Does a tree exist if no one is there to observe it?

[DaveC426913]

The tree falling question is a good example to show humans are extremely conceited. Why would anything's existence be dependent upon our observation?

Who said anything about humans - other than you? Now that's kind of conceited.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Who said anything about humans - other than you? Now that's kind of conceited.

I like your humor but silly questions always warrant silly responses.

 

[DaveC426913]

I like your humor but silly questions always warrant silly responses.

The humour is to be found in the fact that my statement should be so obvious as to go without saying.

What makes you think we're talking about humans? Do squirrels hear the sound? Of course they do. If the tree fell and there were no squirrels, would it make a sound? Same question.

Before humans walked the Earth, sounds still existed.


The philosophical question of whether a tree makes a sound is perfectly valid while having absolutely nothing to do with human conceit.

So - what was your contribution again?

 

[DrClapeyron]

The humour is to be found in the fact that my statement should be so obvious as to go without saying.

What makes you think we're talking about humans? Do squirrels hear the sound? Of course they do. If the tree fell and there were no squirrels, would it make a sound? Same question.

Before humans walked the Earth, sounds still existed.


The philosophical question of whether a tree makes a sound is perfectly valid while having absolutely nothing to do with human conceit.

So - what was your contribution again?

The question was asked on an internet forum directed at humans. You aren't going to say squirrels check up on their emails daily and then visit physicsforum?

 

[DaveC426913]

The question was asked on an internet forum directed at humans. You aren't going to say squirrels check up on their emails daily and then visit physicsforum?

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[DrClapeyron]

What does that have to do with anything?

The tree was certainly around when it fell, why wouldn't the tree count as an observer?

 

[DaveC426913]

The tree was certainly around when it fell, why wouldn't the tree count as an observer?

You did not answer my question. Why do you think this question presumes the conceit of humans?

I contend that the question is perfectly valid without any reference to humans' participation, so why are you presuming anyone thinks humans must be involved, and thus assuming our conceit?

Please explain.

 

[DrClapeyron]

You did not answer my question. Why do you think this question presumes the conceit of humans?

I contend that the question is perfectly valid without any reference to humans' participation, so why are you presuming anyone thinks humans must be involved, and thus assuming our conceit?

Please explain.

So does one refer to something other than a human? Let's look at the setting: the woods. Woods implies something away from human construction, society and presence. We are lead to believe that there is no one in the woods. Apparently the animals and plants and the tree itself never count as one or an observer.

 

[kote]

So does one refer to something other than a human? Let's look at the setting: the woods. Woods implies something away from human construction, society and presence. We are lead to believe that there is no one in the woods. Apparently the animals and plants and the tree itself never count as one or an observer.

We use humans and sounds as an example because we are familiar with being human and perceiving sounds. We could just as easily have asked if the sensation of the echolocation of a bear entering a cave is present when there are no bats around to sense the bear entering.

But that would make for a pretty awful example wouldn't it? We have no idea what the sensation of echolocation is like. I'm pretty sure none of us know what it's like to be a bat.

Do bats perceive the sensation of sound in the same way we do? If not, we have to stick for humans for this example.

I suggest reading the posts earlier in this thread explaining the question with qualia. You can also look up qualia on the net. "What is it Like to be a Bat?" is a famous philosophy paper by Thomas Nagel that talks about this question. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia.

 

[DaveC426913]

So does one refer to something other than a human? Let's look at the setting: the woods. Woods implies something away from human construction, society and presence. We are lead to believe that there is no one in the woods. Apparently the animals and plants and the tree itself never count as one or an observer.

Yes. That is a perfectly valid line of argument.

Rather than following the line of argument, you instead chose to simply damn all of human society with the judgement that they are conceited. This is a discussion-closer. (Note additionally, that you seem to be the only one who holds this judgement. No one else seems to struggle with the idea that the question is not human-centric.)

So, I'll rephrase your comment as a discussion-continuer:

Q: What about non-human observers? There are surely animals in the forest. (I thought maybe trees could count, but then I realize how silly that is, since trees don't have any hearing mechanisms.) If there are animals in the forest, does the tree make a sound?
A: Yes. Animals will hear the sound. The question is not human-centric. Consider the question to be: if a tree falls in the forest and no creatures are around, does it make a sound?

Now the question is getting to the nitty-gritty. What is "sound"?

 

[DaveC426913]

We have no idea what the sensation of echolocation is like. I'm pretty sure none of us know what it's like to be a bat.

I've got some ideas for a demo of that. All I need is some funding...

 

[disregardthat]

That it is a tree, or what sound is is irrelevant. The riddle is supposed to make us focus on the link between the concepts of perception and existence.

Does it make sense to consider the existence of an object independent of perception? I say no; the object is a purely a product of our sensory apparatus. It is a construction of the mind - an interpretation of a formless "external world". Forms (properties like shape, color etc..) are entirely created by the conscious mind.

Some of these forms might be necessary for human experience. Kant argues that for example, all objects must have spatial and temporal qualities; because these concepts are necessary components of all perception.

 

[DaveC426913]

That it is a tree, or what sound is is irrelevant. The riddle is supposed to make us focus on the link between the concepts of perception and existence.

Does it make sense to consider the existence of an object independent of perception? I say no; the object is a purely a product of our sensory apparatus. It is a construction of the mind - an interpretation of a formless "external world".

The pressure waves exist independent of any person or animal around to perceive them. This does not involve sensory apparati or perception. Is it still "sound"?

 

[disregardthat]

The pressure waves exist independent of any person or animal around to perceive them.

Pressure waves are concepts created by the mind as any other concept. Pressure waves are also a construction of the mind. They do not exist independently of the perceiver.

 

[DaveC426913]

Pressure waves are concepts created by the mind as any other concept. Pressure waves are also a construction of the mind. They do not exist independently of the perceiver.

This is completely false. Why would you say such a thing?

Are you saying that when the tree hits the ground, the air around the tree is not moved? Does it not propogate these movements in a spherical front radiating out from the tree at the speed of sound?

 

[disregardthat]

This is completely false. Why would you say such a thing?

Are you saying that when the tree hits the ground, the air around the tree is not moved? Does it not propogate these movements in a spherical front radiating out from the tree at the speed of sound?

I am not at all saying that. If I did I would accept the notion of a mind-independent structured world.

 

[russ_watters]

This one isn't philosophy either. Dave is right, the riddle is a silly one that reduces to an argument over the definition of "sound". If a "sound" is a pressure wave, then yes, it exists whether anyone/thing hears it or not. If "sound" is what is detected by our ears, then it doesn't. The line of discussion about whether anything exists independent of the mind is just overzealous Matrix fandom.

Thread locked.