Tree

[Anti]

A tree falls in a forest, and nothing is around to hear it. Does it make a sound?

[DeadSeraphim]

[size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]KreeeeeeeePOW.[/font][/color][/size]

[Albert Flasher]

[COLOR=Sienna]That depends how you define 'sound.' If a tree were to fall in the forest, it would clearly cause vibrations in the air. However, without an ear to interpret these vibrations and translate them into something our brain will recognize, it's nothing but hollow vibrations. Some would define that as 'making a sound,' whereas others are quick to say that a sound is only a sound if there is something to pick it up and make the waves into some kind of recognizable sound.

But for the record... Yes, yes if a tree falls in the forest and no one's around, it does make a sound.[/COLOR]

[Hanabishi Recca]

[QUOTE=Red 6][COLOR=Sienna]
But for the record... Yes, yes if a tree falls in the forest and no one's around, it does make a sound.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Sorry people that are thinking this man is right. For something to make a sound it has to travel so someone can hear it. The sound has to be audible for it to actually count as a sound.

I know Red 6 said that, but it still doesn't make a picture in my mind today thinking about it. I remember this was raiding our school one school year. Anyway, I'll just leave it at that.

[musical_kitten]

This is one of those opinion threads, so mine is probably going to be ignored, but the problem with questions like these is that people think if they don't hear it, then it doesn't make a sound. They personally have to experience it for them to say it does. But if a tree falls in the forest, and you personally aren't there to hear it fall, then it should still make a sound, whether you're there to hear it or not.

I'm going to assume that if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it does make a sound because technically someone or something has to hear it because there are all sorts of animals and birds around to hear it, right? It is physically impossible for nothing to be around in a forest. So yes, it does make a sound. Right?

[Fasteriskhead]

I'm not getting into this one too deep, we'd be here all night. See Red 6 for a good showing of the standard answer.

Briefly: the question is asking whether "sound" - and in the long run not just sound, but also the tree, the falling, the woods, and the question "if a tree falls in the woods..." itself - in some way *requires* someone like a human being (someone that can "experience") in order to take place. I don't think it's a question about whether sound is "subjective" or "objective" (the trouble is that both of those finally end up assuming the other), and I think we end up screwing ourselves over when we ask it like that. We need to consider whether sound might be something other than the apprehension of an objective sensory experience by a subject (which is itself a certain special kind of object).

The classic Buddhist answer would probably be something like: "Where is the tree, where are the woods, where is the sound?" Of course, we in the know understand that this kind of answer is a lot of spiritual bull that is at best only [i]useful[/i] for making you feel good about yourself, and at worst amounts to solipsism and nihilism. Actually, why are we even considering questions like this at all? What [i]use[/i] do they have? It's confusing and depressing, and we might as well not worry about these kinds of things if they're not going to serve any [i]useful[/i] purpose, right?

So who's excited about the PS3?

[Albert Flasher]

[QUOTE=Fasteriskhead]

So who's excited about the PS3?[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=Sienna]If a PS3 is a kickass console, but no one can afford it, does it kick *** at all?[/COLOR]

[conpiracymonki]

[quote name='DeadSeraphim][size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]KreeeeeeeePOW.[/font][/color'][/size][/quote]
[size=1]^What he said. If I told you all to shut up and quit asking stupid questions but you all ignored me, it doesnt mean I never said it. I'll never understand what's so complicated about it at all. I mean, if something only existed if you yourself experienced it, there'd be a loophole around [b]everything[/b].[/size]

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='DeadSeraphim][size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]KreeeeeeeePOW.[/font][/color'][/size][/quote]

[color=crimson]That's not really the onomatopoeia I would have used.

More like crrrrreeaaakkkkkk..FWWSSH.[/color]

[quote name='AJeh][size=1']I'll never understand what's so complicated about it at all.[/size][/quote]

[color=crimson]That which is not witnessed to exist but presumed to exist either A.) Like, DUH, totally still exists or B.) Man, it just [i]might not exist[/i] as there is no one to witness it's existence and presumptions based on science are a LITTLE TOO LOGICAL FOR ME, bruh.

Dude, God is totally going to have an opinion on this subject.[/color]

[Onix]

[COLOR=SlateGray][SIZE=1]Better question: A tree falls on a mime in a forest and no one's around to hear it. Does anyone care?[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Fasteriskhead]

[SIZE=1]Okay, let's think about this some.

This tree, when it falls, is going to make the same sound every other falling tree makes. How do I know what sound falling trees make? Because I've heard them before on a number of occasions.

But wait a minute. The question says: "Nothing is around to hear it." Meaning: I'm not around to hear it either. How do I know what the tree's going to sound like? I don't, not directly; I'm making an induction based on other experiences I've had. But I wonder: is it possible that this tree in particular may make a totally different kind of sound than normal? Or even no sound at all? Well, it's at least possible... but I won't know because, by the premise of the question itself, I'm not around to hear it.

I state what I know: "A tree falls in the woods and may or may not make a sound." I might add to the end: "...a sound which may or may not agree with my understanding of what a falling tree sounds like." But this might be saying too much, because if I'm not hearing the sound I might not even be aware of the tree falling at all. So: "Assuming it falls, a tree in the woods may or may not make a sound." But even here I might be pushing it. So finally I have to take the content of the question to the extreme, to the point of absurdity: what if I'm not only not aware of the tree falling or its making a sound, but because I'm not really around at all, neither can I rightfully say anything about the tree or the woods? I seem to be making a lot of assumptions just to be able to say that this hypothetical tree will sound how I think it will.

So to try that statement one last time: "There may or may not be a tree that may or may not be in a forest which might fall and, if it does, may or may not make a sound which may or may not agree with my understanding of what a falling tree sounds like." This is, obviously, almost completely useless. The original question was, "A tree falls in a forest, and nothing is around to hear it. Does it make a sound?" If I'm going to be totally honest and strict with myself, then the correct answer is not to answer at all. I can talk a lot about trees, woods, and falling sounds in [i]general[/i], apply these concepts to various situations, and even find general rules that apply to all known cases. But about [i]this[/i] tree I can properly say nothing.

[quote name='AJeh][size=1']If I told you all to shut up and quit asking stupid questions but you all ignored me, it doesnt mean I never said it.[/size][/quote]Correct. But it does mean, at the very least, that none of us can speak in a responsible way about what you said.

We're not talking about certain poorly-understood interpretations of quantum mechanics here, we're asking: does the [i]being[/i] of a sound (which is different from the objective existence of physical waves) in some way require another creature which listens? If so, what about the [i]being[/i] of trees or forests (which, again, has nothing to do with sets of molecules configured in certain large-scale arrangements)? And if there is such a strange connection between the sound and the one who listens, then how does that listener stand towards the original question? Properly they can't say anything about the sound, obviously, but somehow the moment the phrase "tree falls in the forest" is mentioned they [i]already[/i] hear that "kreeeeeeeePOW" in their head, even though that sound can't justifiably be applied to the tree in the question. Curious, that.

...See, this is why I didn't want to get started on this.


EDIT: 11 posts and dead. [I]Damn[/I] I am good.
EDIT 2: Dancing in the endzone premature, did not notice ref throw a flag.[/SIZE]

[Papa Smurf]

[quote name='Fasteriskhead][size=1]EDIT: 11 posts and dead. [i]Damn[/i'] I am good.[/size][/quote] A few hours passed? Are you serious? lol. I've killed threads much better, and we're looking at threads now being dead for weeks (and in some cases, [i]years[/i]), dude. A few hours is nothing. Don't pat yourself on the back quite yet, because you're about to get Smurfed up.

See, trying to unpack two sentences, as if there's some huge profound meaning behind them, is asinine and annoying, and a waste of everyone's time, including your own, because in no way does anything longer than DeadSeraphim's "KreeeeeePOW" answer the question.

The irrelevant philosophical, long-winded posturing means absolutely nothing--and if meaning nothing is the point...why even post to begin with? Just to waste time? Such a noble goal. You're making a simple question complicated for the sake of making it complicated. Don't be so useless.

Now back to the topic at hand.

Absolutely there's going to be some type of physical reaction around the tree when it falls. Air will be displaced, friction will be generated, physical matter is going to slam into other physical matter.

Will that make a sound? No. It'll make a noise.

The word "sound" implicates an attached meaning; we call something a sound when our brains organize and interpret the data and structure an information schema around it.

"Noise" is the opposite; it's sound before meaning is attached, before our brains have a chance to process it and tell us what exactly it is.

So to answer the question, no. The tree doesn't make a [i]sound[/i], per se. It makes [i]noise[/i].

[Fasteriskhead]

Okay, a bit premature in thinking I'd killed the thread. I won't spend much time in reply to how I'm "asinine," "annoying," "wasting everyone's time," "irrelevant," "philosophical," "long-winded," "posturing," "meaning nothing," "time wasting," "'noble,'" "complicated," and "useless." You're welcome to believe whatever you like, but I'm not trying to impress anyone. Don't get me wrong, I like it when someone appreciates something I've said, but more important to me than that crap is trying to [i]pay attention[/i] to things like these "two sentences" which so obviously seem to be a "simple question" that can be dispensed with in a single sound effect.

On to the meat of your post, though, you seem to have misunderstood most of my point eariler - or, you think you can sidestep it.

[QUOTE=Papa Smurf]The word "sound" implicates an attached meaning; we call something a sound when our brains organize and interpret the data and structure an information schema around it.

"Noise" is the opposite; it's sound before meaning is attached, before our brains have a chance to process it and tell us what exactly it is.

So to answer the question, no. The tree doesn't make a sound, per se. It makes noise.[/QUOTE]Ignore for the moment the question of whether it's so easy to talk about noise without any "meanings" attached to it (also: while I understand what you're trying to do, personally I wouldn't use the word "noise" the way you're doing, just because in everyday speech no one will ever say "I heard a noise" and mean "I just had a series of air waves with alternating pressure levels stimulate nerves in my ear"). For most of my second post, sound having "meaning" wasn't the issue. To make that point a second time: do we have any right to talk about the "noise" that this tree makes when [i]by definition[/i] we have no direct evidence about it at all? We can talk about how all the other trees in every other trial run have made such-and-such a noise, and not [I]necessarily[/I] have a smoking gun fact-wise for whether this tree, when it falls over, will do the same. Induction goes a hell of a long way, but it's not a guarantee. Whether we talk about sound or noise or air waves of varying pressure levels, there's [i]still[/i] no getting around the fact that we aren't there to know what the hell's going on.

[Papa Smurf]

[quote name='Fasteriskhead']Okay, a bit premature in thinking I'd killed the thread.[/quote] A bit? Okay, yeah. Only "a bit." Get over yourself. lol.

[quote]I won't spend much time in reply to how I'm "asinine," "annoying," "wasting everyone's time," "irrelevant," "philosophical," "long-winded," "posturing," "meaning nothing," "time wasting," "'noble,'" "complicated," and "useless."[/quote] No, you see, you confirm it every single time you post with this nonsense.

[quote]You're welcome to believe whatever you like, but I'm not trying to impress anyone.[/quote] Who said you were trying to impress anyone? I just think you're a self-righteous and misguided twerp who doesn't know how to write effectively.

[quote]Don't get me wrong, I like it when someone appreciates something I've said, but more important to me than that crap is trying to [i]pay attention[/i] to things like these "two sentences" which so obviously seem to be a "simple question" that can be dispensed with in a single sound effect.[/quote] Dude, what are you talking about? The question of the Tree and the Sound [i]is[/i] a simple one. The concepts behind it are neither complex nor profound. The question attempts to poke at what we know to be true. Big freaking deal. It's a straightforward question with a straightforward answer, which...

[quote]On to the meat of your post, though, you seem to have misunderstood most of my point eariler - or, you think you can sidestep it.[/quote] ...is why I wasn't sidestepping anything. I was actually answering the question with something that was actually relevant, as opposed to meandering ******** philosophizing that borders on pseudo-intellectual babble.

[quote]Ignore for the moment the question of whether it's so easy to talk about noise without any "meanings" attached to it (also: while I understand what you're trying to do, personally I wouldn't use the word "noise" the way you're doing, just because in everyday speech no one will ever say "I heard a noise" and mean "I just had a series of air waves with alternating pressure levels stimulate nerves in my ear"). For most of my second post, sound having "meaning" wasn't the issue. To make that point a second time: do we have any right to talk about the "noise" that this tree makes when [i]by definition[/i] we have no direct evidence about it at all? We can talk about how all the other trees in every other trial run have made such-and-such a sound, and not [i]necessarily[/i] have a smoking gun fact-wise for whether this tree, when it falls over, will do the same. Induction goes a hell of a long way, but it's not a guarantee. Whether we talk about sound or noise or air waves of varying pressure levels, there's [i]still[/i] no getting around the fact that we aren't there to know what the hell's going on.[/QUOTE] In that entire triple paragraph, you just said absolutely nothing.

People mis-use words in everyday speech. Okay, so what? The general populace is filled with either morons or pseudo-intellectual morons. How does that make my summarization any less correct? The question asks does a tree make a sound if nobody is around to hear the tree fall. The answer is no, the tree will not make a sound, but it will make a noise. Either way, there's an auditory event that occurs.

Next, how in the hell is "do we have any right" relevant at all here? lol. Be sensible, dude. Get with the frigging program. I certainly don't give two shats about whatever "rights" regarding human perception/discussion you've invented here, and I really don't think anyone would give two shats about a human being's "right" to talk about a noise a falling tree would make, even when the human being isn't there to directly witness the tree falling. Why?

Because we know what happens when things fall down and go boom. Unless the tree is colliding in the vacuum of space, there is absolutely no reason at all to begin to suggest that we actually need to be there to conclude the tree makes a noise when it falls.

The very fact you tried to pull that kind of irrelevant crap (and make no mistake, Fasterisk...it is irrelevant crap) is exactly what I'm talking about: you're making a question far more complicated than it really needs to be, simply for the sake of making it complicated, or because you honestly believe it should be that complicated.

[center][url="http://imageshack.us"][img]http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/5771/eitherwayxc3.png[/img][/url]
[/center]

Either way, whether you're doing it for the sake of making it complicated, or because you honestly believe it should be that complicated, it's a stupid thing to do, and only fools are attracted to it, because it's a foolish idea in the first place. Are we clear?

[Andy]

[quote name='Onix][COLOR=SlateGray][SIZE=1]Better question: A tree falls on a mime in a forest and no one's around to hear it. Does anyone care?[/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote]

[SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkRed]I know I don't. Hmmm...let me think.....I would also have to say that the tree doesn't make a sound it makes a noise. Which to me I can't really tell the different but *shrugs* whatever. So, to answer the question, no, it doesn't make a sound, it makes a noise....wait....what?[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[Anti]

not that I particularly care...but Smurf, your being incredably atagonistic...I find your assualting Fasterisk and then preaching it to be icredably irrelevent crap, as you put it, to be quite instructing on your personality. I thank you for the lesson.


I liked Faster's first post personally because it brought up an idea that is central to all philsophy... it's not knowable, nothing is, except what we expiernce directly. Even then it might be solely expiernced by us - each our own universe, no? - and thus the answer I see to the question posed is simple - it might make a sound, or noise as you choose to phrase it, but in the end we can't prove either way. It's unkowable, we can only apply common-sense, aka, the lowest common denominator of belief, and assume that is what happened...or maybe your reality is more closed then that and that's fine too.


Interesting to see what can come of a single...thought.

PS.Make way for the town fool =)

[sakurasuka]

[quote name='Onix][COLOR=SlateGray][SIZE=1]Better question: A tree falls on a mime in a forest and no one's around to hear it. Does anyone care?[/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote]

[size=1]Briefly: the question is asking whether "a mime"- and in the long run not just the mime, but also the tree, the falling, the woods, and the question "if a tree falls in the woods..." itself - in some way *requires* someone like a human being other than the mime (someone that can "experience") in order to take place. I don't think it's a question about whether the mime is "subjective" or "objective" (the trouble is that both of those finally end up assuming the other), and I think we end up screwing ourselves over when we ask it like that. We need to consider whether the mime might be something other than the apprehension of an objective sensory experience by a subject (which is itself a certain special kind of object).


The classic Buddhist answer would probably be something like: "He's a f&$%ing mime, who cares?" Of course, we in the know understand that this kind of answer is a lot of spiritual bull that is at best only useful for making you feel good about yourself, and at worst amounts to solipsism and nihilism. Actually, why are we even considering questions like this at all? What use do they have? It's confusing and depressing, and we might as well not worry about these kinds of things if they're not going to serve any useful purpose, right?



Sorry Fasterisk, couldn't resist.

[/size]

[2010DigitalBoy]

If it is in a forest, they can't say that nothing else is around to hear it, as if nothing except for the tree is there, it would merely be a lone tree, thus not being a forest.

Sometimes the question is asked with 'no one' instead of 'nothing' which begs the definition of 'no one'. If there are still bugs and animals there, assumable since it's a forest, they'd hear the noise.

I apologive if anyone else said this - I didn't feel like reading the big posts.

[Papa Smurf]

[quote name='Anti']not that I particularly care...but Smurf, your being incredably atagonistic...I find your assualting Fasterisk and then preaching it to be icredably irrelevent crap, as you put it, to be quite instructing on your personality. I thank you for the lesson.[/quote]
Antagonistic? Hardly. Assaulting him? Hardly. Preaching? Hardly. What I was saying is irrelevant crap? Hardly.

All I'm doing is cutting through the bull**** here. Nothing more, nothing less. If people think they've got something worthwhile and relevant to say, then say it. Don't clog up a post with drivel and circular rhetoric. And that's all anyone does when they try to apply a deeper meaning to such a stupid-simple and straightforward question like Tree Sound. The answer to "Does the tree make a sound" is exceedingly obvious when you ignore the inane and quasi-retarded urge to create some unnecessary philosophical quandary.

It's not a matter of common sense being the "lowest common denominator of belief," because I think that's the load of horsecrap that people use when they think they're smart because they can have some sort of deeper thought process happening.

But it's an empty thought process happening because nothing worthwhile or productive comes out of it.

When that empty thought process is revealed to be precisely that, then you see the "well, you're just ignorant" popping up. That's how it goes, that's how it's always gone. The pretend philosophers are a dime a dozen, mate. They're useless, even when it comes to philosophy, because they're too concerned with "does a tree make a sound" having some bigger meaning and miss the big picture, the big picture being that the question is outdated and irrelevant as they're trying to relate it to metaphysical existence or human perception or whatever.

It's just like how Plato's Cave allegory is not about actual limitations of human perception, because Plato's Cave is actually about how we [i]react[/i] to the world around us. We create our own chain.

If I seem antagonistic, that's your flaw regarding emotional hypersensitivity, not my flaw regarding my delivery.

So do me a favor. Think about this topic before replying again, and think about why I'm saying what I'm saying.

[quote name='sakurasuka][size=1']Of course, we in the know understand that this kind of answer is a lot of spiritual bull that is at best only useful for making you feel good about yourself, and at worst amounts to solipsism and nihilism.[/size][/quote]
QFT

[Fasteriskhead]

[QUOTE=Papa Smurf]I just think you're a self-righteous and misguided twerp who doesn't know how to write effectively.

[etc.][/QUOTE]A twerp? Well, sure. Bad writer? I'm sure as hell no good at message board chat, at least. But I'm a twerp who answers objections with something other than personal insults, Jack Nicholson, and specious assertions disregarding any kind of consideration of how we come to know things. I'll reply as considerately as I can when you have something serious to say other than "I'm right and you're wrong because falling things make noise, period." (I'm curious about your "we create our own chain," but I don't quite understand what you mean)

[quote name='Papa Smurf']When that empty thought process is revealed to be precisely that, then you see the "well, you're just ignorant" popping up.[/quote]Oh, it's popping up, but not where you seem to think. Physician, heal thyself.

[quote=sakurasuka][SIZE=1][snip]

Sorry Fasterisk, couldn't resist.[/SIZE][/quote]Hee hee! You get a hug for that. Who knew the Buddhists hated mimes so much?

[Papa Smurf]

[quote name='Fasteriskhead']But I'm a twerp who answers objections with something other than personal insults, Jack Nicholson, and specious assertions disregarding any kind of consideration of how we come to know things.[/quote] Don't kid yourself. You reply with rambles that stumble around a point rather than making a point, nothing more. At least I'm direct. And we both know that Jack Nicholson rocks our worlds, so if you take issue with Jack Nicholson, you totally have problems.

[quote]I'll reply as considerately as I can when you have something serious to say other than "I'm right and you're wrong because falling things make noise, period."[/quote] Counter it. Counter "I'm right and you're wrong because falling things make noise, period." Counter it without the circular, meandering rhetoric you're so fond of. Counter it without the pseuodo-philosophical drivel you slop into your posts.

[quote](I'm curious about your "we create our own chain," but I don't quite understand what you mean)[/quote] We create our own chain in that we set our own limitations. Your limitation is thinking there's some massively profound implication in everything. And your self-imposed limitation screws you over in everything I've seen so far. Don't believe me? Answer the original question in one sentence, using only one to two commas, no semi-colons, and make it all in under 25 words.

[quote]Oh, it's popping up, but not where you seem to think. Physician, heal thyself.[/quote] Sorry, I missed the part where you were actually answering any questions with your pointless rambles, and I must have missed where I, direct and blunt as I was, answered the question posed in the original post here. Nice try though. But again, one can only point out irony when there's irony to begin with, and here, there's no irony.

You'd have more room to talk if you had actually answered the original question instead of mindshatting all over the place.

Plus, you seem to think that this topic needs your own special brand of pseudo-philosophizing when in fact, it doesn't. When people point that out to you, I'm certainly detecting indignant hints in your replies. You seem to think that if people don't over-pseudo-philosophize about everything, they must be simpletons.

Oh, by me saying that you would probably try to turn it around, right? I think that if people don't cut to the chase and instead entertain outlandish concepts, they must be morons? I believe that only because what I'm saying is always relevant. I always have something meaningful to say. My views on matters (especially this one) are respectable and realistic. I get on your case (and the cases of people like you) because you're operating under some stupid assumption that the world needs more pseudo-philosophizing.

I can keep going, Fasterisk. You're not even giving me a challenge here, despite what you may think.

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='Papa Smurf']... and think about why I'm saying what I'm saying.[/quote]

[color=crimson]It's hard to garner much care for what you're saying when I find 'heads responses to be harmless. Unnecessary as his rambling and carrying on is, his posts are an amusing read.[/color]

[Charles]

Man, this thread has [B]branched[/b] off into a very heated debate that's sure to [B]leaf[/b] a bad taste in everyone's mouths. Who [b]wood[/b] have guessed it?

Can we all just agree that trees speak Spanish when no one's around and call it a thread?

[Fasteriskhead]

[QUOTE=Papa Smurf]Sorry, I missed the part where you were actually answering any questions with your pointless rambles...

[etc.][/quote]I see no meaning in trying to rewrite everything I've said in this thread just so you can then call the rewrites equally incomprehensible, declare victory, and give yourself a big pat on the back for taking down another "pseudo-philosopher." I don't have the time or the temper for it, and I don't see how it can result in anyone learning a damn thing. If you're interested in knowing what I think (and I doubt you are), then please reread my first three posts more carefully. Everything relevant is already there if you're willing to put some effort in (also doubtful), and I'm not going to continue this.

If you'd really like to, you can even write down in your little record that you totally kicked my ***. One more pseudo-philosopher showed up! Respectable and realistic wins the day, mindshatting crawls back into its hole! High five!!! Beers for everyone!!

[Fyxe]

[size=1][color=slategray]Err...

Anyway. The squirrels are sure as hell going to hear it. More than likely, that was their damn home. And if you don't consider squirrels to count as part of "no one", then that's racist and I'm calling PETA on your ***.

Gloves are weird.[/color][/size]