Dumb Question About Trees Falling in a Fores

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by lixluke, Sep 29, 2006.

  1. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Then, it has been the bane of my existence to show those who draw conclusions without thinking how wrong they are.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    I thought you said you're the scientist here, the wannabee peeaychdee?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
    - Isaac Asimov
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824



    Good thing I have no illusions about becoming a professor.

    I'm a gonna leave y'all to yowr aybsolooteesim.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Maybe someone who can explain it better?

    Invert ?
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2006
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Scientifically speaking, yes.

    And even then our assumptions of that reality are filtered through our senses.

    i.e. does a tree falling have the same sound to you me and a chickadee?

    In the event of no one with a tympanic membrane in the vicinity, what is the reality of that sound ?

    Is it that the vibrations falling on our ear drum make that sound (an evolutionary development)? And that by themselves the waves are just waves, with no "sound" accompanying them? Do you really know ?

    PS: this was an exception for supe only.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2006
  9. imaplanck. Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,237
    Yes it's true only some who think they know everything actually do, then again noone knows EVERYTHING, they merely know sufficient.
     
  10. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    You meany. And I liked you too, now I am going to be offended.

    Anyway, the waves are the same whether or not we call them sound. We could call them "gorflex", or nothing at all, but then the question about the tree making a "sound" would be a nonsense sentence. The question assumes a context and if you take away the context, it is the question that becomes nonsense, and human thought is made less organized by this, not the entire universe.

    My point this whole time is similar to those who describe the answer, "mu" to the question, "does this dog have a buddha nature", when they say, "mu" doesn't mean "no", or "cow", but "no, wrong question".

    The question about trees applies either to thoughts or trees - if it is about thoughts, who knows, but if it is about trees and sounds, our whole system about trees and sounds is assumed to be to be functioning. And again, if it is a criticism of the very system it uses to ask the question, then you may as well say, "if a tree falls... do golden monkeys fly out of it and dance a jig?"
     
  11. redarmy11 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,658
    Define the following:

    1. "golden monkeys"
    2. "jig".
     
  12. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    leaves
    move around
     
  13. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    Scientifically speaking, all that matters is that a theory or law accurately describes what we observe and makes accurate predictions about the behavior of the subject of the theory.

    So, in the absence of someone with a tympanic membrane theory predicts that the tree will make quite a cacophany of pressure waves (sounds) that can be recorded by acoustic means, optical means (watch the movement of airborne particles as the tree passes), and seismic means. The reality of the sound is absolute. The sound, in fact can cause a series of events to occurr that can be observed in it's aftermath from which one can deduce that a sound was indeed made.

    Sound is defined in physics as pressure waves moving through a medium. If you insist on disregarding a fundamental definition, I suggest you go write your own dictionary and build your pet theories around your own self-consistent definitions.

    Waves are indeed just waves. The kind that manifest as pressure gradients in a material medium are defined as sound waves. The "waving" of the medium is sound whether you can hear it or not. Why did you ignore my examples of sound and its effects on the sun and in interstellar clouds? You can't hear them, but they are still sound. If you can see a cup of steaming coffee through a window but can't smell it or taste it, is it still coffee?

    You are arguing trivial semantic distinctions and I for one have had my fill of it, just like you.
     
  14. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    No offense meant. I tend to come off as terribly pedantic and you guys were beginning to show signs of abuse!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I understand what you say, of course, but it seems to me that when we know that most of what we do perceive is subconscious and subjective, its rather difficult to know for certain how much of our realities are absolute and how much of them are filtered and hence unknown.

    In my opinion (which everyone is free to disregard), this fact, known as it is, makes our realities so subjective that to assume them to be absolute is a logical fallacy.

    Hence, in my opinion (again, disposable), the sound of the tree is a rational interpretation of the vibrations that fall on the tympanic membrane of our ear. What we perceive as sound thus, can only be present when we are available to interpret those waves.

    Other species or organisms perceive those waves in the same way or differently or not at all and those differences in perception themselves support the idea that the creation of the waves and the perception of a sound are two separate and distinct occurrences, the latter generally incumbent on the former (except when one is suffering from auditory hallucinations).
     
  15. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Like I said (and invert reiterated) we are not arguing absolute realities here.

    And if you've had your fill, why, there is a perfectly simple resolution.
     
  16. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    Tell me again what we're arguing here?
     
  17. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    Isn't this completely self evident and logical? You seem to be agreeing with us.
     
  18. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    :bugeye:
     
  19. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    ...
     
  20. imaplanck. Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,237
    :bugeye: :bugeye:
     
  21. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    LOL you guys are trying to drive me nuts aren't you?
     
  22. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    ? ,... J^der !
     
  23. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    You need a happy avatar, this one does not bring out your best side.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page