Philosophical question.. please explain?

Question:What is that question, something to do with 'if a tree falls in an empty forest.. does it make a sound?'.

I think I thought about it for about 30 seconds.. maybe I'm just not a philosophical person!

I understand what is meant, but I think it is a sorry excuse for philosophy, does it really provoke that much thought?

Cheers :)

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: What is that question, something to do with 'if a tree falls in an empty forest.. does it make a sound?'.

I think I thought about it for about 30 seconds.. maybe I'm just not a philosophical person!

I understand what is meant, but I think it is a sorry excuse for philosophy, does it really provoke that much thought?

Cheers :)

I agree, it's a silly point.
I think it's suppose to mean yes it makes a noise but how do you know that if no one's there? Is sound only sound when we hear it?

The answer is simple, yes and no,
No it makes no sound because ears are required to hear sound, but
Yes is does make a sound, because sound is the name we give the vibrations in the air, these will still be there weather an ear hears them or not.
Quite straight forward, hope it helps.

I think that is nor so much a philosophical question as it relates to the laws of nature. They are asking if a tree crashes to the ground in a deserted forest, with absolutely no one to hear it, does it makes a sound? The answer is that is makes sound waves, of course, but no one to detect them and pick them up, that's all. It's similar to watching a film with the sound off, isn't it ... you know there is hustle and bustle but no on able to detect it apart from visual stimulisation. And you are right, it doesn't provoke that much thought ...... so don't lose any sleep over it!

The question is meant to get you to think philosophically as opposed to logically. When you think logically the answer for at least this question is strait forward. Well, is strait forward because of what we now understand about science. We know that as long as there is a medium sound can exist. So, unless the tree falls in outer space then there will be sound. Of course this assumes that there is also a medium to which to hear it. There could be sound but what if ears did not exist?!! Here is where we start getting more philosophical. Because he have the ability to hear sound we take it for granted. Duh, of course if the tree falls is going to make sound and is going to be a loud one. But if no one had ears then is it that the tree makes no sound or that sound does not exist. From the point of view of a person that can't hear and have never heard sound does not exist. If all creatures could not hear then sound would not exist. Well, at least not to them. You could still feel it if the vibrations where strong enough but we would probably not call it sound. It then begs to question what else is there that we do not detect yet exist? If you add a bit of evolutionary science then you would know that we develop senses because of the need to survive. We have eyes, ears taste buds, etc etc in order to help us to survive. If there is a fire we can yell FIRE FIRE real loud and some other person will hear it and maybe help us out. However, if we don't need a particular trait we won't develop it. For example certain birds can see colors in a higher spectrum of light. This is how some birds might be able to distinguish between a male and female bird. Remember some birds look the same for some sexes yet, because they can see in a different spectrum they can distinguish because they may see different colors. Well, thats the theory at least. Anyways, that is what the question is all about. Not so much about the obvious but at the posibilities.

I always thought that was idiotic too cause since birds sing they must have ears and since birds live in the forest they must have heard the tree fall.

if it does not provoke that much thought then why are you just not thinking about it?

There's one http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/34517
and another onehttp://www.answerbag.com/q_view/25568
and this one:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkel...
and http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/What-Is-E...

Yes. from different angles, it does.
1- it challenges the scientific process by putting forth a question which it cannot answer. It shows the hole in scientific thinking.
2 - it is a nutshell sentence on the topic of perception: does perception have to be proved or not? Does stuff happen when we don't see it?
TO ME, it is also an argument for God. We can't see Him and we cannot definitely prove he's there, but he is. *list of apologetics arguments*

Compare with Koans.

For example:
"the sound of one hand clapping"
or
"Who hears?"

http://www.chinapage.com/zen/koan1.html
http://www.zenproject.faithweb.com/zen_t...

Who is the observer?
Without an observer does anything happen?
Have fun

You wrote: "...it is a sorry excuse for philosophy, does it really provoke that much thought? "

You are not alone in thinking this. The world has been hoodwinked into the belief that it means little, if anything. It means a great deal.

If you believe a sound is made, you believe in the Primacy of Existence.
If you believe no sound is made, you believe in the Primacy of Consciousness. And if that is what you believe, you can also believe that you yourself do not exist; or that only you exists; or that phenomena are not the "real reality"; or that such questions as this one have no meaning.

But you have been taught that. Are you to blame?
No, not if you now learn differently, if you learn that ideas have consequences, that existence exists independent of your consciousness, and that reality can be known--despite Plato's doubts to the contrary, and Kant's outright objections to the contrary.

The general answer is yes, it SHOULD make a sound because of the air vibrations the falling tree causes. Maybe the point the question is trying to get at is if no-one heard it make a sound, how can you be SURE it did make a sound?