Position:Home>Philosophy> Where's the argument in the "if a tree falls in the woods" questio

OK!.
You actually can see the argument, you're just missing a detail!.

You say: "If a tree fell in the woods the same thing would happen, except farther away from me!. It's still a tree, it's still falling, and it will still make noise!."

Accepted!. Now, that last sentence:

"and it will still make noise!."

What does "noise" mean!?
Noise is sound!. Sound is that particular "thing" you hear - like "chop chop"!. or "Thump!"

But how do you hear it!? By the sound "waves" - does the wave say "chop chop" or "thump"!?

No!. It enters your ear and in our brain it is translated to that "thing" which we call sound: the chopping and thumping!.

So, if the waves never enter your hearing system, it would never be translated to that "chop" and "thump" - it would just be an energetic wave making its way through the air!.

It takes a hearing system to detect and translate the wave into a "sense" which is the chopping and thumping!.

So, in reality, the sounds do not exist unless the hearing system exists (of course the waves still exist)

So, without hearing, there is no sound!. Sound is translated by our brains/minds!.

But yes - when a tree falls, there is potential for sound - all it needs is a system to detect it and!.!.!. Chop Chop and Thump!Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

i think i've heard of that question before!.!. like in a science book or something lol
but if no one was around to hear the tree fall you can't see the tree fall so what makes you think the tree fell in the first place!? perhaps it simply appeared out of nowhere or cinderella's fairy godmother turned a pumpkin into a tree that might have fallen over from some unknown cause!.!.!.

lol

but seriously, does it even matter!? just plant a new tree!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

sound is relative to the observer!. the vibrations of the tree falling still exist, but without an observer to "hear" the sound, is there a sound!.!.!.!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

it says perception is realityWww@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

The argument is:

"Is a sound still a sound if no one has heard it!?"Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Ya just because no one saw or heard it doesn't mean it didn't happen!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

This question was initially designed to be one of those Zen type questions, such as the sound of one hand clapping!. The point was not to actually get an answer, the desired result was to actually stop thought, or something to that effect!.

I agree with you though, of course it makes a noise!. Noise is sound, sound is the vibrations of the molecules causing an effect that yes, if we are around, we will here!. But the molecular vibration that is sound is still there!.

Contrary to what other people said, I don't think it is noise only when our brains process it!. When you drop a rock into the pond, the ripples are made, they do not cease to be ripples just because you do not see them!. The same goes for sound!. Sound does not cease to be sound just because there is no organ to detect it!. Sensory organs do not create the stimuli, they are created to process, analyze, and provide us with the necessary information to understand the stimuli!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Maybe you will understand the question better if I apply some quantum mechanics!. What I am about to describe is a variation on something called "Shroedinger's Cat!."

You create a soundproof box with a cat in it, and two holes in it, and if light comes through one hole, a poisoned gas is released!. If light comes through two holes the gas stays contained and is not released!. If a computer's random number generator decides whether to send one light or two into the box, you have no way of knowing if the box has a
live cat or a dead cat inside, unless you open the box, or wait a few days for the smell!. You may say, "whatever it is, it is," but in quantum mechanics a result can be changed by the act of perceiving it, which means you can open the dead cat box and your opening it causes the opposite effect and a live cat jumps out, or visa versa!.

Meanwhile another question is this: is a sound wave a "noise" if no ear "interprets" it as a noise!. if you drop a rock in a pond, the ripples are "waves" but they aren't "noise!." Sound waves are only "noise" when heard, or at least when interpreted as noise!.

Does this help!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

That question is more of a stereotype of philosophical questions than an actual issue, although I have heard that it is a koan in buddhism, that is, a kind of illogical question or statement designed to enlighten the listener!. I don't know if that is true, so I'll stick to the Western version!.

The philosophy which comes closest to posing a question like this is Berkeley's idealism!. For Berkeley, all that was real are ideas and perceptions!. If there is no one around, not only is there no sound, there is no tree!. (He actually made this seem a little less absurd by claiming that the tree was still there and made a sound because God was around and it was an idea to God!.)

He had a very good point - we never directly experience material reality, instead, all we ever have access to is the inside of our own heads!. There is really no doubting this!. But what most people would say is that, while true, this is pointless, that it is obvious that a material world exists!.

But Berkeley's philosophy was actually a lot more scientific and empirical than the "common sense realism" most people have!. As soon as you say, "of course the tree is really there," you are moving beyond your own perceptions and talking about a metaphysical idea (the tree really being there) which you can never verify or falsify!. For the case of the tree, this seems pretty absurd!. But there have abeen a number of cases where even scientists have been tripped up by moving beyond observations and assuming that reality had to be a certain way!. Einstein was able to get past the assumptions of the physicists of his day, and the genius of his works lay in showing that space and time and the laws of physics were very different from what everyone had assumed!.

It reminds me of a joke that goes something like this:

A scientist and his wife are on a train going past a bunch of sheep in the Scottish countryside!. She looks out the window and says "Well, it looks like the farmer has just shaved the sheep!." The scientist turns to take a look and says, "Actually it looks like the farmer has shaved one half of each sheep!."

Ok, maybe not the funniest joke, but the point is that while it seems obvious that the farmer shaved each sheep entirely, instead of one side of each sheep, all of whom happened to be standing so that their shaven sides faced the train, we should remember that it is still an assumption we are making, and that all we have access to is our own perceptions!.

While it seems obvious that things happen which we are not aware of, the history of science has shown us time and again that obvious assumptions can turn out to be wrong!. The point isn't so much to doubt that an external world with tree exists, but to keep in mind that whenever we want to talk about this world, we are going beyond empirical evidence!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---