If a tree falls somewhere where there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound?

[TheSocialInspector]

Consider the question. At first, you might instantly think "yes" as your brain processes the evident and the expected.

However, allow your mind to go deeper. Question the philosophical thought of reality and observation. This obstructs the view of the reality and perspective of the tree, when it is present in which there is no human perception.

[TigerBoy]

So disregarding the physics of sound waves and the reasonable expectations of normal cause and effect ...

This question only arises if you take a solipsist view of reality, which is to confuse the actual with the personal consequences of that reality.

If a tree falls and one isn't around, no sound is experienced. If you never visit that site or experience other consequences of that felling (eg owning furniture made from said tree), the tree may as well never have fallen, thus no sound could have been made.

Personally I have a great difficulty with any mindset which assumes this position, since it is indicative of an utter lack of empathy and consonant with sociopathy.

[Lost in the Echo]

Just because nobody is around when it falls, doesn't mean it doesn't make a sound.
Yes, it still makes a sound, it's a matter of physics.

[kenoloor]

click. (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=127318&highlight=tree+falls+forest)
click. (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=59595&highlight=tree+falls+forest)
click. (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=47795&highlight=tree+falls+forest)
click. (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=45302&highlight=tree+falls+forest)
click. (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=21818&highlight=tree+falls+forest)

[Human]

yes... it does and i don't see why it wouldn't

[Gigablue]

It depends on how you define sound. If you define it as being characterized by certain waves propagating through the air, then yes. If you include being heard in the definition (I don't know why you would, but some people do), then it doesn't.

[CharlieFinley]

So disregarding the physics of sound waves and the reasonable expectations of normal cause and effect ...

This question only arises if you take a solipsist view of reality, which is to confuse the actual with the personal consequences of that reality.

If a tree falls and one isn't around, no sound is experienced. If you never visit that site or experience other consequences of that felling (eg owning furniture made from said tree), the tree may as well never have fallen, thus no sound could have been made.

Personally I have a great difficulty with any mindset which assumes this position, since it is indicative of an utter lack of empathy and consonant with sociopathy.
Nah. Even then, sound is a mere matter of physical waves travelling through the air or whatever else, rather than a sensation or the awareness of the sound. Even if you're a solipsist, it would be folly to assume that while your back is turned, physics operates well enough to let a tree fall (as opposed to it just being in a new location when you arrive) but not well enough to generate sound.

[TigerBoy]

Nah. Even then, sound is a mere matter of physical waves travelling through the air or whatever else, rather than a sensation or the awareness of the sound. Even if you're a solipsist, it would be folly to assume that while your back is turned, physics operates well enough to let a tree fall (as opposed to it just being in a new location when you arrive) but not well enough to generate sound.

That might be true if you were an epistemological solipsist. A metaphysical solipsist would deny that the tree had any reality at all, where a methodological one would be more content to go with the flow but still think he was Neo.

[Mortal Coil]

To say it doesn't make a sound is the height of human egoism. "Sure, it fell. Sure, the impact resulted in sound waves, but if we weren't here, if human beings were not in the equation then no sound was made despite the fact that there were sound waves."

[Zenos]

Mortal Coil ,TigerBoy , and the rest of you that have replied to this post DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE SAYING!

It's an old Kōan,which is
is a story, dialogue, question, or statement, which is used in Zen-practice to provoke the "great doubt", and test a student's progress in Zen practice.
It has nothing to do with physics, solipsism,lack of empathy and consonant with sociopathy or any of the psycho-babble replies you guys have made,you have all misunderstood it because in Zen ultimately it comes to this "does it really matter if it made a sound."

Oh for those that don't know it Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist and it is also an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. As such it is the only epistemological position that, by its own postulate, is both irrefutable and yet indefensible in the same manner. Although the number of individuals sincerely espousing solipsism has been small, it is not uncommon for one philosopher to accuse another's arguments of entailing solipsism as an unwanted consequence, in a kind of reductio ad absurdum.

Despite Tigerboys claims it also has nothing to do with utter lack of empathy and consonant with sociopathy

[TigerBoy]

Mortal Coil ,TigerBoy , and the rest of you that have replied to this post DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE SAYING!

Unlike you on the basis of your leet Google skills, we are to believe?

Oh look what I found in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism). Look familiar?
Solipsism (Listeni/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/) is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from the Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism as an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. As such it is the only epistemological position that, by its own postulate, is both irrefutable and yet indefensible in the same manner. Although the number of individuals sincerely espousing solipsism has been small, it is not uncommon for one philosopher to accuse another's arguments of entailing solipsism as an unwanted consequence, in a kind of reductio ad absurdum.

It is generally considered good practice in debates to cite your sources, otherwise one can only assume you are trying to make yourself appear authoritative on this subject, which thus far you have failed to do.

I suggest that while you are on the solipsism page you SCROLL DOWN (capitals are great, aren't they?) to the part where it explains the relationship between solipsism and idealism / materialism, and how these concepts have been considered by the greeks and are not unique to the Zen philosophies. You can then hop over to the wiki page on "subjective idealism" if you so wish and read about George Berkley who developed that particular philosophy precisely to deal with these types of questions. And guess what, there's a link from the wiki page about "if a tree falls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest)" where he is discussed in context.


Despite Tigerboys claims it also has nothing to do with utter lack of empathy and consonant with sociopathy
Then explain to us how refusing to acknowledge the existence of anything outside one's own mind can fail to justify selfish actions.

[TheSocialInspector]

Yay to me, I have successfully sparked off a debate. Let's hope it doesn't end too soon.

[MrDaniel2K13]

It does make a sound, you can't ignore basic science

[Wesl3y]

No. The act of the tree falling causes what we describe as sound waves. The waves are interpreted as sound by our ear drums. So physically speaking if no one is around with ear drums to experience the sound waves, there was no sound. Only waves caused by vibration.

[Human]

No. The act of the tree falling causes what we describe as sound waves. The waves are interpreted as sound by our ear drums. So physically speaking if no one is around with ear drums to experience the sound waves, there was no sound. Only waves caused by vibration.

So the vibrations, which ARE SOUND still happen. Sound IS the vibration of the medium.
The sound waves still happen.

If there's no one there, how would we even know if it fell in the first place ;p

[Aajj333]

Yes and to test it I cut down a tree and it made a sound

[Jakejjj]

If it does fall it doesn't mean it will make a big sound

[User Deleted]

Of course not! If there isn't a pair of human ears to suck the alien vibration waves there won't be morgan freeman elves using the quantum generator to perpetuate the reaction beween the soundinium and the noisicium making sound. Everyone knows Morgan Freeman elves manage physics. What happened, did you fail SciencePhysics class?

[Sugaree]

Consider the question. At first, you might instantly think "yes" as your brain processes the evident and the expected.

However, allow your mind to go deeper. Question the philosophical thought of reality and observation. This obstructs the view of the reality and perspective of the tree, when it is present in which there is no human perception.

Isn't that assuming that a human being needs to be near something when it makes a sound so we can all say it made a sound? Your point is great, but this sounds more like "Just because you feel it, doesn't mean it's there."

To say it doesn't make a sound is the height of human egoism. "Sure, it fell. Sure, the impact resulted in sound waves, but if we weren't here, if human beings were not in the equation then no sound was made despite the fact that there were sound waves."

It depends on how you define sound. If you define it as being characterized by certain waves propagating through the air, then yes. If you include being heard in the definition (I don't know why you would, but some people do), then it doesn't.

I think MC got it right here. It might be due to human egotism in that respect.

Mortal Coil ,TigerBoy , and the rest of you that have replied to this post DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE SAYING!

It's an old Kōan,which is
is a story, dialogue, question, or statement, which is used in Zen-practice to provoke the "great doubt", and test a student's progress in Zen practice.
It has nothing to do with physics, solipsism,lack of empathy and consonant with sociopathy or any of the psycho-babble replies you guys have made,you have all misunderstood it because in Zen ultimately it comes to this "does it really matter if it made a sound."

Oh for those that don't know it Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist and it is also an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. As such it is the only epistemological position that, by its own postulate, is both irrefutable and yet indefensible in the same manner. Although the number of individuals sincerely espousing solipsism has been small, it is not uncommon for one philosopher to accuse another's arguments of entailing solipsism as an unwanted consequence, in a kind of reductio ad absurdum.

Despite Tigerboys claims it also has nothing to do with utter lack of empathy and consonant with sociopathy

Nice copy-paste bro, do it again!

It does make a sound, you can't ignore basic science

Yeah you can, just join any major religion.

Yes and to test it I cut down a tree and it made a sound

Herp derp de derp.

Also, plot twist: the tree isn't real and everything we know is a lie.

[CharlieHorse]

How do we know if any falling trees make sound?

[Sugaree]

How do we know if any falling trees make sound?

Better question: how do we know if an adult jumping off a 10 story building onto concrete makes sound? Or do we just imagine how it MIGHT sound?

[Mirage]

Yes and to test it I cut down a tree and it made a sound

But then you would've been there to hear it which means

A.) you just cut down a healthy living tree which presumably you won't use for lumber and will just let it sit and rot
B.) you completely misread or selectively read the original question which was (and I quote) "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it then does it make a sound".

Overall what I'm getting at is in debate threads please try to at least push some level of thought into your posts as if you don't you really shouldn't even have posted in the first place because really people will just skip past your unnecessary and unthoughtful replies in order to read the longer, more thought out replies.

[Inventor2]

So disregarding the physics of sound waves and the reasonable expectations of normal cause and effect ...


If a tree falls and one isn't around, no sound is experienced.

The sound could be experienced by another being such as animals, insects, ect. The vibrations of the tree (vibrations cause/are sound) could also have an impact on its surroundings. Considering it was a larger tree of coarse...

[Human]

The sound could be experienced by another being such as animals, insects, ect. The vibrations of the tree (vibrations cause/are sound) could also have an impact on its surroundings. Considering it was a larger tree of coarse...

couldn't you put a microphone in the ground and record it to find out?:P

[TigerBoy]

The sound could be experienced by another being such as animals, insects, ect. The vibrations of the tree (vibrations cause/are sound) could also have an impact on its surroundings. Considering it was a larger tree of coarse...

You are of course quite correct, but missing the point of the scenario. As I commented, you have to disregard the laws of physics (which seems silly). The question is intended to make you consider concepts of 'materialism' and 'idealism' by thinking about it in that particular way.

The statement of mine that you omitted in the middle of that quoted piece was summarising that you could only play this 'thought game by taking a particular view of the world from the perspective of the "philosopher" subject. This particular view of the world (solipsism) explicitly isn't concerned with the perspectives of other entities such as bunnies or butterflies or other people.

But now they are there, bless 'em, in the spirit of the scenario, the philosopher subject would have the same problem if he wasn't there himself. He wouldn't know the bunny got scared by the noise and hopped off or that the butterfly got squished.

[Inventor2]

You are of course quite correct, but missing the point of the scenario. As I commented, you have to disregard the laws of physics (which seems silly). The question is intended to make you consider concepts of 'materialism' and 'idealism' by thinking about it in that particular way.

The statement of mine that you omitted in the middle of that quoted piece was summarising that you could only play this 'thought game by taking a particular view of the world from the perspective of the "philosopher" subject. This particular view of the world (solipsism) explicitly isn't concerned with the perspectives of other entities such as bunnies or butterflies or other people.

But now they are there, bless 'em, in the spirit of the scenario, the philosopher subject would have the same problem if he wasn't there himself. He wouldn't know the bunny got scared by the noise and hopped off or that the butterfly got squished.

This is true, how ever smissing the laws of physics is going a little out there. What you said does make you think dealer into the subject, however on the scientific side of the equation we all know the tree would infact make a sound. It is simply impossible for it not to

[Rayquaza]

A tree doesn't fall over miraculously. For example, if the tree fell over due to an earthquake, it is likely that someone heard or saw the earthquake which lead to a tree falling over. I don't know, maybe that's something to consider.

[TigerBoy]

A tree doesn't fall over miraculously. For example, if the tree fell over due to an earthquake, it is likely that someone heard or saw the earthquake which lead to a tree falling over. I don't know, maybe that's something to consider.

Again this is just shifting the question to "if the philosopher isn't around to hear or feel or in any way directly perceive the earthquake, did the earthquake make a noise?"

This issue is that you need to suspend 'common sense' to play the thought game, in the same way you have to suspend disbelief when you watch a live play (unless you prefer heckling, of course).

As far as the cause for the tree falling over, that isn't the issue. One solipsistic view is that we are in essence living in the Matrix: events are illusions created for our perceptions, and discovering a fallen tree or a lava flow may simply be as a result of 'an edit' in the Matrix while we weren't around. Here the question might be would the Matrix need to go to the bother of creating sound effects for events where no human is witness?

[Zenos]

Isn't that assuming that a human being needs to be near something when it makes a sound so we can all say it made a sound? Your point is great, but this sounds more like "Just because you feel it, doesn't mean it's there."





I think MC got it right here. It might be due to human egotism in that respect.



Nice copy-paste bro, do it again!



Yeah you can, just join any major religion.



Herp derp de derp.

Also, plot twist: the tree isn't real and everything we know is a lie.


hey theres nothing with copying and pasting something "If" it helps explain something.

I have seen people set down and take up damn near a whole page simply trying to expalin something,and I did not feel like going through a whole bunch of BS just trying to explain something.


It's better to GO get the facts,just because I hunted the info up on line does not invalidate the info!

Too many people in their "Childishness" see to invalidate facts that where spoken just because someone hunted up info that explained it far better then person who posted said info could have explained it at the moment!.

[Zenos]

Isn't that assuming that a human being needs to be near something when it makes a sound so we can all say it made a sound? Your point is great, but this sounds more like "Just because you feel it, doesn't mean it's there."





I think MC got it right here. It might be due to human egotism in that respect.



Nice copy-paste bro, do it again!



Yeah you can, just join any major religion.



Herp derp de derp.

Also, plot twist: the tree isn't real and everything we know is a lie.


hey theres nothing wrong with copying and pasting something "If" it helps explain something.

I have seen people set down and take up damn near a whole page simply trying to expalin something,and I did not feel like going through a whole bunch of BS just trying to explain something.


It's better to GO get the facts,just because I hunted the info up on line does not invalidate the info!

Too many people in their "Childishness" see to invalidate facts that where spoken just because someone hunted up info that explained it far better then person who posted said info could have explained it at the moment!.

[Zenos]

Unlike you on the basis of your leet Google skills, we are to believe?

Oh look what I found in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism). Look familiar?


It is generally considered good practice in debates to cite your sources, otherwise one can only assume you are trying to make yourself appear authoritative on this subject, which thus far you have failed to do.

I suggest that while you are on the solipsism page you SCROLL DOWN (capitals are great, aren't they?) to the part where it explains the relationship between solipsism and idealism / materialism, and how these concepts have been considered by the greeks and are not unique to the Zen philosophies. You can then hop over to the wiki page on "subjective idealism" if you so wish and read about George Berkley who developed that particular philosophy precisely to deal with these types of questions. And guess what, there's a link from the wiki page about "if a tree falls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest)" where he is discussed in context.


Then explain to us how refusing to acknowledge the existence of anything outside one's own mind can fail to justify selfish actions.


I've noticed that other peeps have done the same thing and no one has said diddly to them about "good Practice".
How about getting on the ball with them because honestly I wasn't trying to sound authoritative.
I was just pointing out the fact that everyone posting on this thread was over looking the meaning of what the waying was getting at,and was totally tackling it from the point of view of a materialistic approach,which in the case of a Zen Koan does not work!

[TigerBoy]

I've noticed that other peeps have done the same thing and no one has said diddly to them about "good Practice".
How about getting on the ball with them because honestly I wasn't trying to sound authoritative.
I was just pointing out the fact that everyone posting on this thread was over looking the meaning of what the waying was getting at,and was totally tackling it from the point of view of a materialistic approach,which in the case of a Zen Koan does not work!

Holy triple post dude.

So you're missing a couple of points here:

1) quoting is fine but like I said, you need to cite your source. Aside from 'good practice', that way people know you are quoting and are more likely to accept what you are saying if its a good source. It helps your argument, as much as anything. There's also a chance that there may be more context around a quote that changes it too, so its more impartial / honest to cite your source.

2) The fact that you quoted it and singled out two posters by name who - as requested by the OP - gave responses referencing the polar opposite of materialism, namely idealism, and then rejected it with explicit reasons, showed you didn't understand either the question or their answers. To now suggest that they (we) were only talking about materialism shows that you STILL don't understand. It isn't that Mortal Coil, Fisk, and several others here don't get the point, we simply reject it.

Solipsism is the utlimate in selfishness - it means you don't consider other things or people 'real'. If you truly believe that, you will inevitably act in selfish and sociopathic ways because everything else is illusion and therefore doesn't matter. That's why several of us have said 'this is silly'.

[Drew5]

It really depends on who "no one" is defined as.
So far, people have jumped to no one being humans only.

No humans around, but if normal wild life is around, like a chipmonk and a deer. When the tree falls, they will scatter.

If a deaf person is observing from a great distance, they would those mammals scatter.

It's a lot like the wind. I can't see the wind, but I can observe using my senses.

[TigerBoy]

It really depends on who "no one" is defined as.
So far, people have jumped to no one being humans only.
We talked about bunnies and butterflies up above (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2066440&postcount=26), and the matter of perspective.


It's a lot like the wind. I can't see the wind, but I can observe using my senses.
You are still sensing the event directly in either case. To fit the question, the scenario would then become "if a wind blows and no one to feel it, did it rustle the leaves of the tree that some bastard just chopped down?"

[Zenos]

Holy triple post dude.

So you're missing a couple of points here:

1) quoting is fine but like I said, you need to cite your source. Aside from 'good practice', that way people know you are quoting and are more likely to accept what you are saying if its a good source. It helps your argument, as much as anything. There's also a chance that there may be more context around a quote that changes it too, so its more impartial / honest to cite your source.

2) The fact that you quoted it and singled out two posters by name who - as requested by the OP - gave responses referencing the polar opposite of materialism, namely idealism, and then rejected it with explicit reasons, showed you didn't understand either the question or their answers. To now suggest that they (we) were only talking about materialism shows that you STILL don't understand. It isn't that Mortal Coil, Fisk, and several others here don't get the point, we simply reject it.

Solipsism is the utlimate in selfishness - it means you don't consider other things or people 'real'. If you truly believe that, you will inevitably act in selfish and sociopathic ways because everything else is illusion and therefore doesn't matter. That's why several of us have said 'this is silly'.


If i'm going to deal with Koans I approach the Koan strictly from the Zen perspective.


Solipsism is the utlimate in selfishness ? Hmm well people are "INHERENTLY" selfish.Me I just don't give a damn about people,but at the same time i don't trample themn under either!

You keep linking Solipsism with being sociopathic,. Heres from a site:

"A sociopath is a person who has antisocial personality disorder.The term sociopath is no longer used to describe this disorder. The sociopath is now described as someone with antisocial personality disorder.The main characteristic of a sociopath is a disregard for the rights of others. Sociopaths are also unable to conform to what society defines as a normal personality. Antisocial tendencies are a big part of the sociopath’s personality. This pattern usually comes into evidence around the age of 15. If it is not treated, it can develop into adulthood.

Visible symptoms include physical aggression and the inability to hold down a steady job. The sociopath also finds it hard to sustain relationships and shows a lack of regret in his or her actions. A major personality behavior trait is the violation of the rights of others. This can appear as a disregard for the physical or sexual wellbeing of another.

Although these symptoms are all present, they may not always be evident. Research has shown that the sociopath is usually a person with an abundance of charm and wit. He or she may appear friendly and considerate, but these attributes are usually superficial. They are used as a way of blinding the other person to the personal agenda behind the sociopath’s behaviour.


The causes of antisocial personality disorder are thought to be either genetic or environmental. Children who are influenced by antisocial parents may adopt these tendencies. Similarly, role models such as one's friends or peer group may also influence the behaviour pattern of a sociopath. Antisocial behaviour is more likely to occur in men than in women. About 1% of women have this disorder, while 3% of men are affected by it."





Ha! I remebered to provide links :P

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-sociopath.htm


From reading that site and others,I disagree witrh you ,the sociopath IS NOT TRULY SELFISH he's MENTALLY ILL,and it's his illness causing him to act in such a manner.

[TigerBoy]

Solipsism is the utlimate in selfishness ? Hmm well people are "INHERENTLY" selfish.Me I just don't give a damn about people,but at the same time i don't trample themn under either!
Then you aren't 'utlimately' selfish, or a solipsist.

You keep linking Solipsism with being sociopathic,. Heres from a site:
Yes ... "Antisocial tendencies" and "A major personality behavior trait is the violation of the rights of others. This can appear as a disregard for the physical or sexual wellbeing of another." All consistent with being selfish, and with the outcomes of someone pursuing a 'solipsist' view of life.

Ha! I remebered to provide links :P
Nice one :P


From reading that site and others,I disagree witrh you ,the sociopath IS NOT TRULY SELFISH he's MENTALLY ILL,and it's his illness causing him to act in such a manner.
At no point did I say that someone pursuing a solipsist lifestyle was sane, and I did in fact allude the opposite. I have addressed the 'selfishness' issue above.

Having said that, the entire quoted passage could be applied to a typical 4 year old child, and you wouldn't consider them 'ill'. The label of mental illness in this context is a tricky area, very much like taboos or sexuality. The individual is exhibiting behaviours that larger society disapproves of. Any extreme behaviours tend to get regarded as mental illnesses by others. One man's religious fervour is another man's mental illness. Extreme selfishness is perhaps no different.

[TheSocialInspector]

How did a discussion on trees falling escalate to an argument about being selfish?

[CharlieHorse]

How did a discussion on trees falling escalate to an argument about being selfish?

It did? *reads back*
Haha when did this happen?

[PinkFloyd]

Well lets put it this way: A man jumps off of a cliff and no one cold sence it. (hear, see, feel, smell, taste) Did it really happen? Yes it did.

[Jen Jones]

of course it does

[anyone50]

The answer is that in physics the creation of sound wavs in a medium constitutes making a sound or noise. In the smaller definition that a sound can only be present if it is heard, the question only postulates the absence of sentient (human) receptors. The existence of hearing animals in a forest environment would be anticipated/ Therefor the sound would have been heard and even under the more limited definition (strickly physics) there would have been a sound.