Classic Debate: If a tree falls in the woods...

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You don't get a monopoly on declaring correct answers!

As I said above, by the logic that says 'I don't know', you may as well also say 'I don't know if I heard it' even if you are next to the darn thing.

It is a simple extension of philosophical scepticism and I thoroughly reject the logic behind an "I don't know" answer.

If a person is going to tangle with scepticism, Descartes is all you need, after which you move on from the nursery.

By any reasonable standard, the answer is yes. Deny that and you may as well deny anything, and all action is pointless.

Let me ask you three questions then:

How was the universe created?

How have you observed its creation?

And if you can answer the above questions with an absolute fact or value then who the **** are you?!

Originally posted by Janus Marius
So the question, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one's around to hear it, does it still make a sound?" is best answered: I don't know. I assume that it will make a sound, just like it does when perceived. But I cannot know for certain. < That is the correct answer. It is teaching hubris- that we as human beings cannot know anything absolutely, that we can only lump perceptions together and make inferences and call it knowledge.

Like I said, if you're going to be that anal about it, then everything we know is based on assumptions. I THINK I'm sitting here at a computer typing... But I could be hooked up to a giant computer program, my physical body floating in a vat of fluid somewhere in the distant future. However, it makes no sense whatsoever to deny that we know anything simply because of the possibility, however remote, that we could be wrong. It's asinine to claim that we don't know whether trees make a sound when they fall simply because there's some tiny possibility that one might not. We've observed so many millions of trees falling, as a species, that the odds of one not making a sound are almost nonexistent.

The wikipedia article simply said that sound can be perceived by the ears, not that any sound we don't hear ISN'T sound. If you go to a concert and stand in front of the speakers, you can feel sound. If you use a microphone, you can see sound. There are multiple ways to perceive it. It's not arrogant to assume that certain things make sounds, it's arrogant to say that if a person doesn't hear a sound it's not there.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
Let me ask you three questions then:

How was the universe created?

How have you observed its creation?

And if you can answer the above questions with an absolute fact or value then who the **** are you?!

...What are you talking about?

Originally posted by Darth Revan
...What are you talking about?

From what I inferred from Ush's post, he simply stated that an "I don't know" answer was not good enough.

So, since he SOUNDS so 'certain' of himself, I figured I'd give him a few questions to answer to their absolute truths.

Originally posted by Darth Revan
However, it makes no sense whatsoever to deny that we know anything simply because of the possibility, however remote, that we could be wrong. It's asinine to claim that we don't know whether trees make a sound when they fall simply because there's some tiny possibility that one might not. We've observed so many millions of trees falling, as a species, that the odds of one not making a sound are almost nonexistent.

Perhaps you need to read more closely. As Janus has stated, our observations and past experiences, falling trees do make a sound, but how can you be so sure that falling trees still make a sound if you are not present at the time that any tree falls? You cannot know for certain.

Phoenix, thank you for getting it.

Btw:

Originally posted by Darth Revan
Like I said, if you're going to be that anal about it, then everything we know is based on assumptions.

Yes, this is true. Everything is based ultimately on the assumption that the human senses are accurate and that the human mind is complete enough to deal with the information it receives. But this question operates outside of the realm of human perception, so the answer goes from "We may be able to perceive" to "We cannot be certain but we infer that this is the case".

Like I pointed out to GV in another thread, what we call "objective" is objective only to the human perceptions and mind. There is no knowledge gained outside of this. If you remove the element of human perception (Meaning that the human mind cannot process what it cannot perceive), then the question goes from one of certainty (I heard that) to one of educated guesswork (I believe it still made a sound, since every single time I heard a tree fall, it made it sound. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the tree did indeed make a sound.).

I THINK I'm sitting here at a computer typing... But I could be hooked up to a giant computer program, my physical body floating in a vat of fluid somewhere in the distant future.

I absolutely hate the Matrix when it comes to philosophy, so don't mistake my reasoning for something borrowed from a sci-fi flick.

However, it makes no sense whatsoever to deny that we know anything simply because of the possibility, however remote, that we could be wrong. It's asinine to claim that we don't know whether trees make a sound when they fall simply because there's some tiny possibility that one might not. We've observed so many millions of trees falling, as a species, that the odds of one not making a sound are almost nonexistent.

...

You don't seem to be getting the point.

This isn't me saying "Omg don't trust in reason and inferences! It leads to the Dark side!". No, I'm saying the very obvious- that while we can practically use reason and inferences to come up with answers, they are not absolute answers! You can never make a logical argument that is absolutely true and binding because you do not (Nor do any of us) possess the absolute knowledge needed to fill in the gaps. What we call reason is a formula for inference (Dictionary.com that one for clarity's sake if you'd like... it makes the nature of the word much clearer) based on knowledge we have. Well, that knowledge isn't complete. You can't know that the tree in all dimensions, at all times, being affected by all variables. Therefore, it could quite possibly fall and make not a single sound. And you would never know because you were not around to hear it.

In the realm of philosophy, this points out that our knowledge is far from complete and that while we can come up with incredible discoveries and so-called truths via reason, they cannot be absolute truths. A rational argument is only worth the type of knowledge it's founded on.

The wikipedia article simply said that sound can be perceived by the ears, not that any sound we don't hear ISN'T sound.

See above. Reference.com gets its information from the Columbia Encyclopedia, which far trumps Wikipedia. If you intend to fight a philosophical debate with Wiki, I suggest you prepare yourself for many defeats.

If you go to a concert and stand in front of the speakers, you can feel sound.

No, you don't feel sound. You feel air vibrations. Sound is merely the perception of air vibrations as sensed by the ear. But if you intend to be anal yourself, replace sound with "cause air vibrations" in the philosophical question. You'll find nothing changes. If no one is there to perceive it (Directly or indirectly) there's no way of asserting 100% that it did happen.

If you use a microphone, you can see sound.

No, you see a spectrograph. Don't be silly.

There are multiple ways to perceive it. It's not arrogant to assume that certain things make sounds, it's arrogant to say that if a person doesn't hear a sound it's not there.

Simply twisted logic here. Revan, sound is ONLY perceived by the ear. That is its definition. But even then you're missing the point-

Let me make this absolutely clear for you- Yes, we can infer with a great deal of accuracy that the tree WILL make a sound, based on past experience and reoccurence.

And in case you've missed my point entirely...

But you cannot make an absolute (100%) truth based on knowledge which is dependant on the senses, as is all human knowledge. Therefore, you can INFER that there's sound, but you cannot ever PROVE it without perceiving it. And if you perceived it, you have not proven that there is sound WITHOUT you perceiving it.

I hope that's clearer.

Originally posted by gls
i believe the same as ur friend.

light must exist when we don't see it doesn't it?

Originally posted by Darth Revan
It's not arrogant to assume that certain things make sounds, it's arrogant to say that if a person doesn't hear a sound it's not there.

No one is saying that the sound won't be there. I am agreeing with Janus that the possibility of a tree falling and not creating a sound is likely to happen. But how likely? Probably not too likely. More than likely, a falling tree does create a sound without our presence. But how likely? A high probability, but not absolutely. So, this entire topic is a 'maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, maybe we'll just never know,' type situation.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A television works by receiving signals from a broadcast center and processing these signals into television programs or shows. While a signal sent from a broadcast center contains all of the information for various programs, it is not by itself a television show. This signal does not become a television show until it is received and processed by the television.

This is how sound works.

A tree falls producing a sound wave. An ear receives the sound wave and processes it as sound. If there is nothing to perceive the sound wave as sound, there is no sound.

Poop.

I don't agree with you. And I don't think reality does either.

If I'm in a glass isolation chamber and there is a guy on the outside of it yelling at me, just because I can't hear him doesn't mean he's not making noise.

noise, any signal that does not convey useful information.

versus...

sound, any disturbance that travels through an elastic medium such as air, ground, or water to be heard by the human ear

Source: Reference.com

If a tree falls and no one is there to hear it.............define No One?......on what level?...............

No one = no one to perceive it. Obviously if someone's there, the question isn't being fulfilled. The point is, if no one can hear it, is it still there. If someone or something hears it, it's being heard, therefore it isn't a philosophical question.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
No one = no one to perceive it. Obviously if someone's there, the question isn't being fulfilled. The point is, if no one can hear it, is it still there. If someone or something hears it, it's being heard, therefore it isn't a philosophical question.

So therefore if it's not percieved it doesn't exist?

Originally posted by AOR
So therefore if it's not percieved it doesn't exist?

No, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Obviously not my post.

Let's break this down to sublaymen's terms:

IF it is not perceived, THEN it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to exist.

For example, you walk into your living room and everything's right where you left it. You leave for work for the day and come home and it's still there. You can infer that it is stationary, and can never move and thus, must exist where it stands while you are gone. And this is indeed a reasonable assumption. But note that it's an assumption. You cannot prove that it's always there when it's NOT being perceived. The crux of the problem is that we can only know what we sense. If we don't sense it, we can't know it as it is. In other words, you can infer that your living room furniture will remain stationary and exist exactly where you last observed it, but you could never prove such WITHOUT perceiving it in some way, directly or indirectly.

Inference is not absolute proof, it's just applied common sense and reason, based on experience.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
No, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Obviously not my post.

Let's break this down to sublaymen's terms:

IF it is not perceived, THEN it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to exist.

For example, you walk into your living room and everything's right where you left it. You leave for work for the day and come home and it's still there. You can infer that it is stationary, and can never move and thus, must exist where it stands while you are gone. And this is indeed a reasonable assumption. But note that it's an assumption. You cannot prove that it's always there when it's NOT being perceived. The crux of the problem is that we can only know what we sense. If we don't sense it, we can't know it as it is. In other words, you can infer that your living room furniture will remain stationary and exist exactly where you last observed it, but you could never prove such WITHOUT perceiving it in some way, directly or indirectly.

Inference is not absolute proof, it's just applied common sense and reason, based on experience.

Hmph... a while ago you were arguing that perception isnt absolute proof either.

It's not. But for the purpose of human knowledge, there's no new knowledge gained unless it's by the senses.

Think of it this way: absolute knowledge is the truth of the world as it really is. Objective knowledge is the product of sensory data and the rational mind.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
It's not. But for the purpose of human knowledge, there's no new knowledge gained unless it's by the senses.

Think of it this way: absolute knowledge is the truth of the world as it really is. Objective knowledge is the product of sensory data and the rational mind.

Well you keep talking about absolute proof, you have said the term many times throughout this debate...

Anyways now that its clear no absolute knowledge can be obtained, only objective knowledge as you put it.

I can prove that if a tree falls, it will make a sound, through the use of physics. Isnt that objective knowledge equal in value to any sensory input?

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Well you keep talking about absolute proof, you have said the term many times throughout this debate...

Anyways now that its clear no absolute knowledge can be obtained, only objective knowledge as you put it.

I can prove that if a tree falls, it will make a sound, through the use of physics. Isnt that objective knowledge equal in value to any sensory input?

Erm... how am I losing everybody? Is it the strange manner in which I construct sentences? Or the big words?

Anyways, sensory output is what you feed into the mental machine in order to get values to plug into the formula that is reason.

For example, if the tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it can be summed up like this:

1. A tree falls in the forest in a circumstance when no one can hear it.

2. Normally, when a tree falls and one is around to perceive it, we hear a sound.

3. This is replicated every single time that a tree falls.

4. Therefore, it is logical to assume that because the tree makes a sound each and every time up until this point, it will continue to do so irregardless of whether or not there's someone there to perceive it or not.

^That's the inference at work. Note that some form of past experience based on sensory input was neccessary or else the argument wouldn't have made sense. If you took out every instance of perception in a logical argument (Someone perceiving the nature of the objects in question) the argument itself would be incomplete. So sensory perception is a neccessary component of the argument. You cannot remove it from the argument at all.

And physics is based on the scientific method, which is based on what? Observation. Sensory data again, in effect.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Erm... how am I losing everybody? Is it the strange manner in which I construct sentences? Or the big words?

Anyways, sensory output is what you feed into the mental machine in order to get values to plug into the formula that is reason.

For example, if the tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it can be summed up like this:

1. A tree falls in the forest in a circumstance when no one can hear it.

2. Normally, when a tree falls and one is around to perceive it, we hear a sound.

3. This is replicated every single time that a tree falls.

4. Therefore, it is logical to assume that because the tree makes a sound each and every time up until this point, it will continue to do so irregardless of whether or not there's someone there to perceive it or not.

^That's the inference at work. Note that some form of past experience based on sensory input was neccessary or else the argument wouldn't have made sense. If you took out every instance of perception in a logical argument (Someone perceiving the nature of the objects in question) the argument itself would be incomplete. So sensory perception is a neccessary component of the argument. You cannot remove it from the argument at all.

And physics is based on the scientific method, which is based on what? Observation. Sensory data again, in effect.

Im saying that if you use reason then it is logical to assume the tree falls.

If you actually watch the tree fall, it is *still* only an assumption that the tree falls.

There is no final conclusion involved, because absolute proof cannot be obtained. The final answer to the question, 'Does the tree fall' is like you said 'I dont know'. Its just the means you used to reach that conclusion that I disagree with.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Im saying that if you use reason then it is logical to assume the tree falls.

Irrelevant. This was never in question. It's not whether the tree falls; it's whether or not it falling produces a sound.

If you actually watch the tree fall, it is *still* only an assumption that the tree falls.

On the most basic level, yes. Your senses could be tainted. Or in the real world, what you saw as the tree falling was actually something else, like an event in space-time of energy relocating itself. But that's really getting into the fanciful. Occam's Razor.

But before you get too far into left field with that, keep in mind that an unsupported assumption does not have proper sensory data to draw on; an educated assumption (Or inference) does. That is, we consider truths we derive from arguments including sensory data as being valid because it is the only reality we know. The most basic assumption made is that the senses are correct. Without this assumption in place, no further reasoning can take place. But that's not the issue here; what really is the issue is whether or not things happen when we are not aware of them at all. And of course, if we're never aware of them, we cannot determine that they did in fact take place except by inferences.

Take science for example: Newton bitched about physics. Where is it? Can you bring it to me on a plate? Can you actually sense gravity, or only its effects? Really, you cannot. You can only infer gravity based on the natural properties that you assign to the word "gravity" or the "force of gravity". Gravity is not just sitting outside, easy to see and investigate. To truly find out about it, you must use inferences.

Does this mean that, since inferences are guesswork based on reason and the senses' products, this knowledge is not how gravity functions in the real world? Possibly. How big that possibility is, I don't really know. I don't think any of us do. Even if the theories were absolutely right in all aspects, we wouldn't really be aware of it. That's because we can't have knowledge of things in all times, all places, etc. We only have knowledge of things from our senses, and in certain times (Past experiences...)

There is no final conclusion involved, because absolute proof cannot be obtained. The final answer to the question, 'Does the tree fall' is like you said 'I dont know'. Its just the means you used to reach that conclusion that I disagree with.

The above argument in the last post? That's just inferences. It's a logical argument. It's only as valid as the data I put into it and so long as I used the proper form. Really, the more accurate a rational argument is, the more variables and values it has to account for. The "correct" answer for the question would likely be longer than the Mississippi River, account for everything ever thought of and in all times, and would include knowledge from outside of the human sphere of gathering knowledge. It would be God's argument, really.