Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

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.

I disagree. An event occurs at a point in time which can be distinguished because the state of the world changed, whether it be significant or insignificant. Something was different before and after the event. The falling of the tree might have been observed by a bird and could have caused the death of an insect.
Around the world, every minute, every second, changes are happening where I am not aware of but that doesn' t change the fact that they are happening.

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.

of course it falls. It is just like someone dyeing all alone no one there to witness when death occurs, the person still dies though.

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.

Basically, the planets in our solar system did not exist in the days of the prehistoric man?

Exactly! The existence of entities and their natures are entirely dependent on our perceptions. We might even go so far as to say that the mind is the center of the universe - everything revolves around it. The Sun might as well be revolving around the earth, because that is what we experience and experience is all we have as reality - what does truth mean if we will never be able to experience it? This is the reason for the utter subjectivity of truth - what we experience is truely reality, whether we like it or not. It's tantamount to telling someone who is color blind that there are actually colors, but a color blind person never experiences color - to him the world is without color - that is his reality - his truth.

So, if i couldnt see a guy outside my house he's not there?

ah... I see what you are missing... the hierarchy chart!!!! understand how he thinks first and then see what he did wrong...

Yes, because he's in a seperate reality than you are.

It still sounds more like perception of reality then reality itself you are talking about philo

reality? I mean do u even try to understand how he gets that conclusion in the first place?

I'm talking about the original part and yes Peter

Perception of reality IS reality - no difference between reality and a perception of it.

lol I am talking to philosophicus.. I should have use the quote button... this is my second time I made a mistake....

np peter

well reality IMO would be one and the same for everyone

perception of reality is different for everyone

so IMO there is a big difference.

you are right... but I think philosophicus knows that.. that's why he said "he's in a seperate reality than you are" clearly clarify that perception of reality is different for everyone..... But then.. one can only know the "truth" if one has sufficient experience...

something I made today--> "When one is exploring the "truth" one must also go through the road of confusion"

you know I'm still debating the original and not berkely

And multiple registrations are not allowed.

okay... so somthing happens and all the witneases are dying coz of that issue... it has occured or not?

imo it is falling, because even i no one sees it, the result of it can be observed, and i'm gettting lost... but it was clear to me earlier cry

Philosophy is like poetry, it seems that many philosophers muddy their own waters to appear deep, as is the case here.

The thought of a world not existing because you are not there to witness it is not a great philosophical discovery, it is what every young child thinks when they are at a stage in their life where they are too inexperienced and self centered to entertain the thought that they are not the centre of the universe.

If a tree fall in the forest, and there is no person there to hear it does it make a sound? YES.

Does the tree fall when nobody observes? (a lamer version of the question already answered) YES

Personal perception or existential views of one's own reality matter not to the events that occur throughout linear time. To philosophise on human behaviour or as to the meaning of one's own life is a noble pursuit. To question the laws of nature through philosophical discussion is both immature, without meaning, and often narcissistic.

is this a variant of "If a tree falls in the forest, and theres noone there to hear it.. does it make a sound?" ?? lol.. things still occur regardless if we are there to witness them... otherwise statistics would be useless no?

KharmaDog says, "To question the laws of nature through philosophical discussion is both immature, without meaning, and often narcissistic."

This is not only idiotic, but also very contradictive as this is a philosophy forum in which you parttake! Philosophy is the highest form of questioning and investigation by empoloying the rational - philosophy is all about questioning not only the laws of nature, but also their meaning - philosophy is about contemplating the meaning of everything and anything!? What else is the purpose of philosophy. In your opinion then, philosophy fails to be meaningfull at all, since you say that we cannot question nature. You clearly don't know what philosophy is.

SaTsuJin - from what oracle did you get the truth and authority to know for a fact that things still occur if we witness them or not? If one observes something, one can only say that the agent is experiencing something in a certain condition, but to say that an event occured in absence of an observer is meaningless and unsubstantiated. Statistics is merely a theory at best, with no real significance or effect on the world, and that exactly proofs my point. Do you even know what statistics is - what the meaning of it is - and what effect it has on the world? Statistics is so random in consistency that it ultimately has no substance - chance is at the very foundations of everything.

no no, I mean the kind of statistics (I suppose you'd call them that) where they state "A person is raped in the USA every 4 seconds" or "Someone in the country dies about every 10 seconds". I'm imagining thats not witnessable by everyone, but hard copy data must come from somewhere to procure such findings (obituaries, or filed police reports etc)

if someone witness it they can tell the tale, if no one witness it there are no one to say when it happend. The only thing they can say though is that it has happend.

SaTsuJin - Data: the manifestation of the latter is the combined input by various sources, these sources comprise individuals accounting for their experiences, thus we have multiple subjective realities involved in the process. Now, in the case of an individual reading a statistic, this person is isolated from the source of the statistic and its meaning can be interpreted in any possible way, where this happens with every other person who reads the statistic. Thus the statistic becomes scattered via the manifold experiences of it and by the interpretations applied. The bottom line is that a statistic is not a reality on its own, but a scattered reality of multiplicity in character - subjective in essence.

finti - even if someone witness something, the event only occured for that someone, telling the tale afterwards are empty words for an outsider. And how does a witness knows for sure that he/she is not imaginning the event? The madman doesn't know he's mad. Nobody can know for sure or be an absolute authority on whether an event they witness actually occured, or if it was merely imagined. How do we know we are not insane, living in our own imaginations, because if we are, we would not be aware of it!

Ooo...profoundididitititity! But does anyone care if the tree falls in the first place? AND AND AND AND...who pushed the tree? AND why did he/she/it push it? AND what is a tree? AND what is a nobody unless they are a somebody who was?

Now I know why you are running around in circles inside a box......What is a tree? it's whatever you want it to be - every somebody is a nobody, because there's no god.

Silly boy! It's not me running around the box! It's cartoon figure! I'm much taller than that! You think some people are only a cm tall!??!?!?!

Also, please don't blaspheme - I'm the son of god.

Philo quit calling ppl their statements idiotic it's not very nice

so to a blind deaf and dumb dude few things really exist

Ou Be Low hoo - the son of God was also a lunatic and got crucified for that - do you really want to risk such a connotation? I was once the son of god, but then god wanted to get rid of me because I could see through all his half-wit schemes and I actually proved his non-existence. So god dissappeared and consequently me too.

Fire - by idiotic I mean smart in a dumb way - some statements are just plain half-baked - this is a philosophy forum, we can't afford that kind of thinking if we're after the truth.

finti - Yes, that's why we feel sorry for the sensory disabled. But there are other things that exist for them, and also different versions of the things that exist for normal people.

Well everyone is entitled to post their opinions and ideas Philo, even if you think they are half-baked or anything. Noone here has the right to call ppl their statements idiotic, let alone the right to tell ppl what kind of thinking "we" can and can not afford

Fire, you say: "Well everyone is entitled to post their opinions and ideas ..." In other words I am entitled to give my opinions as well - by the way, it's in fact my (an) opinion to deem other opinions as idiotic, as well as to say what we can and can not afford - that's opinion as well - and you say everyone is entitled to it - so I'm entitled to any opinion I have.

We are entitled to our opinion as long as it isn' t a personal attack.

Courtesy
Don't attack others. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully... without insult and personal attack.
Forum Guidelines & Rules

guess the def dumb and blind must stick to play the pinball then

I know the truth

everything has to remain courtious, nobody here except you calls ppl their opinions and posts idiotic. So as long as you post every civilized then you are allowed to post whatever you want.

Yes, a tree can still fall if no one is around. Just becuase someone didn't see it happen doesn't mean it DIDN'T happen.

Awareness is definately and interesting issue, but I mean.. you believe that places (events in time even) are sortof like a video game? You know.. like when the player's point (or range) of view leaves an area, the area that he has exited becomes 'erased' or 'unloaded' thus leaving no possibility for actions to occur within that space. Also, if animals (or bugs even ) witness this tree fall, but are unable to share that information and experience, does that make it invalid?

Storm and Fire: What happened to freedom of speach?

BackFire: No one has cosmic authority to say that a tree really fell. Only if there was a god, would it have been relevant to say that an event occured, and even then only god would have the authority to say so, but now there is no god, so there is no absolute truth. If you say you saw a tree fell, who are you, for instance, to be believed, moreover, can you believe yourself without doubring your sanity and judgement...you may even be imaginning it.

SaTsuJin: an event is only valid for the agent who experiences it, and even for him/her the event can be doubted.

It doesn't mean you can insult people!

what's that?

Freedom of speach means exactly what it says: freedom - freedom means freedom unconditionally. Just look at political campaigns, the politicians insult each other constantly.

It is only for the benefit of yourself to follow KMC' s rules.

Half of all the people in this forum are idiots!

You' re already guilty of 1 violation, I suggest you don' t force it up to 2.

Sorry, I'll take back my words: Half of all the people in this forum are not idiots.

Well we're I come from, Belgium, Freedom of speech has rules and regulations. It is not allowed to call people idiots and so forth.
Maybe politicians in south africa insult eachother every day, in Belgium it is not done.

And wether you like it or not on KMC it is not allowed to insult people

Well....mmmm....it seems like the people here in a philosophy forum of all places, are actually not philosophers at all, but a closed minded, sensitive skinned police squad??? I'm sorry, but when I feel like insulting someone, I will - and feel free to insult me too - I beleive in freedom - unconditionally!

you can be philosophic without having to insult people. I don't see what being polite and courtious, and assuming other do be like that aswell, has to do with being close minded.

The Rules are there for everyone, even for you, if you do not learn to respect our rules I don't think you'll be a member of this forum for very long.

It seems that when some people's beliefs are questioned they resort to name calling. That is a sure sign of insecurity of both themselves and their belief structure. Some also should stick to philosphy because their rhetoric is rather week.

Philosphy is the investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. Logical reasoning dictates that soundwaves still carry in our atmosphere even though you may not be there to hear them. Common Sense dictates that you are not the center of the universe and things actually do happen when you are not around.

You do the subject of philosophy no favours by trying to wrap it up in psuedo-intellectaul mumbo jumbo.

Notice I stated my opinion rationally and without calling someone an idiot?

Why do you think I wrap it up into pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo? That's not what I'm doing - I'm merely philosophising in a rational way and analyzing concepts in the way which does it justice.

Where do you think 'logical' come from - you say that logical rather than empirical methods should be used to reason - logical reasoning depends on input from the senses(empirical).

One of the principles of modern physics is that nothing exists until it is observed.
It's like the 'schroninger's cat' problem.

oh dont worry we will

It doesn' t exist to an individual or a group of individuals while it does exist.

finti - thank you!

eleveninches - Yes! At last someone sees the light! Congratiolations.

storm - you are still off the track.

This actually call for some great The Who stuff

Ever since I was a young boy
I've played the silver ball
From Soho down to Brighton
I must have played them all
But I ain't seen nothing like him
In any amusement hall
That deaf, dumb and blind kid
Sure plays a mean pinball -The Who`s Pinball Wizard

Finti - they also made a movie about that aolbum, called Tommy, it is pretty good. The Who ROCKS.

Philo - Half the population of the world are idiots. No need to tell them they wouldn't agree ever anyway.

nah it sucks, music rocks but the movie was crap

no it was fun shut up

does finti fall when no one observes it

it was with elton john and all

Philo - your theory denies that anything happened on this planet before humans, whereas we have the evidence of many natural occurences/disasters before any human was developed or there to see.

You basically deny the existance of any events before human - we already have the evidence that things did happen before us and shall continue to happen after us.

On another note, I would also ask you to stop with the name calling. Merci.

yeah in his funny glasses period nah the film was crap

but but but the poncho

philo-- you said that one does not exist if one is not observe...hmmm... ok...so you are basicly saying that something can't exist if there is no prove... and so you are saying that dinasaurs does not exist??? nobody that was alive had ever told of their existence... so basicly dinasaur does not exist... and nobody ever was alive to see the earth created and destroyed... so we can make a conclusion that earth can't be destroyed or created?? how can someone come out with that "idiotic" equation??

By the way... familiarity plays an important part in beeing so called "smart" or so called "idiots".... as familiarity is linked to experience.... I can't be wrong in this part... isn't it?

If you play RPG game you would understand this better...

another proverb I made today---> "one should not be intimidated but gain interest in it"

so yes, once we agree with u, we are somehow on the track?

Ahhh...this is refreshing! So many people who populate these kind of forums simply just want to hear mundane platitudes and recieve literary hugs...it's all sooooooooooooooooo boring! In the 'real' world, people don't tolerate people who say ridiculous things, so why should they be tolerated in cyber space?!?!

On this topic, I stand united with Philosophicus...at least his posts - while boardering on the pompous - incite some actual thinking, rather than some thread that contains people posting nothing more than the next number in the sequence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now, that is something to be angry about.

hmm strange cause I find his post rather boring and full of swada and with no concept to the real world we live in. Reagardless of how well he formulate himself a tree that falls unwitnessed falls regardless of how philisophical one try to twist it.

well why dont you insult each other trough PMs then, that must be a refreshing aproach for the likes of you

It's part of the beauty of insight that remarks by philospohers can transcend threads, topics, spaces, times and all that is in-between...

Your post brings Plato to mind once again...

'Ignorance, the root and stem of every evil.'

Although, I feel it is pertinent to observe that 'evil' should be substituted for 'stupidity'. If you fail to understand something, try harder...don't just take a break on Ignorance Island...knowledge is for everyone and it costs nothing!

My post had nothing to do with simple 'flaming' - that is as mindless as the counting games - merely that thoughts and opinions are subject to judgements based on a perceived 'quality' or a lack there of...

oh I just love wanna be philosophers

to be a of an opposite view has never been ignorance, to be arrogant though is a form of ignorance. Ignorance in the sense that one miss or openly overlook the fact that one might not be so smart as one try to portray.

Either you are being very, very, very, very ironic...or you just posted a big load of nonsense-infused crapola...

Me thinks the latter...

well since it seems to be the trend in this thread I dont see any reason why I should break that trend

'Ignorance', my dear Watson...What did we say about 'ignorance'!?!?!?!

Pay attention! Now, back to class...

that ignorance comes in many shapes, one`s disguised as arrogance

Is it just me or do these pseudo philosophers just love to babble bullshit?

no it aint just you

Yes, we do...yes, we do.

A quote to ponder:

"Unlimited power in the hands of limited people always leads to cruelty."

My good friend, Solzhenitsyn.

friend in as you actually meet occasionally?

And the answer is most probably no.

Is there some way that you couldn'T be so damn annoying, we all know that its very unlikely that one of us got the complete truth on his site, everyone got his theory, so maybe we could just try to keep this on some kind of fair level, regardless of how stupid we think the posts of the other person is?
Really Philosophy is not aboot being right or wrong its aboot cultivating once mind and practicing thinking. I, as probably most of you, got many theories on different subjects, though I would never claim that my theory is the truth, cause quite frankly I don'T know, so I wouldn't call anyone an idiot for another view. Maybe we could keep it decent.

Well said.

Well I know that Berkeley came to the conclusion a god exists, I'd like to hear what Philo says aboot that though, maybe he got another theory.

I know what berkeley argues, since he was a bishop he actually invented his theory around god, niot the other way around.

And well I don'T belive most Philosophers used a god, maybe if you say that all supernatural things are godlike things, than I might be able to agree but just as saying philosophers argue there is a god, Bergson who doesn'T comes to my mind.

I just meant to say that many Philosophers try to argue a God's existence. Thats all. I was just trying to tie it in with this topics discussion. Thank you though, I actually didn't know Berkeley was a Bishop. That sort of puts a twist on the reasoning.

well many tries to discuss my existence

Thanks my dear friend Ou Be Low hoo! You have real common sense in a philosophical way!

Ou Be Low hoo, finti is a real idiot, hey? I think he calls us 'wanna be philosophers' 'cause he's incapable and probably jealous. What you say is brilliant and makes more than sense.

For those who are interested in my ideas on the existence/non-existence of a god, I will create a new thread in which I will argue that point. Be on the look out for the new thread - it will be entitled: "The question of God."

you are right unlike you I am incabable of trying to be something I aint.
For someone claiming to be a proffesor of philosophy at University of Riebeecks I feel sorry for those student who have to put up with such a weak ass tutor, then again I highly doubt that a you are what you claim.

I am what I am - not trying to be something else. I'm an honest person, trying hard to analyze intellectual problems in a sincere and passionate way. Now please shut up. I won't respond to your senseless replies any longer.

well the sensless things in here is actually the crap thing you post that you probably copy pasted from some other sites

I'M NO PLAGIARIST!!! I ONLY WRITE MY OWN ORIGINAL PHILOSOPHY! I EVEN HAVE A BOOK IN WHICH SOME OF THESE POSTS ARE PUBLISHED IN, ENTITLED: "THOUGHTS OF A THINKER" JUST TYPE MY NAME INTO GOOGLE AND YOU'LL GET A LOT OF LINKS TO OTHER ARTICLES I'VE WRITTEN AND ALSO WHERE YOU CAN FIND MY BOOK- YOU CAN ORDER THE BOOK FROIM LULU.COM PUBLISHERS - LOOK FOR THE NAME WERNER REYNEKE - MY BIRTH NAME.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL ME A PLAGIARIST, SHEERLY OUT OF JEALOUSY OR ANGER.

oh so you dont like that huh, maybe you should think of that when you refer to others as idiots

and you have no right to call him an idiot

All I'm saying is that my posts are honestly my own work - I swear on my life for that!

And I do have a right to call him an idiot - he's a f*cking fly...irritating me with his utter idiocy!

Finti, Philo could we please quit this yerking around and get back ON TOPIC.

OK, my apologies.

I pleaded 5 months for this Philosophy Forum. Do not degenerate it!

I'm leaving myself wide-open here, but...

Question: If an idiot speaks do people respect it and listen?

Answer: Only on the internet.

Usual thanks of gratitude may be addressed to the regular address...

Thanks Ou Be Low hoo.

My appologies once again to Storm, and thank you for having brought this forum to life.

Ok. Does anyone want to refute any of my points? Because i have typed a lot of arguments up here and not one has been even touched. I'll consider the argument won in my favor then.

ok Bijan You say in one of your posts that there is order and harmony in the universe - who told you this? It's an assumption at best.

The tree both exist and does not exist, and when it falls it both falls and falls not. Every instance of Being collapses into a reality and its opposite.

Philosophicus says:








It is hard to rationally accept the philosophies of one who so irrationally argues and belittles others in such a childish manner. As a Proffessor I would expect a certain degree of decorum that you fail to exhibit on a regular basis.

Philosophicus says:



This both makes sense and doesn't make sense, no waite, it doesn't make sense at all. You may now insult me at your leisure Philo.

guys A keep it civil, B keep it ON TOPIC

Well, I guess my words were chosen badly. What I meant is that humans are able to communicate with one another. For example, I can point to a chair, and we both see the chair. If each person creates their own universe, what are the chances that everyone in the world has created the chair. Although of course, your philosophy could be the explanation for why some peopel see bigfoot and some peopel don't.

^ This is not a very philosophical approach to discussion.

Bijan, I posted this, directed at you earlier: "ok Bijan You say in one of your posts that there is order and harmony in the universe - who told you this? It's an assumption at best."

it could of been piked up and placed there ....

We are talking about events in general here - even if someone picked up the tree and moved it - that's also an event. The question is NOT HOWsomething happened, BUT IF it happened.

Matter is organised into stars, galaxies, planets, life, and many other organised things. An unorganised, discord filled universe would be arranged into clouds, formulyde, and more clouds of gravitationally attracted clouds. You look at the universe, it seems very orderly, with the gravity being perfect for life and for decent sized stars, the hydrogen to helium conversion rate producing just enough energy to allow stars to form heavy metals... I think it's to do with Chaos Theory. Regardless, if you look at the other googleplexes (10 to the power of 10 to the power of a hundred, a very large number) of possibilities, ours seems the most likely candidate for order.

If it has some effect like reducing the amount of oxygen in the air, or being found 10000000 years in the future as a piece of coal, does that count?

What I meant is that humans are able to communicate with one another. For example, I can point to a chair, and we both see the chair. If each person creates their own universe, what are the chances that everyone in the world has created the chair.

I didn't mean harmony as in peace. I meant that humans can communicate and effectively live together in such a way, that we both see the same objects, and hear the same sounds.

wether anyones there or not the tree will still fall, law of nature, if its gonna happen its gonna happen reguardless.

correct me if im wrong because ill post anything to get philos rebuttle because there enjoyful..

this is just a statement i dont believe in this but its just as plausible as the next

in my reality there is a god he is a giant taco named jim and he created the universe out of beans and therefore we are beans..
before you laugh and just discredit this imagine i have schizo so in my world that is true as i percieve it..

if you dont agree with this post its how you take it but to a schizo person or just "crazy" person it is there reality which is not your own it exists to them please philo massacre this im serious i love reading your replies

what mine?

no this is to philo he believes there is only one truth when there is infinite and to each his own so no not to you

I was quite surprised to come back and find this here, should have been here right from the start. but this is where alot of arguments could start because every one has their own views and therefore defend them to the death. good thing tho. entises ppl to talk more deeply on a more intelectual level. sorry for being blonde and confused. so many new members.

im only 15... i love philosophy
philosophy is also like debate which i love as well so this forum is perfect i think im gonna like it here
oh and i dont believe in stereotypes...
i believe in those who want to be that stereo type however

and I'm lost already! thats a record. I'm a bit slow to day you'll have to forgive me but when I'm more awake I'm sure we could have a jaw grinding convo.

This question can be answered on two levels.

Level 1: yes.

Level 2:...yes.

victor you just said yes i want mind bending hard material to read hear man otherwise you sound like a jackass so please next time asnwer the question and give a statement why

bijan here is my opinion JUST AN OPINION

there is multiple realities our own and the main reality
its like imagine to circles that intersect thats just a theory i thought of it in like .5 seconds i just felt like writing it

yes, the tree does exist and does fall...even if there is no human observation.

we are not the dictators of reality. If a comet or asteroid slams into the earth destroying all mankind....the universe as it is will still exist...we are an effect..not a cause...

just my opinion.....

i think he doesnt mean in a literal sense just as a the connected human conciousness
because if humanity cant percieve it it no longer is connected to our realm of being..
a tree will remain a tree but if we arent there for it it no longer exists
end of discussion
NEW TOPIC

The wording of the question seems a bit weird. Does a tree fall when nobody is there to observes it? Of course. A tree falling is an action independent of anybodies consciousness. One may never know it happend but that is irrelevant.

If you were to plant a tree, left and came back years later. Does that mean it didnt grow because you didnt observe its growth? Does one to observe it or is it an action that is independent of anybody else?

Id say the former and not the latter.

read my post above

the tree will grow there are multiple counciousness there is a main which all are connected soppose the tree's is a circle and humanities another and all is connected to all if we didnt see it grow and we came back to it say 50 years later it would have grown on its own counciousness (i wouldnt know what a trees would be like) and our circle would have came across it on its rotation as the same time as ours.. i dont know i just came up with this at the top of my head

trees dont have conscioudness.

Actions take place, regardless of whether or not it is observed. Dont try to get too deep on this one.

lol ya your right on that one pat yourself on the back good dog!

i also said i thought of that in like 5 seconds so lay off me man

I suggest you dont insult me, its not befitting.

im to tired to keep posting see you tomorrow

OK. There are infinite realities. No single person has the authority to say his reality is the absolute truth. An 'outside reality' such as a tree collapsing, only becomes real when someone observes it, and even then it remains a subjective reality. No one can proof that things happen when we are not around. Things unaware collapse into their own reality, as well as things that are observed. Subjectivity is at the heart of all intelligent cognition and self-consciousnes. No one can lay a claim to be the one objective authority and anyone who does not agree with this is simply misguided in a very hilarious way.