may sound crazy, but is 100% true. (See double slit experiment)
NoPoke
Active Member
You misrepresent the double slit experiment. It does not say that the moon may not exist when it is not being consciously observed. The moon is too massive for quantum mechanical effects to tamper with its continuity of existence. In effect it is so big that it is always being observed. Quantum Mechanical superposition does not have any meaning in the context of a body as big as the moon.
FWIW NO ONE understands the double slit experiment. The best that anyone can achieve is to accurately predict the eventual outcome. The what and why is a total mystery.
FWIW NO ONE understands the double slit experiment. The best that anyone can achieve is to accurately predict the eventual outcome. The what and why is a total mystery.
Last edited:
DarthPika
New Member
I really don't think you know what you're talking about here...
vanderbilt_grad
New Member
I will let my new sig speak for itself.
Do you have any proof to back the statement up that the moon is too big to include?
DarthPika, Can you just stop posting. You only post to attempt to make yourself look good because you know everything, yet you haven't really posted anything with common sense yet. I am asking you kindly to stop posting any more spam here.
ryanvergel
New Member
Well, DP did TRY to post one thing earlier in the thread, but it ended up making zero sense.
pat460
New Member
DarthPika
New Member
I'm not the one who's trying to say that the moon isn't there when no one is looking at it...