Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

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

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I responded here. Don't know what the hell happened to my post. Again:

If a tape recorder is there, the only event is changes to the relevant media, when the vibrations impinge upon the apparatus -- no, there is no sound, not until a consciousness plays and hears that media.

As Leonard Peikoff wrote, perception is a marriage of object and apparatus -- in the case of sight, and sound, as well as the others: the relevant sensory organs perceiving by their own means, then transmitting the information to the brain, where it is interpreted in accordance with the nature of that brain, and all attendant structures.

There is no 'green' in the absence of the eyes that see it, and transmit the data (in the case of man) by means of the thalamus? (sensory relay station?) to the occipital cortex? (been quite some time since Intro to Neuroscience) -- where we then grasp it, though virtually instantly, as green. Destroy that cortex -- the thalamus -- the brain -- the man -- animals in general -- nothing left there but a certain range of wavelengths of visible light, interpreted, seen, by nothing at all.

In the absence of one who hears, there is no sound. In the absence of one who sees, there is no sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you trying to set a difference between sound and sound waves and light and light waves; One being the natural effect, the other being the perceived effect?

If so youre just defining things differently and it really means nothing. This question is usually philosophically relevant to demonstrate a false proof for subjective realities. The sound is still there just not perceived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeh, this has always seemed to be a trick question, more to do with semantics, than metaphysics; "does it make a sound", no, not without an observer.

Does it emit sound waves?

Does a green object reflect a specific wave length of light?

Yes, with or without an observer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it emits vibrations ('sound waves') -- and yes, a 'green' object reflects wavelengths in a certain range ('green', a concept that exists in the context of consciousness -- see ITOE).

But no, there is no sound (in the sense of 'make a sound', see dictionary.com re the relevant definition -- 'sound' and 'sound waves' (which refers specifically to the vibrations) are emphatically not equivalent).

But there is no green, in the absence of eyes and a brain that grasps it as such; and no sound, in the absence of ears and a brain that grasps it as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sound involves the vibrations in some medium

Great explanation.

(that's pretty much what sound is, a wave (or call it vibration if you must) in pretty much any medium, of a given frequency range.)

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.

Oh no, you ruuuuuuined it.

By the way, here's some evidence that sound exists, even if no one's there to hear it (if they had some glass around-or even a flimsy building, I imagine, that close to a sonic boom, the flying debris would provide even more proof of the "realness" of sound):

FA-18_Hornet_breaking_sound_barrier_(7_July_1999)_-_filtered.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it emits vibrations ('sound waves') -- and yes, a 'green' object reflects wavelengths in a certain range ('green', a concept that exists in the context of consciousness -- see ITOE).

But no, there is no sound (in the sense of 'make a sound', see dictionary.com re the relevant definition -- 'sound' and 'sound waves' (which refers specifically to the vibrations) are emphatically not equivalent).

But there is no green, in the absence of eyes and a brain that grasps it as such; and no sound, in the absence of ears and a brain that grasps it as such.

To repeat it differently,

Does an object of some (unspecified) colour, ALWAYS reflect its own, particular wavelength of light? Whether or not there is an eye/brain present to 'see' it?

Does an object falling do so in total silence, when it is self-evident that the event has propogated sound waves of a particular frequency? Whether or not someone's ear-drum vibrates in sympathy to it?

You have replied to your own question already. No, there is no sound without an observer. But there are sound waves independent of an observer - and this is where the debate can devolve into semantics.

Unless you're proposing that nothing can possibly happen without an observer present? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't mean to sound demeaning....but does this question really boggle anyone? Seriously? This isn't hard. Reality exists independent of living beings. I.e. yes a tree falling in the woods makes a sound even when there is no one around to hear it. More precisely, sound waves are produced.

This is more an argument over semantics than it is metaphysics.

I'll put this yet another way...the objective fact of sound waves still exists even when there are no conscious beings to be aware of them. The subjective experience of sound, quite obviously, does not exist without a subject. The objective fact of light waves/color exists even when there are no conscious beings to be aware of them. The subjective experience of color does not exist without a subject.

Don't fall into the trap so many people do of thinking that some objective fact doesn't exist until it is observed. Something can be unknown until it is known, but it cannot be indefinite until it is known. All things are definite all the time, but not everything is known. Again, I'm talking objective vs. subjective.

Edited by Krattle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but does this question really boggle anyone? Seriously? This isn't hard. Reality exists independent of living beings.
There is a real question, namely whether the word "sound" refers exclusively to sounds that are perceived. If you define "sound" as "the perception of an acoustic waveform" then tautologically it would; my point simply is that this is not the correct definition of "sound".
This is more an argument over semantics than it is metaphysics.
Perhaps. If you define "semantics" to be "the study of what exists" and metaphysics to be "the meaning of words", then indeed that is what people are saying. Obviously, we can't argue over the correct meaning of words, since the meaning of words is metaphysically given, if you have the right definition of metaphysics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a real question, namely whether the word "sound" refers exclusively to sounds that are perceived. If you define "sound" as "the perception of an acoustic waveform" then tautologically it would; my point simply is that this is not the correct definition of "sound".Perhaps.

Yes, Organon seems to be confusing the definition of "sound" with the action of hearing. Clearly the two are not the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Organon seems to be confusing the definition of "sound" with the action of hearing. Clearly the two are not the same.

Although most dictionary definitions of sound do insist that there is a sensory component our friend seems to have missed this one...

SOUND: mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, travelling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level.

The "mechanical vibrations" are there, even in the absence of the hearing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is ther an objective definition of "sound?" I think of a "sound" as a percept, distinct from a "sound wave."
Yes, and generally speaking, the correct way to resolve such questions about what concepts a word refers to is to look at an authoritative dictionary. Webster's Unabridged dictionaries are good (the only possibly better one is the OED). You need a dictionary that accurately reports what a word refers to, one that results from careful research, and Webster's has the strong research and commitment to accuracy that makes them truly authoritative. For the noun "sound" it gives 6 primary senses of the words, and under the primary one (the one relevant to this discussion) it gives the three nuances, namely sensation, auditory impression (we would say "percept") and mechanical radiant energy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it gives the three nuances, namely sensation, auditory impression (we would say "percept") and mechanical radiant energy.

Well, a sensation could be caused by mal-functioning ears (for instance my ears have rung in the past, after shooting a gun), a percept could be perceived by a crazy(or even not crazy) person hearing things that aren't caused by a physical event. So, in neither of these two definitions is the word "sound" causally connected to actual vibrations (in other words, neither definition involves physical energy in the air, sensation and perception, only sensation/perception).

Therefor, the sentence "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?" makes no sense, unless the definition of sound is "mechanical radiant energy". That makes the right answer to the question "Yes.", just as the right answer to the question "Is the Eiffel Tower structurally sound?" is "Yes.", instead of "Depends what you mean by sound.".

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefor, the sentence "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?" makes no sense, unless the definition of sound is "mechanical radiant energy". That makes the right answer to the question "Yes.", just as the right answer to the question "Is the Eiffel Tower structurally sound?" is "Yes.", instead of "Depends what you mean by sound.".
When a word refers to more than one concept (as "sound", "lead" and "light" do), you have to specify which particular concept you have in mind.

One of the other senses of "sound" (not #1) is the linguistic concept, such as "s", "ah", "k". That refers to a technical language concept "phoneme". From context, it's obvious that when somebody asks "does the tree make a sound", they can't possible mean "Does a tree utter a phoneme when nobody is listening" (assuming the other guy isn't being a smart-ass, which admittedly is a big assumption in the e-world). Usually, you can tell from context whether the person is speaking of a mental state (if they say "Did you hear a sound out there?") versus a waveform ("This alarm is sound activated").

The "if a tree falls" question, of course, isn't a real question in the way that "Do you have any beer" is -- it's just a means of bamboozling your interlocutor, and possibly tricking a person who doesn't know about the physics of sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tree-falling-in-the-forest question usually comes my way in an epistemological context, where the underlying premise of the first round of the discussion is something like "if no one is there to hear it, how do you know that THIS time when the tree falls down it actually generates pressure waves in the air that you would be able to hear? Maybe reality won't be the same this one time, and no one will be there to witness it, so how can you be certain of what will happen? "

Once that is dealt with, the discussion either 1) dies as the other person gets stuck in the certaintly-is-impossible corner, or 2) we then move into a the general theme of this thread which is more about the understanding of the concept of sound.

Edited by Timbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to the stated question is "no". The tree, itself, does not make a sound. At best, it is one part of an event chain that produce a sound.

If a tape recorder is there, the only event is changes to the relevant media, when the vibrations impinge upon the apparatus -- no, there is no sound, not until a consciousness plays and hears that media.

...

In the absence of one who hears, there is no sound. In the absence of one who sees, there is no sight.

YOU are defining sound waves as vibrations and sound as a consciousness' perception of those waves. So by your definitions, you have already answered your question within the question.

I think of a tape recorder as a device that records "sounds". I would wonder what word you would use for what a tape recorder records.

If you want an objective answer to the "sound" part of the question you must first agree to define terms. Once you do, there is only one answer. If you cannot agree on what words mean, then no answer is agreeable.

So, if you will commit in writing here to YOUR operative definition of sound, one can respond with whether or not it is the tree that "makes a sound".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I listen to very fast, hard bass, techno music. If I were to take a speaker, put my ipod in the jack, and put inside a small box that is sound proof, so no one will be conscience of the sound, or what is inside it; the sound will still exist. Yes, means as vibrations in medium, end as loud, annoying techno music that drives my mother crazy; unperceptive, yet I am knowledgeable of a sound in the box, but I do not hear it. Perception is subjective, therefore can not affect the metaphysical, or what is Though, if you're saying that the music that we listen to ends as music because of our perceptions, ears, then you are right. It begins as vibrations? Yes. I don't know much, though, just experience from observation.

Edited by Egosum—
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this simple concept so hard for people to grasp?

Existence exists whether there are conscious beings who are conscious of it. Sound, in the sense of air compressing and expanding as a result of some object's movement (in this case a tree falling) will always occur if there is a medium (not necessarily a gas because sound waves can travel through anything, even solids and liquids) and an object to move and set about the vibrations. It will occur irrespective of the existence of conscious beings who are conscious of its happening.

Now, sound in the subjective sense of the perception of said compression waves can only exist if there is a being with auditory sense organs able to process the compression wave into the perception of sound.

The separation between these two things is pretty clear. Just as light waves exist irrespective of our existence, but the perception of said light waves as light and color can only exist in the eyes and mind of a conscious being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, this is a legitimate topic. Many people confuse semantics with metaphysics, and despite how stupid that is, it is common enough to warrant discussion. Essentially, the issue is all about reality, the perception thereof, and how that pertains to our knowledge of it.

Second, to say, as some have, that sound unequivocally refers to the vibrations themselves is wrong. The sensory process is different than the phenomenon being sensed. This isn't saying the two are distinct and unrelated - so please don't accuse me of that - but the concepts 'sound what you hear' and 'sound the vibrations in the air' are different. The vibrations are one definitions of the word 'Sound'. To support this, consider that music has nothing to do with the condensed vapor surrounding the super-sonic jet, yet both are the product of the same physical phenomenon.

Third, Organon deserves less criticism then what he has been given because he only pointed out the issue, he did not take a side as some seem to accuse him of doing. That is, many have unfairly jumped to conclusions about what he was trying to say.

Finally, on the issue itself: there is a difference between actual reality and the perception of it. Perception is a process and a phenomenon of reality. This gets into what I stated in the second sentence of my second point. What I am saying is bound to be controversial, but I would hope those hoping to criticize my point would be intelligent enough to avoid cheap shots. I refer specifically to what I am not trying to say. I am not suggesting that reality is unknowable. I am not suggesting that our senses cannot properly inform us of reality. Let me tell you what I am saying. I am saying that it is absolutely necessary to acknowledge the process by which we obtain knowledge of reality. Sound - the kind that fills our heads, that we hear - is the result of a process that occurs when vibrations in the air enter our ears and are processed by the organ therein and that information is then sent to and processed by the brain. It is through measurement, further observation, the use of reason, the use of other senses, etc. that we are able to know this in the first place. Without those steps sound would always only be that which we hear. Note that in the example of bringing a recorder to the forest you must then listen to the recorder itself to ultimately 'hear' the sound. This is nothing more than A is A; hearing is hearing. Nothing is heard until it is heard. One definition of sound: that which is heard. Understanding reality means understanding the process by which we sense reality. Sound is not vibrations because a book says so, they are vibrations because someone understood that 'hearing' was the result of something else yet unknown occuring in reality, and upon study, properly concluded how sound is produced - and named the phenomenon - appropriately, sound.

That is the importance of the point raised by Organon. By saying, "Sound is vibrations, of course there is sound if no one observes it, period." you ignore that sound had to be discovered and the process of its discovery. Sound is 'hearing', later determined to be the product of a physical phenomenon. Now that we live with this discovery, we could probably define sound as the phenomenon, and use 'hearing/that which is heard' to describe the experience. Prior to the discovery, sound might as well have been caused by spirits that floated from a mouth to an ear, it wouldn't matter, that something was heard was the first datum.

The only proper response to Organon is: If sound is defined as the physical vibrations, they obviously still occur, if it is defined as that which is heard, obviously not.

Which in fact restates what he said. It is not proper to accuse him of using the wrong definition of sound. It is proper to ask him to clarify what definition he is using, if it is not obvious. It might be proper to point out that you acknowledge only one definition of sound, which you expect him to use if you are conversing with him. This last paragraph is another main point, in response to Organon. How we deal with language is important.

On a side note, the certainty-is-impossible argument is fun. My quick response to it: 1) if something previously unknown occurs, it therefore becomes known, and therefore is (and was) subject to some law in relation to the universe by virtue of its existence - therefore a consistent understanding of laws can provide effective certainty in the context of those laws. That is, as an economist would do, assuming the forest stays where it is, and atmospheric conditions remain unchanged etc. then - yes - the laws of physics that create sound waves will certainly remain the same. These assumptions are implicit in "If a tree falls in a forest". 2) If something previously unknown did in fact change the forest (say by sucking the air out of it), then we could rightfully conclude that a 1 in 1 million/billion/zillion event did occur, and we had no means of knowing of it beforehand, so by what standard should we have not concluded that the tree falling would produce sound waves? None, it would have been a correct assumption. In other words, concerning Hume, we have every reason to think the sun will rise tomorrow, and no reason not to, make of it what you will. Life or death, your choice. You don't have to feel certain, and are free to live in paralyzing fear, in mental impotence, and not act at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only proper response to Organon is: If sound is defined as the physical vibrations, they obviously still occur, if it is defined as that which is heard, obviously not.

This is exactly what I was saying as well. Is that not "semantics"?

If the person who poses the question CLEARLY defines his terms, the answers can also be more clear and precise.

It is like if I ask:

Can a sewer lie?

You need to know if I am referring to a drainage system or human being bringing a legal action in a court of law. (You'll also want to know if I'm asking about telling untruths or resting horizontally)

Ayn Rand, THE NEW FASCISM: RULE BY CONSENSUS

I shall begin by doing a very unpopular thing that does not fit today's intellectual fashions and is, therefore, "anti-concensus": I shall begin by defining my terms, so that you will know what I am talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is like if I ask:

Can a sewer lie?

You need to know if I am referring to a drainage system or human being bringing a legal action in a court of law. (You'll also want to know if I'm asking about telling untruths or resting horizontally)

Your point would be better served by referring to "one who sews (clothing)", since a person who sues would be spelled "suer". And that is exactly what it means to be a debate about "semantics" -- to take the word to be primary and equivocate about the concept, rather than taking the concept to be primary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer is trivial. There is no single "correct" definition of "sound". One of the definitions refers the physical phenomenon of sound waves, another one to that what is perceived by a human being as sound. These are two different things, although they are related. The first one is a physical concept, the second one a physiopsychological concept. With the first definition the answer is yes, with the second one no. It is simply a semantic issue, because of the ambiguity in the meaning of the word "sound".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...