Does the tree fall when nobody observes?

The answer is no: Whenever an event is said to have occurred it is said because someone observed it or someone is aware of the actuality of the event. How can one say that something happened when no one observed it and nothing recorded it? We only speak of events in terms of the events having been recorded by some sort of observation. Their can be no event without an observing subject. Thus, nothing happens while none is observing – only that which is observed or that of which we are aware of is really happening. Without the conscious human being the world would not have existed – existence is only existent because the mind perceives. Without the mind, who or what would have known existence? It is really only the mind that senses this something it likes to call existence…

You are a genius! Also your solution to the chicken and egg problem - you make it look so easy to analyze seemingly simple problems, as well as complex philosophy.

IM not sure what any of this means cry 😕

I think trees do fall when noones around, there is no proof that they fell, but they will be on the floor.
This seems to be a weird interpretation of the chinese proverb about whether the tree makes a noise.

Philo if noone is there to see wether or not the tree falls then how can you be certain it doesn't fall?

That's an idiotic question, Fire - the point is that nor does the tree fall, neither does it stand straight, which is implicit in my argument. Falling, or not falling - neither of the two possible states are active, in fact, existentially the tree doesn't even exist when no one is there. Events in their presence or absence are registered by an observer.

Originally posted by Philosophicus
The answer is no: Whenever an event is said to have occurred it is said because someone observed it or someone is aware of the actuality of the event. How can one say that something happened when no one observed it and nothing recorded it? We only speak of events in terms of the events having been recorded by some sort of observation. Their can be no event without an observing subject. Thus, nothing happens while none is observing – only that which is observed or that of which we are aware of is really happening. Without the conscious human being the world would not have existed – existence is only existent because the mind perceives. Without the mind, who or what would have known existence? It is really only the mind that senses this something it likes to call existence…

Clearly you guys are missing the point here - Observation is an exclusively human extention of self-consciousnes - animals can't observe in terms of the existential meaning of events. Every instance of HUMAN observation is a creation of a cosmological actuality, roaming the locale of the intellectual dimension, devoid of extra-mental being.

The answer is no: Whenever an event is said to have occurred it is said because someone observed it or someone is aware of the actuality of the event.

dude if you don't even listen to our views on it decently. Then why did you make the thread?

If you are saying we don't get it then why don't you try and explain what you mean better. Cause to me it seems like you are stating the world, or whatever, would not exist if there were no human beings

this is stupid.
dude, you dont have all the answers, despite whatever you've been telling yourself.
If you go into a forest, and you see a tree down, what does one think? "OH, it fell."
Just because no one was around, does not mean it didnt happen.

If nobody is there to observe it, then not only does the tree not fall, but it doesnt exist. Although you couldnt disprove its existance, it is assumed that it doesnt exist until it is observed, and then as soon as it is observed, it has existed in the past.

But if you are saying that the tree does fall, so you are implying that there is proof for the existance of the tree, so then there is evidence for the tree to fall.

Also, the most likely time that a huge tree would fall is when it is cut down by humans, so it would be observed

I still don't go for all that if not observed not existing crap

eleveninches, you are driving your rebuttal based on assumptions of definition and incoherent premises, so I can't argue on your reply.

Philosophicus, what you are saying is what berkeley says, and it is at least in my opinion wrong.

if something isnt observed (in any way at all), it doesnt exist.
Even if it is only observed in the mind, it existis in the mind.

However, the falling tree situation has defined as that there IS a tree falling, so somebody must have observed it.

Its just a theory. Actually it was an idea how god copuld be exlanied.
I think things exist indepentently from observation, so I'd say the tree falls if its observed or not. Also what do you define as observed? Can opnly humans do that? What aboot animals? Those that can'T see? Inanimate objects?

I suppose you are refering to George Berkeley's famous dictum: "Esse est percipi" ("To be is to be perceived"😉 - that is the only part of Berkeley's thought sharing common ground with my own, but with everything else he said, I disagree with. Here's a few ideas by Berkeley with which I strongly disagree:

"Our perceptions of objects are all perfectly accurate and objective.
Any knowledge of the empirical world is to be obtained only through direct perception.
Error comes about through thinking about what we perceive.
Knowledge of the empirical world of people and things and actions around us may be purified and perfected merely by stripping away all thought (and with it language) from our pure perceptions.
From this it follows that:

The ideal form of scientific knowledge is to be obtained by pursuing pure de-intellectualized perceptions.
If we would pursue these, we would be able to obtain the deepest insights into the natural world and the world of human thought and action which is available to man.
The goal of all science, therefore, is to de-intellectualize or de-conceptualize, and thereby purify, our perceptions"

Berkeley was a dreamer.

I agree with you, so he also wrote it to counter Science and to promote an idea of god, since he was a bishop and all.

Originally posted by eleveninches
if something isnt observed (in any way at all), it doesnt exist.