This is clearly a neutral comment, not intended to go for nor against anyone else....
Helen Keller was deaf and blind. Her means of communications was by placing her hands against the the throat of the person speaking. Explain how this is so, if sound is something "heard" by the ears
Re: Re: Re: Classic Debate: If a tree falls in the woods...
No... sound waves are vibrations in the air that we sense with our ears. Things don't cease to exist simply because we are not aware of them. Like infrared light.
If sound can be used to break glass, it's real enough. It doesn't need a lifeform around to function.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Classic Debate: If a tree falls in the woods...
Except we can only infer that things exist when we aren't around to directly perceive them. Even setting up a tape recorder begs the question "Would it still make a sound if there was nothing to record it?". The philosophical ***** of the question is that some answers we will simply never know. Human knowledge cannot, by its very nature, be absolute.
And apparently you don't realize that people can feel the vibrations of someone's voice while touching their throat. And wow, people can read lips too!
Sound is picked up by the ears, the auditory sensory organs, and the information is processed by the human brain. Anything else is not sound.
You guys are silly. You get all worked up over a silly question.
It is granted, that the human ear picks up vibrations made by motion. However, those waves are still occuring, despite the presence of the human ear to "hear" them. Just because no one is listening, doesn't mean no one is sending teh signal. Burl, you are wrong. That's really all there is to it.
We can debate the "sensation" of hearing all we would like, that doesn't mean the sound waves aren't there.
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
Last edited by Devil King on May 30th, 2006 at 04:47 AM
As I said, just because we do not sense it doesn't mean it isn't there. A variation on the question would be, "if a tree falls in the woods, but no one is there to see it, does it really fall?" Yes, of course it still falls. One effect of its falling is that it makes a sound. We can infer this from the fact that trees we actually observe falling make sounds as well. If you must be this specific, everything we know is inference. (even seeing a tree falling and hearing the sound—what if it's a hallucination? We assume that it's not because there is no reason to believe otherwise)
Humans aside, what if say, a bird heard the tree fall? Would you consider it sound then? Sound waves are sound. It doesn't matter how we observe sound, or infer it in this case, it's still sound.
... Which is the assumption, based on evidence and experience. Yes, it is reasonable and even in accordance with common sense to realize that a tree falling makes sound. However, the question is designed to provoke a deeper level of thought than that... Specifically, you can't ever know, 100% that it will make a sound every time even though there's no one to hear it. See, you can infer that it will. You can guess that it will. You can record a hundred trees falling in the forest with recorders and make the percentage of 100% accurate, but you can never ever with any degree of absolute certainty, say that the tree will make a sound each and every single time it falls.
Why? Because that would require knowledge bordering on that of a god, that's why. Because you would, to make such a binding 100% claim, have knowing not just of the before and after, but of that middle step where causation is realized. There could be no assumptions or inferences about this- you either know it or you don't. And of course, no one has that sort of knowledge. It's impossible by any given means of thought.
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.
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.
__________________
Last edited by Adam_PoE on May 30th, 2006 at 07:44 AM
Adam, it doesn't matter how many definitions you post saying that- the fact is that the vibrations themselves are clearly identified in dictionaries as the word 'sound'. Are you just going to ignore the primary definitions that I posted?
This is NOT opinion. It is simple fact.
Anyone in this thread saying that sound is merely perception and cannot be applied to just the vibrations is either lying or wrong. The dictionaries contradict you. Look them up- not only CAN the vibrations by defined as sound, that is also often considered the primary definition of the word.
Go check out dictionary.com, folks. Go on, check for yourself. And I challenge you to find ANY respectable dictionary that does not carry a definition within identifying the vibrations themselves as sound.
With this amount of clarity there, you are simply having to ignore it to make your point work, Adam, which is the height of arrogance, adjusting facts to fit your view rather than the other way around.
The word that defines those vibrations, heard or otherwise, is sound. Fact.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on May 30th, 2006 at 09:23 AM
sound, any disturbance that travels through an elastic medium such as air, ground, or water to be heard by the human ear.
^ Reference.com, under sound. First damn sentence. That's from an in-depth Encyclopedia, not just a small excerpt from a dictionary.
Rawr. Yes, I see Ush has made his stand. Good for you.
Except that you can't prove that the sound was there, since no one was able to perceive it. This isn't Descartes, since he was a pure rationalist; it's basically saying that inferences can't be 100% proofs. You can use reason to make rational arguments, but their products aren't neccessarily true; only probably. Again, it's causation. You cannot say "If X happens, then Y must neccessarily happen." because you can't OBSERVE the must or neccessity step. That's David Hume, by the way.
Now, since you can't observe the neccessary step, you can't prove causation. You can only infer its existance. For example, you may infer that if you hit a billard ball with X amount of force from Y distance and angle, it will move Z meters. This would seem to be pretty basic, and functional. You could, with the proper knowledge, determine where the ball would go every time if you could know and control the force and angle etc. behind it. Except... You can't know and observe the step that neccessitates that it will always go as you had calculated. Indeed, there still exists the possibility that it could act totally different. Inferences may give us assumptions and estimates based on predictability and reoccurence, but they cannot be absolute answers. Absolute answers would require complete and total knowledge of a thing at all times, so then you could officially dictate that yes, if I hit the ball like this it will -always- go as I declare.
In short, you can infer with a good deal of common sense that the tree does make a noise. But you can never know, since you were not there to perceive it.
By the by, Ush... recall Socrates' personal philosophy? "I am wise in knowing that I am not wise." Fairly relevant now, isn't it?
I agree with Janus. Just because something has always happened, isnt logical proof that it must happen again. I understand this goes against common sense, and generally every idea that has ever been productive in our world...but from a purely logical perspective its correct.
KMC Community Forums
May 29th, 2006 09:46 PM
and Wikipedia saves the day. Anything/Anyone that contradicts this information is wrong...
Who?
