Philosophy

[DannyDamage]

Yes it does. The animals and the earth hear it though.

But seriously; I'm so glad you started a philosophical thread. You're so smart and deep and I now feel a little less stupid than I did before I turned on my laptop.

I get the impression you got your 'deep question' from a Christmas cracker or something. Awesome

 

[MoganFreeman]

"If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no-one there to hear it, and it hits a mime, does anyone care?"

Fixed.

 

[DolAaghr]

Rules=/=Logic

Hey, here's some another home-made equation:

(Philosophy / Logic) - (rules x 2)^Rational Thinking = Tree + Fall * Sound = Don't give a f***

 

[Axolotl]

/facepalm
Go read Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe, or the wikipedia article on Schrödinger's Cat. Since the prevailing theory of quantum mechanics is probabalistic (and therefore may be generalized by logic), if we see something happen a certain way every time we observe it, we can make an excellent guess as to what's going to happen if we observe it again, and since this doesn't really involve any collapsing probabalistic waveforms (as in Schrödinger's Cat) because we KNOW what happens whenever it is observed, we can say with some certainty that it does indeed make a sound.
EDIT: Or at least a vibration. The difference is only semantics, anyway...

But the best we can make is an educated guess of what will happen, there is no way of knowing with complete certainty, I was referencing quantum mechanics as a precedent for matter behaving differently when not observed.

 

[ioxles]

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

...

you're both kidding, right? critical reasoning is central to philosophy... the word itself roughly translates to "the pursuit of wisdom" from Latin...

philosophy is not about "metaphysical ramblings" but the quest for knowledge and meaning in our existence... trying to say that science is more important is really narrow minded in my view... philosophy must be informed by science in order to be relevant; it shouldn't be viewed as opposed to the scientific process...

Totally agreed. It took me a while to fully realize some people were equating philosophy with religion.

 

[Snowalker]

Ok, lemme beat the person who came up with that riddle over the head, one moment please.

Now that that is done. First off, if the forest is not some werid ass forest where no habitat is stable, animals will hear it, so yes it has a sound. Second, whoever stated it does because of vibartion, is correct. Third, logic always prevails over ramblings,otherwise known as Philosophy, but when you get down to it, I suppose since there is no factual evidense, no it does not make a logical "sound," but logically it does. Try to figure that one out.

 

[Metonym]

One big "function" of philosophy is to act as framework to the sciences (all of em) and as such it´s very rigid and built on rational reasoning and logic. And contrary to popular belief its fruits are very useful and can actually be applied in the field.

Rational reasoning is understood to be different compared to the normal reasoning process, eg everday reasoning, motives, and decision making, as these are usually not carried out with a logical framework, in the rigid sense(!.

Normal non rigid "reasoning" is instead seen as belonging to the sphere of psychological reasoning and it´s usually very filled with human "flaws" and/or systematical misstakes as well as personal belief systems and derived cultural adaptions. even advanced practioners of math and logic are subject to these flaws in everyday reasoning and life.

 

[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.