If a tree 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."
A tree: A collection of perceptions Sound: A perceivable vibration through air molecules that is interpreted as sound by the human brain. Nobody: The absence of a human mind able to perceive said sound.
When a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there to hear it, the tree does not make a sound, that a perceived vibration of air molecules, but it does still make a noise, just a vibration of air molecules. This argument is more or less addressed in Berkeley's argument proving God using idealism. Perceptions are ideas in the brain. Ideas cannot exist without a mind behind them. The ideas themselves still exist without anyone there to think them; therefore, ideas can exist independently of the mind. This conclusion has now reached a paradox- ideas cannot exist both dependently and independently of a mind. The solution to this conundrum is that there is some higher being who perceives all things, aka God, ensuring that there is always a mind there to maintain the existence of ideas/things. Taking into account the question’s reference to “nobody,” it is crucial to define nobody in terms of humans because God perceives all things, including that tree that fell in the woods that nobody heard. The tree made a noise, a vibration of air molecules that was not perceived by any human mind, but not a sound. Using Descartes argument for the existence of God based on idealism, we able to prove that the tree made a noise, not a sound.
I do not think that a tree makes a sound if it falls. Some people might define sound as scientific noise or sound waves but sound is really the perception of sound waves by a human brain. Nobody means the absence of a human mind. Therefore if a tree falls, it makes a noise, however if no human is there to perceive that noise, then no "sound" is made. However even so, after our discussed in class today about the infinite perceivers or "Harveys", it is not possible for the tree to not make a sound. If the tree is a collection of perceptions, and there must exist either one infinite mind or many minds to always perceive the tree at once, then those minds would also perceive the noise made by the tree falling, making it a sound. Even though I defined sound as a perception of noise by the human mind, I still think that even if Harvey is not human, his mind must be at least as advanced as our if not more, making him valid to perceive noise as well. However if we ignore or deny God's existence, then humans become the only ones able to perceive noise into sound. In my opinion, this means that God's existence makes the tree have a sound even if no human is around, however if God does not exist and no one is around, the tree does not make a sound.
While a tree falling in an empty woods creates a noise, it does not create a sound since that would imply that someone or something would have directly perceived the noise; however, the argument entirely relies on your definition of sound and whether one thinks that ears are the only legitimate perceivers of sound waves. Starting off, by someone or something, I am referring to a person or animal which has the ability to perceive and recognize sounds. In this same way, a rock (for example) is not considered since it does not have any direct function (ears or a mind) to interoperate noises and sound waves as sounds. However, I do believe that rocks, like people, perceive sound waves, but only to the extent that their structure comes into contact with them, and is very slightly affected by the waves/noise. It is only because these noises aren’t perceived as sounds, that there is no sound. On the other hand, you could argue that this direct contact with the noise is hardly any different to the direct contact that sound waves have on our own ear drum (our ears are just designed to perceive the noise as sound instead of just waves). It is when you get to this point that the definition of sound is essential: to me, I think that a sound is a human description of having perceived something with our ears, on the other hand, a noise is just the movement of sound waves that has the ability to be perceived (but isn’t necessarily). Applying this to the scenario, since there are no people/animals present to perceive the noise as the sensation of sound, then it implied that no sound is made (only the potential to create a sound: noise).
According to Berkeley and his idealist notions, if a tree falls in the forest, even if nobody is present, the tree will still make a sound because the omnipresent being that Berkeley calls G-d is present to perceive the scene. To begin with, it is important to define the terms in the thought experiment. Sound is a secondary quality that is the perception of primary quality sound waves. For the sake of argument, I define nobody as the absence of a non-omnipresent perceiver, so a finite-minded common person. Finally, I define tree in the idealist sense as a collection of perceptions. Berkeley’s argument for the existence of G-d is ultimately the best answer to this thought experiment. To understand Berkeley’s argument for an omnipresent perceiver, consider how things and places still exist even when you are no longer perceiving them. For example, even if I cannot see my bookshelf in the dark, the bookshelf did not disappear. Because Berkeley is an idealist, he believes that reality is a construct of the perceptions of the mind. So it follows that for objects to exist, they require perception. However, when you cannot perceive something Berkeley runs into a problem of that thing not existing. As such, Berkeley concludes that there must exist an omnipresent entity that can always perceive things even when a finite-minded person is not present. In this way, just because no one is present to perceive the sound the tree makes does not mean that the tree does not make a sound (just because I cannot see my bookshelf does not mean the bookshelf does not exist). In both the thought experiment and my example sound and sight are analogous; they are perceptions that create the presence of an object. Based on Berkeley’s persuasive argument for an omnipresent perceiver, I think that the tree does make a sound in an abandoned forest because the force is there to perceive the action and therefore confirm the existence of the forest and the action of the tree falling.
I define “nobody” as no thing capable of perception. Dictionary.com defines “sound” as “vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person’s or animal’s ear.” If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, it still makes a sound. Since the definition of sound is the vibrations travelling through the air, not the perceptions of these vibrations, sound can exist independent of a perceiver, but hearing cannot. When a tree falls, its collision with the ground will still produce these vibrations, which I am calling sound. It doesn’t matter whether there is something that is capable of perception there to perceive it. Berkeley expresses a similar notion, explaining, “The question between the materialists and me is not, whether things have a real existence out of the mind of this or that person, but whether they have an absolute existence, distinct from being perceived by God” (68). He does not argue that things don’t exist if no one perceives them. For example, if there is a tree in his yard, he sometimes sees the tree, but sometimes he isn’t looking at it. This doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist when he doesn’t look at it, because it is in the mind of God. Similarly, no perceivable things require some certain person or any person to perceive them to exist because God perceives them at all times. Additionally, I think it is unproductive to argue about whether a tree makes a sound when it is not clear what is meant by the word “sound.” Some want to specifically design common words just for the discussion and use “sound” for the perception and invoke “noise” for the physical vibrations, or potentially use another configuration of words, but this is unproductive and confusing. One needs to remember exactly how the words are arbitrarily defined within the conversation in order to have a mutual understanding about what the conversation is trying to achieve. Berkeley echoes this frustration: “But who sees not that all the dispute is about a word?” (80).
The situation does not make sense if idealism is true. If the tree falls and no person is around, then Harvey will hear it because Harvey perceives all things. But I can argue that "nobody" means that even Harvey is not observing, and if Harvey is not observing, then the tree should not exist to fall in the first place. So, as I have explained, for the tree to exist their needs to be somebody to observe it, whether that be a person, God, or Harvey. If there is somebody there to observe the tree then they will undoubtedly hear the tree falling. But does sound have it's own observer, because Berkley only ever considered objects, like a desk or in this case a tree, but something like a noise is different. A sound is the vibration of particles, so it is not technically an object, so we have to prove that actions like vibrations occur without a person around. But we don't need to prove it right now, because the situation provided depends on an action, the tree falling, to occur with no person, only Harvey observing, which means that actions are observed by Harvey, at least according to the situation given. This means that if he observes the tree falling Harvey will, maybe not hear, but at least observe the sound the tree makes.
When a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, I believe that it does not make a sound. The definition of "sound" is not an actual noise, but it is the human brains perception of those sound waves. So, when a tree falls and it is alone it makes a noise, which does not have to be perceived by the human mind, but it does not make a sound, which requires the perception by a human brain. However, when considering the argument of a "Harvey" or some other omnipresent/all knowing being (God) might disprove this. If a God really does exist, then his mind would be progressed even further than any humans mind, making him able to perceive the sound of the tree because he is able to perceive all. So, whether a human is able to observe the tree falling or not, God would always be there to perceive the noises, thus forcing the tree to have made a sound. So, in the end, it is actually a question of whether God exists. If God does exist, then no matter what the tree will always make a sound when it falls, whether another person is present and observing it or not. However, if there is nod a god, then it proceeds that there must be a person present for the tree's noise to be perceived as sound.
The answer to the the question seems to call for an examination of the 'belief in events without absolute proof or evidence'. Logically, every experience that we have suggests that the tree will undoubtedly make a sound, but at the end of the day, there is no way prove that it will. This calls for the definition of a sound. Scientifically, a sound is a wave that is caused when the tree falls down, causing a bunch of particles to rise out from beneath it, i.e. leaves and dust. The tree is surrounded by microscopic particles, and so when the tree falls, the particles are so light that they fly around everywhere, which pushes the air. The air in front of the tree gets pushed together, the pressure on that air increases. That makes a wave, and it goes through the forest until it hits your ear. So, if there was no one within the vicinity to hear the sound, no, the tree does not make a sound at all. However, in Philosophy, this calls for a completely different answer. According to Berkeley, because sound isn't something concrete, so it isn't real until it's interpreted. Berkeley created the idea of Harvey, an omnipotent being that is always there to interpret things, quietly stalking and watching everyone with his all seeing eyes, making sure that everything makes a sound. If Harvey were to exist, then yes, the tree falling would indeed make a sound because there would be someone to interpret that tree falling, meaning that because someone was there to witness, the tree did make a sound. Berkeley, an idealist, would believe that reality is a construct of having some perceptions within the mind. So it follows that for objects to exist, they require perception. Just like how I have a friend Zayne. When i see Zayne, he exists. But when i dont see Zayne, Berkeley would argue that if there was no one to perceive him, than he doesn't exist. This would be a huge problem, because obviously Zayne must exist, so Berkeley concludes that there must be an omnipotent entity (Harvey) that is all seeing, in order to ensure that everything still exists. So thanks to Harvey, an all seeing God, Zayne would still exist because there is someone to interpret him (Zayne better than Harvey for keeping him in existence).
This can be summed up well by Morpheus from the Matrix, "What is real? How do you define 'real'? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.”
This is interesting because perhaps God is not just one single entity. With Berkeley's logic, it does not restrict this world to only having one single God, as maybe there are multiple Gods that oversee certain parts of the world. There may even be different gods for every type of item on the earth... God of the pencils, God of the Apple Iphones...etc. But most interestingly, what if every single object that ever exists has a god within, always interpreting their object, making sure that it doesnt cease to exist. That is why i really like Erik's example of the rock having its own perception to some degree. Maybe it is because everything in the world has its own little god watching over it, and so the god perceives the sound waves of the tree falling over, and so all the gods in the objects near the tree hears and witnesses the fallen tree and hears the sound waves?? This would all technically work under Berkeley's interpretation of how stuff exists in the world.
I believe that when a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to witness it, then the tree does not make a sound. When I mention the word, no one, this is aimed towards the human species, and not animals or insects. This is because that even if an animal or insect is present during the time the tree fell, a human would never know this. There is no way of recognizing that there was a sound being made, if no one can tell us or prove to us that a tree did in fact fall. As Maggie mentioned above, a tree is simply a collection of perceptions, and because humans have perceived a tree before, even if we are not present, we know logically that if it falls, a “sound” will be made. However, the “sound” is not really sound, it is noise. The difference between noise and sound is that noise is the unwanted, irregular sound, whereas sound is caused by vibrating wave lengths that reach a humans ear, where the vibrations can then be perceived. If no human is there to witness the tree falling, then the vibrations of the falling tree are existing in the air but not being perceived, which therefore means that noise is being made, but sound is not.
A tree: A collection of perceptions
ReplyDeleteSound: A perceivable vibration through air molecules that is interpreted as sound by the human brain.
Nobody: The absence of a human mind able to perceive said sound.
When a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there to hear it, the tree does not make a sound, that a perceived vibration of air molecules, but it does still make a noise, just a vibration of air molecules. This argument is more or less addressed in Berkeley's argument proving God using idealism. Perceptions are ideas in the brain. Ideas cannot exist without a mind behind them. The ideas themselves still exist without anyone there to think them; therefore, ideas can exist independently of the mind. This conclusion has now reached a paradox- ideas cannot exist both dependently and independently of a mind. The solution to this conundrum is that there is some higher being who perceives all things, aka God, ensuring that there is always a mind there to maintain the existence of ideas/things. Taking into account the question’s reference to “nobody,” it is crucial to define nobody in terms of humans because God perceives all things, including that tree that fell in the woods that nobody heard. The tree made a noise, a vibration of air molecules that was not perceived by any human mind, but not a sound. Using Descartes argument for the existence of God based on idealism, we able to prove that the tree made a noise, not a sound.
I do not think that a tree makes a sound if it falls. Some people might define sound as scientific noise or sound waves but sound is really the perception of sound waves by a human brain. Nobody means the absence of a human mind. Therefore if a tree falls, it makes a noise, however if no human is there to perceive that noise, then no "sound" is made. However even so, after our discussed in class today about the infinite perceivers or "Harveys", it is not possible for the tree to not make a sound. If the tree is a collection of perceptions, and there must exist either one infinite mind or many minds to always perceive the tree at once, then those minds would also perceive the noise made by the tree falling, making it a sound. Even though I defined sound as a perception of noise by the human mind, I still think that even if Harvey is not human, his mind must be at least as advanced as our if not more, making him valid to perceive noise as well. However if we ignore or deny God's existence, then humans become the only ones able to perceive noise into sound. In my opinion, this means that God's existence makes the tree have a sound even if no human is around, however if God does not exist and no one is around, the tree does not make a sound.
ReplyDeleteWhile a tree falling in an empty woods creates a noise, it does not create a sound since that would imply that someone or something would have directly perceived the noise; however, the argument entirely relies on your definition of sound and whether one thinks that ears are the only legitimate perceivers of sound waves. Starting off, by someone or something, I am referring to a person or animal which has the ability to perceive and recognize sounds. In this same way, a rock (for example) is not considered since it does not have any direct function (ears or a mind) to interoperate noises and sound waves as sounds. However, I do believe that rocks, like people, perceive sound waves, but only to the extent that their structure comes into contact with them, and is very slightly affected by the waves/noise. It is only because these noises aren’t perceived as sounds, that there is no sound. On the other hand, you could argue that this direct contact with the noise is hardly any different to the direct contact that sound waves have on our own ear drum (our ears are just designed to perceive the noise as sound instead of just waves). It is when you get to this point that the definition of sound is essential: to me, I think that a sound is a human description of having perceived something with our ears, on the other hand, a noise is just the movement of sound waves that has the ability to be perceived (but isn’t necessarily). Applying this to the scenario, since there are no people/animals present to perceive the noise as the sensation of sound, then it implied that no sound is made (only the potential to create a sound: noise).
ReplyDeleteAccording to Berkeley and his idealist notions, if a tree falls in the forest, even if nobody is present, the tree will still make a sound because the omnipresent being that Berkeley calls G-d is present to perceive the scene. To begin with, it is important to define the terms in the thought experiment. Sound is a secondary quality that is the perception of primary quality sound waves. For the sake of argument, I define nobody as the absence of a non-omnipresent perceiver, so a finite-minded common person. Finally, I define tree in the idealist sense as a collection of perceptions. Berkeley’s argument for the existence of G-d is ultimately the best answer to this thought experiment. To understand Berkeley’s argument for an omnipresent perceiver, consider how things and places still exist even when you are no longer perceiving them. For example, even if I cannot see my bookshelf in the dark, the bookshelf did not disappear. Because Berkeley is an idealist, he believes that reality is a construct of the perceptions of the mind. So it follows that for objects to exist, they require perception. However, when you cannot perceive something Berkeley runs into a problem of that thing not existing. As such, Berkeley concludes that there must exist an omnipresent entity that can always perceive things even when a finite-minded person is not present. In this way, just because no one is present to perceive the sound the tree makes does not mean that the tree does not make a sound (just because I cannot see my bookshelf does not mean the bookshelf does not exist). In both the thought experiment and my example sound and sight are analogous; they are perceptions that create the presence of an object. Based on Berkeley’s persuasive argument for an omnipresent perceiver, I think that the tree does make a sound in an abandoned forest because the force is there to perceive the action and therefore confirm the existence of the forest and the action of the tree falling.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI define “nobody” as no thing capable of perception.
ReplyDeleteDictionary.com defines “sound” as “vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person’s or animal’s ear.”
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, it still makes a sound. Since the definition of sound is the vibrations travelling through the air, not the perceptions of these vibrations, sound can exist independent of a perceiver, but hearing cannot. When a tree falls, its collision with the ground will still produce these vibrations, which I am calling sound. It doesn’t matter whether there is something that is capable of perception there to perceive it. Berkeley expresses a similar notion, explaining, “The question between the materialists and me is not, whether things have a real existence out of the mind of this or that person, but whether they have an absolute existence, distinct from being perceived by God” (68). He does not argue that things don’t exist if no one perceives them. For example, if there is a tree in his yard, he sometimes sees the tree, but sometimes he isn’t looking at it. This doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist when he doesn’t look at it, because it is in the mind of God. Similarly, no perceivable things require some certain person or any person to perceive them to exist because God perceives them at all times.
Additionally, I think it is unproductive to argue about whether a tree makes a sound when it is not clear what is meant by the word “sound.” Some want to specifically design common words just for the discussion and use “sound” for the perception and invoke “noise” for the physical vibrations, or potentially use another configuration of words, but this is unproductive and confusing. One needs to remember exactly how the words are arbitrarily defined within the conversation in order to have a mutual understanding about what the conversation is trying to achieve. Berkeley echoes this frustration: “But who sees not that all the dispute is about a word?” (80).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe situation does not make sense if idealism is true. If the tree falls and no person is around, then Harvey will hear it because Harvey perceives all things. But I can argue that "nobody" means that even Harvey is not observing, and if Harvey is not observing, then the tree should not exist to fall in the first place. So, as I have explained, for the tree to exist their needs to be somebody to observe it, whether that be a person, God, or Harvey. If there is somebody there to observe the tree then they will undoubtedly hear the tree falling. But does sound have it's own observer, because Berkley only ever considered objects, like a desk or in this case a tree, but something like a noise is different. A sound is the vibration of particles, so it is not technically an object, so we have to prove that actions like vibrations occur without a person around. But we don't need to prove it right now, because the situation provided depends on an action, the tree falling, to occur with no person, only Harvey observing, which means that actions are observed by Harvey, at least according to the situation given. This means that if he observes the tree falling Harvey will, maybe not hear, but at least observe the sound the tree makes.
ReplyDeleteWhen a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, I believe that it does not make a sound. The definition of "sound" is not an actual noise, but it is the human brains perception of those sound waves. So, when a tree falls and it is alone it makes a noise, which does not have to be perceived by the human mind, but it does not make a sound, which requires the perception by a human brain. However, when considering the argument of a "Harvey" or some other omnipresent/all knowing being (God) might disprove this. If a God really does exist, then his mind would be progressed even further than any humans mind, making him able to perceive the sound of the tree because he is able to perceive all. So, whether a human is able to observe the tree falling or not, God would always be there to perceive the noises, thus forcing the tree to have made a sound. So, in the end, it is actually a question of whether God exists. If God does exist, then no matter what the tree will always make a sound when it falls, whether another person is present and observing it or not. However, if there is nod a god, then it proceeds that there must be a person present for the tree's noise to be perceived as sound.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe answer to the the question seems to call for an examination of the 'belief in events without absolute proof or evidence'. Logically, every experience that we have suggests that the tree will undoubtedly make a sound, but at the end of the day, there is no way prove that it will. This calls for the definition of a sound. Scientifically, a sound is a wave that is caused when the tree falls down, causing a bunch of particles to rise out from beneath it, i.e. leaves and dust. The tree is surrounded by microscopic particles, and so when the tree falls, the particles are so light that they fly around everywhere, which pushes the air. The air in front of the tree gets pushed together, the pressure on that air increases. That makes a wave, and it goes through the forest until it hits your ear. So, if there was no one within the vicinity to hear the sound, no, the tree does not make a sound at all. However, in Philosophy, this calls for a completely different answer. According to Berkeley, because sound isn't something concrete, so it isn't real until it's interpreted. Berkeley created the idea of Harvey, an omnipotent being that is always there to interpret things, quietly stalking and watching everyone with his all seeing eyes, making sure that everything makes a sound. If Harvey were to exist, then yes, the tree falling would indeed make a sound because there would be someone to interpret that tree falling, meaning that because someone was there to witness, the tree did make a sound. Berkeley, an idealist, would believe that reality is a construct of having some perceptions within the mind. So it follows that for objects to exist, they require perception. Just like how I have a friend Zayne. When i see Zayne, he exists. But when i dont see Zayne, Berkeley would argue that if there was no one to perceive him, than he doesn't exist. This would be a huge problem, because obviously Zayne must exist, so Berkeley concludes that there must be an omnipotent entity (Harvey) that is all seeing, in order to ensure that everything still exists. So thanks to Harvey, an all seeing God, Zayne would still exist because there is someone to interpret him (Zayne better than Harvey for keeping him in existence).
DeleteThis can be summed up well by Morpheus from the Matrix, "What is real? How do you define 'real'? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.”
This is interesting because perhaps God is not just one single entity. With Berkeley's logic, it does not restrict this world to only having one single God, as maybe there are multiple Gods that oversee certain parts of the world. There may even be different gods for every type of item on the earth... God of the pencils, God of the Apple Iphones...etc. But most interestingly, what if every single object that ever exists has a god within, always interpreting their object, making sure that it doesnt cease to exist. That is why i really like Erik's example of the rock having its own perception to some degree. Maybe it is because everything in the world has its own little god watching over it, and so the god perceives the sound waves of the tree falling over, and so all the gods in the objects near the tree hears and witnesses the fallen tree and hears the sound waves?? This would all technically work under Berkeley's interpretation of how stuff exists in the world.
I believe that when a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to witness it, then the tree does not make a sound. When I mention the word, no one, this is aimed towards the human species, and not animals or insects. This is because that even if an animal or insect is present during the time the tree fell, a human would never know this. There is no way of recognizing that there was a sound being made, if no one can tell us or prove to us that a tree did in fact fall. As Maggie mentioned above, a tree is simply a collection of perceptions, and because humans have perceived a tree before, even if we are not present, we know logically that if it falls, a “sound” will be made. However, the “sound” is not really sound, it is noise. The difference between noise and sound is that noise is the unwanted, irregular sound, whereas sound is caused by vibrating wave lengths that reach a humans ear, where the vibrations can then be perceived. If no human is there to witness the tree falling, then the vibrations of the falling tree are existing in the air but not being perceived, which therefore means that noise is being made, but sound is not.
ReplyDelete