Philosophy

[Jack and Calumon]

About the tree, thing, I say trees can hear stuff, so... yeah. But I guess it won't make a sound thanks to my rule. "If something exists but no-one knows about it, how can it exist?"

 

[Chaz D]

Light is invisible, and yet we can see the effects of it, and that effect allows us to see. On the other hand, darkness doesn't actually exist - it is just the absence of light - and yet we can see it.

WooooOOOOOoooooooOOOoooOOO.

 

[edinflames]

Oh my god, can't you people get over the falling tree sound issue?

Then again perhaps it is slightly hopeful to assume, even on a site as intelligent as this, that most gamers are capable of engaging with philosophical concepts on anything deeper then a superficial level; after all, the vast majority of people aren't interested so why should you be?

----

How about this one:

What if a dog whistle is blown, and a human is there and a dog is there. Does the dog whistle make a sound?

Exactly. To humans, the sound wouldn't exist... but it certainly exists to the dog! Our ears can't pick up on the vibrations at the frequency, thus they will never reach our brain, and it will not interpret them as sound.

Logic fail.
Sound = vibration. The vibration exists, therefore sound exists. Gaseous particles we describe as 'the air' is not perceived by our eyes, the main register we experience of it is when wind carries chains of magnetised water particles from our skin (sweat) lowering body temperature. Should we therefore assume that on a windless day there is no air?

-----

About the tree, thing, I say trees can hear stuff, so... yeah. But I guess it won't make a sound thanks to my rule. "If something exists but no-one knows about it, how can it exist?"

Dark matter is not perceivable yet probably exists, as the LHC will prove or disprove. If it doesn't exist then physicists will have to rethink our understanding of mass and gravity all over again.

90% (probably more, can't remember) of everything, of every solid mass, of every atom, is actually the vacuum between the proton/neutron nucleus and the electrons. Yet we can't see through or pass through everything. Sensory perception of all life is limited by the scale on which the life has to operate.

 

[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.

That logic is appalling.

For something to exist, someone has to observe it? So you're saying that if a person doesn't see or hear something happen, it never happened? I generally avoid saying things like this to people here, but that's just fucking stupid.

I mean, by that logic, one could reasonably conclude that the human species has discovered everything in the Universe and have discovered every species on the planet and know everything that is possible to know, because if they haven't seen it, it doesn't exist.

I'm sorry then, let me clarify:

For something to exist in human eyes, 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.

Do we know the end of the universe? Do we believe it exists?

This is how I look at this question, anyone feel free to question it, wouldn't mind knowing where I'm thinking wrong.

 

[Cpt. Red]

The most logical answer to this question(probably to most questions) is:
I don't know.
As simple as that.

 

[Kodlak]

It's one of the many mysteries of life, just best leave it at that.

 

[Ionami]

It produces sound waves, which in turn are sound. Whether a pair of ears are there to receive the waves or not has little or nothing to do with it. Modern science has busted this age old "question".

 

[GunnerGraye]

"If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no-one there to hear it, does it make a sound"

Depends on how loud the tree yells.

Seriously though, I do actually think it would make a sound.

 

[Easykill]

Debates must depend on logic to function, and there is no logic here. I prefer to hold this question as symbolic anyway.

 

[Jenny Creed]

Does a thing exist, in any meaningful sense of the word, if we're not aware of it; if it doesn't influence any part of our existence in any way? For practical purposes, the answer is no.

It's a short step from this question to what's the sound of one hand clapping. Let me pre-empt that one and clarify that in its traditional form, that riddle is very badly translated. The question isn't what if any sound is made if you clap with one hand, but what part of the sound of clapping hands is produced by one of the hands?

To which I submit that a hand clapping does not make any sound, indeed not even two hands clapping. The sound is generated by the air between the hands and their contact with each other, not any part of the physical substance of the hand itself.

 

[PSYCHOxDRAGON]

yes i'm well aware of zen koans, but maybe some deep thinking could help a lot of people, as in, deeper than "yes, sound is vibrations"

 

[Spaggiari]

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.

Capable of being heard and being heard are seperate concepts. Extremely high frequency sounds aren't "capable of being heard" even if people are standing nearby, but is it a sound? Of course.

Yeah... I've got nothing.

I was playing the devil's advocate.

/concede

 

[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.

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.

Whatever, first point's not important.

The question I was referring to is the one posted by the OP.

The one about the tree.

My point is that it's impossible to apply the scientific method here.

 

[Jenny Creed]

Are measurable scientific achievements more important than happiness? How do you generate validity in your life? Is knowledge more important than imagination? There's some philosophy for ya.

Zen koans aren't valuable to the rational mind. Answering them doesn't get you any points. Searching for answers is the point. It's a whole other ballgame than science, and you'll have to adapt a mindset not based on science for it to begin to have any meaning.

Just throwing it out there.

 

[Adam Jenson]

Does the tree make a sound?

Of course it does. It screams in pain and its brothers and sisters scream with it. They mourn for their sibling and for the life she held within her branches, her trunk, her roots. A microcosm within the macrocosm. She grew throughout the centuries only to fall within seconds.

There is a sound when a tree falls but no one listens. Just the Forest.

 

[Chiasm]

Nicola Tesla > Friedrich Nietzsche
The key to becoming a better person is self-discipline, and the drive to make something more of yourself.

Just a thought.

You do know, That Nietzsche spoke about making something more of yourself right? How every human should seek knowledge as their end goal in life?

All Tesla did was go on about science and a bunch of other useless drivel when compared to a man as great as Nietzsche himself. I doubt very much Tesla ever gave hope to the hopeless and courage to the down trodden.

P.S Science is a useless tool of distraction to the human mind. It corrupts the ultimate destiny of every person, Which should be to acquire knowledge and spread it to others helping them. Not sitting around with your 1's and 0's.

 

[Sgt Doom]

Nicola Tesla > Friedrich Nietzsche
The key to becoming a better person is self-discipline, and the drive to make something more of yourself.

Just a thought.

You do know, That Nietzsche spoke about making something more of yourself right? How every human should seek knowledge as their end goal in life?

All Tesla did was go on about science and a bunch of other useless drivel when compared to a man as great as Nietzsche himself. I doubt very much Tesla ever gave hope to the hopeless and courage to the down trodden.

P.S Science is a useless tool of distraction to the human mind. It corrupts the ultimate destiny of every person, Which should be to acquire knowledge and spread it to others helping them. Not sitting around with your 1's and 0's.

Bah, if philosophy can create microwaveable pizzas then i'll be more than happy to convert.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Nietsich also advocated mindless self-indulgent violence. Now, on a personal level I'm all for that, but I object to the idea of the majority of people indulging in it, as it would destroy society.

But Tesla did fuck-all.

 

[Seldon2639]

Are measurable scientific achievements more important than happiness? How do you generate validity in your life? Is knowledge more important than imagination? There's some philosophy for ya.

Zen koans aren't valuable to the rational mind. Answering them doesn't get you any points. Searching for answers is the point. It's a whole other ballgame than science, and you'll have to adapt a mindset not based on science for it to begin to have any meaning.

Just throwing it out there.

In fairness, that's one of the major differences between western and eastern philosophies. Neither is necessarily more correct (and it's mostly up to personal tastes). Science and rationalism aren't inherently connected. If one takes the arguments of the Voltaire (among others) to the logical conclusion, happiness born of ignorance isn't real happiness. But, I would argue that you're creating false dichotomies. Does science in and of itself remove happiness, or does it (at worst) change it? Do you have to prioritize knowledge or creativity, rather than holding them both as important parts of the same whole of intellect?

On the "how do you create validity", there's nothing generalizable. For me, it's a question of the influence I have on other people's lives. I don't believe in an afterlife, and thus hold that the most we can hope for is to have had an impact on the world (preferably a good one). Even if no one remembers my name, my mark on humanity will be made by how I change the people around me, and how they change the people around them, for better or worse.

All of that being said, Chiasm:

While we can go back and forth until the day we all die about whether an individual scientist was more or less useful to society than an individual philosopher, but it'd be an unending conflict. Does Newton beat Hume? How about Feynman versus Kierkegaard? But, if we're going to talk about whether philosophy or science is a more useful trade from a societal perspective, it's not cut and dry. First, we'd need to more accurately define the difference between a scientist (I'm including social scientists like economists and political scientists in this class) and philosopher. After we've done that, are we looking at the intent, or the result?

But, I'm a little confused. You say that science interferes with our "destinies" (which sounds a little more religious than Nietzsche would have approved of), but that our destinies are to disseminate knowledge. But what is the accumulation and dissemination of knowledge if not science?

 

[Jenny Creed]

Now, I wasn't particularly trying to contrast eastern and western thoughts with the first part of my post. Just opening up some generic questions. I don't really know how it went from that to the other thing about zen. It could probably have been more clear. Especially seeing as I barely understand what I wanted to say myself. . .