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.

[ST88]

Sound is interpretation. A tree falling makes no sound even with observers present. The observer's faculties create the sound from the stimulus. You could be in a room that is perfectly silent to you but which could be filled with vibrations audible to a dog or blue whale. Even in humans, the sound of a voice differs between listeners. Damage to the brain or the ear can greatly alter the perception of sound but that sound is still the sound that the listener hears.

Unfortunately for this particular definition -- human awareness of sound -- the partial objectivity of the sound is still in evidence. Technically speaking, a dog whistle makes a sound even though it may be at a frequency humans can't perceive. We can verify this by the dog's behavior. What, exactly, should we call this phenomenon?

[Curious]

Unfortunately for this particular definition -- human awareness of sound -- the partial objectivity of the sound is still in evidence. Technically speaking, a dog whistle makes a sound even though it may be at a frequency humans can't perceive. We can verify this by the dog's behavior. What, exactly, should we call this phenomenon?

But again you are relying on the dog's perception of sound. If you were to talk to me on the telephone the medium of transmission would alter but you would still experience the sound of my voice. This transmission would, for the majority of it's journey, travel at the speed of light and could not be regarded as sound in any way. Your mobile phone would reinterpret the radio wave and broadcast it to you by vibrating the air, which you would then interpret as sound. So you experience the sound of my voice but it is plain that the medium of transmission is not the same as the interpretation of it.
Another way to look at is to imagine you were to travel at speed towards the initial source of the perceived sound. The faster you travel, the greater the doppler effect. The sound alters but the vibration remains unchanged by your movement (actually, there would be a slight peturbation but this is beside the point for this example). So the sound is perceptual.

[ST88]

If you were to talk to me on the telephone the medium of transmission would alter but you would still experience the sound of my voice. This transmission would, for the majority of it's journey, travel at the speed of light and could not be regarded as sound in any way. Your mobile phone would reinterpret the radio wave and broadcast it to you by vibrating the air, which you would then interpret as sound. So you experience the sound of my voice but it is plain that the medium of transmission is not the same as the interpretation of it.

Just because the sound is carried by a different medium doesn't mean that it's not a sound when it reaches the other end of the line. At one point, I believe you're correct -- the electronic and electromagnetic impulses that carry the sound information are not themselves sounds. But is this because they can't be heard by our ears or because they are traveling in a different medium (i.e., sounds are uniquely carried by sound waves)? What I am hearing is not your voice, but a deconstructed representation of your voice. The medium for the noise in this case is not important because it isn't the sound waves that are traveling, only their electronic representation.

Noise canceling technology takes advantage of the wave idea by attempting to block sounds coming in by counteracting them with sound waves in phase opposition, canceling out the "noise" and making everything quiet. In order for the system to work as it should, there must be sound. And even though you don't hear anything (theoretically), sounds are being produced with the express purpose of creating no sound.

Another way to look at is to imagine you were to travel at speed towards the initial source of the perceived sound. The faster you travel, the greater the doppler effect. The sound alters but the vibration remains unchanged by your movement (actually, there would be a slight peturbation but this is beside the point for this example). So the sound is perceptual.

What you are describing is an illusion. The speed at which the sound moves does not change, but because your speed does change, you experience the sound wave as if it were at a different frequency. This actually proves that the sound is independent of the observer because your relation to it is what alters your perception of it.

[Curious]

Just because the sound is carried by a different medium doesn't mean that it's not a sound when it reaches the other end of the line. At one point, I believe you're correct -- the electronic and electromagnetic impulses that carry the sound information are not themselves sounds. But is this because they can't be heard by our ears or because they are traveling in a different medium (i.e., sounds are uniquely carried by sound waves)? What I am hearing is not your voice, but a deconstructed representation of your voice. The medium for the noise in this case is not important because it isn't the sound waves that are traveling, only their electronic representation.

What about implants where the hearer of the sound receives them as electrical signals that stimulate the nerves to produce sound? There is absolutely no direct contact between the organ of hearing and the sound wave in this case but the sound is still heard. The sound is an interpretation of the signal.

Noise canceling technology takes advantage of the wave idea by attempting to block sounds coming in by counteracting them with sound waves in phase opposition, canceling out the "noise" and making everything quiet. In order for the system to work as it should, there must be sound. And even though you don't hear anything (theoretically), sounds are being produced with the express purpose of creating no sound.

There need not be sound for such a system to work. The only thing required is the correct counter vibration to the original vibration.

Another way to look at is to imagine you were to travel at speed towards the initial source of the perceived sound. The faster you travel, the greater the doppler effect. The sound alters but the vibration remains unchanged by your movement (actually, there would be a slight peturbation but this is beside the point for this example). So the sound is perceptual.

What you are describing is an illusion. The speed at which the sound moves does not change, but because your speed does change, you experience the sound wave as if it were at a different frequency. This actually proves that the sound is independent of the observer because your relation to it is what alters your perception of it.

It actually proves quite the opposite. It shows that the sound is dependent upon and subjective to the observer. It does show that the vibration we interpret as sound is objective though.

[QED]

I'm quite sure Nirvana-Eld had not anticipated such a spirited discussion about this aspect of his OP I think we ought to agree that a sound is distinct from a noise in that it is the registration of a noise. What or who does the registering is entirely incidental. Microphones pick up sound whether or not a recording is ever played back to a listener. In such cases the recording device is the listener. As for the tree, therefore, if its falling creates a noise and this noise disturbs anything then, as far as I am concerned, it has made a sound.

[Curious]

I think we ought to agree that a sound is distinct from a noise in that it is the registration of a noise. What or who does the registering is entirely incidental. Microphones pick up sound whether or not a recording is ever played back to a listener. In such cases the recording device is the listener. As for the tree, therefore, if its falling creates a noise and this noise disturbs anything then, as far as I am concerned, it has made a sound.

This seems like an inability to distinguish between the meat and it's flavour.
When you see a steak do you honestly believe that the steak has a flavour independent to the organs of interpretation? You bite the steak and the interaction between steak and tongue sends messages to the brain which are processed and sensed as taste. If no such organs existed do you believe the steak would have any flavour whatsoever?
An earthworm senses vibration but not as we experience sound. It will respond to the stimulus but it has no organ that is comparable with the ear or with the human brain. We sense similar vibration most often as sound but sometimes as feeling or vision. As humans, we just so happen to have an organ very sensitive to the vibration of air within a particular range. This range is not arbitrary but is set by the rule of expediency. We need to distinguish between the cry of our child and the roar of a saber-tooth. We need to be able to hunt and to hide and to communicate with one another through speech. Our audible range is dependent upon environmental and evolutionary necessity. Our perception need not be truly representative of the environment but only useably representative. We hear a sound but this is only a useable representation of the vibration we receive. Microphones pick up this vibration and not the actual sound. If the hardware reproduces the vibration then this vibration can be interpreted as sound by us but there is still no sound other than the perception of it.

[QED]

Oh the sweet pleasures of pedantry

This seems like an inability to distinguish between the meat and it's flavour.

Not at all, once again I would say that not only humans or other living creature can taste things...



Mass Spectrometers have a sense of taste and can distinguish between the flavour of Coffee and that of Meat. We generally accept rather loose conventions when applying these sorts of words. If I talked about Bats "seeing" with their Sonar would you really be justified in insisting instead that they are hearing a visual image?

When you see a steak do you honestly believe that the steak has a flavour independent to the organs of interpretation? You bite the steak and the interaction between steak and tongue sends messages to the brain which are processed and sensed as taste. If no such organs existed do you believe the steak would have any flavour whatsoever?

Yes, the ratio of organic compounds exists independently and can be identified by any suitable measuring device. Uh-oh, we're getting into the realms of qualia now... better keep my head down before Harvey has me explaining how machines might be able to share our conscious experiences!

Microphones pick up this vibration and not the actual sound. If the hardware reproduces the vibration then this vibration can be interpreted as sound by us but there is still no sound other than the perception of it.

So you didn't like my suggestion that sound is just a noise that has been registered? I rather liked that

[Curious]

Oh the sweet pleasures of pedantry

This seems like an inability to distinguish between the meat and it's flavour.

Not at all, once again I would say that not only humans or other living creature can taste things...



Mass Spectrometers have a sense of taste and can distinguish between the flavour of Coffee and that of Meat. We generally accept rather loose conventions when applying these sorts of words.

Decibel meters can measure sound as well can't they? Oh no, they actually measure vibration in the air of certain frequency. You might as well say that a calculator tastes the operands or sees the operators and finally feels the answer. I can distinguish between left and right but I'm damned if I can tell the difference between the taste of the two. Taste is a sense which means it is a sensation. To taste something you must experience the sensation of taste and not simply distinguish one chemical composition from the other.

If I talked about Bats "seeing" with their Sonar would you really be justified in insisting instead that they are hearing a visual image?

No, but I could easily claim they are seeing an audible image.

[Curious]

Oh the sweet pleasures of pedantry

Are you seriously stating here that you don't understand the difference between the object, the interaction and the perception of the interaction? I realise it must be difficult for an atheist to accept the idea that most of what he or she experiences is in fact subjective. It would be a great shame if an atheist was forced to concede that the subjective evidence of the theist might have some credibility in light of this.

[QED]

It would be a great shame if an atheist was forced to concede that the subjective evidence of the theist might have some credibility in light of this.

Actually, I see it entirely the other way round.

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!