Thread: If a tree falls in the forest..you're gonna hate this one.

The real question is if a tree falls in the forest and it hits a mime, would he make a noise..?

Hehe! :-)

The classic philosophical, as opposed to scientific, response to the question is: What makes man so arrogant to think that an event cannot produce a noise without his presence?
Now the real question is: If a married man makes a decision while alone in a forest, is the decision still wrong?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Billyjeff2, if something is not heard then it does not make a noise (or a sound)

No, that just means it wasn't heard.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

No, that just means it wasn't heard.

same thing - if God didn't hear it then it didn't make a sound

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

same thing - if God didn't hear it then it didn't make a sound

If Hoglahoo doesn't listen to the things I've said, did I say them in the first place?

I took some introductory acoustics classes in college and my take is that it would producs sound in the sense that sound-waves are produced, however I think in order to classify as noise it must be heard. So sound yes, noise no.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye5

Now the real question is: If a married man makes a decision while alone in a forest, is the decision still wrong?

That depends. Does his wife allow him to make decisions alone in the forest? If no, the decision is wrong of course.
If you do not believe me, ask your wife.

Just 2 thoughts here.

We as humans are designed to perceive our world a certain way. When we look at a white wall we see a white wall some organisms see all colors of the rainbow. Maybe what our brains interpret is all wrong and our physical world is all wrong.

The other thing is we as humans are pompous to think if we don't experience a manifestation it simply doesn't exist because we don't define it. Things have been going on in this world long before people walked the earth and will continue long after we're gone.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Back in my college days I took a number of philosophy courses. One of the questions we studied had to do with the age old question of whether, if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it makes a noise? I ended up convinced it does not.
As my professor would say: "Care to discuss?"

I haven't read the thread but here is my two cents:

The answer to this is wholly dependent upon your definition of "noise."

If you definition of "noise" is the perception of the sound by a living being, then do it does not.

If your definition of "noise" is the movement of sound waves through the atmosphere, without taking into account whether or not those sound waves were perceived by anyone, then yes it does.

Every argument is dependent upon definitions of key terms.

Matt

I don't think it's a question of arrogance at all. Quite the opposite actually, in a way.

I got started on questions like this in an epistemology course in college. In what was at first an exercise in which we attempted to define knowledge, I came to find that it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to "know" something with absolute certainty. The trouble is that it's very difficult to prove something, and the spirit of the question is about whether you can prove something more than it is about what exists. So, in a way, questions such as the one contained in the OP are exactly the opposite of arrogant because answering "no" is equivelant to stating "I cannot prove it" - where I come from, admitting you cannot do something is not arrogant.

I would encourage everyone to read the posts about the intended spirit of the question (not about the technicalities of a sound vs a noise - substitute in "if you cannot observe a tree in any way, does the tree exist" if you like) and discuss. If you answer yes, please take an honest shot an proving it.