If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound?

which brings up whether sound is perceived noise, or actual physical waves. unlike light, sound has waves but no mass.
 
George Berkeley argues, as he is an idealist, that sound is a sensation and therefore does not exist outside of the mind. For all of you arguing that sound is a vibrative or undulatory motion in the air, is it not absurd that sound in this sense is explained through the idea of motion, an idea that the human faculty of hearing is, naturally, not concerned with? I'll quote some of Berkeley's philosophical dialogue...

Philonous: Tell me Hylas, to which of the senses, think you, the idea of motion belongs: to the hearing?

Hylas: No certainly, but to the sight and touch.

Philonous: It should follow then, that according to you, real sounds may possibly be seen or felt, but never heard...But can you think it no more than a philosophical paradox, to say that real sounds are never heard, and that the idea of them is obtained by some other sense.

 
i would say hearing is a sensation within the brain, however sound can be measured without actually hearing it-- it is simply a radiation of energy through a surrounding medium. we've all felt a truck or a train rumble by, or at a concert felt deep bass pulse through our body -- you can feel sound.

and as for the absurdity of the ears experiancing motion, it may well be for Philonous and Hylas a bit wierd. but for us today, when we know the workings of the ear, and how the drum and the bones within our inner ear all work towards capturing and sensing that motion, it is no longer absurd at all.
 
This question is purely ridiculous in my opinion. Sound waves are just vibrations in the air. The tree falling in the woods is movement is stopped by hitting the ground. On impact, since energy must be conserved, there will be vibrations in the ground (this is a new type of movement). These vibrations will also continue into the air, most commonly known as sound. The thought that there is no sound if there is no one there to hear it just seems very self-centered. Everything has energy, whether its potential or kinetic and all energy must be conserved.

Now if you want to think a more deeply, such as if you did not hear a sound how do you know if the tree or any of the trees are still standing? Look up a popular example of superposition (The principle of superposition claims that while we do not know what

the state of any object is, it is actually in all possible states

simultaneously, as long as we don't look to check.), "Schrodinger's Cat" or also known as the "Quantum Cat."
 
I don't agree with Berkeley, but he's worth a read because of his stance on idealism. Most of us are monists (those who believe in either material or immaterial substance), but I am, as you appear to be, a materialist, as opposed to an idealist like Berkeley. Still, it's an interesting position.
 
oh, i already do, don't worry... i just meant more that if the tree falling stuff is more easily understood by looking into something i already don't agree with, how's that going to help me?
 
Sounds something worth while. It’s defiantly difficult to break free of the molds of this word and experience to accept something like idealism. However when you're in the right mind set, idealism can make a lot of sense. I remember seeing a really sweet picture comparison between a close up of a few brain cells and a computer model of the evolution of the universe, and they were strikingly similar... maybe Berkeley isn't barking mad after all.

while I would still like to retain that for practical purposes that the things around us are real enough to consider them material, treat them as such, it is highly possible that the whole of our existence could simply be part of some greater cognition, or as Douglas Adams pointed out to me just some far more intelligent species' computer simulation.

This is about as far as I’d want to go, I don't want to cop-out and say that the whole of existence is in MY head, someone else maybe, that still leaves me with individuality.

PM me with some readings for him, I’ll take you up on checking him out.

brain cell universe for those interseted: (uploads to NS wasnt refreshing, sorry you have to click the link.)

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pc/neuron-galaxy.jpg

 
well I am pretty sure you didnt give this thread the right title, because you could jjust ask a lumberjack the question asked. The real question if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it does it make a sound. The answer to this question is yes, because in the question it says nobody is around to hear it, so there is something to be heard
 
i hate this, always have. why wouldn't it? nothing changes, there's just no one there to hear it. but the sound is still there because unless the tree fell onto a giant tempurpedic, it's going to crash into the ground and send resonating waves through air molecules that we perceive as sound. but the sound's still there fuck i hate this question.
 
This is right. Sound is merely an invention of our brains to interpret the vibrations of molecules in the air. If nobody is around, the vibration of the molecules is never converted into sound.
 
the animals could hear it!

but seriously, i think that it would still make a sound. the waves or vibrations or whatever would still be travelling through the air, so if there were a person to walk in the path of those waves they would hear the sound of a tree falling in the woods.
 
The vibration of molecules IS sound. A microphone wold pick them up and record them. Microphones don't have brains to interpret the waves, but the sound still exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top