If a trees falls in the woods and there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound? Discuss. You might want to define what you mean by a "sound," by "nobody," and perhaps even a "tree."
Even though I began with the premise that the tree would make a sound, I must embark on a different path. With reference to both of the different types of interpretations of sound, it must be concluded that the tree would not make a sound. The first interpretation focuses on the sound waves with particular scientific and mathematical properties. The second interpretation is a sensible quality that is heard by a perceiving being; the sound waves from the first interpretation are the things being perceived. “Nobody” would have to be defined as a thinking being that is capable of being active; it will be explained later why it cannot be an inactive being without a mind. Lastly, a tree would consist of a plant species. Air is the medium for sound waves. Therefore, if a tree fail, sound waves would be generated and travel through the air. And yet, the waves produced in the air create a reaction in our bodies that we interpret as “sound,” so sound is only a sensation. This explains why the interpreting body must be active. A light wave cannot perceive a sound wave because both of these objects are sensible qualities, having no existence outside of the mind. Humans are not the only ones that can perceive so the definition of nobody would be extended to animals whom are believed to have a mind and the capability to perceive. Concluded by Philonous and Hylas sensations cannot be perceived without the mind. Esse Est Percipi: to exist is to be perceived. Furthermore, a tree would make a sound wave through the air, but a mind would be needed to perceive the sound, thus bringing it into existence. Without the perceiving being the sound waves would be ineffective.
In my opinion, something can only make a sound if there is a witness to hear it. In this instance, it is a fact that a tree has fallen. "Sound" only exists as an interpretation in ones mind, not in the real world. The tree does create sounds waves when it falls, this is true. But if there isn't anything around, "sound" is not being detected. Although the tree creates sound waves, if it isn't heard and interpreted by the mind, then it doesn't exist. Sound doesn't exist in the real world. It only exists as it is perceived in the mind. Yes, if a tree falls and no one is there to see it, it still exists as it is a physical object. Sound is completely different. Maybe the tree creates sound waves when it falls, but it doesn't necessarily make a sound if there is no one around to hear it. If there is an animal or something that is living that is around whom can detect these sound waves and perceive it as sound, then the tree does make a sound. This is because the mind of a creature is stimulating its hearing senses and results in hearing a sound. Although one might say that a falling tree would make a sound regardless if someone is there to perceive it or not, they are wrong. As the tree hits the ground, it is a fact that the ground vibrates for a second. It is true that the tree creates sound waves. The most important part of this argument is how sound is perceived by the mind. When a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, it does not make a sound. Without someones mind perceiving the result of the fall as a sound, then it doesn't exist.
When a tree falls in a forest, or anywhere else for that matter, it displaces air molecules and creates a wave of pressurized air. This fact cannot be argued, it’s an outcome of the laws that define our universe, there’s absolutely no way a tree can move through air without causing the air to move as well, or hit the ground without creating vibrations, disregarding the infinitely small possibility allowed by quantum mechanics. But the chance of this happening is so tiny it can safely be assumed to be impossible. So, when a tree falls, it most definitely creates a physical wave of air. Typically, when this wave of air is perceived by a being, this is what we call “sound”. The thinking being, whether it’s a human or an animal, recognizes this movement of air as a sound. This is what creates a “sound” from an airwave. The sound itself is not the outcome of the tree falling or hitting the ground, but it is the product created by the mind of the perceiver. Sound is a sensation that is experienced by a being, and this sensation does depend on certain physical characteristics that make it louder or softer, higher or lower. Through this we can see that if nobody, meaning nothing that is capable of perception, is around, then the tree will not create a sound. It will make vibrations in the air, but nothing will be able to perceive these waves and hear a sound. Thus, it would be impossible for the falling tree to create a sound, because there is no mind around to perceive it.
To decide whether or not the fallen tree makes a sound depends on how one looks at the situation. Having “no one” there, to me, implies that not only is there no human around, but no other mind capable of perceiving sound, such as an animal, was there to witness the event happening. The decision would also depend on one’s definition of “sound”. I would define sound as the noise that one’s mind perceives sound waves as. Those who were to go at this with a more scientific mindset, one would say that the trees do make a sound when falling because of the displacement of air molecules, thus creating sound waves. They might say that because it made sound waves, it made a sound. However, what is the significance of these sound waves if there is no mind there to perceive them? What is the significance of these sound waves if there is a mind that is not able to perceive these sound waves, such as a deaf person? Sound waves are the physical event that takes place when the tree falls, but sound itself would not exist if there wasn't someone there to experience the sound waves that were created. If there was a human to experience the sound, then it would exist, same goes for if there was an animal there. In order for the sound to exist, there needed to have been a mind fully capable to perceive and translate sound waves to a noise there.
If a tree falls in the woods it does indeed make a sound without anybody to hear it. I believe that the idea that it would not make a sound is the result of a human-wide ignorance that the world revolves around us. The tree makes a sound whether a human is there or not and to believe otherwise is to deny the existence of other creatures. Berkeley states that if a human is not there the tree doesn’t make a sound because it is not perceived by a human. He does not mention, however, that there is something perceiving it therefore it must make a sound. I define a sound as anything that any person, creature, animal, plant, etc. can perceive. Therefore, if the woods if a tree were to fall down it would absolutely make a sound by my definition. The notion that if a human does not perceive a tree falling then it does not make a sound addresses an overall problem that we as a human race have. We too often believe that we are the only important creatures on this planet when there are billions of different species that are have a greater impact on this planet then we do. We do not perceive the tree fall therefore Berkeley would argue that the tree cannot make a sound but fails to recognize the things happen around the world all the time that human do not see. In fact, I would argue that most things that happen in the world humans do not see.
If a tree were to fall in the woods, and nobody were around to hear it, would it make a sound? This first requires prior knowledge such as, who is nobody and what is sound. First, nobody could mean a lot of different things. It could mean no sentient life, no humans, or any other definition of nobody. For the examples in this comment it is easier to go with no sentient life will be around to hear it. Next, what is sound? Sound is the human perception of air waves and the noise they make. Anything can make a sound, including trees. But does this still mean that a tree with nobody around to perceive it making a sound, actually make the sound of a tree falling. Both sides prevent fair arguments, but I believe that the answer is yes, because there is always someone around to perceive the sound. If someone is in the woods, and a tree falls, then they will obviously hear the crack and boom that it will make. But when no sentient being is around, how do the crack and boom still happen? The answer is God. Many philosophers use the term, esse est percipi, which means that to perceive is to exist. Since God is an infinite being that is always perceiving, does that not mean that everything exists? Which would mean that even if there is no sentient life on the same planet of the tree, it wold still make a sound because God is perceiving it to.
If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? In order to solve this classic conundrum the most important idea to operationalize is that of sound. Is a sound defined as waves rippling through the air? Or is it the human perception of those waves. I personally believe the latter. No matter what one believes it cannot be disputed whether or not a wave is created. The tree falling will create waves, based on its displacement of the air around it. The argument comes in what exactly a sound is. If a human presence is required in order for waves to be made into sound then the tree falling would in fact NOT make a sound, merely a wave. As sound waves only exist in human perception, not as material objects, then human presence would be needed in order to turn the wave into actual sound. However, the meaning of sound is so fluid and varied that I don’t think there is a definitive answer to this question. I believe that Berkeley’s view would actually support my view as well. As he believes solely in mental substance, sound would only exist as a function of someone’s mind. As appearance and reality are both the same to him, then a human presence would be required in order to actually perceive the sound. However, I stand by the view that this is a subjective topic and therefore has no objective answer.
Berkeley lays out an argument to disprove the existence of sound. He asserts that sound is not a property of an object itself, but exists in the mind. He backs up this claim using the example of a bell in a vacuum. Without the presence of air, a bell can be struck yet no sound rings out. For this reason, we know that sound is not a property of an object, yet a property of air or further, of motion. Berkley makes the argument that sound waves exist, yet the actual notion of sound as we intuitively think of it is false and exists solely in minds. He uses this conclusion to further his idealist argument that only minds and ideas exist, and that objects a merely bundles of perceptions. So, if a tree falls in the woods and no one’s around to hear it, does it still make a sound? Well, without someone to experience the sound in the air, or to perceive the sound waves, Berkeley would argue that no, the tree does not make a sound. Sound, in this case, is not physical sounds waves as Berkley does initially advocate for their existence, but sound that we believe we hear. As we know, real sound is sound waves in motion that exist in the outside world. Yet, when we hear something, we are merely perceiving it, therefor it the sound exists only in our minds, not in the outside world. If a tree falls and no one is around, that means the sound waves are left without a mind to interpret and hear them in. Thus, sound as we typically think of it, opposed to real sound, cannot exist without a mind to exist in. So, if a tree falls in the woods and no one’s around, it generates real sound; yet, without a perceiver to interpret and hear those sound waves, what we standardly consider to be “sound,” a perception, is never heard and can’t exist.
This question has puzzled many people for a long time. At first, the answer seems obvious. “Of course it makes a sound; something always makes a sound when it falls”. But, this line of logic makes HUGE assumptions. It assumes that just because we have perceived something to happen a million times, that means it must be true for the million and first, the million and second, the million and third and so on. In a sense, it assumes that things such as this exist outside the human mind. As far as we know, we could be in the Matrix with a line of code that says “if someone is there: make a sound. If no one is there: do nothing”. First, let us generalize the terms “tree”, “sound” and “someone”. When we say tree and sound, we mean anything that has a cause and effect. In total, they are what we call an “event”. When we say someone, we mean anyone or anything with the ability to process the sound: a human, a mouse, a cat or a recording device. The question is then asking, do things happen because we perceive them, or because they actually happen and we just by coincidence someone is there to watch (or hear) it? Again, common experience tells us that things do indeed happen without anyone there. That is, the laws of nature continue even if no one is watching, listening, smelling, feeling or tasting it. For an example, I leave my ice cream outside in the warm weather. If I leave and come back, it has melted. I didn’t watch it melt, and assuming no one else was watching it, it would still be melted when I came back. I do believe that it is safe to assume that even if no one is there to perceive something, there is a reality that will continue to exist regardless.
If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound? This age old question has stereotyped philosophers for generations; however, few people recognize what it actually means. Firstly, there need to be precise definitions for the words, sound, nobody and tree. A sound, as defined by Berkeley, is a mere perception of the mind. In other words, sounds do not exist in the physical world. This is because one sound might seem loud to one person, but quiet to the other. This ultimately creates a paradox, since it is flawed to think that one entity could share two conflicting qualities. Nobody means that there is not a person around to hear the sounds, but accordingly to Berkeley a “person” is just a mind attached to some visual perception (a body in this case). It is important to note that the mind does all of the perceiving. And then a tree, similar to a body, is just a visual perception, something that doesn’t actually exist in the real world. Furthermore, since the tree and potential sound of a tree falling need to be perceived in order to exist, according to Berkeley in order for a tree to fall in the woods, it would have to make a sound. In other words, the tree and the sound go hand in hand – they are either being perceived or not being perceived. However, by the third dialogue Berkeley refines this idea and establishes the notion of God. He maintains that God has infinite perception of everything, so nothing really ceases to “exist.” Therefore, since god can perceive the tree, the tree exists. And if the tree were to fall, then it would surely emulate the perception of sound. Nobody would be there to actually observe it, but it would occur since god can perceive the visual and sound aspect.
Even though I began with the premise that the tree would make a sound, I must embark on a different path. With reference to both of the different types of interpretations of sound, it must be concluded that the tree would not make a sound. The first interpretation focuses on the sound waves with particular scientific and mathematical properties. The second interpretation is a sensible quality that is heard by a perceiving being; the sound waves from the first interpretation are the things being perceived. “Nobody” would have to be defined as a thinking being that is capable of being active; it will be explained later why it cannot be an inactive being without a mind. Lastly, a tree would consist of a plant species. Air is the medium for sound waves. Therefore, if a tree fail, sound waves would be generated and travel through the air. And yet, the waves produced in the air create a reaction in our bodies that we interpret as “sound,” so sound is only a sensation. This explains why the interpreting body must be active. A light wave cannot perceive a sound wave because both of these objects are sensible qualities, having no existence outside of the mind. Humans are not the only ones that can perceive so the definition of nobody would be extended to animals whom are believed to have a mind and the capability to perceive. Concluded by Philonous and Hylas sensations cannot be perceived without the mind. Esse Est Percipi: to exist is to be perceived. Furthermore, a tree would make a sound wave through the air, but a mind would be needed to perceive the sound, thus bringing it into existence. Without the perceiving being the sound waves would be ineffective.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, something can only make a sound if there is a witness to hear it. In this instance, it is a fact that a tree has fallen. "Sound" only exists as an interpretation in ones mind, not in the real world. The tree does create sounds waves when it falls, this is true. But if there isn't anything around, "sound" is not being detected. Although the tree creates sound waves, if it isn't heard and interpreted by the mind, then it doesn't exist. Sound doesn't exist in the real world. It only exists as it is perceived in the mind. Yes, if a tree falls and no one is there to see it, it still exists as it is a physical object. Sound is completely different. Maybe the tree creates sound waves when it falls, but it doesn't necessarily make a sound if there is no one around to hear it. If there is an animal or something that is living that is around whom can detect these sound waves and perceive it as sound, then the tree does make a sound. This is because the mind of a creature is stimulating its hearing senses and results in hearing a sound. Although one might say that a falling tree would make a sound regardless if someone is there to perceive it or not, they are wrong. As the tree hits the ground, it is a fact that the ground vibrates for a second. It is true that the tree creates sound waves. The most important part of this argument is how sound is perceived by the mind. When a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, it does not make a sound. Without someones mind perceiving the result of the fall as a sound, then it doesn't exist.
ReplyDeleteWhen a tree falls in a forest, or anywhere else for that matter, it displaces air molecules and creates a wave of pressurized air. This fact cannot be argued, it’s an outcome of the laws that define our universe, there’s absolutely no way a tree can move through air without causing the air to move as well, or hit the ground without creating vibrations, disregarding the infinitely small possibility allowed by quantum mechanics. But the chance of this happening is so tiny it can safely be assumed to be impossible. So, when a tree falls, it most definitely creates a physical wave of air.
ReplyDeleteTypically, when this wave of air is perceived by a being, this is what we call “sound”. The thinking being, whether it’s a human or an animal, recognizes this movement of air as a sound. This is what creates a “sound” from an airwave. The sound itself is not the outcome of the tree falling or hitting the ground, but it is the product created by the mind of the perceiver. Sound is a sensation that is experienced by a being, and this sensation does depend on certain physical characteristics that make it louder or softer, higher or lower.
Through this we can see that if nobody, meaning nothing that is capable of perception, is around, then the tree will not create a sound. It will make vibrations in the air, but nothing will be able to perceive these waves and hear a sound. Thus, it would be impossible for the falling tree to create a sound, because there is no mind around to perceive it.
To decide whether or not the fallen tree makes a sound depends on how one looks at the situation. Having “no one” there, to me, implies that not only is there no human around, but no other mind capable of perceiving sound, such as an animal, was there to witness the event happening. The decision would also depend on one’s definition of “sound”. I would define sound as the noise that one’s mind perceives sound waves as. Those who were to go at this with a more scientific mindset, one would say that the trees do make a sound when falling because of the displacement of air molecules, thus creating sound waves. They might say that because it made sound waves, it made a sound. However, what is the significance of these sound waves if there is no mind there to perceive them? What is the significance of these sound waves if there is a mind that is not able to perceive these sound waves, such as a deaf person? Sound waves are the physical event that takes place when the tree falls, but sound itself would not exist if there wasn't someone there to experience the sound waves that were created. If there was a human to experience the sound, then it would exist, same goes for if there was an animal there. In order for the sound to exist, there needed to have been a mind fully capable to perceive and translate sound waves to a noise there.
ReplyDeleteIf a tree falls in the woods it does indeed make a sound without anybody to hear it. I believe that the idea that it would not make a sound is the result of a human-wide ignorance that the world revolves around us. The tree makes a sound whether a human is there or not and to believe otherwise is to deny the existence of other creatures. Berkeley states that if a human is not there the tree doesn’t make a sound because it is not perceived by a human. He does not mention, however, that there is something perceiving it therefore it must make a sound.
ReplyDeleteI define a sound as anything that any person, creature, animal, plant, etc. can perceive. Therefore, if the woods if a tree were to fall down it would absolutely make a sound by my definition. The notion that if a human does not perceive a tree falling then it does not make a sound addresses an overall problem that we as a human race have. We too often believe that we are the only important creatures on this planet when there are billions of different species that are have a greater impact on this planet then we do. We do not perceive the tree fall therefore Berkeley would argue that the tree cannot make a sound but fails to recognize the things happen around the world all the time that human do not see. In fact, I would argue that most things that happen in the world humans do not see.
If a tree were to fall in the woods, and nobody were around to hear it, would it make a sound? This first requires prior knowledge such as, who is nobody and what is sound. First, nobody could mean a lot of different things. It could mean no sentient life, no humans, or any other definition of nobody. For the examples in this comment it is easier to go with no sentient life will be around to hear it. Next, what is sound? Sound is the human perception of air waves and the noise they make. Anything can make a sound, including trees. But does this still mean that a tree with nobody around to perceive it making a sound, actually make the sound of a tree falling. Both sides prevent fair arguments, but I believe that the answer is yes, because there is always someone around to perceive the sound. If someone is in the woods, and a tree falls, then they will obviously hear the crack and boom that it will make. But when no sentient being is around, how do the crack and boom still happen? The answer is God. Many philosophers use the term, esse est percipi, which means that to perceive is to exist. Since God is an infinite being that is always perceiving, does that not mean that everything exists? Which would mean that even if there is no sentient life on the same planet of the tree, it wold still make a sound because God is perceiving it to.
ReplyDeleteIf a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? In order to solve this classic conundrum the most important idea to operationalize is that of sound. Is a sound defined as waves rippling through the air? Or is it the human perception of those waves. I personally believe the latter. No matter what one believes it cannot be disputed whether or not a wave is created. The tree falling will create waves, based on its displacement of the air around it. The argument comes in what exactly a sound is. If a human presence is required in order for waves to be made into sound then the tree falling would in fact NOT make a sound, merely a wave. As sound waves only exist in human perception, not as material objects, then human presence would be needed in order to turn the wave into actual sound. However, the meaning of sound is so fluid and varied that I don’t think there is a definitive answer to this question. I believe that Berkeley’s view would actually support my view as well. As he believes solely in mental substance, sound would only exist as a function of someone’s mind. As appearance and reality are both the same to him, then a human presence would be required in order to actually perceive the sound. However, I stand by the view that this is a subjective topic and therefore has no objective answer.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley lays out an argument to disprove the existence of sound. He asserts that sound is not a property of an object itself, but exists in the mind. He backs up this claim using the example of a bell in a vacuum. Without the presence of air, a bell can be struck yet no sound rings out. For this reason, we know that sound is not a property of an object, yet a property of air or further, of motion. Berkley makes the argument that sound waves exist, yet the actual notion of sound as we intuitively think of it is false and exists solely in minds. He uses this conclusion to further his idealist argument that only minds and ideas exist, and that objects a merely bundles of perceptions. So, if a tree falls in the woods and no one’s around to hear it, does it still make a sound? Well, without someone to experience the sound in the air, or to perceive the sound waves, Berkeley would argue that no, the tree does not make a sound. Sound, in this case, is not physical sounds waves as Berkley does initially advocate for their existence, but sound that we believe we hear. As we know, real sound is sound waves in motion that exist in the outside world. Yet, when we hear something, we are merely perceiving it, therefor it the sound exists only in our minds, not in the outside world. If a tree falls and no one is around, that means the sound waves are left without a mind to interpret and hear them in. Thus, sound as we typically think of it, opposed to real sound, cannot exist without a mind to exist in. So, if a tree falls in the woods and no one’s around, it generates real sound; yet, without a perceiver to interpret and hear those sound waves, what we standardly consider to be “sound,” a perception, is never heard and can’t exist.
ReplyDeleteThis question has puzzled many people for a long time. At first, the answer seems obvious. “Of course it makes a sound; something always makes a sound when it falls”. But, this line of logic makes HUGE assumptions. It assumes that just because we have perceived something to happen a million times, that means it must be true for the million and first, the million and second, the million and third and so on. In a sense, it assumes that things such as this exist outside the human mind. As far as we know, we could be in the Matrix with a line of code that says “if someone is there: make a sound. If no one is there: do nothing”.
ReplyDeleteFirst, let us generalize the terms “tree”, “sound” and “someone”. When we say tree and sound, we mean anything that has a cause and effect. In total, they are what we call an “event”. When we say someone, we mean anyone or anything with the ability to process the sound: a human, a mouse, a cat or a recording device.
The question is then asking, do things happen because we perceive them, or because they actually happen and we just by coincidence someone is there to watch (or hear) it? Again, common experience tells us that things do indeed happen without anyone there. That is, the laws of nature continue even if no one is watching, listening, smelling, feeling or tasting it. For an example, I leave my ice cream outside in the warm weather. If I leave and come back, it has melted. I didn’t watch it melt, and assuming no one else was watching it, it would still be melted when I came back. I do believe that it is safe to assume that even if no one is there to perceive something, there is a reality that will continue to exist regardless.
If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound? This age old question has stereotyped philosophers for generations; however, few people recognize what it actually means. Firstly, there need to be precise definitions for the words, sound, nobody and tree. A sound, as defined by Berkeley, is a mere perception of the mind. In other words, sounds do not exist in the physical world. This is because one sound might seem loud to one person, but quiet to the other. This ultimately creates a paradox, since it is flawed to think that one entity could share two conflicting qualities. Nobody means that there is not a person around to hear the sounds, but accordingly to Berkeley a “person” is just a mind attached to some visual perception (a body in this case). It is important to note that the mind does all of the perceiving. And then a tree, similar to a body, is just a visual perception, something that doesn’t actually exist in the real world. Furthermore, since the tree and potential sound of a tree falling need to be perceived in order to exist, according to Berkeley in order for a tree to fall in the woods, it would have to make a sound. In other words, the tree and the sound go hand in hand – they are either being perceived or not being perceived. However, by the third dialogue Berkeley refines this idea and establishes the notion of God. He maintains that God has infinite perception of everything, so nothing really ceases to “exist.” Therefore, since god can perceive the tree, the tree exists. And if the tree were to fall, then it would surely emulate the perception of sound. Nobody would be there to actually observe it, but it would occur since god can perceive the visual and sound aspect.
ReplyDelete