Tree in the forest.

@Glennn,

It depends on whether it hurts itself.

Injury usually results in at least a whimper.

@Lordyaswas,

No, it did not hurt itself. It landed on a soft bed of leaves. So . . .

0 Replies

In fact, it had been paralyzed from the trunk up after an unfortunate incident involving an encounter with a particularly aggressive woodpecker.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

If the forest was on Earth, then the answer is yes, sound waves would have been created by the cracking of the trunk, the movement of the tree through the air and the collision of tree and Earth, leaf-covered or otherwise.

Joe(Witnesses are not necessary for Nature to continue.) Nation

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

So, the question is designed to lead us to a refined definition of sound?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

This is a regular scenario which philosophers love to contemplate.

The key issue is whether "an observer" is required to establish what constitutes "an event". In my opinion (and many others) the answer is always"yes". Those opposed to that view (sometimes called "naive realists") usually forget the fact that, minimally, they themselves are the observers of the event in their mind's eye which they can do with or without sound effects.

2 Replies

@fresco,

There are many levels of understanding to koans. In terms of relationship--and what else is there--the answer to this koan is best explained by asking the question: If a man screams in a room full of people, and no one is there to hear him, does he make a sound?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Glennn wrote:

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, will it make a sound?

fresco wrote:

This is a regular scenario which philosophers love to contemplate.

The key issue is whether "an observer" is required to establish what constitutes "an event". In my opinion (and many others) the answer is always"yes". Those opposed to that view (sometimes called "naive realists") usually forget the fact that, minimally, they themselves are the observers of the event in their mind's eye which they can do with or without sound effects.

The contemporary scientific theory about the manner in which sound is produced is not explained by naive realism. It is not rooted in the idea that our senses provide sufficient, immediate information to come to a theoretical conclusion. And Joe Nation didn't present it that way -- please, stop trying demean the people who disagree with your perspective as naifs, merely on the basis of their disagreeing with you. It's not only insulting, it's deceptive.

fresco wrote:

Those opposed to that view (sometimes called "naive realists") usually forget the fact that, minimally, they themselves are the observers of the event in their mind's eye which they can do with or without sound effects.

The OP didn't ask if whether an imagined tree's fall would make a sound, did they?

1 Reply

NO, because there are no EARS to PICK UP the SOUND,

SOUND is not the SOUND ITSELF - SOUND is a definition for "received auditory messages".

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

There are many levels of understanding to koans. In terms of relationship--and what else is there--the answer to this koan is best explained by asking the question: If a man screams in a room full of people, and no one is there to hear him, does he make a sound?

Yes, unless everyone in the room, including the screaming man, were in fact deaf.

0 Replies

@Razzleg,

Quote:

The OP didn't ask if whether an imagined tree's fall would make a sound, did they?

On the contrary, the whole scenario is imaginary( and would still be even if we came across a fallen tree in a forest as we speak).

0 Replies

It's all down to how one defines sound. Sound waves are manufactured so a noise is made, but it's not heard. If you think something has to be heard to make a noise, the answer is no, if you think the production of sound waves is enough, the answer is yes.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

No. You are missing the point. Both sound and waves which might produce sound equally imply the presence of a hypothetical observer to detect them or infer their existence. The question is an ontological one, not a logical one.

1 Reply

Perhaps one’s answer to this koan will indicate the extent to which they have come to see themselves as the standard by which to judge the consciousness and reality of all life-forms.

0 Replies

@fresco,

So you're saying if no one is there, sound waves are not produced?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

No. I am saying that you can't even think about the details of "the event" without being there in your mind's eye. In short the "unobserved falling tree" is an oxymoron as are all "unobserved events". Everything we call "an event" involves a verbal report by a hypothetical or actual human observer present at the scene using socio-linguistically acquired observational concepts like "sound waves".

1 Reply

@fresco,

So because the Big Bang wasn't observed it never happened?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

No. It has been "observed" in various "mind's eyes". But there is no overall consensus as to its details or its occurrence.
You are missing the point that what we think happened is always relative to how we view reality now. Humans as a species are uniquely engaged in the process of prediction (and post diction) in their mind's eye. "Events" are selected from an potentially infinite set of possibilities in the process about "what matters to us". Events have no status/existence outside what "matters".

1 Reply

@fresco,

That's why Philosophy undergraduates always have a hard time at University.

1 Reply

Tree in the forest.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know