philosophical question

Dabawss

Dabawss

Active member
If a tree falls in the woods and there is no people or animals to hear it fall does it still make a sound?

now, before you just blurt out yes... let me give you the premise of my thought why it doesn't...

Notice i said "make a sound" as opposed to "generate sound waves"?

To "make a sound" implies that there is an emitter and a receiver (in this case the tree is the emitter but lacking any human or animals around, there isn't a receiver) Yes, the tree still generates sound waves but lacking a receiver to receive and perceive (or translate) the sound wave into an actual audible sound that can be interpreted through a combination of the ear and the brain working together to say, "hey, that's a sound!" the sound waves as a sound, it implies that a sound is not "made"

discuss

 
If I'm in a room full of people and I fart but they wonder who it was, did I make a sound?

now, before you just blurt out yes... let me give you the premise of my thought why it doesn't...

Notice i said "make a sound" as opposed to "generate smell waves"?

To "make a sound" implies that there is an emitter and a receiver (in this case my ass is the emitter but lacking any human which identified me, there isn't a receiver) Yes, the ass still generates smell waves but lacking a receiver to receive and perceive (or translate) the sound wave into an actual audible sound that can be interpreted through a combination of the ear and the brain working together to say, "hey, that's a fart!" the smell waves as a smell, it implies that a sound is not "made"

 
If I'm on the internet full of people and I make a dank meme but no one saw it, is it still a shitpost?

now, before you just blurt out yes... let me give you the premise of my thought why it doesn't...

Notice i said "make a dank meme" as opposed to "generate shitpost"?

To "make a dank meme" implies that there is an emitter and a receiver (in this case my autistic ass is the emitter but lacking any human which identified me, there isn't a receiver) Yes, my autistic ass still generates dank memes but lacking a receiver to receive and perceive (or translate) the dank meme into an actual shitpost that can be interpreted through a combination of the ear and the brain working together to say, "hey, that's lit fam" the dank meme as shitpost, it implies that a dank meme is not "shitpost"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Micchan said:
If I'm in a room full of people and I fart but they wonder who it was, did I make a sound?

now, before you just blurt out yes... let me give you the premise of my thought why it doesn't...

Notice i said "make a sound" as opposed to "generate smell waves"?

To "make a sound" implies that there is an emitter and a receiver (in this case my ass is the emitter but lacking any human which identified me, there isn't a receiver) Yes, the ass still generates smell waves but lacking a receiver to receive and perceive (or translate) the sound wave into an actual audible sound that can be interpreted through a combination of the ear and the brain working together to say, "hey, that's a fart!" the smell waves as a smell, it implies that a sound is not "made"
Click to expand...
your example is totally different as:

[1] it implies that all farts make a noise... they don't

[2] there are recievers present. They dont have to identify who farted, just that they farted.

 
Bear said:
If I'm on the internet full of people and I make a dank meme but no one saw it, is it still a shitpost?

now, before you just blurt out yes... let me give you the premise of my thought why it doesn't...

Notice i said "make a dank meme" as opposed to "generate shitpost"?

To "make a dank meme" implies that there is an emitter and a receiver (in this case my autistic ass is the emitter but lacking any human which identified me, there isn't a receiver) Yes, my autistic ass still generates dank memes but lacking a receiver to receive and perceive (or translate) the dank meme into an actual shitpost that can be interpreted through a combination of the ear and the brain working together to say, "hey, that's lit fam" the dank meme as shitpost, it implies that a dank meme is not "shitpost"
Click to expand...
Ilike micchan, your scenario is totally different

[1] "dank" is an implied and perceived state

[2] your making of the alleged dank meme requires the interaction of a life form capable of discerning whether something is "dank" or not, even if that is only you

 
Of course it made a sound. Just because nobody is there to perceive it does not mean that it does not exist. By this logic (pioneered by Descartes iirc) it would be fair to say that the existence of trees in a remote area of a forest cannot be accepted as truth because nothing is around to perceive the trees. If we are unaware of someone's suffering, does it still exist? Of course it does.

 
Lordship said:
Of course it made a sound. Just because nobody is there to perceive it does not mean that it does not exist. By this logic (pioneered by Descartes iirc) it would be fair to say that the existence of trees in a remote area of a forest cannot be accepted as truth because nothing is around to perceive the trees. If we are unaware of someone's suffering, does it still exist? Of course it does.
Click to expand...
See I considered this line of thought as well... and the physical existance of the trees doesnt require other life forms to be aware of it for other life forms to benefit from the trees existence (in this example, the trees help scrub toxins from the air to make it breathable)... you me and all the others benefit from the clean air the trees we cant see give us... the same cant be said about the sound waves...

 
Dabawss said:
See I considered this line of thought as well... and the physical existance of the trees doesnt require other life forms to be aware of it for other life forms to benefit from the trees existence (in this example, the trees help scrub toxins from the air to make it breathable)... you me and all the others benefit from the clean air the trees we cant see give us... the same cant be said about the sound waves...




 




 





 
Click to expand...
Just because it lacks practical use or doesn't benefit the world in any specific way mean that it doesn't exist

Again, If we are unaware of someone's suffering, does it still exist? Of course it does.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lordship said:
Just because it lacks practical use or doesn't benefit the world in any specific way mean that it doesn't exist

Again, If we are unaware of someone's suffering, does it still exist? Of course it does.
Click to expand...
I am not questioning the existence of the tree or its state of falling... I am questioning whether it "makes" a sound, and not just generate sound waves that are never intercepted and interpreted as sound

 
Dabawss said:
I am not questioning the existence of the tree or its state of falling... I am questioning whether it "makes" a sound, and not just generate sound waves that are never intercepted and interpreted as sound




 
Click to expand...
I am referring to the existence of the sound wave. If we set a recorder there-which has no interaction with the tree and does not correlate or assist the tree in making any form of sound-and it records this sound, then the tree did in fact make the sound. If a baby is alone in a room crying and nobody is there to perceive it, did the baby still cry?

 
Lordship said:
I am referring to the existence of the sound wave. If we set a recorder there-which has no interaction with the tree and does not correlate or assist the tree in making any form of sound-and it records this sound, then the tree did in fact make the sound. If a baby is alone in a room crying and nobody is there to perceive it, did the baby still cry?
Click to expand...
ok I hadnt oincluded a recorder in the mix... so let's remove it and any other kind of "documenting devices" from the mix...that doesnt change that sound waves arenbt sound until the waves are intercepted by something capable of interpretting the waves as actual sount

good point about the baby though... lem me have a few to consider how it resembes or doesnt resemble the question

 
Dabawss said:
ok I hadnt oincluded a recorder in the mix... so let's remove it and any other kind of "documenting devices" from the mix...that doesnt change that sound waves arenbt sound until the waves are intercepted by something capable of interpretting the waves as actual sount

good point about the baby though... lem me have a few to consider how it resembes or doesnt resemble the question




10
Click to expand...
Sure, I was simply using it as a means to explain that it exists whether or not it is perceived.

The baby example entirely resembles the question.

 
Lordship said:
Sure, I was simply using it as a means to explain that it exists whether or not it is perceived.

The baby example entirely resembles the question.
Click to expand...
the baby perceives it cried because it is a conscious entity, are you implying that trees have a conscious intelligence? :)

 
What you're really asking is "what is the definition of sound".  To determine that, the only roughly valid approach is to take a poll.

If you're asking whether it would attract soundspren (assuming there is such a thing), I would say no, since spren are based in the Conceptual realm, and the Conceptual nature of sound is probably the one that requires a listener.

 
Back
Top