A new take on an old question. . .

L

Learned Hand

Registered Senior Member
If the proverbial tree falls in a forest and no one, of course, is there to hear it, what color is the tree??? Anyone? :bugeye:
 
Exponentially?
You mean, that old debate where the tree falls in the forest, and no one saw it so does it exist? And you of course are not asking what, if it existed?, or not, instead you are asking, what color it is. So, it makes some sense. To say "yeah. The tree has fell in the forrest... and we don't know----- what color it was?"

Is that what you're saying, I don't understand what exponentially means.
:p

Anyway, so there's a certain trick to it obviously.
What color was it?

If a tree fell in the forest, and no one saw it, then obvioiusly it is the same question as the one before with the obstical of color instead of "existence."

Obviously a tree is normally brown.
If a tree that we didn't see in a forest fell and we're supposed to understand the color of it, obviously trees are brown, have green leaves, have branches and things, have monkeys in them.
Which is weird for sure...
But, it makes no sense.
The tree is brown.

That is way too easy.
Now, what is this trick.
 
existabrent said:
Exponentially?
You mean, that old debate where the tree falls in the forest, and no one saw it so does it exist? And you of course are not asking what, if it existed?, or not, instead you are asking, what color it is. So, it makes some sense. To say "yeah. The tree has fell in the forrest... and we don't know----- what color it was?"

Is that what you're saying, I don't understand what exponentially means.
:p

Anyway, so there's a certain trick to it obviously.
What color was it?

If a tree fell in the forest, and no one saw it, then obvioiusly it is the same question as the one before with the obstical of color instead of "existence."

Obviously a tree is normally brown.
If a tree that we didn't see in a forest fell and we're supposed to understand the color of it, obviously trees are brown, have green leaves, have branches and things, have monkeys in them.
Which is weird for sure...
But, it makes no sense.
The tree is brown.

That is way too easy.
Now, what is this trick.
Click to expand...

Well, if I were to give away the answer that quickly, we really couldn't call ourselves philosophers, now could we? BTW, white birch trees are not brown, but white. Banana trees are green. But that would assume that it's a white birch or a banana tree.

"Exponentially" is a clue, and makes perfect sense once we proceed further into the dialectic of this seemingly impossible question.

Learned
 
If the proverbial tree falls in a forest
Click to expand...
OK, note: this is a proverbial tree (this is important to the answer).
Code: 
 and [B]no one[/B], ... is there to hear it
No-one implies no human observer; but of course, there are plenty of observers in a forest (including all the other proverbial trees; that's why this is a trick question, and why this part is in code).
what color is the tree???
Click to expand...
The proverbial colour, of course. What else could it be? Not sure where logarithms come into it.
 
But sadly I had "answered my own question."

I now am confused. How it is possible to have a "nothing colored tree."
How bizare!!!! :D
Existabrent, you truely are existabrent.
Existabrent, you truely are reverse bullshit at a reverse level.
Existabrent, if you refuse to reverse your set of think you will become retarted to your only method of thinking.
Y(^(^*&

Ok. Now I will assume humility and ask how it is possible to have a nothing colored tree, whatsoever :(

Go on, debate this further please.
I refuse to give my answer which I already know about how the tree is nothing colored.
That is nonsense!

:)
 
"A tree knows not what color it may be,

For after all it is only just a tree!"

Only a Tree?

Plants are more aware then you have observed.
Do you know the story behind the Bruburn Rose Plant?
Many horticulturists have tried to produce a rose plant without thorns.
All of them failed, except Mr. Bruburn (I am sure I misspelled his name, but that not the point). Mr. Bruburn is famous...because he was the first to succeed. That's why that breed of rose bush is named after him!!!!
His secret....(in his own words!!!)-He talked to the plants...sending them love and telling them no one would harm them...after some generations the thorns went away.
Ant that is a true story whether you like it or not...Ha ha ha !!!:D

Also...it has been proven that plants respond to music!
Play classical music and they grow as much as twice the normal rate.
Play death metal and they wither and die!
Also...true facts....whether or not you like it.:cool:
 
existabrent said:
But sadly I had "answered my own question."

I now am confused. How it is possible to have a "nothing colored tree."
How bizare!!!! :D


Ok. Now I will assume humility and ask how it is possible to have a nothing colored tree, whatsoever :(

Go on, debate this further please.
I refuse to give my answer which I already know about how the tree is nothing colored.
That is nonsense!

:)
Click to expand...

Yet, if the tree is colored nothing, how could it be a tree? There truly is an answer. You must "unlearn what you have learned" about the usual question of existence and consider what color the tree must be given the parameters of the instant question . . .
 
Learned Hand said:
If the proverbial tree falls in a forest and no one, of course, is there to hear it, what color is the tree??? Anyone? :bugeye:
Click to expand...

So we can assume no deaf people were there?
And that by 'to hear it' you do not mean 'with the intention of hearing it'?
Also it would be fairly easy to ascertain that a tree recently fell, and so a person walking in the woods later would be able to identify its color.

Also all the trees I know of are made up of not one color, so I find the wording strange for yet another reason.

I believe the wording allows a range of answers.
 
sowhatifit'sdark said:
So we can assume no deaf people were there?
And that by 'to hear it' you do not mean 'with the intention of hearing it'?
Also it would be fairly easy to ascertain that a tree recently fell, and so a person walking in the woods later would be able to identify its color.

Also all the trees I know of are made up of not one color, so I find the wording strange for yet another reason.

I believe the wording allows a range of answers.
Click to expand...

You can assume the lack of deaf people, as "no one is around to hear it," whether deaf or not. But you are on the right track.
 
I figured it out in my head; it was easy when I did it.

I think CT has it right.


And Learned, it is impossible for there to exist a nothing colored tree.
lol.

I honestly don't feel like this.

When you guys have answwered it "correctly" I will come check it out.
Until then

Cheerios.
 
Well, if the proverbial tree fell in the forest and there was nobody to witness it, it begs the question, did it really fall down? It so then follows, that if the tree's stumble is open to doubt then so is its colour and indeed the actual existence of the tree in the first place...not to mention the whole forest itself, I mean, can anyone prove that the forest existed if there was no one to witness it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top