Philosophy

[J-Man]

This is a pointless philosophical question.

But to avoid being a troll, I'll throw my lot in.
Yeah, it makes a noise, just no-one around to hear it.

 

[Malkavian]

Rational thinking > Philosophy

Rational thinking = philosophy.

 

[Railu]

But what is sound if no one hears it? Maybe it only causes vibrations, but they don't become "sound" until they are heard.

No, it's not, sound is exactly that, vibrations in the air. It doesn't matter if anyone hears it or not.

edit: Actually, vibrations in anything. Solids, liquids, gas, etc.

Dictionary definition: http://www.bartleby.com/61/65/S0576500.html

A similar argument came up in computer engineering today. Basically things are "true" when the masses of the trusted sources (i.e. scientists in these days) believe something. But they could all be wrong. I mean, why does gravity work? Because people believe it does. Maybe we're just all horribly wrong, and there's some other reason. But we're right because more people believe it to be true than not.

As much as I hate to disagree, last time I checked, scientists weren't sure how gravity worked, so your example is moot.

That's why they are called theories. People who accept theories as facts are in for a surprise.

You have a hypothesis and then you add in a probability of error. The purpose of science is an ongoing study where you examine new evidence that comes into light, then re-evaluate your theory.

As far as gravity goes, everyone knows it exists. It's not a crazy notion that you can debate away with unwieldy rhetoric about perception. Objects with mass attract each other. We know this. What we don't know is the number of factors involved, only the ones we've examined to date.

To say that we don't know therefore, maybe it's an illusion, is about as asinine as me arguing with a traffic cop that I wasn't speeding, I was simply moving through life like dust in the wind. Even if you have a point, you're still going to get a ticket. That my friend, is called reality.

Or perhaps gravity works in such an odd and complex way that it only seems like mass has to do with it. We accept it as true because we accept it as true, though it may not be reality.

It's only reality because we as a people define it as such. You're still going to get a ticket because everyone else thinks you should get a ticket.

That's my point. Mass is involved, new evidence only adds to WHY and HOW it is involved. The flow of electrons (electricity) is also a large factor. We understand this through experiments such as inducting a current into coiled copper. If you create a wide range of experiments and then group in the common factors you arrive at the most probable explanation.

But the point of science is never to accept that there is not more to it. Anomolies are the driving force behind new studies because if you ignore those you are as guilty as people who explain it away with magic.

Again, that's why it's a theory. It's the most probable explanation. Not the answer.

 

[Railu]

That's why they are called theories. People who accept theories as facts are in for a surprise.

You have a hypothesis and then you add in a probability of error. The purpose of science is an ongoing study where you examine new evidence that comes into light, then re-evaluate your theory.

As far as gravity goes, everyone knows it exists. It's not a crazy notion that you can debate away with unwieldy rhetoric about perception. Objects with mass attract each other. We know this. What we don't know is the number of factors involved, only the ones we've examined to date.

To say that we don't know therefore, maybe it's an illusion, is about as asinine as me arguing with a traffic cop that I wasn't speeding, I was simply moving through life like dust in the wind. Even if you have a point, you're still going to get a ticket. That my friend, is called reality.

I completely agree, why are you quoting me about this though

lol, I'm not speaking directly to you. I'm just adding on to the argument in the general forum. Maybe I should have clarified that.

 

[fraserfj]

i dont really see a point in this. you cant answer it and be right or wrong. come to think of it you cant really answer it at all. i mean if you wanted a debate you should have just posted 'is god real?' and left it at that. please dont start a religious debate though because we dont need a page full of 'he works in mysterious ways.'

 

[Knight Templar]

Not much direction here but whatever lets roll with it.

Rational thinking > Philosophy

Rational thinking = philosophy.

Thats how I see it, hard proof is helpful but philosophy for the most part doesn't deal in tangable subjects.

 

[Spaggiari]

Rational thinking > Philosophy

Why can't rational thinking be part of philosophy?
But your right. I'll take hard evidence over metaphysical ramblings any day of the week.
Nicola Tesla > Friedrich Nietzsche


People are the only ones who can improve themselves. They can get all the self-help dvds in the world, and it'll do bugger all. The key to becoming a better person is self-discipline, and the drive to make something more of yourself.

Just a thought.

Philosophy is the foundation of modern science and was the first field to formalize logic.

I don't know why you're putting them at odds.

Also the scientific method fails to provide any answers for this question so there goes the whole "science > philosophy" argument.

 

[Lord George]

If I can't see something then it no longer exists in my physical universe so there's not even a tree in the first place to fall in a non-existent forest and none of you exist

 

[Spaggiari]

But what is sound if no one hears it? Maybe it only causes vibrations, but they don't become "sound" until they are heard.

No, it's not, sound is exactly that, vibrations in the air. It doesn't matter if anyone hears it or not.

edit: Actually, vibrations in anything. Solids, liquids, gas, etc.

Dictionary definition: http://www.bartleby.com/61/65/S0576500.html

A similar argument came up in computer engineering today. Basically things are "true" when the masses of the trusted sources (i.e. scientists in these days) believe something. But they could all be wrong. I mean, why does gravity work? Because people believe it does. Maybe we're just all horribly wrong, and there's some other reason. But we're right because more people believe it to be true than not.

As much as I hate to disagree, last time I checked, scientists weren't sure how gravity worked, so your example is moot.

most of those definitions mention "capable of being heard" in them which makes them inapplicable.

Definition 1b is viable however. I'll have to think of a valid refutation later.

 

[GRoXERs]

what is the sound of a falling tree?

what exactly is reason?

people (i.e. YOU) often get fooled that there is a reason behind everything, and that logic dominates the universe. logic was conceived by the human mind. what we see is the world we perceive as logic, but we don't know. we can't know.

we see things through the eyes of humans. we cannot tell how a bird sees the world or how possible aliens see the universe. we can't tell how a sound of a falling tree sounds for a wildcat or how a dog feels after a dog whistle has been used. we can only see that through reactions that we interpret.

the world is subjective through every being's perception. a true objective reality only exists in abstract thought. if one were to acquire it for our world, then that would truly be a power worthy of a god.

Seriously? Logic does dominate the universe. Everything in this universe happens, has happened, and will happen because of rules. It's the ones we don't know about yet that confuse the hell out of us (the human race as a whole) and trick some people (i.e. YOU) into thinking that the universe doesn't operate on logic.

Beyond that, we can't KNOW how other beings are perceiving the universe, but what we can do is make educated guesses. fMRIs can tell us how similar our brain activity is to that of other beings when exposed to certain stimuli, and if they match ours pretty closely we can guess that they see it about like us. An organism's reactions are how that organism interacts with the rest of the world, so if it reacts in a certain way consistently, that implies that it is perceiving it in pretty much the same way as me. The interpretation really doesn't matter. End of story.


Now, on-topic: Yes. To beat a dead horse, the falling tree would create vibrations which may or may not be picked up by some organism's auditory sensory equipment. Doesn't matter.

 

[iain62a]

Rational thinking > Philosophy

Why can't rational thinking be part of philosophy?
But your right. I'll take hard evidence over metaphysical ramblings any day of the week.
Nicola Tesla > Friedrich Nietzsche


People are the only ones who can improve themselves. They can get all the self-help dvds in the world, and it'll do bugger all. The key to becoming a better person is self-discipline, and the drive to make something more of yourself.

Just a thought.

Philosophy is the foundation of modern science and was the first field to formalize logic.

I don't know why you're putting them at odds.

Also the scientific method fails to provide any answers for this question so there goes the whole "science > philosophy" argument.

I wasn't putting philosophy and science at odds, I was just saying that humanity will always achieve more with Science than with intelligent discourse.

I'm not quite sure which question you're referring to either, and how this question invalidates my belief that science will ultimately achieve more than philosophy.

 

[Malkavian]

Not much direction here but whatever lets roll with it.

Rational thinking > Philosophy

Rational thinking = philosophy.

Thats how I see it, hard proof is helpful but philosophy for the most part doesn't deal in tangable subjects.

All "good" philosophy utilizes rational thinking. In a sense, it's all it is. No matter how meta-sensical or how practical the subject, philosophy adresses it through rational thinking.
I'm not sure what kind of response that is to what you wrote. I'm tired.

 

[Malkavian]

I'm not quite sure which question you're referring to either, and how this question invalidates my belief that science will ultimately achieve more than philosophy.

That depends on what you view as accomplishments, really. Philosophy has a hand in a great many things. For an example, it forms and discusses ethics, which has great ramifiactions og legal systems, ways of research, political decissions, medical advances, and so on. And that's just mentioning one subjeect under philosophy.

 

[mooncalf]

Do we assume that the use of Tree and Forest and Sound descriptors are not especially human conventions which imply our observance of the event in any case?

If not, then if Tree and Forest and Sound arise from human recognition and observation, then the human element would not occur if a human is not present?

If you see a fallen tree in a forest, that fell a long time ago, do you believe it made a sound when it fell?

 

[BubbleGumSnareDrum]

It depends on you look at it. From a physical and scientific standpoint, yes, it does, as soundwaves are created.

But do things really exist when beings are not around to perceive them? Should only the perception of humans be included in that question? Many animals, especially mammals and reptiles, have very acute and complex perceptive abilities in ways similar to ours.

If no one is around to hear the tree fall, what if it's like there's nothing there at all? Maybe something will only truly be there when someone observes and appreciates it?

 

[theklng]

Seriously? Logic does dominate the universe. Everything in this universe happens, has happened, and will happen because of rules. It's the ones we don't know about yet that confuse the hell out of us (the human race as a whole) and trick some people (i.e. YOU) into thinking that the universe doesn't operate on logic.

you CAN'T know that the universe operates on logic. you can only make "educated guesses", which aren't really "educated" since there's so much we don't know and much more we won't ever be able to understand. take for instance the duality of light. how does that make sense logically? how does quantum entanglement make sense logically?

assuming that everything is logic is the greatest flaw in human perception, and it is why quantum science changed the way we perceive things. think of what will happen if we discover another, or ten or ten thousand scientific revolutions like quantum science. you laugh at people who believe there's more than logic to the universe, but i'm gonna go out on a limp here and say that in a 1000 years time, people will laugh at you for thinking that logic is the only way of thinking.

 

[iain62a]

I'm not quite sure which question you're referring to either, and how this question invalidates my belief that science will ultimately achieve more than philosophy.

That depends on what you view as accomplishments, really. Philosophy has a hand in a great many things. For an example, it forms and discusses ethics, which has great ramifiactions og legal systems, ways of research, political decissions, medical advances, and so on. And that's just mentioning one subjeect under philosophy.

I guess they're two seperate subjects, both having their uses in different situations.

 

[Cucumber]

You might consider looking at the question from another perspective:

Usually, humans consider something to be non-existing until you or someone else have seen it and can confirm it. It's just like religion.

Did someone ever hear the tree fall? No.
But did the sound exist? Apparently, yes?

Try and apply this logic to another case:

Have someone seen God before? No.
But does god then exist? Apparently, yes?

It does not work kinda right...

We wouldn't say god existed, but the sound from the tree did. Why do we think like this? It might be because of we're used to the idea of a falling tree producing a sound, because we've experienced it before. God doesn't, because we've never seen him before?

To draw a little conclusion from this one, I'd say that;

For something to exist, there must be someone else to confirm it's existence. If no one is there to acknowledge that 'something', it simply wouldn't exist in human eyes.

How do we know about... for example... that the big bang ever happened? We actually don't know, but we think it as possible because of we acknowledge that theory.

 

[theklng]

You might consider looking at the question from another perspective:

Usually, humans consider something to be non-existing until you or someone else have seen it and can confirm it. It's just like religion.

Did someone ever hear the tree fall? No.
But did the sound exist? Apparently, yes?

Try and apply this logic to another case:

Have someone seen God before? No.
But does god then exist? Apparently, yes?

It does not work kinda right...

We wouldn't say god existed, but the sound from the tree did. Why do we think like this? It might be because of we're used to the idea of a falling tree producing a sound, because we've experienced it before. God doesn't, because we've never seen him before?

To draw a little conclusion from this one, I'd say that;

For something to exist, there must be someone else to confirm it's existence. If no one is there to acknowledge that 'something', it simply wouldn't exist in human eyes.

How do we know about... for example... that the big bang ever happened? We actually don't know, but we think it as possible because of we acknowledge that theory.

i like the way you think. it's rare to find people who can see the abstractions and superimpose them instead of just being in steady denial.

 

[Seydaman]

what if it falls on a sound proof matt? or i catch it?