If a Tree Falls in the Woods . .
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."
God -- Or Some Lesser Designer
In Chapter V, Philo devises several arguments that accept that the universe has a designer, but deny that that designer is God. Given our traditional definition that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, is Philo correct? Or is there a response to his arguments? Does it matter if the designer is the traditional God?
I personally believe that a tree falling in the woods makes a sound mainly because of the definition of sound and nobody. If we were to define sound subjectively, every definition would be different. Therefore, the only way to truly argue this is to define it as something the majority of the population can agree to, which would be the scientific definition. The general definition in Physics would be that “... sound is a vibration that typically propagates as an audible wave of pressure, through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid.” (Wikipedia). In this case, it does specify that it is an audible wave but that does not necessarily mean that someone would have to hear it. It just has to be audible, and it has to have a wave of pressure (or vibrations), which occurs when anything makes a sound and is the only way we hear it. However, just because we are not there to hear it does not mean it does not make the vibrations.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, assuming that it does not make the vibrations seems a bit narcissistic as it technically says “nobody” instead of nothing, which assumes that animals can still be in the forest with no human there. Because of this phrasing, we can further prove that it would indeed make a sound. For instance if we were to look at colors, the mantis shrimp is able to see a multitude of colors (coming from light waves) that we cannot see. Though we cannot see it personally, the mantis shrimp is able to and we are able to comprehend that those electromagnetic waves do indeed exist. In fact, on the electromagnetic spectrum, we can actually harness these waves (whether it be microwaves or infrared). Just because we had no knowledge of it beforehand does not mean that they do not exist. To connect this back to the sound argument, just because we cannot hear the sound does not mean it does not exist. Animals do react to sounds, or the vibrations at least, and it would indeed make a sound.
If we were to look into this more philosophically, does the unobserved world function the same as an observed world? We could also question something along the lines of: if someone is in pain and we do not see it, does that mean they are not in pain? Both of these questions are something that pop up into my mind if we look at it without as much of a scientific definition. Because sound is technically subjective because we all hear it differently (though the actual vibrations would stay the same in an experiment), it could very well be that the tree might not make a sound if we are defining it based on the idea that sound can only be heard if a human/animal is around. We, in fact, might not exist to the people around us. We can assume they do, just like we can assume that the hypothetical forest itself exists, hypothetical air has to exist, hypothetical vibrations has to also exist, and so much more has to exist to create this hypothetical question into something we can truly answer. There is no definite proof that a tree makes a sound if no one is there to see it, we cannot necessarily prove that it does make a sound. One could even define sound as something that must be heard, otherwise it is just vibrations in the air (if that). In this case, one could assume that it is actually an illusion by the brain, the vibrations from the eardrum could be interpreted by the brain and made into a sound. There is no guarantee that it is not. So in essence, the tree might make a sound if we are thinking scientifically but the tree might also not make a sound if it is philosophically speaking.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that when a tree falls in the woods it makes a sound. When I say ‘nobody’ would be there to hear the sound, I mean that there would be no human being close enough to perceive the vibrations caused by the tree. The ‘tree’ which I speak of is the object which created the vibrations in the air, perceived by our eardrums as sound. Sound is a motion. Berkeley describes it as the, “motion in the external air, that produces in the mind the sensation of sound. For, striking on the drum of the ear, it causes a vibration, which by the auditory nerves being communicated to the brain, the soul is thereupon affected with the sensation called sound” (Berkeley 17). Sound creates vibrations in the air, but the sound is not part of the vibration. In other words, sound is not a physical object. Sound is just a sensation, and sensations are nothing but perceptions. Humans therefor perceive sound as a motion, and that motion as a sensation.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley says that there are, “two sorts of sound, the one vulgar, or that which is heard, the other philosophical and real” (Berkeley 18). The first is what people perceive. People perceive sound to be real, and do not think about what truly constitutes sound. They hear a sound, and they think that an object, which has that sound, made it. These people are not philosophers. Philosophers know that sound is just a perception of motion. They know that the motion is in the air, and that the sound which is perceived is not of the thing which has made it. In other words, there is no sound if there is no air. If there is just space, no particles through which vibrations can carry, there is no sound. For example, consider a room which has been closed off, sealed, and all of the air sucked out. If you hit a bell, no sound would come from it. Without the air, there is no substance through which the vibrations can carry to be perceived as sound. Therefor sound is not in the object, sound is not in the vibrations, sound is simply a way in which people perceive or sense motion through air particles.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the tree would not make a sound, if it were to fall in a forest. This is because on one is in the forest, waiting for the sound to be perceived. However, before you can understand my stance, I first need to define two critical terms in the question, “nobody” and “sound.” Starting off with nobody, I understand this term to be “no” and “body” meaning that there are no beings. With the forest having ‘no beings,’ I believe this to mean that there are no animals, insects, or any type of fauna. I am excluding the idea of flora, but I will explain why later. As for sound, I think of this term as a perceptual entity that only exists in the mind of the person that is perceiving it. I do not think of sound as vibrations through the air, since the physical vibrations do not have the property we perceive as sound. Since these vibrations, themselves, don’t have the essence of sound, I do not think that we should consider these vibrations to be sound. However, we are only able to perceive the sound, because of the existence of these vibrations. For example, sound vibrations need air for it to ring, but in space there is no air. With a lack of air, vibrations can’t form and thus essence of sound is lost with the vibrations. Now, if we return to the question with these defined terms in mind, we see that the tree will fall in the forest, and will create a lot of vibrations as it is tumbling down. However, understanding that “nobody” is in the forest, nothing in the forest knows of the vibrations. Since the vibrations are in a sense, unperceived, the essence of sound is also not perceived with the vibrations. Therefore, trees do not make sounds when they fall in forests. Even if we are to define what a tree is, this same principle applies to any object that would make sound vibrations, because no perceptions means the no existence.
ReplyDeleteI believe there are two different answers to this question that differ only in their definitions of sound. On the one hand, if you believe there will be sound, you are therefore defining sound to be a physical and measurable thing. By physical, I mean it exists outside of a perceiver, in nature, making it independent of perception; therefore, sound, being physical, will exist regardless of whether or not there is something to perceive it. On the other hand, if you believe there will be no sound, you must also claim that sound is an experience dependent on perception. Perception cannot exist without a perceiver; so if sound is a perception, it could not exist absent of a perceiver. While both arguments have strong reasoning, I would argue that there would be no sound because sound is a perception, and this is why sound is a perception. In his argument, Berkley states that sound is “motion in the external air that produces in the mind the sensation of sound” (Berkley 17). That is to say, sound is caused by something external which is perceived by something internally. To further clarify this point, imagine a rating scale, on one end there is movement, which represents all that exists outside of perception, and on the other side hearing which represents perception, and somewhere in the middle exist sound. If I can show the inseparable connection between sound and hearing in comparison with its looser connection with movement, I will have proven that sound is a perception. If someone sat in the vacuum of space without any noise, they would not be able to hear anything. In other words, hearing does not exist without sound. Now if all life developed without the ability to hear, for example, ears did not exist, there would be no noise. The physical movement of molecules would exist but according to Berkley, there would be no sound without the tools to interpret those physical movements. Therefore, hearing is dependent on sound and sound is dependent on hearing. In conclusion, if a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody around to hear it, or there is physical motion of air molecules without a perceiver, sound would not exist because sound is a perception.
ReplyDeleteI believe that if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, it does still make a sound. When I say nobody is around, I mean that there is no organism with ears or anyway to perceive sound around to hear the tree fall. So there is nothing in the area that is able to hear the tree fall. Despite nothing being around to hear it, I still think the tree technically makes a sound according to the definition of sound. The tree still creates sound waves when it falls and hits the ground so it makes a sound, but no one is there to hear it. The sound waves created by the tree that fell may not be able to be interpreted by anything in the area, but it is still creating those sound waves and vibrations that a person would be able to hear. Berkeley argues that sound is not in the sound waves but it is in the mind of the perceiver. I can kind of understand this because the sound of a bell ringing may be different for other people. Like some people may hear the bell ring, but some people who may be deaf or have worse ears may not even hear the sound of the bell or barely be able to hear it. Or like there are some sounds that only children are able to interpret that adults can’t interpret because the sound is at such a frequency. However, I think the sound is still in the vibrations and sound waves. Because like the sound at such a frequency that an adult can’t hear is still making a noise by creating sound waves, it’s just that adults aren’t able to perceive it. So I think that if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, it still makes a sound because it still creates sound waves and vibrations which is sound even though no one is there to interpret it.
ReplyDelete