Tree

[Papa Smurf]

[quote name='Fasteriskhead'](It's interesting that you use the word "justified" here, as I seem to remember you ridiculing me for using the same term a little earlier)[/quote]
I use the word because that's exactly what I see is going on here, Fastritishead. You're trying to justify a pointless philosophical exercise simply for the sake of the exercise, which makes that a pointless justification of something that can't be justified.

[quote]If you're saying that all this "deeper thinking" is really unjustifiable, I take this to mean that your own point (and I think this last post is your best in the thread) [i]can[/i] be justified. I assume you hold that this is because "hard physics" is "reality itself," period. In which case, my question is: [b][i]how do you know this?[/i][/b][/quote]
I know this because I've destroyed trees before. lol. Because I've hit a tree with a solid object. Because I've been around plenty of wooden areas in my days and I've seen trees falling, crashing into each other, etc. And no matter if that tree was rotten and hollow or if it was sturdy as hell, it made a sound/noise/auditory event when it collided with the trees, bushes, foliage, water, etc, around it.

[quote]So, how does this learning process happen?[/quote]
It's called living. Being out there and having experiences, and then using those experiences to construct an understanding of the world around you.

You could come in and say, "Well, aren't you just establishing the same type of belief structure there as we are here?"

I'd respond by pointing out that the noise will happen, because that's what falling trees do: make noise. I can make such a statement because I've been there when trees and other solid objects have collided with each other.

I'd also point out that the "point," if it can be called a point, of most of the philosophical ramblings I've seen here largely depend on perception shaping reality, which is a flawed idea in and of itself, because then it entails the entire world ceasing to exist if nobody is around to perceive it. And that's just a foolish thing to suggest, because reality itself does not cease to be when we cease to be. Our perception of reality ends, absolutely. But reality itself does not end.

Incidentally, I'm actually amazed to see nobody even mention the "Eternal Perceiver."

[quote]unless, of course, for anything to be considered "relevant" at all it must immediately produce useful, practical results, in which case I have no reply and the entire thread fails the test miserably.[/QUOTE]
Which is what I've been saying the entire time. The only "older" philosophies I've seen as relevant are Plato's Cave (in a purely emotional reactive context) and Existentialism (in both emotional reactions and social constructions). Everything else is pretty much hogwash.

Hobbes and Locke were lunatics because they took to opposite extremes of their shared spectrum and so any good observations they made regarding human existence became tainted.

Marx had some nice ideas, as did Sarte, Nietzsche and Kierkegaarde, but most of the time, you had to take their views with a grain of salt. Freud was the same way, and he barely dabbled in "true philosophy."

Despite what people may want to believe, most older philosophy just isn't terribly important anymore, particularly in day-to-day life. In film, definitely it can do some amazing things when handled appropriately. But philosophy devotees often miss the forest for the lone tree, and because of that, lose sight of what's really important in life...they lose sight of society itself.

[Adahn]

[size=2]I am sick and tired of ignorance. The physical rules that we experience are on a very large level. What we feel and see are averages, because our unaided bodies cannot perceive the inner workings and rules of physics.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]I gave a link to a book written by a physicist in an earlier post. He explains things proven by physics in such a way that anyone our age can understand it. If you want to call me on it, you'll have to disprove me, because I've provided a reference.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]It has been physically proven that anything can cease to exist at any time. If anything ever does, it usually does so in such a small way that nobody perceives it, but it happens. Since we're dealing with a hypothetical tree, it is subject to all proven laws of physics and possibilities. If it is possible for the tree to cease to exist before it makes a sound from falling (and it is), then that is a possible outcome. Since there is even one possible outcome that results in the tree making no sound, there is no correct yes or no answer to the question.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]If you think you know better than me on this, you don't. Give it up, and stop it with your high and mighty incensive comments.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]The answer to the question is, "I don't know."[/size]
[size=2]Oh, I'm sorry, there's another answer to the question that is correct. "Probably."[/size]

[Papa Smurf]

[quote name='Adahn][size=2']I am sick and tired of ignorance.[/quote]
"Ignorance" why? How is being realistic being ignorant? Or how is it ignorant when one resists philosophizing that, while attractive, is at best, idiotic? Do tell, because it seems to me that insisting on pursuing absurd pseudo-philosophizing and ignoring what actually happens in documented cases of reality is far, far more ignorant than knowing what kinds of auditory events occur when solid matter collides with other solid matter.

[quote]The physical rules that we experience are on a very large level. What we feel and see are averages, because our unaided bodies cannot perceive the inner workings and rules of physics.[/quote]
Forgive me "ignorance," but how is any of this meaningful and/or important? Or accurate?
[/size]
[size=2][quote]I gave a link to a book written by a physicist in an earlier post. He explains things proven by physics in such a way that anyone our age can understand it. If you want to call me on it, you'll have to disprove me, because I've provided a reference.[/quote]
OH, I see. It was accurate because of a book you read? Oh, well in that case, I must bow down to your obviously superior comprehension here, because you read it in a book! Pardon the sarcasm, but I don't see how reading a book validates your vague claims above.
[/size]
[size=2][quote]It has been physically proven that anything can cease to exist at any time.[/quote]
Prove it. Explain how. Give me observable examples that don't depend on theoretical physics.

[quote]If anything ever does, it usually does so in such a small way that nobody perceives it, but it happens.[/quote]
Example?

[quote]If it is possible for the tree to cease to exist before it makes a sound from falling (and it is), then that is a possible outcome.[/quote]
Instead of making vague claims, give me examples. Provide more than a link to one of the many Amazon.com's on the 'net.

[quote]Since there is even one possible outcome that results in the tree making no sound[/quote]
Like what? The tree just blinks out of existence as it falls?
[/size]
[size=2][quote]If you think you know better than me on this, you don't.[/quote]
Yes, because you've already demonstrated so much knowledge with such vague assertions. :rolleyes:

[quote]Give it up, and stop it with your high and mighty incensive comments.[/quote]
I'll give it up when you provide me with relevant examples that raise enough questions that can cast doubt on said tree making said noise when it falls. If you can't, then I'd highly recommend you take your leave from this thread, Adahn. We both remember what's happened in the past when you've put up these types of "I know more than you" acts.[/size]

[sakurasuka]

[QUOTE=Papa Smurf]
Honestly, sakura, I'd tell you to think before you speak. Had you thought a bit before chiming in, you wouldn't be saying this is all a matter of opinion, just like you would see that no matter if someone is using "sound" or "noise," they're still agreeing that an auditory event occurs when said tree falls.

In fact, despite your best efforts to provide some sort of counter to the "tree does make a sound/noise/auditory event" argument...you end up supporting it even further.

I'm starting to think that nobody here really knows anything about what they're talking about, especially those in the pretend philosophers club.[/QUOTE]

[size=1]Please re-read my post before implying I'm an idiot.

The word 'OPINION' is IN QUOTATIONS for the people debating upon the definition of 'SOUND' or 'NOISE'.

Notice please, that that is the main argument in this thread. So it is indeed, an opinion.



Acheron, hon, please go back and read your post. Let's analyze it, just for fun.

1. You got huffy about people over-thinking it [Or, in essence, [b]giving thier opinions[/b]]
2. Implied insults toward said people.
3. Stated the obvious.
4. [b]GAVE YOUR OPINION ON THE SUBJECT.[/b] [Which you JUST finished yelling at everyone else about.]

Now look back at step one of your post. Now step four. Re-read step one, if you're confused.

Hypocrit much? Really, that's like saying 'You idiot, you ate a whole candy bar. You're gonna get fat. Oooh, Snickers, give me three!'



Besides, in MY OPINION, you're wrong. When something falls, it causes disruptions called 'noise', 'sound', or 'vibrations'.



[b]If a tree falls in the forest it makes vibrations. Wheather or not you recognise it as 'sound' is your own opinion.[/b]

Smurf, I agree with you completely, but it is rather stupid to refuse to acknowledge the other side of the argument. Or, in your case, even recognize that there [i]is[/i] another side.

[/size]

[vegeta rocker]

Something falls, it makes a noise.

This isn't the Matrix people, it won't suddenly cease to exist. Once i was out by the woods and a flock of birds flew off quickly. A tree had fallen i guessed.

i went out and there was a tree indeed on the ground, just because i didn't hear it didn't mean there was no sound.

There are no radical theories, it just comes down to how you choose to define sound. It fell, there were vibrations. Or nobody was there to hear it so nobody heard a sound.

Its however you wish to look at it.

Either way, that tree made some vibrations and caused a [I]disturbance[/I].

[Retribution]

[quote name='sakurasuka][size=1][b]If a tree falls in the forest it makes vibrations. Wheather or not you recognise it as 'sound' is your own opinion.[/b'][/size][/quote]
[size=1]Precisely.

Can we close up the thread now? This debate is ludicrous.[/size]

[Charles]

[CENTER][IMG]http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/1313/depressedqw5.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

I think this thread has turned into worm wood. We should have just closed this after Alan's onomatopoeia.