If a tree falls in a forest...

[Nirvana-Eld]

This topic relates to the age old question: If a tree falls in a forest and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound? Now so as to better explain myself, let me expose the conflict as I see it.

Position 1) No, because for anything to exist it must be percieved, or observed.

Position 2) Yes, because everything exists objectively to our own, or anyone's perception.

Also simply for the sake of not starting a new thread, Here is something relatively related.

From World Philosophy on the subject of Knowledge and Reality

We tend to assume that the world, as we experience it, is set out before us like a building site or archaeological remains. Objects exist in relation to one another in ways that we can measure. I assume that space 'exists', because I percieve the relationship between parts of these remains. I assume time 'exists', since there would once have been a thriving city in this, now silent place.

But do space and time actually exist? Are they out there to be discovered, or are they simply the way our mind handles experience? And if the latter is the case, then what does that say about those things we intend to infer from experience, like the existence of selves or God? Are these also in the mind, rather than 'out there' in the objective world?

The question I want to draw from this passage is the one presented in it. "Does space and time actually exist? Are they out there to be discovered, or are they simply the way our mind handles experience?"

You decide.

[Curious]

The question is really all about perception. I really think we ought to take this debate over to the topic titled Is it possible to build a sapient machine ? so I'm putting my reply in there. Hope you'll have time to take a look!

I read your reply but the point I am trying to make here is far more pertinent to this thread. Whether or not a falling tree actually makes a sound or whether the sound is just the perception of the vibration is really the crux of the topic question.
It's like asking whether an almond actually smells like an almond or whether the smell is just a usable representation of the chemical interaction between the almond and the olfactory receptors. It just strikes me as odd that the majority of pleasant smells (baking bread, lamb hotpot) are harmless or edible while those we find repellent tend to be harmful ( rotting flesh, bad eggs, toxic smoke). If you follow the evolutionary theory then it makes a great deal of sense why those organisms that find particular smells offensive have a definite edge in terms of survival. It is also noteworthy that those scavengers immune to the harmful effects of ingesting bacteria find the odour of rotting flesh absolutely irresistible. I seriously doubt whether my own representation of the odour of a rotting carcass bears the slightest similarity to that of the komodo dragon's.
So we come to the question of whether or not the actual vibration of the air produces a real sound or whether sound is just a mental construction which allows us to distinguish between the different types of vibration. I find absolutely no evidence to support the idea that the vibration itself possesses any objective property of sound. In the absence of such evidence I really think we have to assume that the tree falling in the forest does not make a sound. If you have evidence to disprove this I will gladly alter my opinion.

[QED]

I read your reply but the point I am trying to make here is far more pertinent to this thread. Whether or not a falling tree actually makes a sound or whether the sound is just the perception of the vibration is really the crux of the topic question...

... In the absence of such evidence I really think we have to assume that the tree falling in the forest does not make a sound. If you have evidence to disprove this I will gladly alter my opinion.

I think you need to understand where I'm coming from in that other topic first

[Curious]

I think you need to understand where I'm coming from in that other topic first

I think I understand where you are coming from, I am just a little surprised at where you are going.

[lifeisboring]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Well, logically and obviously, yeah.

[Curious]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Well, logically and obviously, yeah.

Except of course that it doesn't.

[ST88]

It's like asking whether an almond actually smells like an almond or whether the smell is just a usable representation of the chemical interaction between the almond and the olfactory receptors. It just strikes me as odd that the majority of pleasant smells (baking bread, lamb hotpot) are harmless or edible while those we find repellent tend to be harmful ( rotting flesh, bad eggs, toxic smoke). If you follow the evolutionary theory then it makes a great deal of sense why those organisms that find particular smells offensive have a definite edge in terms of survival. It is also noteworthy that those scavengers immune to the harmful effects of ingesting bacteria find the odour of rotting flesh absolutely irresistible... I find absolutely no evidence to support the idea that the vibration itself possesses any objective property of sound. In the absence of such evidence I really think we have to assume that the tree falling in the forest does not make a sound. If you have evidence to disprove this I will gladly alter my opinion.

That's a very interesting argument, but you would have to say that both the apple and the rotting carcass, despite attracting different members, both produce smells, which is what we're talking about here: not the quality of the sense, but the sense itself.

There is a good bit of evidence to suggest that very low-frequency waves that are inaudible nevertheless have an effect on the human brain. Inaudible sound waves produce a biological effect. Other creatures can identify sounds beyond the human range, and people can hear with different ranges also. Are you prepared to give a frequency list of which sound waves actually produce sounds, and which do not? We should be able to classify all such waves as producing sounds, even if we can't hear them; and if we do that, then we can extrapolate to still further unheard sounds separated from us not by frequency, but by time and incidence.

The tree, for example, produces not a single tone, but a vast array of frequencies which we interpret as WHUMP!, or something. Some of these frequencies will be audible and others will not be. Now, to use your rotting carcass analogy, individual creatures will experience this event differently, but make no mistake, they will all register it as happening.

[Nirvana-Eld]

Sorry I have been MIA for a while. School's been keepin me busy.

ST88 I am sorry but you are missing my point. "Inaudible sound waves produce a biological effect." Thus these inaudible sounds are still percieved correct? My question is does the sound exist if it is not percieved. Not whether or not it is pervieved. There is a big difference. If there is a sound and it is not percieved does it exist none the less? Is a perciever a pre-requesit of existence? These are the questions I should have asked, sorry I thought they were obvious. I was searching for a more rational train of thought rather than empirical. My bad.