"If a tree falls in a forest ... does it make a sound?"

[TomL]

Au contraire, there is nothing but psychological component to sound. ... I'm just talking about the sensory level, when the stuff hits the nervous system.

Any analysis of the mechanism of perception -- the mechanical/chemical/electrical means by which consciousness becomes aware of the sound, does not magically transform sound into something generated by the senses. It is not.

Psychology is nothing more than applied epistemology. The errors rampant in the current science of psychology are primarily evidenced in the popular premise that there is somehow more to psychology than epistemology. There isn't. If all of the science of psychology were consistent with Objectivist epistemology, there wouldn't be much else.

[Hal]

I agree, I think that the terminology within this post has become a bit warped.

sound is acoustic waves

hearing is perception

The fact that a falling object, on earth, which impacts a surface (given a non-vaccum enviornment, the forces subsumed by motion, and the law of COE) makes a sound, cannot be avoided. This example does not presuppose a 'hearer'.

But some people (most?) use 'sound' to refer to the phenomenological experience of hearing sound waves (the sound 'qualia', to use a term I intensely dislike). Using this definition, sound does presuppose a hearer. Acoustic waves normally cause our experiences of hearing sounds.

Another example of this kind of thing would be the classic 'heat is kinetic energy'. Again, this is not true if you are using the word 'heat' to refer to what-you-experience-when-you-put-your-hand-near-a-fire.

[Hal]

Psychology is nothing more than applied epistemology.  The errors rampant in the current science of psychology are primarily evidenced in the popular premise that there is somehow more to psychology than epistemology.  There isn't.  If all of the science of psychology were consistent with Objectivist epistemology, there wouldn't be much else.

Psychology includes the scientific study of cognitive processes such as memory, perception and knowledge representation. If you want to call this 'applied epistemology' then feel free, but physics and biology will be applied epistemology too.

[Proverb]

Another example of this kind of thing would be the classic 'heat is kinetic energy'. Again, this is not true if you are using the word 'heat' to refer to what-you-experience-when-you-put-your-hand-near-a-fire.

A clear example.

It seems then it would be meaningless to argue whether 'a tree' makes a sound because one of the requirements of the entire concept of "sound" is a listener.

More meaning could be derived from agruing whether or not 'a tree' creates acoustic waves.

[TomL]

But some people (most?) use 'sound' to refer to the phenomenological experience of hearing sound waves

I don't. Never have, never will. There has never and will never be a need.

[HaloNoble6]

Not that you're a fan of dictionaries, but dictionary.com has the first definition of sound as:

a. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.

b. Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.

c. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.

d. Such sensations considered as a group.

[TomL]

Yes, and since dictionaries are written by infallible Objectivist identifiers working from a flawless hierarchy of knowledge, we shall all stop this pointless discussion and submit to the almighty dictionary. Because as we all know, definitions are established by the collective of humanity, not reality.

While we're at it, let's look up the dictionary version of "selfish" and use that as well.

Edited July 20, 2005 by TomL

[HaloNoble6]

LOL, I knew you'd appreciate that one. Loved the measured response.

[Hal]

Yes, and since dictionaries are written by infallible Objectivist identifiers working from a flawless hierarchy of knowledge, we shall all stop this pointless discussion and submit to the almighty dictionary.  Because as we all know, definitions are established by the collective of humanity, not reality.

Dictionaries report what words mean in common usage. Since sound can refer to either of the 2 things I mentioned, it lists both. I'm not sure what the problem is...

I don't. Never have, never will. There has never and will never be a need.

Then what term do you use to describe phenomenological sound? That expression is pretty cumbersome, as is 'sound qualia'. Edited July 20, 2005 by Hal

[DavidOdden]

Dictionaries report what words mean in common usage. Since sound can refer to either of the 2 things I mentioned, it lists both. I'm not sure what the problem is...

The problem is that they drop context. In common usage, sound refers to both acoustic waves and sensations. but it technical usage it refers to sensations. For the question to be meaningful, you have to know in what context the question is asked. You cannot ask the question in the technical context (it's a stupid question no matter which meaning you assign -- the answer is "of course (not)"). Therefore "sound" has to have the either/or meaning in this context (and the answer is thus "yes").

[Nxixcxk]

My question to that question has always been: How do you know it fell?

[geoff27]

The important difference is that those who define "sound" presupposing a hearer are using the primacy of consciousness to do so.  There is no other way.  A "hearer" implies that a consciousness capable of hearing is available, otherwise there is no sound.  In other words: consciousness make sound "sound", not the vibration waves that exist in the universe.

I think I agree with this. (Not that consciousness makes sound "sound," but that the answer to the question is often a good indicator of the answerer's epistemology.) I don't understand the point of the word/concept "sound" requiring a human ear hearing the vibrations, when the word/concept "hearing" already covers that nicely. Am I supposed to bow to those who define sound as "a human ear hearing vibrations" simply because there are more of them than people who define "round" as "dark purple?"

When I hear a sound, I hear a sound. I don't simply "sound." I don't go to a concert and "sound" the music. Sound is the thing (vibrations in the air) that my sense of hearing experiences. Things can make sounds, and people, animals, etc, can hear the sounds. This is one of the oddest semantic arguments I've ever seen. Maybe I'm looking at it from an overly simplistic point of view, but... I have to admit I'm surprised to see a bunch of Objectivists actually debating the tree-falling question.

Like TomL, I've never, ever had a need to define "sound" as requiring an ear to hear it. I love Nxixcxk's answer to the question, though.

Edited July 20, 2005 by geoff27

[geoff27]

Then what term do you use to describe phenomenological sound? That expression is pretty cumbersome, as is 'sound qualia'.

My answer to that question, assuming we can work from Dictionary.com's definition of phenomenological as "A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human consciousness.", would be that I don't describe phenomenological sound, as such a thing appears to be incompatible with my belief in the primacy of existence. I don't talk about "phenomenological sound" the same way I don't talk about the entire world disappearing every time I go to sleep.

By "phenomenological sound," do you mean, "sound that I am hearing?" Why can't such a thing still simply be "sound," and what I'm doing is "hearing it," the same way I see light, and feel heat? In other words, how does my hearing the sound change anything about it? The sound can be made, and I can hear it, and I can even judge it based on my own values and experiences and decide if I like it (like music), or if it signals something important (like a fire alarm), etc., but I still haven't changed the nature of it simply by hearing it.

I'll readly admit that it's certainly possible I'm missing some huge, important point here.

[TomL]

Then what term do you use to describe phenomenological sound? That expression is pretty cumbersome, as is 'sound qualia'.

What in the hell is "phenomological sound" or "sound qualia"? There is "sound", and there is "hearing". I see no need for any other concepts.

[Hal]

What in the hell is "phenomological sound" or "sound qualia"?  There is "sound", and there is "hearing".  I see no need for any other concepts.

Because hearing is a process not a thing, and soundwaves (= sound in your defintion afaik) exist apart from humans. This leaves us without a term to describe the thing which we actually experience when we hear something.

A creature with different ears from us could hear the same pattern of soundwaves (such as those produced by a tree hitting the ground), and yet have a different experience (maybe the sound of the tree hitting the ground sounds like a bell to him). A better example is light waves. A colour blind person will presumably experience a different image from you when they look at the same object, despite seeing the same light waves.

Edited July 21, 2005 by Hal

[Hal]

My answer to that question, assuming we can work from Dictionary.com's definition of phenomenological as "A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human consciousness.", would be that I don't describe phenomenological sound, as such a thing appears to be incompatible with my belief in the primacy of existence.  I don't talk about "phenomenological sound" the same way I don't talk about the entire world disappearing every time I go to sleep. 

That's not what I meant, I should have explained myself better. By 'phenomenological sound' I meant the sensation that we actually experience. The sensation that is there for us but not for a deaf person (even though sound waves are still hitting his ears). The sensation that we can hear despite the absence of soundwaves when we are dreaming, or when we mistakenly think we 'hear' a noise in an empty house.

By "phenomenological sound," do you mean, "sound that I am hearing?"  Why can't such a thing still simply be "sound," and what I'm doing is "hearing it," the same way I see light, and feel heat?

Partly because you can see and hear things (and feel heat) without any sound waves (or light waves) being present, eg in dreams. Its hard to describe this kind of experience if you want to say sound = soundwaves. Edited July 21, 2005 by Hal

[geoff27]

The sensation that is there for us but not for a deaf person (even though sound waves are still hitting his ears). The sensation that we can hear despite the absence of soundwaves when we are dreaming, or when we mistakenly think we 'hear' a noise in an empty house.

The deaf person doesn't hear the sound because of a deficiency in his process/mechanism that would otherwise let him hear it. That doesn't change the fact that the sound was made, though. So yes, when we hear a sound, to us it's a sensation. But objectively, it's still a sound; the air still would've been pushed at a certain frequency even if we weren't there to have the sensation.

I know very little about the nature of dreams, so I can't comment much on sensory stimuli within them... other than to say that I'd assume such stimuli is "all in your head." As in, right now I'm thinking of my favorite song, but the song isn't actually being played in my vicinity at the moment. I'm not actually "hearing" the notes, I'm just remembering them. Maybe sounds, sights, etc. in dreams work the same way?

You said, "Because hearing is a process not a thing, and soundwaves (= sound in your defintion afaik) exist apart from humans. This leaves us without a term to describe the thing which we actually experience when we hear something." I would disagree. An event (a tree hitting the ground) pushes the air in waves towards our ears at a certain frequency, making a sound. Our ears then hear the sound, and we experience a sensation. It appears to me that there are already enough words to describe and define every step of the process of a human hearing a sound, and that there's no need for confusion over the word "sound" sometimes including a human's perception and sometimes not. Similarly, I don't understand the need for a single term to describe the process of hearing, if the term "heard" is for some reason inadequate. I "ate" some food, I "saw" or even "witnessed" a car accident, and I "heard" a sound. Those are all processes.

Edited to add: Perhaps, rather than needing a specific word to describe hearing a sound that wasn't actually made, as in a dream, etc, the context can just be acknowledged instead. Like if you're telling a friend about a dream you had, and you say, "So then I heard a wolf howling in the distance," your friend (it can be assumed) understands that a wolf was not actually howling in the distance, making soundwaves that travelled to your ears while you slept in bed.

Edited July 21, 2005 by geoff27

[DavidOdden]

You said, "Because hearing is a process not a thing, and soundwaves (= sound in your defintion afaik) exist apart from humans. This leaves us without a term to describe the thing which we actually experience when we hear something."  I would disagree.

[etc]

What I didn't see is what term you use to refer to acoustic waves, as distinct from the percept sound. What are you disagreeing with? Since as far as I can tell your claim is simply that you personally have no need to recognise the distinction between acoustic waves and percepts, I think a better answer would have been "So what?" or, "That distinction isn't important to me".

[geoff27]

What I didn't see is what term you use to refer to acoustic waves, as distinct from the percept sound. What are you disagreeing with? Since as far as I can tell your claim is simply that you personally have no need to recognise the distinction between acoustic waves and percepts, I think a better answer would have been "So what?" or, "That distinction isn't important to me".

Aha. With that, I think you got closer to the heart of the matter (for me, anyway). I suppose what I'm disagreeing with is the necessity for a definition of the concept of acoustic waves that can be sensed by human (or animal?) ears. There can certainly be acoustic waves that we can't hear. As far as a sound outside of our range of hearing, I would simply say that "it was a sound, but I couldn't hear it," like if someone blows a dog whistle. It might be convenient to say that a dog whistle is silent, that it makes no sound, but that's technically innaccurate, and I don't mind saying that there are sounds that I'm just incapable, as a human with functional ears, of hearing.

In other words, is it just the characteristic of "being outside human hearing range" that makes a sound no longer a "sound?" That's what I would disagree with. I believe that "sounds" are any acoustic waves that are measurable or detectable by any means we have at our disposal, including scientific equipment. Someone might very well be able to prove that definition inaccurate or contradictory to something else I've said that was essential to that definition, but for now I'll stick with that.

Edited July 21, 2005 by geoff27

[DavidOdden]

I would simply say that "it was a sound, but I couldn't hear it," like if someone blows a dog whistle.  It might be convenient to say that a dog whistle is silent, that it makes no sound, but that's technically innaccurate, and I don't mind saying that there are sounds that I'm just incapable, as a human with functional ears, of hearing.

In other words, is it just the characteristic of "being outside human hearing range" that makes a sound no longer a "sound?"  That's what I would disagree with.  I believe that "sounds" are any acoustic waves that are measurable or detectable by any means we have at our disposal, including scientific equipment.

Well, I have never heard of anyone talking of a 5 Hz or 50 Khz wave as being a "sound", but I think if you said such a thing, then people would probably understand what you must have meant. If you've got a good high-end speaker you can crank out a low amplitude, high frequency wave that's just below the threshhold of perception. Then you can ask someone "If there any sound coming out of this?", and normally people would just say "No", not "I have no idea, I don't have the equipment needed to detect it, if there is one". But I suspect that that is because most people would just think "There's nothing coming out of that at all".

I don't know what you mean by saying that it's "technically inaccurate" to say that a dog whistle is silent. Also, it isn't that something "makes a sound no longer a sound". If it's the right (or, wrong) frequency & amplitude, it wasn't a sound to begin with. At least if you're using the word "sound" in the technical sense -- which you don't have to do. (Well, there might be contexts where an irritating person will refuse to understand you because you're using the word "sound" in the broader, popular sense; but I don't think that that should force you to adjust your vocabulary, any more than I think you ned to change your definition of "logic" when talking to one of those deductive formal logician types).

[TomL]

Because hearing is a process not a thing, and soundwaves (= sound in your defintion afaik) exist apart from humans. This leaves us without a term to describe the thing which we actually experience when we hear something.

Hogwash. The senses (in this case the ears) process the thing called sound. The experience of doing so is called hearing. Case closed.

A creature with different ears from us could hear the same pattern of soundwaves (such as those produced by a tree hitting the ground), and yet have a different experience (maybe the sound of the tree hitting the ground sounds like a bell to him). A better example is light waves. A colour blind person will presumably experience a different image from you when they look at the same object, despite seeing the same light waves.

Who cares? The creature or color blind person would still acknowledge the causal factor as soundwaves or light waves, and in any communication with such creature they would be equivalent, because the sound waves/light waves in reality would be the same. There is no need to cook up some fantastic concept just to say that color blind people don't see all light waves.

[geoff27]

If you've got a good high-end speaker you can crank out a low amplitude, high frequency wave that's just below the threshhold of perception. Then you can ask someone "If there any sound coming out of this?", and normally people would just say "No", not "I have no idea, I don't have the equipment needed to detect it, if there is one"

Yes, but that's a situation that seems specifically designed to trick someone into thinking there's no sound. Show someone a speaker (which they are used to being an object that produces sound), have it produce that inaudible-to-humans wave, and of course that person willl say there's no sound. It's like taking a piece of translucent, blue-colored film, laying it over something yellow, and then asking someone else, "Is this object green?" It appears green, but the object is actually blue, you're just fooling them based on what they think you mean.

What I mean is, no one in their right mind would return a dog-whistle to the store where they bought it and demand a refund on the grounds that "It doesn't work-- I couldn't hear any sound come out of it!"

I should probably bow out of this discussion by just saying what was suggested to me earlier: It's not important to me to make these distinctions.

Edited July 22, 2005 by geoff27

[organon1973]

*** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier tread. - sN ***

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?"

An argument in relation to this question:

Sound involves the interaction of vibrations in some medium caused by some agent, e.g., a falling tree, or a rock hitting the side of a granite wall, upon the relevant "sensory modality", i.e., our auditory organs. A proper grasp of any given word relating to perception, e.g., "sight", or "sound", includes the context of a consciousness that is perceiving (listening, or seeing) whatever thing we may be referring to. If there is no consciousness present to perceive (in the case of sound) the vibrations in a medium, there is no sound, even though the vibrations are there.

In the absence of one who hears, there is no sound, even though the vibrations are there. In the absence of one who sees, there is no sight, even though an object is reflecting visible light.

Edited January 17, 2011 by softwareNerd
Merged topics

[Zip]

No the sound is still created it just isn't heard.

If you put a tape recorder (a non-conscious piece of equipment) in the woods it will record the sound that no consciousness heard.

I suppose you could call a sound that is not heard by a consciousness something else but that strikes me as just a little silly.

[DavidOdden]

Trees that fall in the absence of animals do make a sound, and things which are not being observed by animals that can distinguish color do still have their color. When a bush is green and is seen by a bear in the woods, the bush does not stop being green when the bear looks away.

The terms "color" and "sound" do not refer just to a act of perceiving. They refer to existents which can be perceived in a particular way (even if, at a given instant, they are not so perceived). Sound (and color) therefore do not necessarily involve our auditory organs, though potentially they can. I am not sure where this idea comes from that "sound" and "color" refer just to sensory events; probably someone pushing the primacy of consciousness POV. It's a pretty widespread misconception.